Guest neesy111 Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 tbf Stu has it spot on. Given my very public opinion of Keegan, people might think this is a comment that is deliberately looking for a bite. But approaching and hiring Kevin Keegan was the biggest mistake that Ashley made and it's been all downhill from there. I bet the same thing happens with Dalglish at Liverpool. You just don't mess with club legends, because you will never come away from the situation as the favourable party. Agreed, though Ashley did listen to the fans over the Keegan appointment. He topped many polls as who the fans wanted. Should remember this was the 1st mangerial appointment most fans agreed with as well since Sir Bob's appointment. Is that right? I remember it being a massive (pleasant) surprise to many after the event, but I genuinely can't remember any clamour for Keegan to return. is correct. there was no real clamour for keegan, and it was a huge surprise when he was appointed. i don't think any fan was even thinking of keegan until a Sky camera got him on tv. getting less than half the votes in a single poll with limited voting options hardly represents clamour. i think if you remember on this forum there was next to no talk about him until he was on SSN, and even then the general attitude was split between those completely against it, and those who would rather look elsewhere, but certainly wouldn't be averse to it, and would consider him better than the likes of mark hughes etc. See Stu's post. Keegan was massively wanted by NUFC fans. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 I was completely against it at the start. ITK. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UV Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 How many Premier League clubs have disappeared due to financial problems? None. Only one has ever gone into administration and they were punching way above their weight to start with. The club's finances were in a poor state when Ashley arrived but some go way overboard with it IMO. And also partly base their beliefs on statements released by the Ashley regime after it first took over. They seemed credible enough people at the time, but in light of subsequent events, these claims should also be revisited... Not saying they weren't bad, they clearly were, but I wouldn't be surprised to find that point was spun to breaking point. As I recall a number of the debts were called in due to the change in ownership, which obviously would make things look worse. I'm not saying the cash injection wasn't very welcome, but talk of the club not existing is laughable. Yep, that's right. Even if some find it laughable, we had favourable loans based upon debtors having faith in our old administration. For whatever reason (not trying to criticise in this instance), they withdrew their credit when Ashley bought us. Sorry but that is a very glib dismissal of the poor financial legacy of our previous owners. I've spouted long and hard on this subject elsewhere on this board. Not going to do so again - especially on a Jose Enrique thread ? It's true. Our structured debts suddenly got toploaded due to a security clause, when that happens by surprise it's liable to make any situation worse than it was before. You don't need to preach to me about problems the old regime did have, though, I'm converted. I really didn't want to go into this but: Structured debt is fine whilst you are generating positive cash flows and can meet the loan repayments that are in the structure, and the interest payments due on the loans. During 2007 the club was not generating positive cash flows so fresh funding was needed. There was nothing left to borrow against as all the clubs assets and future revenue streams had already been used as collateral (in the case of the training ground it had been used twice). The interest rates on the loans were extortionate reflecting the risk perceived by the lenders. The club's balance sheet showed an insolvent position which in itself would have given rise to the issue of whether accounts could be prepared with the club being a going concern. In order for the accounts to be prepared on a going concern basis the auditors would require proof that the club could continue trading for the foreseeable future, and this is in a scenario where cash flows are negative, fresh finance is needed and there are no assets to borrow against. In the end Ashley gave an undertaking to keep it going and provide whatever finance was needed - and so the 2007 accounts were prepared on a going concern basis. If he hadn't been around to do that can we assume that the previous majority shareholders would have given that undertaking? And btw once a set of accounts are given a going concern qualification (let alone are not prepared on a going concern basis) structured creditors have a right to foreclose. Not certain administration but it was certainly worthy of concern. To better understand, I'd like to get some definitive answers to the following questions. 1) What was the size of the negative cash flow in 2007? 2) What was the size of the increased TV revenue in 2008? 3) Can you explain the following note from the accounts considering we had no remaining assets to borrow against: At the beginning of 2007 the Group began work on a major refinancing project which was due to be in place by 30 June 2007. However following the acquisition of the Company on 15 June 2007 by SJHL, this project was aborted and the costs incurred to date which would, had the project gone ahead as planned, have been amortised over the period of the new finance have been written off in full in the year." 4) What was the accounting valuation of the playing staff in 2007 which is part of the valuation of the club leading to the insolvent position? Considering we have subsequently sold players on the playing staff in 2007 for around £90m in transfer fees do you consider the accounting valuation of the playing staff of a football club to typically be an accurate figure? Should an insolvent trading position be reached is it out of the question to revalue a company's assets? 5) The typical mortgage rate in 2007 was 6.5%. What do you consider an "extortionate" business rate of interest at the time, and how much of the club debt was over that rate? 6) What was the actual size of the debt when Ashley bought the club? How much more into debt had the club spiralled since 2001 when the stadium expansion was complete? 7) What precisely was withheld from the publicly available 2006 accounts and only available on due diligence which would cause someone to pay the equivalent of £200m (price + debt) for a business which most now consider it was obvious to see was shortly destined for administration, and could therefore have been very soon picked up for a fraction of that value? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UV Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 How do Spurs do it btw? Does anyone know? I thought they had a wage cap/budget, or did they scap it? It's a mystery http://www.transferleague.co.uk/league-tables/2006-2011.html It's almost as if they spend lots of money on transfers to improve the team, thus improving revenue through higher league position, better performance in cups and Europe, increased support, bigger sponsorships, etc It's almost like that, but it can't be because that way doesn't work. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 How do Spurs do it btw? Does anyone know? I thought they had a wage cap/budget, or did they scap it? It's a mystery http://www.transferleague.co.uk/league-tables/2006-2011.html It's almost as if they spend lots of money on transfers to improve the team, thus improving revenue through higher league position, better performance in cups and Europe, increased support, bigger sponsorships, etc It's almost like that, but it can't be because that way doesn't work. That's fine as long as you spend the money on good players who can help you to higher league positions, and nobody else spends more, better, to finish above you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colinmk Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 20 Newcastle £63,100,000 £110,150,000 -£47,050,000 -£9,410,000 Didn't realise we had made that much profit from transfers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 what would happen, just supposing, after spurs's spending they went backwards on the pitch, spent again and continued going backwards ? would they just keep on going like that ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colinmk Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 what would happen, just supposing, after spurs's spending they went backwards on the pitch, spent again and continued going backwards ? would they just keep on going like that ? Surely if they go backwards big time in one season they will stop the big spending, steady the ship for a season and built from there? Don't think they are huge spenders on the wages so I think they would be fine. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 what would happen, just supposing, after spurs's spending they went backwards on the pitch, spent again and continued going backwards ? would they just keep on going like that ? Sounds like us from 2001 - 2005. Made a few key transfers which got us to the top, and then when we started going backwards we started to spend big and still went backwards. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpal78 Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 Is this still the Jose Enrique thread...what happened? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colos Short and Curlies Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 How many Premier League clubs have disappeared due to financial problems? None. Only one has ever gone into administration and they were punching way above their weight to start with. The club's finances were in a poor state when Ashley arrived but some go way overboard with it IMO. And also partly base their beliefs on statements released by the Ashley regime after it first took over. They seemed credible enough people at the time, but in light of subsequent events, these claims should also be revisited... Not saying they weren't bad, they clearly were, but I wouldn't be surprised to find that point was spun to breaking point. As I recall a number of the debts were called in due to the change in ownership, which obviously would make things look worse. I'm not saying the cash injection wasn't very welcome, but talk of the club not existing is laughable. Yep, that's right. Even if some find it laughable, we had favourable loans based upon debtors having faith in our old administration. For whatever reason (not trying to criticise in this instance), they withdrew their credit when Ashley bought us. Sorry but that is a very glib dismissal of the poor financial legacy of our previous owners. I've spouted long and hard on this subject elsewhere on this board. Not going to do so again - especially on a Jose Enrique thread ? It's true. Our structured debts suddenly got toploaded due to a security clause, when that happens by surprise it's liable to make any situation worse than it was before. You don't need to preach to me about problems the old regime did have, though, I'm converted. I really didn't want to go into this but: Structured debt is fine whilst you are generating positive cash flows and can meet the loan repayments that are in the structure, and the interest payments due on the loans. During 2007 the club was not generating positive cash flows so fresh funding was needed. There was nothing left to borrow against as all the clubs assets and future revenue streams had already been used as collateral (in the case of the training ground it had been used twice). The interest rates on the loans were extortionate reflecting the risk perceived by the lenders. The club's balance sheet showed an insolvent position which in itself would have given rise to the issue of whether accounts could be prepared with the club being a going concern. In order for the accounts to be prepared on a going concern basis the auditors would require proof that the club could continue trading for the foreseeable future, and this is in a scenario where cash flows are negative, fresh finance is needed and there are no assets to borrow against. In the end Ashley gave an undertaking to keep it going and provide whatever finance was needed - and so the 2007 accounts were prepared on a going concern basis. If he hadn't been around to do that can we assume that the previous majority shareholders would have given that undertaking? And btw once a set of accounts are given a going concern qualification (let alone are not prepared on a going concern basis) structured creditors have a right to foreclose. Not certain administration but it was certainly worthy of concern. To better understand, I'd like to get some definitive answers to the following questions. 1) What was the size of the negative cash flow in 2007? 2) What was the size of the increased TV revenue in 2008? 3) Can you explain the following note from the accounts considering we had no remaining assets to borrow against: At the beginning of 2007 the Group began work on a major refinancing project which was due to be in place by 30 June 2007. However following the acquisition of the Company on 15 June 2007 by SJHL, this project was aborted and the costs incurred to date which would, had the project gone ahead as planned, have been amortised over the period of the new finance have been written off in full in the year." 4) What was the accounting valuation of the playing staff in 2007 which is part of the valuation of the club leading to the insolvent position? Considering we have subsequently sold players on the playing staff in 2007 for around £90m in transfer fees do you consider the accounting valuation of the playing staff of a football club to typically be an accurate figure? Should an insolvent trading position be reached is it out of the question to revalue a company's assets? 5) The typical mortgage rate in 2007 was 6.5%. What do you consider an "extortionate" business rate of interest at the time, and how much of the club debt was over that rate? 6) What was the actual size of the debt when Ashley bought the club? How much more into debt had the club spiralled since 2001 when the stadium expansion was complete? 7) What precisely was withheld from the publicly available 2006 accounts and only available on due diligence which would cause someone to pay the equivalent of £200m (price + debt) for a business which most now consider it was obvious to see was shortly destined for administration, and could therefore have been very soon picked up for a fraction of that value? Very quick a rough repsonse to a couple... (3) Could have been a complete overhaul of the financing, increasing the terms on certain loans to generate cash flow in the short term - we'll never know the real answer though (5) Its been a while since I audited football accounts, but I'm sure that player values sit as long term assets, where as an insolvent position considers short term assets against short term borrowings so they would be irrelevant. (7) Triggers for repayment of loans mainly Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JH Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 Is this still the Jose Enrique thread...what happened? Alot of threads seemed to have taken ridiculous subject-turns in recent days Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 It's because the only thing to talk about on any of our players is the fact they're all definitely leaving in the summer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtype Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 It's because the only thing to talk about on any of our players is the fact they're all definitely leaving in the summer. No, no, no, the shit ones will stay. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UV Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 (3) Could have been a complete overhaul of the financing, increasing the terms on certain loans to generate cash flow in the short term - we'll never know the real answer though Would this not have involved the lender performing a major credit check - due diligence in effect - and finding out that the club was about to become insolvent and uncreditworthy? (7) Triggers for repayment of loans mainly How does that significantly change the valuation? It might affect a purchaser's ability to buy the club, but not the valuation (though not Ashley as he voluntarily paid off debts which were not payable immediately and voluntarily pays for players up front). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Superior Acuña Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 I was hugely surprised when KK got the job, and never saw it happening til it was actually announced. I was really happy, and think it could have worked. But I remember most the talk being Houlier or Deschamps. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpal78 Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 It's because the only thing to talk about on any of our players is the fact they're all definitely leaving in the summer. and you make that conclusion based on? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 It's because the only thing to talk about on any of our players is the fact they're all definitely leaving in the summer. and you make that conclusion based on? That's all that anyone is talking about. I don't believe it myself, I was explaining why all the player threads are now about Mike Ashley. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 It's because the only thing to talk about on any of our players is the fact they're all definitely leaving in the summer. No, no, no, the shit ones will stay. Yeah that's astoundingly accurate. Ashley and Pards will work 24 hrs a day to make sure our shit players aren't cherry picked by grasping big clubs tht's for sure. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Flatline Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 Just read on a Norwegian Liverpool forum regarding the enrique rumours: "Enrique er bra ja. Men han er rellativt treg. Men sollid def. og en vanvittig fot. Spennede og kanskje "sikkert" kjøp i dne grad ett kjøp kan være sikkert. Ser gjerne en def. trygg back igjen selv om det måtte gå utover det off. er på tide med en ny Finnan/Arbeloa nå. Savner dne tryggheten" Directly translated: While Enrique is good, he is relatively slow. Solid defensively, and with a superb passing foot. An Exciting and "safe" purchase without a doubt. Id love a defensively able and secure wing-back even though it will affect us negatively when it comes to offensive prowess. About time we got a new Finnan"Arbeloa, the security is sorely missed Rofl. Enrique being slow and not contributing offensively. I hope Comolli listens to this guy! Do you hear that scum, Enrique is slow! Barely Walcott-pace! Dont bother! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
QBG Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 I was completely against it at the start. ITK. This. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
quayside Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 I really didn't want to go into this but: Structured debt is fine whilst you are generating positive cash flows and can meet the loan repayments that are in the structure, and the interest payments due on the loans. During 2007 the club was not generating positive cash flows so fresh funding was needed. There was nothing left to borrow against as all the clubs assets and future revenue streams had already been used as collateral (in the case of the training ground it had been used twice). The interest rates on the loans were extortionate reflecting the risk perceived by the lenders. The club's balance sheet showed an insolvent position which in itself would have given rise to the issue of whether accounts could be prepared with the club being a going concern. In order for the accounts to be prepared on a going concern basis the auditors would require proof that the club could continue trading for the foreseeable future, and this is in a scenario where cash flows are negative, fresh finance is needed and there are no assets to borrow against. In the end Ashley gave an undertaking to keep it going and provide whatever finance was needed - and so the 2007 accounts were prepared on a going concern basis. If he hadn't been around to do that can we assume that the previous majority shareholders would have given that undertaking? And btw once a set of accounts are given a going concern qualification (let alone are not prepared on a going concern basis) structured creditors have a right to foreclose. Not certain administration but it was certainly worthy of concern. To better understand, I'd like to get some definitive answers to the following questions. 1) What was the size of the negative cash flow in 2007? 2) What was the size of the increased TV revenue in 2008? 3) Can you explain the following note from the accounts considering we had no remaining assets to borrow against: At the beginning of 2007 the Group began work on a major refinancing project which was due to be in place by 30 June 2007. However following the acquisition of the Company on 15 June 2007 by SJHL, this project was aborted and the costs incurred to date which would, had the project gone ahead as planned, have been amortised over the period of the new finance have been written off in full in the year." 4) What was the accounting valuation of the playing staff in 2007 which is part of the valuation of the club leading to the insolvent position? Considering we have subsequently sold players on the playing staff in 2007 for around £90m in transfer fees do you consider the accounting valuation of the playing staff of a football club to typically be an accurate figure? Should an insolvent trading position be reached is it out of the question to revalue a company's assets? 5) The typical mortgage rate in 2007 was 6.5%. What do you consider an "extortionate" business rate of interest at the time, and how much of the club debt was over that rate? 6) What was the actual size of the debt when Ashley bought the club? How much more into debt had the club spiralled since 2001 when the stadium expansion was complete? 7) What precisely was withheld from the publicly available 2006 accounts and only available on due diligence which would cause someone to pay the equivalent of £200m (price + debt) for a business which most now consider it was obvious to see was shortly destined for administration, and could therefore have been very soon picked up for a fraction of that value? I knew it was a mistake to go into this You and I have debated this subject before on more than one occasion. Its all out there on previous threads. You have the accounts, Macbeth's website and various other points of reference that you rely on. You have formed your own conclusions on this and I don't agree with you. UV interrogation posts such as the one above are normally used when you think you have the answers to your own questions. I'm tempted to leave it at that but don't want to be thought of as someone who ducks an issue, even when every nuance on the subject has already been debated ad nauseam. 1)Cash flow history: 2005 £9 million negative 2006 £14 million negative 2007 £5 million negative 2008 £34 million negative 2) £15 million increase in Media revenue in 2008 over 2007. 3) No - can you? 4) £40 million Not especially accurate way of valuing players. The idea is to reflect what an asset cost (which is not subjective) as opposed to what someone might think it was worth (which is subjective). But your point is irrelevant. Can you list the players we have sold that add up to £90 million? And what was their valuation in the summer of 2007? Bear in mind also that Owen subsequently went for nothing and yet he would have had an accounting valuation of around £8 million in the 2007 accounts. How can you? You only know what something’s worth when you sell it. See also what Colo said in his post. 5) Other than a small loan of £1.5 million all of it was at higher rates than the mortgage rate you quote, the range was from 7.36% to 11.72%. 6) £78 million in June 2007 - being structured loans of £68 million and bank overdraft of £10 million. The debt had reduced since 2001 as repayments had been made in accordance with the loan agreements. 7) What had the 2006 accounts got to do with due diligence? You do due diligence on the financial situation at the time you purchase a business not on what has already been published and audited and is 11 months out of date. Due diligence at the time would have revealed that the club was making significant losses, as was subsequently revealed when the 2007 accounts were published. As a result of these losses this disclosure was included in the 2007 accounts, “The Directors have also received a commitment from St James Holdings Limited and from its ultimate controlling party Mr MJW Ashley that they will provide the Company with financial support so that it can meet its debts as they fall due for a period of at least 12 months from the date of these financial statements. On this basis, the Directors have prepared the financial accounts on a going concern basis.” This note was not included in the 2006 accounts (it was not needed) and this is why people who acquire businesses are advised to do due diligence. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. TC Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 Sooo..... Jose's pretty good at left back eh? Can't help thinking he's a bit slow and not great going forwards though. A bit of a Steve Finnan. Can we discuss the merits of this thought for a few pages? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
quayside Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 Sooo..... Jose's pretty good at left back eh? Can't help thinking he's a bit slow and not great going forwards though. A bit of a Steve Finnan. Can we discuss the merits of this thought for a few pages? Hope so, I'll not say any more on the tired old 2007 finances debate. Jose is a tad better than Finnan imo Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
traeir Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 Finnan > J. Enrique 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