AyeDubbleYoo Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 Still astounded that fans who have the club's best interests at heart see fit to keep giving this bloke their money. No-one should be going within ten feet of SJP until he's gone. Well done that man. It's such a simple solution. He's only here to generate mild profit while he looks to sell. Starve sources of profit, he has to make a move. he's still a long way off from making any sort of profit mind. Even better. and you really think he'll just cut his losses ? Why would he need to? unless someone is willing to pay him near quarter of a billion. Can't see Ashley ever making money from owning us, except indirectly through some (hard to quantify) benefit to Sports Direct. Anyway, I believe his decision is much more likely to be made on a whim than for any sound financial reason. He might be slightly more likely to sell once he gets his loan back, but even then I doubt it's going to be a decision made for financial reasons. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 Still astounded that fans who have the club's best interests at heart see fit to keep giving this bloke their money. No-one should be going within ten feet of SJP until he's gone. Well done that man. It's such a simple solution. He's only here to generate mild profit while he looks to sell. Starve sources of profit, he has to make a move. he's still a long way off from making any sort of profit mind. Even better. and you really think he'll just cut his losses ? Why would he need to? unless someone is willing to pay him near quarter of a billion. Can't see Ashley ever making money from owning us, except indirectly through some (hard to quantify) benefit to Sports Direct. Anyway, I believe his decision is much more likely to be made on a whim than for any sound financial reason. He might be slightly more likely to sell once he gets his loan back, but even then I doubt it's going to be a decision made for financial reasons. don't think he'll make money personally. could well pay him back his loan over a few years then sell at near to his original purchase price. then theres still the free advertising. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 Still astounded that fans who have the club's best interests at heart see fit to keep giving this bloke their money. No-one should be going within ten feet of SJP until he's gone. Well done that man. It's such a simple solution. He's only here to generate mild profit while he looks to sell. Starve sources of profit, he has to make a move. he's still a long way off from making any sort of profit mind. Even better. and you really think he'll just cut his losses ? Why would he need to? unless someone is willing to pay him near quarter of a billion. Can't see Ashley ever making money from owning us, except indirectly through some (hard to quantify) benefit to Sports Direct. Anyway, I believe his decision is much more likely to be made on a whim than for any sound financial reason. He might be slightly more likely to sell once he gets his loan back, but even then I doubt it's going to be a decision made for financial reasons. don't think he'll make money personally. could well pay him back his loan over a few years then sell at near to his original purchase price. then theres still the free advertising. Yeah, that's what I meant by the benefit to Sports Direct. It's not really free advertising, it's probably the most expensive and stressful advertising he could have bought. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 Still astounded that fans who have the club's best interests at heart see fit to keep giving this bloke their money. No-one should be going within ten feet of SJP until he's gone. Well done that man. It's such a simple solution. He's only here to generate mild profit while he looks to sell. Starve sources of profit, he has to make a move. he's still a long way off from making any sort of profit mind. Even better. and you really think he'll just cut his losses ? Why would he need to? unless someone is willing to pay him near quarter of a billion. Can't see Ashley ever making money from owning us, except indirectly through some (hard to quantify) benefit to Sports Direct. Anyway, I believe his decision is much more likely to be made on a whim than for any sound financial reason. He might be slightly more likely to sell once he gets his loan back, but even then I doubt it's going to be a decision made for financial reasons. It's not that hard to quantify. The club is bringing in £13m a year less in sponsorship than it was when he took over, the only club in the league whose commercial revenue has decreased. That advertising has been replaced by his company, which the club pays to provide. He has actively reduced the club's income only to then plead poverty. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 Can't see Ashley ever making money from owning us, except indirectly through some (hard to quantify) benefit to Sports Direct. Anyway, I believe his decision is much more likely to be made on a whim than for any sound financial reason. He might be slightly more likely to sell once he gets his loan back, but even then I doubt it's going to be a decision made for financial reasons. Don't believe he'll ever make a profit, but he'll start to recoup what he spent in a major way soon if we keep spending £0 net on players (as in just spending what we bring in from sales). At the moment we're basically breaking even financially every year, but once the increased TV money starts in 2014 we should be making at least £20-£25m profit (that's without taking the new Wonga deal into account as I'm unsure what its worth). Its one thing not spending anything net on players when you can at least release accounts showing you aren't pocketing club money. But what happens if he releases an account showing the club made a £25m profit and he just took it out? People are talking about protests now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 If he continues taking money at the same rate he is now, he'll be in profit within five years. Why would he stop at that point? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fenham Mag Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 If he continues taking money at the same rate he is now, he'll be in profit within five years. Why would he stop at that point? If we get relegated? which seems the only way out at the moment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 Continues taking money at what rate? As of the last accounts he hadn't taken any of his original investment back and we have no reason to believe we suddenly have massive excesses of money for him to take. That obviously could change next year when the improved TV money starts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fenham Mag Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 Continues taking money at what rate? As of the last accounts he hadn't taken any of his original investment back and until the improved TV money comes in next year we have no reason to believe we suddenly have massive excesses of money for him to take. The money fills the hole left by the decreased commercial revenue due to him using the company as a free sponsor vehicle for his pride and joy - Sports Direct. He is indirectly taking money out of the club. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Roger Kint Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 It's not that hard to quantify. The club is bringing in £13m a year less in sponsorship than it was when he took over, the only club in the league whose commercial revenue has decreased. That advertising has been replaced by his company, which the club pays to provide. He has actively reduced the club's income only to then plead poverty. Where are you getting this from? Or are you wrongly lumping all commercial income together as being advertising? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 Don't know where you're getting that from. The last accounts showed he took £11m and the same accounts showed that he is due to take another £18m in this accounting period. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
J7 Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 It's not that hard to quantify. The club is bringing in £13m a year less in sponsorship than it was when he took over, the only club in the league whose commercial revenue has decreased. That advertising has been replaced by his company, which the club pays to provide. He has actively reduced the club's income only to then plead poverty. Where are you getting this from? Or are you wrongly lumping all commercial income together as being advertising? £29million to about £14million a year. Doesn't exactly take a brain surgeon. To think our turnover was higher than Spurs in 2007 too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Roger Kint Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 It's not that hard to quantify. The club is bringing in £13m a year less in sponsorship than it was when he took over, the only club in the league whose commercial revenue has decreased. That advertising has been replaced by his company, which the club pays to provide. He has actively reduced the club's income only to then plead poverty. Where are you getting this from? Or are you wrongly lumping all commercial income together as being advertising? £29million to about £14million a year. Doesn't exactly take a brain surgeon. To think our turnover was higher than Spurs in 2007 too. Clearly it does as commercial income is not just sponsorship which is the point i was making, genuinely dont know what your post has to do with mine. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 Spurs' has doubled in the same period, ours has halved. Nothing to do with Sports Direct taking all our advertising space though, pure coincidence. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Roger Kint Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 Spurs' has doubled in the same period, ours has halved. Nothing to do with Sports Direct taking all our advertising space though, pure coincidence. Its like you dont want to read a bastard word of truth Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
J7 Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 It's not that hard to quantify. The club is bringing in £13m a year less in sponsorship than it was when he took over, the only club in the league whose commercial revenue has decreased. That advertising has been replaced by his company, which the club pays to provide. He has actively reduced the club's income only to then plead poverty. Where are you getting this from? Or are you wrongly lumping all commercial income together as being advertising? £29million to about £14million a year. Doesn't exactly take a brain surgeon. To think our turnover was higher than Spurs in 2007 too. Clearly it does as commercial income is not just sponsorship which is the point i was making, genuinely dont know what your post has to do with mine. Erm, considering sponsorship takes up a big chunk of commercial revenue, I think it's pretty obvious. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 I'm sure the Sports Direct signs have brought him some financial advantages, but you can't hope to quantify it. Also worth noting that a big part of our reduced commercial revenue is down to outsourcing catering. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Roger Kint Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 It's not that hard to quantify. The club is bringing in £13m a year less in sponsorship than it was when he took over, the only club in the league whose commercial revenue has decreased. That advertising has been replaced by his company, which the club pays to provide. He has actively reduced the club's income only to then plead poverty. Where are you getting this from? Or are you wrongly lumping all commercial income together as being advertising? £29million to about £14million a year. Doesn't exactly take a brain surgeon. To think our turnover was higher than Spurs in 2007 too. Clearly it does as commercial income is not just sponsorship which is the point i was making, genuinely dont know what your post has to do with mine. Erm, considering sponsorship takes up a big chunk of commercial revenue, I think it's pretty obvious. Considering the biggest reduction in commercial income was not related to sponsorship then it doesnt sound too obvious. Still no point in taking people like The Swiss Ramble's word when you know everything about it from looking at the basic numbers Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
quayside Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 Don't know where you're getting that from. The last accounts showed he took £11m and the same accounts showed that he is due to take another £18m in this accounting period. But during that same time he put in an additional £29 million, so he puts £29 million in then takes it out leaving the basic sum of £111 million (thats been there for several years) untouched. At that rate of progress he's never going to recover ther £111 million let alone within 5 years. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Roger Kint Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 I'm sure the Sports Direct signs have brought him some financial advantages, but you can't hope to quantify it. Also worth noting that a big part of our reduced commercial revenue is down to outsourcing catering. Dont waste time they dont want to know the facts man Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 Apparently not, also I'd expect commercial revenue to increase significantly soon due to the new sponsorship deal with Wonga. Obviously the last accounts we have still included the sponsorship deal we negotiated while in the Championship. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 It should be fairly easy to get facts about how much debt to Mike Ashley we have. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
quayside Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 It should be fairly easy to get facts about how much debt to Mike Ashley we have. It is - but only up to 30th June 2012. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 It should be fairly easy to get facts about how much debt to Mike Ashley we have. It is - but only up to 30th June 2012. Well that's all we can go on really, what is in the accounts. If he pockets all the new TV money than that's a different matter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
quayside Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 It should be fairly easy to get facts about how much debt to Mike Ashley we have. It is - but only up to 30th June 2012. Well that's all we can go on really, what is in the accounts. If he pockets all the new TV money than that's a different matter. In the accounts there is £111 million of loan that is long term - i.e due after more than one year. That has now been there for several years. As at June 2012 he had loaned the club an additional £29 million during 2011 and 2012 to buy players and meet short term cash commitments. This additional amount was short term, repayable within one year.. The accounts show he had already received £11 million back, and we can probably assume he's had the remaining £18 million back by now. He's not going to get his loan back anytime soon if that pattern continues Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts