Guest ObiChrisKenobi Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 Homer: What If I Robbed the Kwik E Mart Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BottledDog Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 Giving SD free advertising, assuming he could alternatively sell it to someone else, is an interesting issue actually. You would think that weakening the bottom line of NUFC would lessen its ability to pay Ashley his loans back. Could he sell it to someone else for the same amount or more than charging standard interest on his loans would cost the club? If not, the suggestion isn't weakening 'the bottom line' particularly. Not that I think the idea makes much sense anyway. As said, he is free to charge interest or take back the loan anytime he fancies, but thankfully he seems happy to get the club back on its feet first. I'm sure if he could get outside advertising in that would get a better return than the unquantifiable gain plastering Sports Direct everywhere gets him, he would. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 As said, he is free to charge interest or take back the loan anytime he fancies, but thankfully he seems happy to get the club back on its feet first. He owns the club and the loans so really it's just cosmetics. Loans are niftier for legal and tax reasons but for practical purposes, loans from a 100% owner is additional equity put into the business. Any interest on the loan should be considered in the same light as shareholder dividends. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wormy Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 Am I making it up or wasn't it common knowledge that the loan will simply be paid up if/when he sells the club, whenever that may be? That money essentially just bumps his asking price up by a couple more hundred million. However could be getting confused with the debt that Ashley was forced to pay in one lump sum when he took over. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ObiChrisKenobi Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 Repayable when the club was making a profit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor Swift Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 As said, he is free to charge interest or take back the loan anytime he fancies, but thankfully he seems happy to get the club back on its feet first. He owns the club and the loans so really it's just cosmetics. Loans are niftier for legal and tax reasons but for practical purposes, loans from a 100% owner is additional equity put into the business. Any interest on the loan should be considered in the same light as shareholder dividends. Well, not exactly since there's only one shareholder. You're right that all of this is cosmetics. That's the key point. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 Giving SD free advertising, assuming he could alternatively sell it to someone else, is an interesting issue actually. You would think that weakening the bottom line of NUFC would lessen its ability to pay Ashley his loans back. Could he sell it to someone else for the same amount or more than charging standard interest on his loans would cost the club? If not, the suggestion isn't weakening 'the bottom line' particularly. Not that I think the idea makes much sense anyway. As said, he is free to charge interest or take back the loan anytime he fancies, but thankfully he seems happy to get the club back on its feet first. I'm sure if he could get outside advertising in that would get a better return than the unquantifiable gain plastering Sports Direct everywhere gets him, he would. That's kind of what I was driving at. People seem to criticise Ashley for not selling the sponsorship to third parties, but the implication from your answer is that he would if he coule - the return just isn't good enough. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 As said, he is free to charge interest or take back the loan anytime he fancies, but thankfully he seems happy to get the club back on its feet first. He owns the club and the loans so really it's just cosmetics. Loans are niftier for legal and tax reasons but for practical purposes, loans from a 100% owner is additional equity put into the business. Any interest on the loan should be considered in the same light as shareholder dividends. Well, not exactly since there's only one shareholder. Just in terms of comparisons with other regimes, both here and at other clubs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole_Toonfan Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 Fantastic news, out of curiosity when was the last time this happened? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spudil Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 A trading profit was made in 2004 - although it was then wiped out by a dividend payment to the shareholders. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indi Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 I really think that we're on to a winner here, a lot of clubs are going to be totally fucked when these new financial fair play rules kick in. It could completely pull the rug out from under everyone and we could be one of a handful left standing afterwards, which would instantly put us amongst the country and Europe's elite. We could see a situation where to meet the rules clubs are forced to sell many of their best players and if there's a lot of players on the market the bottom will fall out of it and we could simply mop up a load of bargains because at a time when everyone else is selling, we'd be able to buy. Anyone know when they actually kick-in? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueStar Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 That's kind of what I was driving at. People seem to criticise Ashley for not selling the sponsorship to third parties, but the implication from your answer is that he would if he coule - the return just isn't good enough. Isn't good enough for NUFC or isn't good enough for Mike Ashley? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Village Idiot Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 I really think that we're on to a winner here, a lot of clubs are going to be totally f***ed when these new financial fair play rules kick in. It could completely pull the rug out from under everyone and we could be one of a handful left standing afterwards, which would instantly put us amongst the country and Europe's elite. We could see a situation where to meet the rules clubs are forced to sell many of their best players and if there's a lot of players on the market the bottom will fall out of it and we could simply mop up a load of bargains because at a time when everyone else is selling, we'd be able to buy. Anyone know when they actually kick-in? 2014-2015 season would be the first year clubs could be excluded, IIRC. 2011-2012 is the first season when results will be computed towards FFC. I expect most big clubs will fudge the numbers/do their homework. For example, I know Barça took some heavy losses in 2010-2011 in order to lighten up the deficit in the upcoming years. Everybody expects that we'll turn a profit this year. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fenham Mag Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 Do we have any interest payments to pay any more? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wormy Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 I really think that we're on to a winner here, a lot of clubs are going to be totally f***ed when these new financial fair play rules kick in. It could completely pull the rug out from under everyone and we could be one of a handful left standing afterwards, which would instantly put us amongst the country and Europe's elite. We could see a situation where to meet the rules clubs are forced to sell many of their best players and if there's a lot of players on the market the bottom will fall out of it and we could simply mop up a load of bargains because at a time when everyone else is selling, we'd be able to buy. Anyone know when they actually kick-in? 2014-2015 season would be the first year clubs could be excluded, IIRC. 2011-2012 is the first season when results will be computed towards FFC. I expect most big clubs will fudge the numbers/do their homework. For example, I know Barça took some heavy losses in 2010-2011 in order to lighten up the deficit in the upcoming years. Everybody expects that we'll turn a profit this year. Can't see it being hard to get around it tbh. I'm certainly no financial expert but from what I've read about it so far, it seems there'll be ways the top clubs will get away with the same old shit they've always done. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Village Idiot Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 I really think that we're on to a winner here, a lot of clubs are going to be totally f***ed when these new financial fair play rules kick in. It could completely pull the rug out from under everyone and we could be one of a handful left standing afterwards, which would instantly put us amongst the country and Europe's elite. We could see a situation where to meet the rules clubs are forced to sell many of their best players and if there's a lot of players on the market the bottom will fall out of it and we could simply mop up a load of bargains because at a time when everyone else is selling, we'd be able to buy. Anyone know when they actually kick-in? 2014-2015 season would be the first year clubs could be excluded, IIRC. 2011-2012 is the first season when results will be computed towards FFC. I expect most big clubs will fudge the numbers/do their homework. For example, I know Barça took some heavy losses in 2010-2011 in order to lighten up the deficit in the upcoming years. Everybody expects that we'll turn a profit this year. Can't see it being hard to get around it tbh. I'm certainly no financial expert but from what I've read about it so far, it seems there'll be ways the top clubs will get away with the same old s*** they've always done. Have in mind that the losses that count for the FFP are not the same as the ones in the club's yearly balance. Stuff like facilities and youth investment don't count. Why is ManCity building all that stuff around Eastlands? Why is Málaga suddenly putting forward plans for a new 65k stadium? Numbers will be fudged and loopholes will be exploited, don't hold any breath for FFP to make any impact other than some token poor club that can't afford to cheat. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JCONA Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 Taking this with a pinch of salt. Unless it is revealed that Sports Direct Ltd has paid 50m for all the advertising they're getting I won't be giving credit to Mike Ashley. http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00705/sport-graphics-2007_705154a.jpg Hate the man, made alot of money from us, yet he wouldn't dream of renaming the stadium or plastering as much shit around it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 Because he couldn't benefit from it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 Taking this with a pinch of salt. Unless it is revealed that Sports Direct Ltd has paid 50m for all the advertising they're getting I won't be giving credit to Mike Ashley. http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00705/sport-graphics-2007_705154a.jpg Hate the man, made alot of money from us, yet he wouldn't dream of renaming the stadium or plastering as much s*** around it. Wouldn't rename the stadium but quite happy to rename Newcastle women. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdckelly Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 and suck the club dry for his own personal gain Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wormy Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 Love the pointless Shepherd/Ashley comparisons, me. Always adds to the conversation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heron Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 If Ashley gets someone in who will put their sponsor around the ground but rename it St James' Park, i reckon most people would be over the moon. Cannot say I'd give a fuck if it had Sony or something on most the stands or whatever, as long as it wasn't where it says NEWCASTLE UNITED on the East Stand. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
binnsy Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 If Ashley gets someone in who will put their sponsor around the ground but rename it St James' Park, i reckon most people would be over the moon. Cannot say I'd give a f*** if it had Sony or something on most the stands or whatever, as long as it wasn't where it says NEWCASTLE UNITED on the East Stand. why would a company pay millions to sponsor the ground and then call its St James' Park?? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heron Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 If Ashley gets someone in who will put their sponsor around the ground but rename it St James' Park, i reckon most people would be over the moon. Cannot say I'd give a f*** if it had Sony or something on most the stands or whatever, as long as it wasn't where it says NEWCASTLE UNITED on the East Stand. why would a company pay millions to sponsor the ground and then call its St James' Park?? To get the fans on side. Would be a perfect popularity stunt/ business move. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stifler Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 FS had all his offshore company advertising around the place, the same as the Halls having Cameron Hall advertised everywhere. Ashely has just took it to the extremes but to say they didn't plaster SJP with their shit is off the mark. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now