Guest NobbyOhNobby Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 It is pure bullshit to say Virgin Money paid £10m a year to sponsor NUFC. Virgin Money took over Northern Rock's sponsorship deal. Northern Rock certainly weren't paying £10m a season sponsorship either. Wonga is the biggest shirt sponsor deal NUFC have ever had according to the club. The sponsorship income for each year will be listed in the club accounts. Sponsorship isn't shown on its own unless they mention it in the notes. I'll take your word for it. We all know that if Virgin Money had offered more than Wonga to be the shirt sponsor they'd 100% be on our shirt today. Virgin Money weren't offered the opportunity to counter bid, they were just told that the club had exercised their option to terminate the deal at the end of last season and that Wonga would be replacing them Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueStar Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 Someone fill me in here, what's the connection between the loan and the adverts? Why not just say 'Well, he could take the adverts down but then he'd have to take exactly 4.2m out of our transfer fund'? Where's the evidence he's using the free adverts as his 'interest' on the loan? The club certainly aren't saying that, quite the opposite, theyre saying if there were people buying the adverts then the Sports Direct signs wouldn't be there. And I don't think anyone believes if EA Sports buy out all the space we're suddenly going to have to pay interest. What about the stadium naming, was that instead of loan interest as well? Because he wasn't charging interest before we became the Sports Direct Arena, and we're not charging it now we've changed back. Does it stretch to anything else? Like if we complain about Joe Kinnear, "Well, if he wasn't allowed to take money out the club to give his mates a job as a favour, he'd have to charge interest on the loan. Is that what you want?" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lotus Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 Someone fill me in here, what's the connection between the loan and the adverts? Why not just say 'Well, he could take the adverts down but then he'd have to take exactly 4.2m out of our transfer fund'? Where's the evidence he's using the free adverts as his 'interest' on the loan? The club certainly aren't saying that, quite the opposite, theyre saying if there were people buying the adverts then the Sports Direct signs wouldn't be there. And I don't think anyone believes if EA Sports buy out all the space we're suddenly going to have to pay interest. What about the stadium naming, was that instead of loan interest as well? Because he wasn't charging interest before we became the Sports Direct Arena, and we're not charging it now we've changed back. Does it stretch to anything else? Like if we complain about Joe Kinnear, "Well, if he wasn't allowed to take money out the club to give his mates a job as a favour, he'd have to charge interest on the loan. Is that what you want?" Maybe transfers as well? If we buy players then Big Mash has to charge interest on his loan. Is that what people want?? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 don't think anyone is saying there's a direct connection between the loans and ads, more that if we're going to complain about the club not selling ad space we should also balance that viewpoint out with consideration of the free interest on 129m not unreasonably imo on a rudimentary calculation of 2% interest the club would be due payments of 2.5m quid...not sure what the actual charge would be like Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 Doubt it has anything to do with whether we pay interest or not. It doesn't really make sense for Ashley to charge interest, he's just be making it more expensive and long-winded for the club to give him his money back. Obviously the thing about the advertising space being unused is bollocks, they probably haven't even tried to sell it to anyone else. The truth is just that Mike Ashley wants some perks from owning us, and one of those is promoting his appalling sports shop brand. It's not the worst thing an owner's ever done, and the money we lose is probably fairly small. It's just a shame the brand in question is so tacky. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 Someone fill me in here, what's the connection between the loan and the adverts? They're comparable. If we'd actually spent £4m on transfers, maybe that would be worth comparing and putting up with Sports Direct advertising for too Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lotus Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 I think we had to pay a fee to loan Remy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
loki679 Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 We could transfer the loan to Wonga. The interest would only be £2.25 billion a year then Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueStar Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 So next time someone tells us Ashley has given us an interest free loan, we can clarify he's actually taking millions out of the club as his interest, just in a roundabout and dishonest manner. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 So next time someone tells us Ashley has given us an interest free loan, we can clarify he's actually taking millions out of the club as his interest, just in a roundabout and dishonest manner. You're a cynical chap aren't you? FWIW I think Ashley would be taking this free advertising even if we didn't owe him any money, he probably just sees it as a perk of owning a football club. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lotus Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 So next time someone tells us Ashley has given us an interest free loan, we can clarify he's actually taking millions out of the club as his interest, just in a roundabout and dishonest manner. You're a cynical chap aren't you? FWIW I think Ashley would be taking this free advertising even if we didn't owe him any money, he probably just sees it as a perk of owning a football club. I think it may be more than a perk. I think the SD exposure is probably the only reason. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MW Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 he's just gone into my mates place of work. i've given a nasty message to pass on if he sees him again Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 he's just gone into my mates place of work. i've given a nasty message to pass on if he sees him again Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueStar Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 So next time someone tells us Ashley has given us an interest free loan, we can clarify he's actually taking millions out of the club as his interest, just in a roundabout and dishonest manner. You're a cynical chap aren't you? FWIW I think Ashley would be taking this free advertising even if we didn't owe him any money, he probably just sees it as a perk of owning a football club. I'm sure he would as well. We can't have it both ways though. Ashley is stopping advertising money coming into the club by using the billboards as freebies for himself instead of paying sponsors. If the justification for that is "Oh, but he'd be charging that much in interest on the loan so it's just like payment for that" then it's no longer really an interest free loan which can be pointed as as a rare example of benevolence. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 So next time someone tells us Ashley has given us an interest free loan, we can clarify he's actually taking millions out of the club as his interest, just in a roundabout and dishonest manner. You're a cynical chap aren't you? FWIW I think Ashley would be taking this free advertising even if we didn't owe him any money, he probably just sees it as a perk of owning a football club. I'm sure he would as well. We can't have it both ways though. Ashley is stopping advertising money coming into the club by using the billboards as freebies for himself instead of paying sponsors. If the justification for that is "Oh, but he'd be charging that much in interest on the loan so it's just like payment for that" then it's no longer really an interest free loan which can be pointed as as a rare example of benevolence. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 Sure, I don't think he's ever linked it to the loan though. Someone just brought that up as a possibility. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 I asked the question if his interest free 'gift' doesn't balance the scales. There are lots of clubs with big debts, not paying any interest whatsoever on it, and still taking money from advertisers...in at least one case, paying a shitload to advertise their own company as a way of pumping in hundreds of millions under FFP. Ashley's not special in covering the debt. He's doing no more than owners at Stoke, Chelsea, QPR, Blackburn, Fulham or Wigan according to these numbers... http://www.theguardian.com/football/2013/apr/18/premier-league-finances-club-by-club On the other hand, Man U , Arsenal, Villa, Bolton, Spurs, Liverpool, Man City, Sunderland and Norwich all pay out millions a year on interest. Whatever is true of the interest payments, every club bar Newcastle sells their advertising space to the highest bidder as far as I'm aware. No matter what business the owner is in. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 It wouldn't be so bad but the £?m it would cost SportsDirect, even at a reduced rate, would be a total drop in the ocean to them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 I think the silence surrounding the whole (non) debate says everything. Local journalists aren't asking the question and Ashley's people obviously don't feel the need to provide an answer. The fans forum seem to have missed a trick on this one when they met officials last week. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallace Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 The galling thing in all of this is that the club cite their poor commercial revenue as one of the reasons why we can't compete but it is their choice that the revenue is so low. It doesn't take a marketing genius to see where we are falling short. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
loki679 Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 The galling thing in all of this is that the club cite their poor commercial revenue as one of the reasons why we can't compete but it is their choice that the revenue is so low. It doesn't take a marketing genius to see where we are falling short. The galling thing is that our club is now a billboard for the tackiest low grade tat shop in the country but it's ok because FMA gave himself some money and isn't charging himself for the privilege. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thenorthumbrian Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 True Faith, an article on the crippling lack of ambition and completely dismissive attitude to NUFC from Ashley. http://www.true-faith.co.uk/thru-black-white-eyes-live-witch-trials/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 The galling thing in all of this is that the club cite their poor commercial revenue as one of the reasons why we can't compete but it is their choice that the revenue is so low. It doesn't take a marketing genius to see where we are falling short. The galling thing is that our club is now a billboard for the tackiest low grade tat shop in the country but it's ok because FMA gave himself some money and isn't charging himself for the privilege. So not paying for SD to advertise at St James' is an outrage but paying off the debts and not charging any interest is just "giving himself money and not charging himself for the privilege"? You can't have it both ways, which I think is the point Happy Face is making. True Faith, an article on the crippling lack of ambition and completely dismissive attitude to NUFC from Ashley. http://www.true-faith.co.uk/thru-black-white-eyes-live-witch-trials/ Seriously trying to claim that we actively don't want to win anything and also would prefer to finish no higher than 6th, why do some people let hatred of an individual twist their minds so much that they talk/write such utter bollocks? The mans a cunt who doesn't care about the club outside of it being his business, no doubt, but that doesn't mean all reason should disappear out of the window. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 So not paying for SD to advertise at St James' is an outrage but paying off the debts and not charging any interest is just "giving himself money and not charging himself for the privilege"? You can't have it both ways, which I think is the point Happy Face is making. Ashley didn't pay the loans off as a favour, he did it because debt costs more than savings and he had cash in the bank while we/he paid interest of loans. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 So not paying for SD to advertise at St James' is an outrage but paying off the debts and not charging any interest is just "giving himself money and not charging himself for the privilege"? You can't have it both ways, which I think is the point Happy Face is making. Ashley didn't pay the loans off as a favour, he did it because debt costs more than savings and he had cash in the bank while we/he paid interest of loans. Right, what's your point? Nowhere have I claimed he did anyone a favour. My point is that both examples are quite similar, in that one is him not charging his own company interest and the other is him not charging his own company for advertising at his other company. One is trivialised and the other is evangelised as a deplorable act. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts