Raconteur Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 Is the thinking that if Ashley were to sell then he would expect the money "owed" to him PLUS his initial stake, so as to break even? Because, if so, then it's a reasonable valuation because that would be the minimum price for which Ashley would sell? No. Unless you think that Manchester United are in debt to their owners to the tune of £1bn+ Edit: And thats not taking into account the laughable notion that he would get that if he sold it. Isn't the case of Manyoo different though? Their debt is the leverage used by the Glaziers to acquire the club i.e. they borrowed the cash to buy the club and then saddled the club with the debt. So purchase price plus debt doesn't work because the debt is the purchase price? In Ashley's case he paid cash for the club and then loaned it further cash. Therefore it is more reasonable to value the club that way? You're right in saying it's ludicrous to suggest that Ashley would get anything like that amount of cash if he sold the club. And I'm certainly not suggesting that Ashley is a good guy for paying cash - quite the opposite in fact, because Deloitte's debt figure suggests some sort of "in case of sale debt becomes payable" scenario that got him into trouble in the first place. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Roger Kint Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 Is the thinking that if Ashley were to sell then he would expect the money "owed" to him PLUS his initial stake, so as to break even? Because, if so, then it's a reasonable valuation because that would be the minimum price for which Ashley would sell? No. Unless you think that Manchester United are in debt to their owners to the tune of £1bn+ Edit: And thats not taking into account the laughable notion that he would get that if he sold it. Isn't the case of Manyoo different though? Their debt is the leverage used by the Glaziers to acquire the club i.e. they borrowed the cash to buy the club and then saddled the club with the debt. So purchase price plus debt doesn't work because the debt is the purchase price? In Ashley's case he paid cash for the club and then loaned it further cash. Therefore it is more reasonable to value the club that way? You're right in saying it's ludicrous to suggest that Ashley would get anything like that amount of cash if he sold the club. And I'm certainly not suggesting that Ashley is a good guy for paying cash - quite the opposite in fact, because Deloitte's debt figure suggests some sort of "in case of sale debt becomes payable" scenario that got him into trouble in the first place. They arent valuing the club that way though. They are labelling it all as DEBT to Ashley which isnt true. He didnt lend us money to buy the club, the loan he made is currently worth £111m. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raconteur Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 Yeah, I can dig what you're saying. But what I'm saying is that maybe Ashley actually does consider it debt, and that possibly there's a contract to that effect. You know, nefarious, sneaky, hip-pocket Mike Ashley sort of stuff. It would explain the Deloitte numbers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Haris Vuckic Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 Appoint Harry Redknapp and don't give him freedom over transfers. Can't get over how some football clubs can get things so spectacularly wrong at times. Yeah A club like Newcastle would never do something like that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Roger Kint Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 Yeah, I can dig what you're saying. But what I'm saying is that maybe Ashley actually does consider it debt, and that possibly there's a contract to that effect. You know, nefarious, sneaky, hip-pocket Mike Ashley sort of stuff. It would explain the Deloitte numbers. From the OFFICIAL club accounts: The groups total outstanding loan balance from Mr M J W Ashley was £129m. The amount is non-interest bearing. £18m is secured on future broadcasting income and due for repayment within one year. The balance of £111m is now not due within one year. So no its nothng to do with purchase price at all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebellious Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 Yeah, I can dig what you're saying. But what I'm saying is that maybe Ashley actually does consider it debt, and that possibly there's a contract to that effect. You know, nefarious, sneaky, hip-pocket Mike Ashley sort of stuff. It would explain the Deloitte numbers. From the OFFICIAL club accounts: The groups total outstanding loan balance from Mr M J W Ashley was £129m. The amount is non-interest bearing. £18m is secured on future broadcasting income and due for repayment within one year. The balance of £111m is now not due within one year. So no its nothng to do with purchase price at all. Didn`t he have to pay 20-40 mill a year for us to break even at the start ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Roger Kint Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 Yeah, I can dig what you're saying. But what I'm saying is that maybe Ashley actually does consider it debt, and that possibly there's a contract to that effect. You know, nefarious, sneaky, hip-pocket Mike Ashley sort of stuff. It would explain the Deloitte numbers. From the OFFICIAL club accounts: The groups total outstanding loan balance from Mr M J W Ashley was £129m. The amount is non-interest bearing. £18m is secured on future broadcasting income and due for repayment within one year. The balance of £111m is now not due within one year. So no its nothng to do with purchase price at all. Didn`t he have to pay 20-40 mill a year for us to break even at the start ? Yes. Thats in the figures above..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 Yeah, I can dig what you're saying. But what I'm saying is that maybe Ashley actually does consider it debt, and that possibly there's a contract to that effect. You know, nefarious, sneaky, hip-pocket Mike Ashley sort of stuff. It would explain the Deloitte numbers. From the OFFICIAL club accounts: The groups total outstanding loan balance from Mr M J W Ashley was £129m. The amount is non-interest bearing. £18m is secured on future broadcasting income and due for repayment within one year. The balance of £111m is now not due within one year. So no its nothng to do with purchase price at all. Does that mean the extra TV income next year is going on paying back Ashley or before that? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Roger Kint Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 Yeah, I can dig what you're saying. But what I'm saying is that maybe Ashley actually does consider it debt, and that possibly there's a contract to that effect. You know, nefarious, sneaky, hip-pocket Mike Ashley sort of stuff. It would explain the Deloitte numbers. From the OFFICIAL club accounts: The groups total outstanding loan balance from Mr M J W Ashley was £129m. The amount is non-interest bearing. £18m is secured on future broadcasting income and due for repayment within one year. The balance of £111m is now not due within one year. So no its nothng to do with purchase price at all. Does that mean the extra TV income next year is going on paying back Ashley or before that? Thats paid back now. It refers to the year ended 30 of this month. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yorkie Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 Appoint Harry Redknapp and don't give him freedom over transfers. Can't get over how some football clubs can get things so spectacularly wrong at times. Yeah A club like Newcastle would never do something like that. Not really the point I was making. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 Appointing Redknapp at the particular time was just a big mistake in general. Unless they were prepared to change the whole approach of the club. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Village Idiot Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 Work to knock down San Mamés started today, a piece of Spanish football history gone. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdckelly Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/harry-redknapps-qpr-quit-threat-1936999?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter well theres the resignation excuse for Harry how dare they try and move on players before getting more players in Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Froggy Posted June 7, 2013 Share Posted June 7, 2013 Is the thinking that if Ashley were to sell then he would expect the money "owed" to him PLUS his initial stake, so as to break even? Because, if so, then it's a reasonable valuation because that would be the minimum price for which Ashley would sell? No. Unless you think that Manchester United are in debt to their owners to the tune of £1bn+ Edit: And thats not taking into account the laughable notion that he would get that if he sold it. Isn't the case of Manyoo different though? Their debt is the leverage used by the Glaziers to acquire the club i.e. they borrowed the cash to buy the club and then saddled the club with the debt. So purchase price plus debt doesn't work because the debt is the purchase price? In Ashley's case he paid cash for the club and then loaned it further cash. Therefore it is more reasonable to value the club that way? You're right in saying it's ludicrous to suggest that Ashley would get anything like that amount of cash if he sold the club. And I'm certainly not suggesting that Ashley is a good guy for paying cash - quite the opposite in fact, because Deloitte's debt figure suggests some sort of "in case of sale debt becomes payable" scenario that got him into trouble in the first place. Yeah our case is completely different. The Glazers used loans to buy us and then moved the loan debt and some debt from their American franchises to Manchester United. Our club is basically paying off their debt, and very quickly. It was a shrewd business move from the Glazers, and it is working well for them. If things keep going the way they are our debt will be gone within 8 years, which is crazy considering we were in debt just under £700m in 2005. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
loki679 Posted June 7, 2013 Share Posted June 7, 2013 http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/harry-redknapps-qpr-quit-threat-1936999?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter well theres the resignation excuse for Harry how dare they try and move on players before getting more players in What an absolute bellend. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Roger Kint Posted June 7, 2013 Share Posted June 7, 2013 Is the thinking that if Ashley were to sell then he would expect the money "owed" to him PLUS his initial stake, so as to break even? Because, if so, then it's a reasonable valuation because that would be the minimum price for which Ashley would sell? No. Unless you think that Manchester United are in debt to their owners to the tune of £1bn+ Edit: And thats not taking into account the laughable notion that he would get that if he sold it. Isn't the case of Manyoo different though? Their debt is the leverage used by the Glaziers to acquire the club i.e. they borrowed the cash to buy the club and then saddled the club with the debt. So purchase price plus debt doesn't work because the debt is the purchase price? In Ashley's case he paid cash for the club and then loaned it further cash. Therefore it is more reasonable to value the club that way? You're right in saying it's ludicrous to suggest that Ashley would get anything like that amount of cash if he sold the club. And I'm certainly not suggesting that Ashley is a good guy for paying cash - quite the opposite in fact, because Deloitte's debt figure suggests some sort of "in case of sale debt becomes payable" scenario that got him into trouble in the first place. Yeah our case is completely different. The Glazers used loans to buy us and then moved the loan debt and some debt from their American franchises to Manchester United. Our club is basically paying off their debt, and very quickly. It was a shrewd business move from the Glazers, and it is working well for them. If things keep going the way they are our debt will be gone within 8 years, which is crazy considering we were in debt just under £700m in 2005. Regardless of the how, why and what that debt is on the club. If Ashley's cash purchase of us counts as debt then your full debt must be included. I assume it features on the accounts therefore its already more relevant than our debt Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiresias Posted June 7, 2013 Share Posted June 7, 2013 http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2013/jun/07/wayne-rooney-mister-potato-advert may be giggs but Perfect fit Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted June 7, 2013 Share Posted June 7, 2013 Nixon is writing for .cock. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted June 7, 2013 Share Posted June 7, 2013 Nixon is writing for .cock. Hope he gets paid a bit of money as well... just for the bills and that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted June 7, 2013 Share Posted June 7, 2013 Seems like Laudrup could leave Swansea, a strange one. Please, please, please, please (until I hear he's leaving because the chairman won't invest) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Village Idiot Posted June 7, 2013 Share Posted June 7, 2013 Laudrup is ridiculous, third club in a row he'd leave after a single season iirc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ponsaelius Posted June 7, 2013 Share Posted June 7, 2013 Imagine swapping Parpoo for one of the classiest and greatest attacking players ever to play the game. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeyt Posted June 7, 2013 Share Posted June 7, 2013 Mark Hughes? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deuce Posted June 7, 2013 Share Posted June 7, 2013 FWIW Michael Laudrup has pledged his future to Swansea City but has urged the club's board to make quicker progress on transfer targets. On Thursday the Swans struck their first deal of the summer by signing the Real Betis midfielder José Cañas on a free transfer. However, it was made in an atmosphere of unrest with the chairman, Huw Jenkins, and Laudrup disagreeing over the amount of money Swansea are prepared to spend in the summer. The chairman publicly assured his manager on Thursday that "substantial" funds were available but the Dane believes a lack of activity has provided a void for claims of unrest to develop. "I have always said that my intention was, and is, to stay at the club," he told the South Wales Evening Post. "I think all the speculation regarding my future is due to the fact that there hasn't been any good news since we played our last game three weeks ago. We all need some good news. "I had hoped for some signings at this stage but I think this is a question to ask to the chairman and the board. They have all the names of the possible players for our team and all the players, except one, are in Swansea's level when we talk about transfer and salary. "It is almost three weeks since we played the last game and everyone is looking forward to receiving some news regarding new players. Instead people can read in different papers and media that there are bigger and bigger problems with me, the chairman, the board, my agent or players who will not join Swansea because they are not sure that I will stay." http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2013/jun/07/michael-laudrup-stays-sport Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sifu Posted June 8, 2013 Share Posted June 8, 2013 Random list: Famous football fans and their supported clubs Gerard Butler - Celtic Rod Stewart - Celtic Patrick Stewart - Huddersfield Town Daniel Day Lewis - Millwall Catherine Zeta-Jones - Swansea Jackie Chan - Arsenal Matt Lucas - Arsenal Mick Jagger - Arsenal Tom Hanks - Aston Villa Sir Richard Attenborough - Chelsea Will Ferrell - Chelsea Kiera Knightly - West Ham Lennox Lewis - West Ham Katy Perry - West Ham Brian Johnson - Newcastle Cheryl Cole - Newcastle Hugh Grant - Fulham Lily Allen - Fulham Sir Michael Caine - Fulham Daniel Craig - Liverpool Samuel L Jackson - Liverpool Kirtsy Gallacher - Liverpool Melanie Chisholm "Mel C" - Liverpool Caroline Wozniacki - Liverpool Usain Bolt - Man United Dominic Monaghan - Man United Imogen Thomas - Man United Floyd Mayweather - Man United Fatboy Slim - Brighton Sir Elton John - Watford Cameron Diaz - Brentford Jennifer Ellison - Everton Sylvester Stalone - Everton Gordon Ramsay - Rangers Kobe Bryant - Barcelona Rafael Nadal - Real Madrid Robbie Williams - Port Vale Jude Law - Tottenham Melinda Messenger - Swindon Mike Tyson - Peterborough Ricky Hatton - Man City Noel and Liam Gallagher - Man City Hugh Jackman - Norwich Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts