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...
BottledDog 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? The loan that he seems to want paid off sharpish is the 20 odd million he injected after we went down I think. /we went down because of his mistakes again though obviously. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy 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. Its not an acceptable argument, I don't know if anyones saying it is (I wasn't but I haven't read everyone's posts). Think people are just answering the claims that he's racking money in from the club and will have his initial spend back in no time. He isn't, but at the same time there should be some money available to invest in new players. 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? The loan that he seems to want paid off sharpish is the 20 odd million he injected after we went down I think. /we went down because of his mistakes again though obviously. Are there any other owners in the league who treat investing in the club as loans like that? That bottom bit is what I don't get at all, he's had to invest more money because of his incompetence surely. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras 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? The loan that he seems to want paid off sharpish is the 20 odd million he injected after we went down I think. /we went down because of his mistakes again though obviously. Are there any other owners in the league who treat investing in the club as loans like that? That bottom bit is what I don't get at all, he's had to invest more money because of his incompetence surely. as of now, all of them according to how i understand the new rules. alos if he hadn't been incompetent in not doing due dilligence it's hard to think anyone else would havebailed us out and whoever was coming in was going to have to put in that money. it's why polygon and belgravia legged it. 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? The loan that he seems to want paid off sharpish is the 20 odd million he injected after we went down I think. /we went down because of his mistakes again though obviously. Are there any other owners in the league who treat investing in the club as loans like that? That bottom bit is what I don't get at all, he's had to invest more money because of his incompetence surely. as of now, all of them according to how i understand the new rules. Is that something to do with the FFP rules? Like I say I have literally no understanding of how these things work so the whole logic behind it just seems utterly bizzare to me. 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. 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 undersatands) 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 tesion 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...
quayside 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. Its not an acceptable argument, I don't know if anythings saying it is (I wasn't but I haven't read everyone's posts). Think people are just answering the claims that he's racking money in from the club and will have his initial spend back in no time. Yes that's right. I'm not defending what he's doing just trying to put the facts in play. We had a great opportunity this window and f*cked it up. There were players moving around all over the place who would have strengthened us. Whatever the reasons ultimately you have to blame the man who owns the club. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stifler Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 Ashley if you are going to sell us then do it, if not but your not willing to invest then do what the owner of Hearts did and come out and be honest about it., don't get your puppets to promise the world then do fuck all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colinmk Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 How does the club owe Ashley anything? He bought the club, he bought the debt. What am I missing? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 How does the club owe Ashley anything? He bought the club, he bought the debt. What am I missing? Do you mean in the moral sense, or as a business? As a business we owe him money because he lent us the money to pay off Barclays (or whichever bank it was). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lotus Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 Mashley has serious problems with his judgement. I don't know if he's a bad judge of character or what but his needle is way off north. It's so bad that he can't even judge whether the person he employs has a better or worse faculty of judgement than him. Everyone makes mistakes. It's consecutive mistakes that get you in trouble. He's on a roll with these at the moment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts