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 That advertising has been replaced by his company, which the club pays to provide.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 That advertising has been replaced by his company, which the club pays to provide.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...
madras 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 aye but if you accept that you just have to see him maybe as being poor at running a football club as opposed to maliciously evil. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 The main issue is that Ashley refuses to borrow money to invest in the squad like other teams do. I guess that makes us more financially stable but it means we won't be competing with the likes of Liverpool who will. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 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 Definitely, though the new sponsorship this year and increased TV money next year really changes everything. As you say at the moment its hard to believe he can be taking anything at all significant from the club despite no net spend on players overall over the last few years. But should the £0 net spend continue into 2014 and beyond the questions of "where's the money going" will really start to be justified. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 The main issue is that Ashley refuses to borrow money to invest in the squad like other teams do. I guess that makes us more financially stable but it means we won't be competing with the likes of Liverpool who will. don't the new premier ffp rules (as opposed or in conjunction with the UEFA rules) stop this, or at least limit this. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 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 Definitely, though the new sponsorship this year and increased TV money next year really changes everything. At the moment its hard to believe he can be taking anything significant from the club despite no net spend on players. But should the £0 net spend continue into 2014 and beyond the questions of "where's the money going" will really start to be justified. Does that mean that we are treading water this season while we wait for next years tv cash windfall to hit our accounts? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 The main issue is that Ashley refuses to borrow money to invest in the squad like other teams do. I guess that makes us more financially stable but it means we won't be competing with the likes of Liverpool who will. don't the new premier ffp rules (as opposed or in conjunction with the UEFA rules) stop this, or at least limit this. They're supposed to stop clubs making regular losses, yeah. Doesn't seem to be affecting anyone right now though... partly because of how easy it is for clubs like Man City to get massively inflated sponsorship deals from companies owned by the same people who own them etc. Presumably there will be a million ways around it and it will be very unlikely to be tested in court. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 If it's an acceptable argument to say that we didn't spend because we have debt outstanding, then we won't be spending for very many years yet going forward. Sounds fun. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 The main issue is that Ashley refuses to borrow money to invest in the squad like other teams do. I guess that makes us more financially stable but it means we won't be competing with the likes of Liverpool who will. don't the new premier ffp rules (as opposed or in conjunction with the UEFA rules) stop this, or at least limit this. They're supposed to stop clubs making regular losses, yeah. Doesn't seem to be affecting anyone right now though... partly because of how easy it is for clubs like Man City to get massively inflated sponsorship deals from companies owned by the same people who own them etc. Presumably there will be a million ways around it and it will be very unlikely to be tested in court. the premier ones were only voted in in april, starting this season. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 The main issue is that Ashley refuses to borrow money to invest in the squad like other teams do. I guess that makes us more financially stable but it means we won't be competing with the likes of Liverpool who will. don't the new premier ffp rules (as opposed or in conjunction with the UEFA rules) stop this, or at least limit this. No idea, all I am going on is that we spent less than just about every other club this summer so it seems to be affecting only us on the surface. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 If it's an acceptable argument to say that we didn't spend because we have debt outstanding, then we won't be spending for very many years yet going forward. Sounds fun. I don't think it should be like that, clearly there has to be a balance between repaying debt and maintaining a competitive football club. The problem now is, although we don't have the urgency/expense of commercial debt to repay, we owe it all to Mike Ashley who personally controls how much we spend. Both have negatives, we allowed the debt to get too big in the first place. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 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 Definitely, though the new sponsorship this year and increased TV money next year really changes everything. At the moment its hard to believe he can be taking anything significant from the club despite no net spend on players. But should the £0 net spend continue into 2014 and beyond the questions of "where's the money going" will really start to be justified. Does that mean that we are treading water this season while we wait for next years tv cash windfall to hit our accounts? I suppose that all depends on if Ashley's approach to signings changes depending on available funds. Does he stay to the same value for money/bargain approach or does he become a bit looser with the purse strings once their's plenty of excess money at the club? I have no idea. All we can say for certain is that at the moment he isn't making his money back. But next year is the best opportunity he's ever had to start doing that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BottledDog 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. I'll be raging. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheHoob Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 Is his 'loan' to the club just things he had to pay off when he bought the club because he hadn't done his homework properly? 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 aye but if you accept that you just have to see him maybe as being poor at running a football club as opposed to maliciously evil. I think he's beyond poor at running the club. And I do think there's a streak of evil in him, but not in the way many on here do. I think he probably likes to create a bit of tension by unsettling those who work for him to stop them becoming too comfortable. Which is probably ok in a business like SD (which he understands) but can cause havoc in a business like a football club (which he doesn't). The appointment of JFK was, I think, done to create a bit of creative tension and stop the relationship between Llambias and Pardew getting too cosy. The fact that he ended up losing a strong ally in Llambias and with JFK strolling around in a job he is, in every single way, unsuited to is testament to his mind boggling lack of foresight. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts