Matt Posted July 18, 2018 Share Posted July 18, 2018 matt remember that thing in the end champo season accounts about increase in rental costs going up massively, was it ever worked out what that was for? it was quite a large amount committed over +5 years or something wasn't it? Rental costs haven't gone up but the total value of all future commitments has: In the 2015 accounts the value of lease commitments beyond 5 years was nil In the 2016 accounts the amount shown for the prior year was £50.4m This suggests to me that as the prior year value has been restated, this is an accounting change and not a change in underlying leases. I'm fairly sure this relates to the SJP ground rental given the implied tenor of the lease. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted July 18, 2018 Share Posted July 18, 2018 matt remember that thing in the end champo season accounts about increase in rental costs going up massively, was it ever worked out what that was for? it was quite a large amount committed over +5 years or something wasn't it? Rental costs haven't gone up but the total value of all future commitments has: In the 2015 accounts the value of lease commitments beyond 5 years was nil In the 2016 accounts the amount shown for the prior year was £50.4m This suggests to me that as the prior year value has been restated, this is an accounting change and not a change in underlying leases. I'm fairly sure this relates to the SJP ground rental given the implied tenor of the lease. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted July 18, 2018 Share Posted July 18, 2018 matt remember that thing in the end champo season accounts about increase in rental costs going up massively, was it ever worked out what that was for? it was quite a large amount committed over +5 years or something wasn't it? Rental costs haven't gone up but the total value of all future commitments has: In the 2015 accounts the value of lease commitments beyond 5 years was nil In the 2016 accounts the amount shown for the prior year was £50.4m This suggests to me that as the prior year value has been restated, this is an accounting change and not a change in underlying leases. I'm fairly sure this relates to the SJP ground rental given the implied tenor of the lease. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hughesy Posted July 18, 2018 Share Posted July 18, 2018 One of the bigger issues is Ashley's unwillingness to actually incur any form of debt to cover short term cashflow issues. We shouldn't need to wait for cash to come through the door from Sky (or from other clubs for deferred transfer payments) before we spend - the Sky money is as good as cash in the bank. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted July 18, 2018 Share Posted July 18, 2018 Shoveling funds from his own pocket? Plunging the club in more debt more like. Ashley put money into NUFC on both occasions, he repaid himself the first time after the Carroll sale, we'll have to wait to see if the same thing has happened this time- it could be one reason why there is such limited funds this summer. He didn't plunge the club into debt, this was just the mechanism of him putting more money in and out. There are other ways to put money into the club; he chose to loan the club money to be repaid at a later date on both occasions effectively increasing our debt position. I don't see what's contentious about this at all or how it doesn't equate to plunging the club in more debt? Seems to me like you are arguing for arguing's sake in some financial defense of what Ashley has done to this club since taking over. Pointing out reality doesn't equate to a defense of Ashley. Is this the SMB now and we all have to follow the line? Putting in funds as a shareholder loan does not mean they will be repaid or need to be repaid. It is purely form over substance. He could have put in equity and taken a dividend with exactly the same impact. Debt which might be paid back but doesn't have to be, doesn't bear any interest and has the same beneficial owner as the equity isn't debt. NUFC as a business is debt-free since the satisfaction of the charges in favour of Barclays earlier in the year. Except unless I am very mistaken or the situation has recently changed the loan is specifically marked as being repayable on demand (source) and there is actually an accruing LIBOR +0.5% interest also repayable on demand and retroactively since its inception (source), so it is actually debt that will need to be repaid one day, possibly including interest unless waived, isn't it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted July 18, 2018 Share Posted July 18, 2018 There’s literally no point in talking about the clubs accounts when they have been manipulated to such an extent. Such an extent that what? Stop with the conspiracy talk. It’s all there in black and white. Always interested to hear your balanced views on the finances, but just wondered what your actual thoughts and opinions are on what he's doing financially - is he doing this for the good of the club, or the good of SD (in your opinion, it's pretty obviously to most that he's not doing anything for the good of the club). I’m struggling to see how we can justifiably say we have no funds to spend so there is some kind of politics in play between MA and Rafa. Perhaps when Rafa says he has to sell to buy, this is because the transfer pot is for next season’s manager and he knows that won’t be him. All he wants to do is not have to put money in again- which he did when he gave Maclaren a load of money and he fucked it up. This is why he factors contract costs into budgets- there is some overall look-forward that won’t allow the club to go beyond a certain level. Any attempt to improve the standing of the club commercially would require a proper management team and not the skeleton rag-tag approach we have at the moment. He’s an absentee control freak- it’s the perfect storm of inaction and paralysis and I can't see how it will change any time soon. When was this if I may ask? I can't seem to find anything in the accounts for that period about Ashley putting in his own money for McLaren's spending spree? From what I know the only times he has put money in (as a repayable loan with deferred interest; see previous mail) is after we have been relegated (both times) and he had no choice but to invest to make sure we get back up to avoid him losing even more money. I could be wrong though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stifler Posted July 18, 2018 Share Posted July 18, 2018 Thing is, the big point here is that so long as we are in the EPL, then he could get away with not putting his own money in and we would be fine with it. However his reluctance to spend the money the club does generate on top of the money he’s preventing us from earning through sponsorship etc isn’t being spent. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted July 18, 2018 Share Posted July 18, 2018 When was this if I may ask? I can't seem to find anything in the accounts for that period about Ashley putting in his own money for McLaren's spending spree? From what I know the only times he has put money in (as a repayable loan with deferred interest; see previous mail) is after we have been relegated (both times) and he had no choice but to invest to make sure we get back up to avoid him losing even more money. I could be wrong though. Sorry, that's bad wording by me. I mean as in McLaren was backed, then Ashley put more money in when we went down- I didn't mean to imply Ashley had directly funded those signings. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NG32 Posted July 18, 2018 Share Posted July 18, 2018 Matt, as you're pretty clued up on this, if indeed Ashley is not taking money from the club, so essentially not making money from us, why would he still persist in owning us? He's said he regrets being in football, he's reluctant to put his own money in it? Is the adevertising for SD worth that much that he couldn't just buy ad space at another PL club? I don't understand this disconnect, if there's no monetary benefit for him, what is he still doing here? I thought they said at a SD AGM that the association with NUFC has helped them turn over massive profits and they wont be changing this arrnagement any time soon. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NG32 Posted July 18, 2018 Share Posted July 18, 2018 I must have missed that. I just don't really see how it tallys with him persisting with something he seems to hate, for no monetary benefit. He can advertise at other clubs if he wants I'm sure. I guess I'm saying there must be some sort of financial benefit for him. There is, for SD being plastered all over every game and beamed to asian markets. He isnt arsed if we win lose or draw, aslong as SD get their coverage and he gets a nice increase in SD sales. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted July 18, 2018 Share Posted July 18, 2018 Just because the money's not in his wallet doesn't mean there's no monetary benefit. He owns the club in its entirety and Sky etc have just given him/the club (since they are essentially one and the same) £100m+ and they'll do the same next summer. It's all increasing the value of his company. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted July 18, 2018 Share Posted July 18, 2018 Matt, as you're pretty clued up on this, if indeed Ashley is not taking money from the club, so essentially not making money from us, why would he still persist in owning us? He's said he regrets being in football, he's reluctant to put his own money in it? Is the adevertising for SD worth that much that he couldn't just buy ad space at another PL club? I don't understand this disconnect, if there's no monetary benefit for him, what is he still doing here? With the next TV deal not as rich as the current one, I would have thought now is the ideal time to do a deal. Maybe he looks at the sums being bandied about for mediocre players and thinks, someone out there will offer something crazy for a club and he's willing to ride it out until that sheikh or oligarch looking to 'geographically diversify away from their home market' comes along. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NG32 Posted July 18, 2018 Share Posted July 18, 2018 He is the major share holder at AD, so if SD profits are up due to NUFC advertising their brand during live games then he gets a nice dividend...I think he keeps buying shares back as well and flipping them again. Total RAT. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted July 18, 2018 Share Posted July 18, 2018 I guess when you're that rich (and as obscenely greedy as he is) it's all about your assets and how much they're worth rather than immediate cash flow like the rest of us. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted July 18, 2018 Share Posted July 18, 2018 I must have missed that. I just don't really see how it tallys with him persisting with something he seems to hate, for no monetary benefit. He can advertise at other clubs if he wants I'm sure. I guess I'm saying there must be some sort of financial benefit for him. https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/after-five-years-silence-newcastle-4197405 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
geordiedean Posted July 18, 2018 Share Posted July 18, 2018 I guess when you're that rich (and as obscenely greedy as he is) it's all about your assets and how much they're worth rather than immediate cash flow like the rest of us. I've always said the term millionaire is very loosely thrown about, to me a millionaire is someone who can produce a million in cash that is readily available not someone who has over a million in assets. I know people who are millionaires asset wise but have less than 10k in the bank. For them to generate a million they would have to sell everything the owned Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted July 18, 2018 Share Posted July 18, 2018 which makes his treatment of Rafa completely bizzare, as surely the market price of Newcastle with Rafa is substantially better than without? Rafa will be here until the summer. As long as we keep our heads above the water, it's a free option. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol Posted July 18, 2018 Share Posted July 18, 2018 https://twitter.com/bigchrisholt/status/962242997034381313 Didn't know MA owned the PR company that Bishop works for? https://twitter.com/bigchrisholt/status/962245885857095680 Be interesting to see how that’s displayed in the accounts of the PR business. Does it show as a related party transaction? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NEEJ Posted July 18, 2018 Share Posted July 18, 2018 How is that even allowed to happen? Seems like a massive conflict of interests. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ameritoon Posted July 18, 2018 Share Posted July 18, 2018 So, our only way to become a real club again is for him to die. Bring it on, heart disease. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ads Posted July 18, 2018 Share Posted July 18, 2018 So, our only way to become a real club again is for him to die. Bring it on, heart disease. I was absolutely livid when he lost a bit of weight. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
STM Posted July 18, 2018 Share Posted July 18, 2018 Imagine the scenes if he died man. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ads Posted July 18, 2018 Share Posted July 18, 2018 The gifs would be absolutely wild Sake. NPW Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest covmag Posted July 18, 2018 Share Posted July 18, 2018 So, our only way to become a real club again is for him to die. Bring it on, heart disease. :lol: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted July 18, 2018 Share Posted July 18, 2018 One of the bigger issues is Ashley's unwillingness to actually incur any form of debt to cover short term cashflow issues. We shouldn't need to wait for cash to come through the door from Sky (or from other clubs for deferred transfer payments) before we spend - the Sky money is as good as cash in the bank. bingo, he could loan the club money for 6 months and charge fucking interest for all we care it'd still be better than not having any bastard players in the long run arsehole Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts