NG32 Posted August 27, 2013 Share Posted August 27, 2013 Going over old ground here, but can anybody explain to me why there appears to be this mass assumption that whatever debt gets paid off will be taken off the asking price? It doesn't make any sens to me at all in the real world, where a company's value is based on its assets and profitability mainly. The assets remain the same, and the company would be more profitable for the debt repayments to take place, no? The club's not worth 300m. Huh? My point is this: why would a company with 100 million in debt and posting yearly losses be MORE valuable to a prospective buyer than one (same assets) with no debts and posting a 20 million or so yearly profit? Can see your point but I think the key to this is that it has always been assumed that Ashley would aim at least to get back what he had spent on the club. So say he spent £140 million buying it and then put another £110 in as loan, he's out of pocket by £250 million. So if he's selling the club then the assumption is he's want that sum (at least) for the club to cover his costs. On the other hand if he ever manages to recover all of the debt out of the clubs cash flows then he would only be out of pocket by £140 million. So if he sold the club at that point for say £200 million he's made a £60 million profit overall. And potentially therefore the asking price for the club could be less without the debt. I don't know if that helps... He could, say in 5 years have the debt cleared by running us on the bare minimum...Once its all paid off, why sell? Could be a nice little earner and free sponsorship for his flagship company. The club (business) has paid for itself and is now passing profit his way without having to do much. The next TV deal will only get bigger imho...BT are going to push sky and with the economy slowly picking up it could be a good earner for Ashley. He could be here 20 years or more. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
henke Posted August 27, 2013 Share Posted August 27, 2013 Going over old ground here, but can anybody explain to me why there appears to be this mass assumption that whatever debt gets paid off will be taken off the asking price? It doesn't make any sens to me at all in the real world, where a company's value is based on its assets and profitability mainly. The assets remain the same, and the company would be more profitable for the debt repayments to take place, no? The club's not worth 300m. Huh? My point is this: why would a company with 100 million in debt and posting yearly losses be MORE valuable to a prospective buyer than one (same assets) with no debts and posting a 20 million or so yearly profit? Can see your point but I think the key to this is that it has always been assumed that Ashley would aim at least to get back what he had spent on the club. So say he spent £140 million buying it and then put another £110 in as loan, he's out of pocket by £250 million. So if he's selling the club then the assumption is he's want that sum (at least) for the club to cover his costs. On the other hand if he ever manages to recover all of the debt out of the clubs cash flows then he would only be out of pocket by £140 million. So if he sold the club at that point for say £200 million he's made a £60 million profit overall. And potentially therefore the asking price for the club could be less without the debt. I don't know if that helps... He could, say in 5 years have the debt cleared by running us on the bare minimum...Once its all paid off, why sell? Could be a nice little earner and free sponsorship for his flagship company. The club (business) has paid for itself and is now passing profit his way without having to do much. The next TV deal will only get bigger imho...BT are going to push sky and with the economy slowly picking up it could be a good earner for Ashley. He could be here 20 years or more. I've been saying that for a while. If you have a business earning you twenty mil a year, why would you get rid? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NG32 Posted August 27, 2013 Share Posted August 27, 2013 Going over old ground here, but can anybody explain to me why there appears to be this mass assumption that whatever debt gets paid off will be taken off the asking price? It doesn't make any sens to me at all in the real world, where a company's value is based on its assets and profitability mainly. The assets remain the same, and the company would be more profitable for the debt repayments to take place, no? The club's not worth 300m. Huh? My point is this: why would a company with 100 million in debt and posting yearly losses be MORE valuable to a prospective buyer than one (same assets) with no debts and posting a 20 million or so yearly profit? Can see your point but I think the key to this is that it has always been assumed that Ashley would aim at least to get back what he had spent on the club. So say he spent £140 million buying it and then put another £110 in as loan, he's out of pocket by £250 million. So if he's selling the club then the assumption is he's want that sum (at least) for the club to cover his costs. On the other hand if he ever manages to recover all of the debt out of the clubs cash flows then he would only be out of pocket by £140 million. So if he sold the club at that point for say £200 million he's made a £60 million profit overall. And potentially therefore the asking price for the club could be less without the debt. I don't know if that helps... He could, say in 5 years have the debt cleared by running us on the bare minimum...Once its all paid off, why sell? Could be a nice little earner and free sponsorship for his flagship company. The club (business) has paid for itself and is now passing profit his way without having to do much. The next TV deal will only get bigger imho...BT are going to push sky and with the economy slowly picking up it could be a good earner for Ashley. He could be here 20 years or more. I've been saying that for a while. If you have a business earning you twenty mil a year, why would you get rid? The sale value would massively go up. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Crooks Posted August 27, 2013 Share Posted August 27, 2013 Going over old ground here, but can anybody explain to me why there appears to be this mass assumption that whatever debt gets paid off will be taken off the asking price? It doesn't make any sens to me at all in the real world, where a company's value is based on its assets and profitability mainly. The assets remain the same, and the company would be more profitable for the debt repayments to take place, no? The club's not worth 300m. Huh? My point is this: why would a company with 100 million in debt and posting yearly losses be MORE valuable to a prospective buyer than one (same assets) with no debts and posting a 20 million or so yearly profit? Can see your point but I think the key to this is that it has always been assumed that Ashley would aim at least to get back what he had spent on the club. So say he spent £140 million buying it and then put another £110 in as loan, he's out of pocket by £250 million. So if he's selling the club then the assumption is he's want that sum (at least) for the club to cover his costs. On the other hand if he ever manages to recover all of the debt out of the clubs cash flows then he would only be out of pocket by £140 million. So if he sold the club at that point for say £200 million he's made a £60 million profit overall. And potentially therefore the asking price for the club could be less without the debt. I don't know if that helps... He could, say in 5 years have the debt cleared by running us on the bare minimum...Once its all paid off, why sell? Could be a nice little earner and free sponsorship for his flagship company. The club (business) has paid for itself and is now passing profit his way without having to do much. The next TV deal will only get bigger imho...BT are going to push sky and with the economy slowly picking up it could be a good earner for Ashley. He could be here 20 years or more. http://i.imgur.com/TZ9uB.gif Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Crooks Posted August 27, 2013 Share Posted August 27, 2013 I think he wants an exit though in all honesty. Pontious Pilate style. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NG32 Posted August 27, 2013 Share Posted August 27, 2013 I think he wants an exit though in all honesty. Pontious Pilate style. He nailed the chosen to a cross before he did one tho. Apparently. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Crooks Posted August 27, 2013 Share Posted August 27, 2013 I think he wants an exit though in all honesty. Pontious Pilate style. He nailed the chosen to a cross before he did one tho. Apparently. Well there is defintiely more blood to be shed before the end. We in a war of attrition. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NG32 Posted August 27, 2013 Share Posted August 27, 2013 I think he wants an exit though in all honesty. Pontious Pilate style. He nailed the chosen to a cross before he did one tho. Apparently. Well there is defintiely more blood to be shed before the end. We in a war of attrition. 35k season ticket sales say he is winning. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Crooks Posted August 27, 2013 Share Posted August 27, 2013 I think he wants an exit though in all honesty. Pontious Pilate style. He nailed the chosen to a cross before he did one tho. Apparently. Well there is defintiely more blood to be shed before the end. We in a war of attrition. 35k season ticket sales say he is winning. Well quite. We're at the destruction of Alderaan rather than the deathstar trench. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Geordie Posted August 27, 2013 Share Posted August 27, 2013 A huge drop in s/t sales will be the only thing to convince him to move on. How many or wor lot are gonna shell out £600 a season to watch a team that has even less ambition then we did under McKeag? I know a lot of packed in, some are going to with others thinking about it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Haris Vuckic Posted August 27, 2013 Share Posted August 27, 2013 Season ticket sales are a drop in the ocean compared to TV money. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NG32 Posted August 27, 2013 Share Posted August 27, 2013 Season ticket sales are a drop in the ocean compared to TV money. He'd not be able to run the club on shoe string if the season ticket money went up in smoke. Funding a club with TV money alone and small crowds wouldn't work. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted August 27, 2013 Share Posted August 27, 2013 Going over old ground here, but can anybody explain to me why there appears to be this mass assumption that whatever debt gets paid off will be taken off the asking price? It doesn't make any sens to me at all in the real world, where a company's value is based on its assets and profitability mainly. The assets remain the same, and the company would be more profitable for the debt repayments to take place, no? The club's not worth 300m. Huh? My point is this: why would a company with 100 million in debt and posting yearly losses be MORE valuable to a prospective buyer than one (same assets) with no debts and posting a 20 million or so yearly profit? Can see your point but I think the key to this is that it has always been assumed that Ashley would aim at least to get back what he had spent on the club. So say he spent £140 million buying it and then put another £110 in as loan, he's out of pocket by £250 million. So if he's selling the club then the assumption is he's want that sum (at least) for the club to cover his costs. On the other hand if he ever manages to recover all of the debt out of the clubs cash flows then he would only be out of pocket by £140 million. So if he sold the club at that point for say £200 million he's made a £60 million profit overall. And potentially therefore the asking price for the club could be less without the debt. I don't know if that helps... He could, say in 5 years have the debt cleared by running us on the bare minimum...Once its all paid off, why sell? Could be a nice little earner and free sponsorship for his flagship company. The club (business) has paid for itself and is now passing profit his way without having to do much. The next TV deal will only get bigger imho...BT are going to push sky and with the economy slowly picking up it could be a good earner for Ashley. He could be here 20 years or more. I've been saying that for a while. If you have a business earning you twenty mil a year, why would you get rid? When you're a billionaire I would think there are faster ways to make money than put your money in a football club. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
henke Posted August 27, 2013 Share Posted August 27, 2013 Going over old ground here, but can anybody explain to me why there appears to be this mass assumption that whatever debt gets paid off will be taken off the asking price? It doesn't make any sens to me at all in the real world, where a company's value is based on its assets and profitability mainly. The assets remain the same, and the company would be more profitable for the debt repayments to take place, no? The club's not worth 300m. Huh? My point is this: why would a company with 100 million in debt and posting yearly losses be MORE valuable to a prospective buyer than one (same assets) with no debts and posting a 20 million or so yearly profit? Can see your point but I think the key to this is that it has always been assumed that Ashley would aim at least to get back what he had spent on the club. So say he spent £140 million buying it and then put another £110 in as loan, he's out of pocket by £250 million. So if he's selling the club then the assumption is he's want that sum (at least) for the club to cover his costs. On the other hand if he ever manages to recover all of the debt out of the clubs cash flows then he would only be out of pocket by £140 million. So if he sold the club at that point for say £200 million he's made a £60 million profit overall. And potentially therefore the asking price for the club could be less without the debt. I don't know if that helps... He could, say in 5 years have the debt cleared by running us on the bare minimum...Once its all paid off, why sell? Could be a nice little earner and free sponsorship for his flagship company. The club (business) has paid for itself and is now passing profit his way without having to do much. The next TV deal will only get bigger imho...BT are going to push sky and with the economy slowly picking up it could be a good earner for Ashley. He could be here 20 years or more. I've been saying that for a while. If you have a business earning you twenty mil a year, why would you get rid? When you're a billionaire I would think there are faster ways to make money than put your money in a football club. Undoubtedly. But at the minute, and for the foreseeable, we're making him £20mil a year. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cp40 Posted August 27, 2013 Share Posted August 27, 2013 Going over old ground here, but can anybody explain to me why there appears to be this mass assumption that whatever debt gets paid off will be taken off the asking price? It doesn't make any sens to me at all in the real world, where a company's value is based on its assets and profitability mainly. The assets remain the same, and the company would be more profitable for the debt repayments to take place, no? The club's not worth 300m. Huh? My point is this: why would a company with 100 million in debt and posting yearly losses be MORE valuable to a prospective buyer than one (same assets) with no debts and posting a 20 million or so yearly profit? Can see your point but I think the key to this is that it has always been assumed that Ashley would aim at least to get back what he had spent on the club. So say he spent £140 million buying it and then put another £110 in as loan, he's out of pocket by £250 million. So if he's selling the club then the assumption is he's want that sum (at least) for the club to cover his costs. On the other hand if he ever manages to recover all of the debt out of the clubs cash flows then he would only be out of pocket by £140 million. So if he sold the club at that point for say £200 million he's made a £60 million profit overall. And potentially therefore the asking price for the club could be less without the debt. I don't know if that helps... He could, say in 5 years have the debt cleared by running us on the bare minimum...Once its all paid off, why sell? Could be a nice little earner and free sponsorship for his flagship company. The club (business) has paid for itself and is now passing profit his way without having to do much. The next TV deal will only get bigger imho...BT are going to push sky and with the economy slowly picking up it could be a good earner for Ashley. He could be here 20 years or more. I've been saying that for a while. If you have a business earning you twenty mil a year, why would you get rid? When you're a billionaire I would think there are faster ways to make money than put your money in a football club. Undoubtedly. But at the minute, and for the foreseeable, we're making him £20mil a year. My worse fear is hes gonna hang around until hes had every £ hes put in back out- then sell for profit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted August 27, 2013 Share Posted August 27, 2013 Going over old ground here, but can anybody explain to me why there appears to be this mass assumption that whatever debt gets paid off will be taken off the asking price? It doesn't make any sens to me at all in the real world, where a company's value is based on its assets and profitability mainly. The assets remain the same, and the company would be more profitable for the debt repayments to take place, no? The club's not worth 300m. Huh? My point is this: why would a company with 100 million in debt and posting yearly losses be MORE valuable to a prospective buyer than one (same assets) with no debts and posting a 20 million or so yearly profit? Can see your point but I think the key to this is that it has always been assumed that Ashley would aim at least to get back what he had spent on the club. So say he spent £140 million buying it and then put another £110 in as loan, he's out of pocket by £250 million. So if he's selling the club then the assumption is he's want that sum (at least) for the club to cover his costs. On the other hand if he ever manages to recover all of the debt out of the clubs cash flows then he would only be out of pocket by £140 million. So if he sold the club at that point for say £200 million he's made a £60 million profit overall. And potentially therefore the asking price for the club could be less without the debt. I don't know if that helps... He could, say in 5 years have the debt cleared by running us on the bare minimum...Once its all paid off, why sell? Could be a nice little earner and free sponsorship for his flagship company. The club (business) has paid for itself and is now passing profit his way without having to do much. The next TV deal will only get bigger imho...BT are going to push sky and with the economy slowly picking up it could be a good earner for Ashley. He could be here 20 years or more. I've been saying that for a while. If you have a business earning you twenty mil a year, why would you get rid? When you're a billionaire I would think there are faster ways to make money than put your money in a football club. Undoubtedly. But at the minute, and for the foreseeable, we're making him £20mil a year. But if he gets a chance to get his money back and perhaps make a little profit as well I think he'd take it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
henke Posted August 27, 2013 Share Posted August 27, 2013 I hope you're right. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted August 27, 2013 Share Posted August 27, 2013 Going over old ground here, but can anybody explain to me why there appears to be this mass assumption that whatever debt gets paid off will be taken off the asking price? It doesn't make any sens to me at all in the real world, where a company's value is based on its assets and profitability mainly. The assets remain the same, and the company would be more profitable for the debt repayments to take place, no? The club's not worth 300m. Huh? My point is this: why would a company with 100 million in debt and posting yearly losses be MORE valuable to a prospective buyer than one (same assets) with no debts and posting a 20 million or so yearly profit? Can see your point but I think the key to this is that it has always been assumed that Ashley would aim at least to get back what he had spent on the club. So say he spent £140 million buying it and then put another £110 in as loan, he's out of pocket by £250 million. So if he's selling the club then the assumption is he's want that sum (at least) for the club to cover his costs. On the other hand if he ever manages to recover all of the debt out of the clubs cash flows then he would only be out of pocket by £140 million. So if he sold the club at that point for say £200 million he's made a £60 million profit overall. And potentially therefore the asking price for the club could be less without the debt. I don't know if that helps... He could, say in 5 years have the debt cleared by running us on the bare minimum...Once its all paid off, why sell? Could be a nice little earner and free sponsorship for his flagship company. The club (business) has paid for itself and is now passing profit his way without having to do much. The next TV deal will only get bigger imho...BT are going to push sky and with the economy slowly picking up it could be a good earner for Ashley. He could be here 20 years or more. I've been saying that for a while. If you have a business earning you twenty mil a year, why would you get rid? The sale value would massively go up. My point exactly. A profit making advertisement vehicle for his primary concern, and as if that's not enough, he gets to take the piss out of us, who dare(d) call him names. With more money coming into the game, the asking price will only go up as lins as we're in the Premiership, hence our obvious "ambition".. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted August 27, 2013 Share Posted August 27, 2013 Going over old ground here, but can anybody explain to me why there appears to be this mass assumption that whatever debt gets paid off will be taken off the asking price? It doesn't make any sens to me at all in the real world, where a company's value is based on its assets and profitability mainly. The assets remain the same, and the company would be more profitable for the debt repayments to take place, no? The club's not worth 300m. Huh? My point is this: why would a company with 100 million in debt and posting yearly losses be MORE valuable to a prospective buyer than one (same assets) with no debts and posting a 20 million or so yearly profit? Can see your point but I think the key to this is that it has always been assumed that Ashley would aim at least to get back what he had spent on the club. So say he spent £140 million buying it and then put another £110 in as loan, he's out of pocket by £250 million. So if he's selling the club then the assumption is he's want that sum (at least) for the club to cover his costs. On the other hand if he ever manages to recover all of the debt out of the clubs cash flows then he would only be out of pocket by £140 million. So if he sold the club at that point for say £200 million he's made a £60 million profit overall. And potentially therefore the asking price for the club could be less without the debt. I don't know if that helps... He could, say in 5 years have the debt cleared by running us on the bare minimum...Once its all paid off, why sell? Could be a nice little earner and free sponsorship for his flagship company. The club (business) has paid for itself and is now passing profit his way without having to do much. The next TV deal will only get bigger imho...BT are going to push sky and with the economy slowly picking up it could be a good earner for Ashley. He could be here 20 years or more. I've been saying that for a while. If you have a business earning you twenty mil a year, why would you get rid? The sale value would massively go up. My point exactly. A profit making advertisement vehicle for his primary concern, and as if that's not enough, he gets to take the piss out of us, who dare(d) call him names. With more money coming into the game, the asking price will only go up as lins as we're in the Premiership, hence our obvious "ambition".. Again, if he really wanted to use the football club to advertise his brand, wouldn't a successful football club be a much better advert? That's the reason the bigger brands tend to pay big money to the more successful clubs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted August 27, 2013 Share Posted August 27, 2013 Going over old ground here, but can anybody explain to me why there appears to be this mass assumption that whatever debt gets paid off will be taken off the asking price? It doesn't make any sens to me at all in the real world, where a company's value is based on its assets and profitability mainly. The assets remain the same, and the company would be more profitable for the debt repayments to take place, no? The club's not worth 300m. Huh? My point is this: why would a company with 100 million in debt and posting yearly losses be MORE valuable to a prospective buyer than one (same assets) with no debts and posting a 20 million or so yearly profit? Can see your point but I think the key to this is that it has always been assumed that Ashley would aim at least to get back what he had spent on the club. So say he spent £140 million buying it and then put another £110 in as loan, he's out of pocket by £250 million. So if he's selling the club then the assumption is he's want that sum (at least) for the club to cover his costs. On the other hand if he ever manages to recover all of the debt out of the clubs cash flows then he would only be out of pocket by £140 million. So if he sold the club at that point for say £200 million he's made a £60 million profit overall. And potentially therefore the asking price for the club could be less without the debt. I don't know if that helps... He could, say in 5 years have the debt cleared by running us on the bare minimum...Once its all paid off, why sell? Could be a nice little earner and free sponsorship for his flagship company. The club (business) has paid for itself and is now passing profit his way without having to do much. The next TV deal will only get bigger imho...BT are going to push sky and with the economy slowly picking up it could be a good earner for Ashley. He could be here 20 years or more. I've been saying that for a while. If you have a business earning you twenty mil a year, why would you get rid? When you're a billionaire I would think there are faster ways to make money than put your money in a football club. Whilst that's true, how many of those investments would provide the added benefit of giving you a free advertising vehicle in one of the biggest sports leagues in the world? Plus, at let's say 20 million profit a year, that still represents a ROI of about 10% per year, and that's before getting into the considerable asset appreciation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted August 27, 2013 Share Posted August 27, 2013 Going over old ground here, but can anybody explain to me why there appears to be this mass assumption that whatever debt gets paid off will be taken off the asking price? It doesn't make any sens to me at all in the real world, where a company's value is based on its assets and profitability mainly. The assets remain the same, and the company would be more profitable for the debt repayments to take place, no? The club's not worth 300m. Huh? My point is this: why would a company with 100 million in debt and posting yearly losses be MORE valuable to a prospective buyer than one (same assets) with no debts and posting a 20 million or so yearly profit? Can see your point but I think the key to this is that it has always been assumed that Ashley would aim at least to get back what he had spent on the club. So say he spent £140 million buying it and then put another £110 in as loan, he's out of pocket by £250 million. So if he's selling the club then the assumption is he's want that sum (at least) for the club to cover his costs. On the other hand if he ever manages to recover all of the debt out of the clubs cash flows then he would only be out of pocket by £140 million. So if he sold the club at that point for say £200 million he's made a £60 million profit overall. And potentially therefore the asking price for the club could be less without the debt. I don't know if that helps... He could, say in 5 years have the debt cleared by running us on the bare minimum...Once its all paid off, why sell? Could be a nice little earner and free sponsorship for his flagship company. The club (business) has paid for itself and is now passing profit his way without having to do much. The next TV deal will only get bigger imho...BT are going to push sky and with the economy slowly picking up it could be a good earner for Ashley. He could be here 20 years or more. I've been saying that for a while. If you have a business earning you twenty mil a year, why would you get rid? The sale value would massively go up. My point exactly. A profit making advertisement vehicle for his primary concern, and as if that's not enough, he gets to take the p*ss out of us, who dare(d) call him names. With more money coming into the game, the asking price will only go up as lins as we're in the Premiership, hence our obvious "ambition".. Again, if he really wanted to use the football club to advertise his brand, wouldn't a successful football club be a much better advert? That's the reason the bigger brands tend to pay big money to the more successful clubs. He bought arguably one of the five biggest clubs in England at that time at a fraction of the cost of the others. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted August 27, 2013 Share Posted August 27, 2013 Going over old ground here, but can anybody explain to me why there appears to be this mass assumption that whatever debt gets paid off will be taken off the asking price? It doesn't make any sens to me at all in the real world, where a company's value is based on its assets and profitability mainly. The assets remain the same, and the company would be more profitable for the debt repayments to take place, no? The club's not worth 300m. Huh? My point is this: why would a company with 100 million in debt and posting yearly losses be MORE valuable to a prospective buyer than one (same assets) with no debts and posting a 20 million or so yearly profit? Can see your point but I think the key to this is that it has always been assumed that Ashley would aim at least to get back what he had spent on the club. So say he spent £140 million buying it and then put another £110 in as loan, he's out of pocket by £250 million. So if he's selling the club then the assumption is he's want that sum (at least) for the club to cover his costs. On the other hand if he ever manages to recover all of the debt out of the clubs cash flows then he would only be out of pocket by £140 million. So if he sold the club at that point for say £200 million he's made a £60 million profit overall. And potentially therefore the asking price for the club could be less without the debt. I don't know if that helps... He could, say in 5 years have the debt cleared by running us on the bare minimum...Once its all paid off, why sell? Could be a nice little earner and free sponsorship for his flagship company. The club (business) has paid for itself and is now passing profit his way without having to do much. The next TV deal will only get bigger imho...BT are going to push sky and with the economy slowly picking up it could be a good earner for Ashley. He could be here 20 years or more. I've been saying that for a while. If you have a business earning you twenty mil a year, why would you get rid? The sale value would massively go up. My point exactly. A profit making advertisement vehicle for his primary concern, and as if that's not enough, he gets to take the piss out of us, who dare(d) call him names. With more money coming into the game, the asking price will only go up as lins as we're in the Premiership, hence our obvious "ambition".. Again, if he really wanted to use the football club to advertise his brand, wouldn't a successful football club be a much better advert? That's the reason the bigger brands tend to pay big money to the more successful clubs. In proportion to the amount of money he thinks he'd need and the lack of guarantee of success? Nah. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Crooks Posted August 27, 2013 Share Posted August 27, 2013 It's not like they are an external sponsor either. He is getting free publicity for his wideboy brand; and even had the fucking cheek to try the same in renaming the stadium and telling us that it will make us money. Which unbelievably some people swallowed along with accepting any other liberty they've taken. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
huss9 Posted August 27, 2013 Share Posted August 27, 2013 people give him credit for his interest-free loans, when the fact is the money he would have to pay for his advertising would exceed any interest he would be owed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
maze Posted August 27, 2013 Share Posted August 27, 2013 Some of you guys talks as if Newcastle is guaranteed to stay in the EPL, or even guaranteed to get promoted the next year post relegation... So those £20 million figures or something you talk about are only valid under certain circumstances - circumstances which are well on their way to disappear as they are in the hands of a clueless Kinnear, leading an even more clueless Pardew' who's trying his hardest to convince 11 players to stand up for a regime that's at best decribed as <insert fitting words> … Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts