midds Posted March 1, 2015 Share Posted March 1, 2015 He'll probably do something daft like buy Gateshead or something. LOL. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesse Pinkman Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 When are these finances released? Cant wait its our new cup final Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Gleebals Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 How we people feel if he has wiped say £30M of the debt owed to him? I personally would not have in issue IF he was investing a similar amount back into the team. Would seem a bit strange IMO if he does neither! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 I know relegation is mainly down to him but I've got no issue with him taking his loan back from us. He can still spend far more than he has though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Geordie Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 Yup - no issues with the loan being paid back at all. What my problem is, that it's being used as an excuse for him to exploit the club. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest antz1uk Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 Yup - no issues with the loan being paid back at all. What my problem is, that it's being used as an excuse for him to exploit the club. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
54 Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Dave King claims in a statement he has won a 'landslide victory' and is on the verge of taking control of @RangersFC. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Varadi Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/rangers/312447-dave-king-announces-landslide-win-in-bid-to-take-control-of-rangers/? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NG32 Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 I wonder if we will be hit by Ashley's retribution. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 How we people feel if he has wiped say £30M of the debt owed to him? I personally would not have in issue IF he was investing a similar amount back into the team. Would seem a bit strange IMO if he does neither! I've said it before, but the interest free nature of the loan is being used by the club as a justification for SD's free sponsorship. For that reason repaying the loan in part should only be acceptable if it meant SD starts to pay for the privilege of soiling SJP. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NG32 Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 How we people feel if he has wiped say £30M of the debt owed to him? I personally would not have in issue IF he was investing a similar amount back into the team. Would seem a bit strange IMO if he does neither! I've said it before, but the interest free nature of the loan is being used by the club as a justification for SD's free sponsorship. For that reason repaying the loan in part should only be acceptable if it meant SD starts to pay for the privilege of soiling SJP. Remember when people were saying SD will be paying for the space and the naming rights :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
54 Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Mike Ashley has been found in breach of SFA dual ownership rules & has been fined £7,500 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Probably the sort of cunt who'll get a van full of 1p's and dump them infront of the SFA office. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Seems a very odd suggestion to me that Ashley should only pay off club debt if he's willing to put that same amount of money back in himself. That's the same as just leaving the debt outstanding. He seems to have let the club spend all of it's own money except on 2 occasions when he's repaid debt. Both of those came at the start of a new TV deal when the club was seeing a significant growth in income that allowed some of the debt to be satisfied and for some players to be bought. He's not rushed to pay of his debt if the club couldn't afford it. The more that TV income dwarfs commercial and matchday income, the less I have an issue with his methods. Does the 500k of revenue lost from pitchside advertising really matter when we're getting an additional £50m a season every 3 years from broadcasting, on top of the existing deal? I've been hugely critical of the myth that he's sorted the accounts, given the growth in debt and reduction in commercial/matchday income, however every new TV deal reduces the anger it's worth investing in those issues. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hakka Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Mike Ashley has been found in breach of SFA dual ownership rules & has been fined £7,500 Fucking hell. That will learn him. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Seems a very odd suggestion to me that Ashley should only pay off club debt if he's willing to put that same amount of money back in himself. That's the same as just leaving the debt outstanding. He seems to have let the club spend all of it's own money except on 2 occasions when he's repaid debt. Both of those came at the start of a new TV deal when the club was seeing a significant growth in income that allowed some of the debt to be satisfied and for some players to be bought. He's not rushed to pay of his debt if the club couldn't afford it. The more that TV income dwarfs commercial and matchday income, the less I have an issue with his methods. Does the 500k of revenue lost from pitchside advertising really matter when we're getting an additional £50m a season every 3 years from broadcasting, on top of the existing deal? I've been hugely critical of the myth that he's sorted the accounts, given the growth in debt and reduction in commercial/matchday income, however every new TV deal reduces the anger it's worth investing in those issues. Well exactly As for the other things you say, how has he allowed the club to spend the money it generates except for on two occasions? We'll be posting our fourth profit in a row, with the total profit over that period likely to exceed 100 million. You know as well as I do that the TV deals, although terrific in absolute terms, only serve to make us weaker than other clubs in relative terms, as other club owners are far more inclined to actually reinvest that money. I don't think your valuation of the value of the free advertising comes even close to reality either. Comparing our loss of commercial revenue during his time here to how others have developed theirs, it's probably closer to 30 or 40 times that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Seems a very odd suggestion to me that Ashley should only pay off club debt if he's willing to put that same amount of money back in himself. That's the same as just leaving the debt outstanding. He seems to have let the club spend all of it's own money except on 2 occasions when he's repaid debt. Both of those came at the start of a new TV deal when the club was seeing a significant growth in income that allowed some of the debt to be satisfied and for some players to be bought. He's not rushed to pay of his debt if the club couldn't afford it. The more that TV income dwarfs commercial and matchday income, the less I have an issue with his methods. Does the 500k of revenue lost from pitchside advertising really matter when we're getting an additional £50m a season every 3 years from broadcasting, on top of the existing deal? I've been hugely critical of the myth that he's sorted the accounts, given the growth in debt and reduction in commercial/matchday income, however every new TV deal reduces the anger it's worth investing in those issues. Well exactly As for the other things you say, how has he allowed the club to spend the money it generates except for on two occasions? We'll be posting our fourth profit in a row, with the total profit over that period likely to exceed 100 million. You know as well as I do that the TV deals, although terrific in absolute terms, only serve to make us weaker than other clubs in relative terms, as other club owners are far more inclined to actually reinvest that money. I don't think your valuation of the value of the free advertising comes even close to reality either. Comparing our loss of commercial revenue during his time here to how others have developed theirs, it's probably closer to 30 or 40 times that. The club has only reported profits after player trading. The operating profit will be positive for the first time in these new accounts. That's why the club have had to sell in order to buy, and do so with enough in the kitty to sack and replace the manager and buy new players in January if we're in the shit. Profit after player trading from 2011 to 2013 totalled £44m... We repaid £18m of debt in 13/14 (no doubt) and spent £21m on new players in 14/15. This leaves us as a very profitable club able to spend a good wedge on players. It just seems to me we won't spend money before we have it, nor will we spend it for the sake of spending, preferring to have a war chest in case of emergency. But what the club earns the club spends. Do you think Ashley is taking profits out of the club other than the £29m that's been known about in the accounts for 4 years? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallace Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Seems a very odd suggestion to me that Ashley should only pay off club debt if he's willing to put that same amount of money back in himself. That's the same as just leaving the debt outstanding. He seems to have let the club spend all of it's own money except on 2 occasions when he's repaid debt. Both of those came at the start of a new TV deal when the club was seeing a significant growth in income that allowed some of the debt to be satisfied and for some players to be bought. He's not rushed to pay of his debt if the club couldn't afford it. The more that TV income dwarfs commercial and matchday income, the less I have an issue with his methods. Does the 500k of revenue lost from pitchside advertising really matter when we're getting an additional £50m a season every 3 years from broadcasting, on top of the existing deal? I've been hugely critical of the myth that he's sorted the accounts, given the growth in debt and reduction in commercial/matchday income, however every new TV deal reduces the anger it's worth investing in those issues. Well exactly As for the other things you say, how has he allowed the club to spend the money it generates except for on two occasions? We'll be posting our fourth profit in a row, with the total profit over that period likely to exceed 100 million. You know as well as I do that the TV deals, although terrific in absolute terms, only serve to make us weaker than other clubs in relative terms, as other club owners are far more inclined to actually reinvest that money. I don't think your valuation of the value of the free advertising comes even close to reality either. Comparing our loss of commercial revenue during his time here to how others have developed theirs, it's probably closer to 30 or 40 times that. I don't understand this stuff like others but the TV money just puts us on an equal footing with most other clubs in the Premier League. The difference in revenue between clubs comes down to the commercial side and every other club in the Premier League has grown their commercial revenue (in some cases quite significantly) where we have not. Whilst we cannot and will never compete with the top 6 with their mega deals, we are no longer ahead of some clubs and others like West Ham are now overtaking us or will be doing soon once they are in their new stadium. Surely if that TV money disappears, with the lesser commercial revenue and reduced gate receipts, we would become one of the poorer clubs in the Premier League. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 West Ham Growth 2007-2014 Commercial - £16.4m to £20m = £3.6m Matchday - £17m to £19.5m = £2.5m Total £6.1m Newcastle Growth 2007-2014 Commercial - £27.6m to £25.6m = -£2m Matchday - £33.6m to £25.9m = -£7.7m Total -£9.7 So they still lag behind us on both measures, but let's say their growth and our shrinkage has tipped the balance £15.8m a year in their favour. They're paying £5m a year in interest payments we aren't, so it's actually £11m. That's only 10% of the £111m broadcasting cash a club will get for coming 12th in 2016/2017. http://swissramble.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/the-premier-league-tv-deal-master-and.html?utm_source=BP_recent Add the other revenues we have on and it's less than 7% Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Seems a very odd suggestion to me that Ashley should only pay off club debt if he's willing to put that same amount of money back in himself. That's the same as just leaving the debt outstanding. He seems to have let the club spend all of it's own money except on 2 occasions when he's repaid debt. Both of those came at the start of a new TV deal when the club was seeing a significant growth in income that allowed some of the debt to be satisfied and for some players to be bought. He's not rushed to pay of his debt if the club couldn't afford it. The more that TV income dwarfs commercial and matchday income, the less I have an issue with his methods. Does the 500k of revenue lost from pitchside advertising really matter when we're getting an additional £50m a season every 3 years from broadcasting, on top of the existing deal? I've been hugely critical of the myth that he's sorted the accounts, given the growth in debt and reduction in commercial/matchday income, however every new TV deal reduces the anger it's worth investing in those issues. We no longer own a club shop, his shitty company owns it, he's not only taking away income from ground advertising. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Varadi Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Not giving up on Rangers without a fight: http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/mike-ashley-fights-back-rangers-5266437? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 West Ham Growth 2007-2014 Commercial - £16.4m to £20m = £3.6m Matchday - £17m to £19.5m = £2.5m Total £6.1m Newcastle Growth 2007-2014 Commercial - £27.6m to £25.6m = -£2m Matchday - £33.6m to £25.9m = -£7.7m Total -£9.7 So they still lag behind us on both measures, but let's say their growth and our shrinkage has tipped the balance £15.8m a year in their favour. They're paying £5m a year in interest payments we aren't, so it's actually £11m. That's only 10% of the £111m broadcasting cash a club will get for coming 12th in 2016/2017. http://swissramble.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/the-premier-league-tv-deal-master-and.html?utm_source=BP_recent Add the other revenues we have on and it's less than 7% "Only" 11 million per year; so let's say 90 million over that 8 year period, and another 11 million per year from now on. Hardly an amount I would qualify as insignificant. A few more years and the value of free advertising (lost to us, not the significantly higher value it represents to him as SD majority shareholder) will have surpassed the amount he paid for the entire club. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cp40 Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Mike Ashley has been found in breach of SFA dual ownership rules & has been fined £7,500 like fining us 7.5p Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NG32 Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Mike Ashley has been found in breach of SFA dual ownership rules & has been fined £7,500 f***ing hell. That will learn him. He spends more than that in daft bets. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 I've been quite vocal about the shit sandwich he's feeding us in terms of commercial and match day income. It's clear that this becomes less of an issue as TV money increases exponentially though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts