Jump to content

Still Not Worthy Of A Thread


joeyt

Recommended Posts

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+ :lol:

 

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

Guest Roger Kint

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+ :lol:

 

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

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

Guest Haris Vuckic

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. :lol:

 

Yeah A club like Newcastle would never do something like that.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Roger Kint

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

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

Guest Roger Kint

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

Guest neesy111

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

Guest Roger Kint

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

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. :lol:

 

Yeah A club like Newcastle would never do something like that.

 

:lol: Not really the point I was making.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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+ :lol:

 

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

Guest Roger Kint

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+ :lol:

 

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 :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...