Leazes1986 Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 http://www.nufc.co.uk/page/Fans/FansForum/0,,10278~3686671,00.html CF: The perception amongst fans is that the owner wouldn't sell the club until he receives the debt back. MJ: "If MA is committed to owning the club, why doesn't he just write the debt off?" The board explained that it would be an option that some clubs would consider, but from the perspective of our group structure there's a requirement to have debt within the structure. What the fuck does that mean? Why would there be a requirement to have a debt within the structure? These Minutes also confirm Kinnear didn't write his program notes, he just approved them Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Interesting: Chris Forster (CF): "The debt hasn't changed but a question I'm asked a lot is whether or not the owner will do anything with the club until he gets his money back. When will that be?" The board confirmed there are no timescales for any repayments and that the owner has never set a timescale or asked for any of this debt back. It was explained that in accounting terms, the interest free debt the Club has is the best structured debt it could have. It was states that the debt isn't linked to the profit the Club makes i.e. if the Club makes £9m in profit; debt to the owner is not reduced by £9m. The money generated by the Club stays within the Club. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Hahaha, knew Kinnear had nothing to do with them programme notes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Interpolic Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Interesting: Chris Forster (CF): "The debt hasn't changed but a question I'm asked a lot is whether or not the owner will do anything with the club until he gets his money back. When will that be?" The board confirmed there are no timescales for any repayments and that the owner has never set a timescale or asked for any of this debt back. It was explained that in accounting terms, the interest free debt the Club has is the best structured debt it could have. It was states that the debt isn't linked to the profit the Club makes i.e. if the Club makes £9m in profit; debt to the owner is not reduced by £9m. The money generated by the Club stays within the Club. Apart from 2011/12. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LucaAltieri Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Interesting: Chris Forster (CF): "The debt hasn't changed but a question I'm asked a lot is whether or not the owner will do anything with the club until he gets his money back. When will that be?" The board confirmed there are no timescales for any repayments and that the owner has never set a timescale or asked for any of this debt back. It was explained that in accounting terms, the interest free debt the Club has is the best structured debt it could have. It was states that the debt isn't linked to the profit the Club makes i.e. if the Club makes £9m in profit; debt to the owner is not reduced by £9m. The money generated by the Club stays within the Club. The bastard. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Hahaha, knew Kinnear had nothing to do with them programme notes. Obviously, TBF it's probably common practice that the DOF just signs off something written for him. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leazes1986 Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Steve Cole (SC): What is the saving that Sports Direct makes on advertising around the stadium? The Club suggested that while it is always proactively looking to attract new commercial partners and to sell that advertising space, in the current climate it could not command a sum for that space anywhere close to the £129m invested into the club interest free by the owner. Erm, well if he's not paying the club money for that space then its not an interest free loan is it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty66 Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 The board explained that the owner is very engaged in the Club. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Rumours say he isn't. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incognito Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 As Dave said in the profiterole thread, it seems that we really are the only club adhering to the Financial Fair Play carry on. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NG32 Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Awful Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest antz1uk Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 what is the point of it unless you're in europe anyway? if palace spent 110% of their turnover it wouldnt matter one iota to uefa Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 As Dave said in the profiterole thread, it seems that we really are the only club adhering to the Financial Fair Play carry on. It is a bit weird TBF, football in general just seems to be proceeding like it doesn't exist. Guess they just think the regulations have no teeth, or no real will behind enforcement. Guess that's probably right. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LRD Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 CF: "There seems to be a lack of ambition at the Club, that's the feeling that fans have." The board explained, as in previous Forum meetings, that the aim for the Club is always to finish as high up the league table as possible, with top ten a minimum requirement this season. In the context of commercial revenue (which it was earlier explained has a major bearing on clubs' spending power) and overall income, the six teams currently above NUFC and Everton should, theoretically, given their financial power, finish higher year-on-year. It was explained the Club had achieved a higher finish than two of those clubs two seasons ago which proved it can be done. Bottomline - we can achieve a higher finish with what we have so we don't need to spend much. Everton. Financial power. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jtm_92 Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 As Dave said in the profiterole thread, it seems that we really are the only club adhering to the Financial Fair Play carry on. It is a bit weird TBF, football in general just seems to be proceeding like it doesn't exist. Guess they just think the regulations have no teeth, or no real will behind enforcement. Guess that's probably right. That's because uefa seem to be now only targeting small european teams like malaga, I mean i cannot imagine uefa chucking out real madrid, man city and chelsea for failing to control it's debt. Whats even worse seeing a club like a psg formed in 1970, gets taken over by the some qatar billionaire and gets a sponsorship deal worth a maximum 200 million euros a year. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdckelly Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 what is the point of it unless you're in europe anyway? if palace spent 110% of their turnover it wouldnt matter one iota to uefa can't remember the exact terms but the Prems bringing in its own FFP rules iirc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 As Dave said in the profiterole thread, it seems that we really are the only club adhering to the Financial Fair Play carry on. It is a bit weird TBF, football in general just seems to be proceeding like it doesn't exist. Guess they just think the regulations have no teeth, or no real will behind enforcement. Guess that's probably right. That's because uefa seem to be now only targeting small european teams like malaga, I mean i cannot imagine uefa chucking out real madrid, man city and chelsea for failing to control it's debt. Whats even worse seeing a club like a psg formed in 1970, gets taken over by the some qatar billionaire and gets a sponsorship deal worth a maximum 200 million euros a year. Yeah, I also can't see Barcelona getting thrown out of the CL or whatever. Just will never happen. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weezertron Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Not sure what the point of the Fan Forum meeting is. You could predict all of their answers and save a bunch of time. Waffle. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdckelly Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 As Dave said in the profiterole thread, it seems that we really are the only club adhering to the Financial Fair Play carry on. It is a bit weird TBF, football in general just seems to be proceeding like it doesn't exist. Guess they just think the regulations have no teeth, or no real will behind enforcement. Guess that's probably right. That's because uefa seem to be now only targeting small european teams like malaga, I mean i cannot imagine uefa chucking out real madrid, man city and chelsea for failing to control it's debt. Whats even worse seeing a club like a psg formed in 1970, gets taken over by the some qatar billionaire and gets a sponsorship deal worth a maximum 200 million euros a year. Yeah, I also can't see Barcelona getting thrown out of the CL or whatever. Just will never happen. they can afford clever enough accountants and lawyers to find the loopholes and I'd back the clubs guys as being a lot smarter than uefa's lot. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdckelly Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Interesting: Chris Forster (CF): "The debt hasn't changed but a question I'm asked a lot is whether or not the owner will do anything with the club until he gets his money back. When will that be?" The board confirmed there are no timescales for any repayments and that the owner has never set a timescale or asked for any of this debt back. It was explained that in accounting terms, the interest free debt the Club has is the best structured debt it could have. It was states that the debt isn't linked to the profit the Club makes i.e. if the Club makes £9m in profit; debt to the owner is not reduced by £9m. The money generated by the Club stays within the Club. assume its to get a better price for when he sells the club sooner or later. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yorkie Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 I'm still trying to get my head around the bullshit in the o.p. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdckelly Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 http://www.nufc.co.uk/page/Fans/FansForum/0,,10278~3686671,00.html CF: The perception amongst fans is that the owner wouldn't sell the club until he receives the debt back. MJ: "If MA is committed to owning the club, why doesn't he just write the debt off?" The board explained that it would be an option that some clubs would consider, but from the perspective of our group structure there's a requirement to have debt within the structure. What the fuck does that mean? Why would there be a requirement to have a debt within the structure? These Minutes also confirm Kinnear didn't write his program notes, he just approved them the Kinnear stuff does sound standard practice, certainly the case for a lot of former footballers columns in papers etc. Imagine if he tried to write it himself half of it would be censored. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBG Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 http://www.nufc.co.uk/page/Fans/FansForum/0,,10278~3686671,00.html CF: The perception amongst fans is that the owner wouldn't sell the club until he receives the debt back. MJ: "If MA is committed to owning the club, why doesn't he just write the debt off?" The board explained that it would be an option that some clubs would consider, but from the perspective of our group structure there's a requirement to have debt within the structure. What the f*** does that mean? Why would there be a requirement to have a debt within the structure? These Minutes also confirm Kinnear didn't write his program notes, he just approved them the Kinnear stuff does sound standard practice, certainly the case for a lot of former footballers columns in papers etc. Imagine if he tried to write it himself half of it would be censored. Or wrote with Crayons. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DebuchyAndTheBeast Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 http://www.nufc.co.uk/page/Fans/FansForum/0,,10278~3686671,00.html CF: The perception amongst fans is that the owner wouldn't sell the club until he receives the debt back. MJ: "If MA is committed to owning the club, why doesn't he just write the debt off?" The board explained that it would be an option that some clubs would consider, but from the perspective of our group structure there's a requirement to have debt within the structure. What the f*** does that mean? Why would there be a requirement to have a debt within the structure? These Minutes also confirm Kinnear didn't write his program notes, he just approved them Yeah it's weird. Maybe something to do with taxes but I'm not completely sure how it works in every country. If we make a big profit maybe we'll have to pay more taxes but the "loan" hanging on our head means we're still in loss so not taxable on profit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
r0cafella Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Why do we have to have debt within the structure? I find it hilarious the board state that Ashleys loan is interest free and because of this the free advertising doesn't matter 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