Toonpack

Please see my post regarding Prem debt and how it's guaranteed/structured by club. How was NUFC going to generate the cash needed to fulfill your expectations? the Halls and Shepherd managed it of course, we are now competing with the likes of Stoke. If you still went to games, to support the club that has a bright future according to you, you would maybe realise that. They managed it until the credit was exhausted. How, given the financial position of the club in 2007, would you generate the finance to deliver your expectation.

Please see my post regarding Prem debt and how it's guaranteed/structured by club. How was NUFC going to generate the cash needed to fulfill your expectations?

You don't know do you ?? The posts I've made on here include data from NUMEROUS sources, independent ones at that, to support my view/belief (none from Skunkers BTW). Please respond the same. If you do I'll answer ALL your irrelevant questions.

Flim flam I said it's your turn. I've stated with, supporting information, that I don't think the money could be had. You seem to believe it could. So please enlighten us, where'd the money come from Leazesmug, and please back it up with some supporting information.

Where'd the money come from to do this Leazesmug

From what source? ask Mike Ashley, he's the expert who would automatically do better than Fred. He's the person who has made the decisions which have led to it, so ask him what decisions he made ? Great answer, well that's me convinced

We are in a better position NOW than we were in 2007 Please tell me where you think we'd be NOW if we hadn't been taken over by a very rich bastard. I have answered every question asked, worthy of comment, with facts (from multiple sources), not doing it any more until you start to do the same.

Agreed

Not strictly true. The club nearly went "pop" mid/late eighties, I know this for a fact because at the time I worked in a role that had daily dealings with the regional head corporate banking guy and he told me Barclays centrally wanted to pull the plug but over time local lobbying within the bank - because "we'd lose most of our customers and probably a few of our branches" (his exact words) eventually gained a stay of execution, the liabilities in them days were miniscule in todays terms. All was eventually fine again with the banks after that. If we'd gone down to the thrid we'd have been screwed mind.

There are tons of clubs being run badly, but if you look at the Prem, the majority of the debt is underwritten by owners/benefactors or secured against profits (and we didn't do profit). NUFC needed to refinance, everyone agrees on that, so who would underwrite the new debt??. Do you think FFS/Halls would or could (they weren't that minted). It was like having your house with negative equity and then trying to rraise more cash against it. NUFC already had their 110% mortgage but needed more. Seriously man, give your fucking head a shake We desperately needed someone with deep pockets, we got one. Others had looked and run away, he may be a twat but thank fuck he was minted.

Not really, he paid £135 for the club end of, it was just the liabilities were greater than the assetts by £16 Million. Take out the reiteration and you’re answer boils down to “Not really, end of”, which to be fair isn’t the most compelling argument I’ve ever read. What argument and what point are you trying to make ??? really ??? The club was skint. Ashley was a complete mug to buy NUFC, I think we all agree on that. Thank fuck he did though.

Your comprehension is shit isn't it It's a fallacy because ........................

Bold bit = Fallacy, because as my non-diatribe facts riddled post(s) states - the liabilities are, by and large, underwritten by owners/benefactors. The rest is the usual laughable nonsense. What's your plan Leazes, to put us back in the glory ??

Not really, he paid £135 for the club end of, it was just the liabilities were greater than the assetts by £16 Million.

How can you conceivably “assume no new debts would build up”. Our debt had grown from £37 Million in 2004 to £70 Million in 2007, that’s all but doubled in four years – sounds familiar as it’s doubled again in about the same timeframe. So we would have had to refinance the £25 million (you mention) plus a lumper to cover the annual losses, running at circa £30 Million a year, so for lets say 4 years, we’re looking at a refinance package of £25 Million plus 4x £30 Million, which equals £150 Million, near as makes no difference. When you are running at a loss the debt doesn’t stand still, it gets bigger every day. Of course any new loan repayments are also an increased cost to the club. So refinancing then – What was the package that was agreed to come into place ?? All I can see reference to is a £3 million loss in the 2007 accounts for failed refinancing attempts. BTW we were already paying 11.75% on one loan we already had in place in 2007. I’d also point out the net assets, -£16 Mill in my post above, at this time, we had literally less than NOTHING to secure lending against. But all that is OK because the other teams in the Premiership have debt, so we being NUFC can do it as well, on an even grander scale because we’re HUGE. Well let’s look at the Prem Teams. (these figures are from an early 2010 article as they are the best and most recent summary I can find). Discounting the top 4 as they are different cases. Liverpool Turnover: £164.2m Operating profit: £24.9m Net debt: £261.7m Interest payment: £36.5m The clearest possible example of the madness of a leveraged buyout in football. Liverpool's relatively healthy operating profits in 07-08 were wiped out by interest payments on their borrowings from the Royal Bank of Scotland and the US bank Wachovia. Since Liverpool refinanced in the summer, the new managing director of the club, Christian Purslow, has claimed that the club's debt has come down to £237m. New owner since then but he’s already said, got to sell to spend. West Ham Turnover: £71.6m Operating profit: –£32.8m Net debt: £114.9m Interest payment: £3.0m As the new co-owner David Gold puts it: "a car crash". West Ham's 07-08 accounts showed that they owed £114.9m, more than its annual turnover. The accounts also showed the club had breached covenants on a £35m bank loan. The new repayment date for that loan, from a syndicate of five banks, is August 2011. This is, no doubt, the reason why the Hammers' new owners are urgently seeking to raise £40m from new investors. Wonder why the just don't go to the bank ?? Fulham Turnover: £53.7m Operating profit: –£2.1m Net debt: £164.0m Interest payment: £1.0m The colossal size of Fulham's net borrowing reflects the debt it owes to Mohamed al-Fayed. The 07-08 accounts show that the club owes the Harrods owner £159m. However, this is said to be unsecured, interest-free and with no fixed repayment timetable. The club also has a £4.5m bank loan from NatWest, secured on Fulham's future broadcasting income and repayable within a year, on which it paid interest of 7.11 per cent. Aston Villa Turnover: £75.6m Operating profit: –£13.1m Net debt: £72.3m Interest payment: £5.7m Aston Villa's 07-08 accounts show the club has a £13m bank loan secured on the club's assets. £2.5m of this is repayable in three instalments each year until 2012. It also has a £10m overdraft. But Villa's biggest debt is to their American owner, Randy Lerner, who has lent the club £49.5m. These loans are repayable in full in December 2016. Villa paid £4.1m in interest in the year on Lerner's loan, on top of £1.37m to service the bank loan. Sunderland Turnover: £63.5m Operating profit: –£2.4m Net debt: £48.8m Interest payment: £0.7m Another club that survives by the grace of wealthy benefactors. The club's 07-08 accounts show that the Black Cats owed £35.2m to their immediate parent company. This was unsecured, interest-free and with no repayment date. The club also had a £13.6m bank overdraft, guaranteed by the owners. Ellis Short, the American businessman who took full control of the club last May, has given conflicting signals over how much he is willing to spend in order to push Sunderland up the table. The latest word is that he wants to reduce the wage bill. Bolton Wanderers Turnover: £52.3m Operating profit: –£5.3m Net debt: £58.4m Interest payment: £3.9m Not a healthy picture. Bolton rely on the backing of their owner Edwin Davies. The latest accounts show that the club owes its parent company £55.9m. Moreover, this borrowing does not come for free: £23m is repayable on demand and has an interest rate of 10 per cent. A further £11.5m is secured on future TV money. Wigan Athletic Turnover: £46.3m Operating profit: –£17.0m Net debt: £54.0m Interest payment: £1.5m The club's latest accounts make it plain that all that stands between Wigan and oblivion is Dave Whelan. The owner has put £39m into the club in the form of an unsecured, interest-free loan with no fixed repayment date. The club also has an overdraft and bank loan from Barclays of £18.7m, repayable on demand, on which Wigan paid £1.5m in interest in 08-09. The club ran at an operating loss of £17m in that year and the accounts note "further losses are anticipated in 2010 and 2011". Tottenham Hotspur Turnover: £113.0m Operating profit: £18.4m Net debt: £45.9m Interest payment: £8.0m Spurs have gone into debt to build a new training ground in Enfield. The club is paying an annual interest rate of 7.29 per cent on £30m of its borrowings. But it does not have to pay this back until 2024. A planned new 56,000-seat stadium should increase match-day revenues, although it remains to be seen how much the project itself will cost, or the terms of the financing. Stoke City Turnover: £11.2m Operating profit: –£7.8m Net debt: £2.3m Interest payment: £0.5m The Potters' 07-08 accounts showed negligible debt, but do make it clear how dependent the club is on its benefactor, Peter Coates, the owner of the bet365 online betting company. Revenue will have increased thanks to the Premier League TV money. But so will their outgoings. Last summer, the club spent £10m in luring Robert Huth and Tuncay Sanli to the Britannia Stadium. Everton Turnover: £79.7m Operating profit: £6.3m Net debt: £37.9m Interest payment: £4.1m Uncertainty reigns. £27m of the Toffees' borrowings – secured on future ticket sales – are spread over a relatively long period. But the 7.79 per cent interest rate meant that £4.1m of cash left the club in 08-09. The plan to increase match-day revenues by building a new 50,000-seat stadium in Kirkby was thrown into disarray last year when the Government rejected the proposal. Wolves Turnover: £18.2m Operating profit: –£1.6m Net debt: £13.0m Interest payment: £0m Wolves spent heavily to win promotion in 2007 and the club's 07-08 accounts reflect that. The effort was financed by new owner, Steve Morgan, who is now owed £13m by the club, although this is interest-free. Morgan tried to buy Liverpool in 2004 and says he was prepared to put £70m of cash into the Merseyside club to do so. Looking at Wolves' zero interest bill for 07-08, many Liverpool fans will probably wish he had been successful. Birmingham City Turnover: £49.8m Operating profit: £13.7m Net debt: £12.0m Interest payment: £0.26m Hope, perhaps, for Hammers fans. Birmingham City's 07-08 accounts reflect the golden legacy of David Gold, David Sullivan and Karren Brady. The accounts are evidence that a middle-ranking club without a ridiculously wealthy sugar daddy can run its finances in a sensible manner. The club's main debt was a £14.7m loan from its parent company, but this appears to be interest-free. Birmingham's new owner, Hong Kong businessman Carson Yeung, has a solid base on which to build. Blackburn Rovers Turnover: £50.9m Operating profit: –£6.8m Net debt: £20.3m Interest payment: £0.8m Precarious. The latest accounts show bank debt, secured on the club's assets, projected to increase to £20m. This loan is repayable by May 2012. The estate of the club's late benefactor, Jack Walker, has lent some £6m interest-free. But there does not appear to be an open-ended commitment to fund the club's losses. As the chairman, John Williams, warns in the accounts: "Without external funding we are inevitably moving from a trading club to a net selling club". obviously they've been sold to the chicken farmers since The bottom line appears to be the banks that do lend money to clubs only do so IF it’s guaranteed by owners. Otherwise the clubs debts are serviced by the owners. I’ve said before thank fuck Freddy/Halls pissed off and we got someone with deep pockets. To me it is evident that the banks were NOT a route to refinance without a guarantee from Halls/FFS (because the club had NOTHING) and to be honest that just wouldn’t have happened, A- because they ain’t rich enough, and B - because they were into making money from the club not risking their own cash. "Portsmouth 2" just waiting to happen. I hope that’s answered the points you raised.

Sorry it's taken so long, been a busy weekend ( and I haven't read the thread further yet so some of this may have been said already by a fellow realist) - and it's in two bits as it must be too big for a single reply. Revenue (the money we generate) in itself is irrelevant, what is important is the revenue figure in comparison to the liabilities and costs associated with generating said revenue. We made a loss of £34.2 Million in 2007 That means the “revenue” was less, by a considerable amount, than the money we spent. The money “went” out the door faster than it came in. That loss was also “reduced” by the fact we got £7 million from the FA for Owens injury. We had record high revenue of £99.4 million in 2008, 2009 revenue dropped to £86.1 Million but that’s comparable with 2007, in fact possibly better because we achieved almost the same revenue with no UEFA cup games, the annual loss went down to £20.3 million (would have been £30 million if we didn’t make a profit on player sales of £10mill-ish) (BTW our only “profit” of £660K in 2005 was helped by a profit on player sales of £13.4 million). Directly responding to the point about “where’s the money gone” the answer is that it’s gone chasing the money we didn’t have but had spent in years past (or committed to spending in years past). For example, the £25million 5 year deal N/Rock cash (2005), paid up front and spent the in same year. There’s a £5million a year reduction in revenue for starters. Undoubtedly Ashley’s mistakes have cost the club (and him) dear. BUT I would consider a significant amount of the increased debt is because of what went before (or what was committed to before) and is resultant from spending above our means. Appreciate the relegation has cost more than staying up would have. Look at the net assets position: 1998 - +£100 Million 1999 - +£55 Million 2000 - +£36 Million 2001 - +£23 Million 2002 - +£36 Million 2003 - +£37 Million 2004 - +£32 Million 2005 - +£28 Million 2006 - +£17 Million 2007 – Minus £16 Million That means in 2007 we had liabilities of £16 Million fucking quid more than the total of ALL our assets.

I will when I get a minute, busy day and gannin oot soon, haven't properly read it all yet. You going to answer your share of questions elsewhere ??

I wonder where U V thinks the money could come from, maybe he'll answer the question.

you're entertaining as fuck too aren't you ? Correct. but way behind me I would doubt that, you live in the past.

By your logic Hitler did a cracking job for Germany.

Nope, his was the best period I have known, I had a pop at him for opening his gob now, when it's of no import. BTW he said he'd have sold Carroll too. P.S. Stolen from elsewhere for your crtitique,

They achieved 9.4th post Keegan (7.642857th inclusive of KK) They were for a time, then the world changed and they didn't/couldn't or maybe didn't want to because the gravy train kept a rollin. You post selected outdated "facts" of no relevance to the period in question. If you want to play that game the best regime we ever had was in the 50's FACT. They weren't. You spout this same bollocks all the time, 23 years ago this past Wednesday 7,000 turned up to support the team against Wrexham, it was abondoned at half time, without me it'd have been 6,999. What you think of me is irrelevant to me, you are deluded beyond all comprehension. I don't despise them, I realised in the cold light of day that after they drove KK off and the brief hiatus under SBR that they were utterly clueless. I don't get all emotional about stuff, never have, just like to be realistic. Now fuck off to your Mohammed shed and wave bacon at the neighbours.

My opinions are stated and I stand by them. End of. If you wish to find variance from said opinions of mine go ahead, please don't just make them up out of thin air. Regarding the snippet above, post Keegan, our average league position over the years was 9th (9.4th) to be precise. 10th or above year on year would actually equal that and you seem ecstatic and forever thankfull for that. Of course winning one solitary thing, would surpass it all.

Please point out examples of said backtracking. I still believe we would have been royally screwed under the continuance of the previous regime. Because the business model was absolutely, 100%, indisputably, unsustainable. (and no I don't "hate" them, I do think they were chancers supreme, who got lucky though and they screwed up as bad as FCB has, if not worse). I still firmly believe that, "what has happened to this club since the tosspot bought us" is significantly less bad, than what would have happened come 2008 and the banking debacle under the previous ownership, I also believe SJH's indecent haste to "get rid" indicates he saw the signs as well. (they'd - the club - already spent/lost £3mill on failed attempts to sell/refinance). I still believe we are "lucky" that Ashley was stupid enough to buy us without due dilligence. I am glad (gratefull even) he had deep pockets in proportion to his stupidity and the black hole he bought. I do believe he has shown great incompetence for a supposed business genius. I do not want the previous regime back in charge, ever. Accepting stupid money for Carroll, was absolutely the right thing to do IF it is spent in the summer (and no I won't say give him to January if it's not spent). This is the defining moment for FCB, the club HAS the money and should use it "on the field". Liverpool are (still) a bigger draw than us to players and are considered, within the game (which is where it matters) bigger than us, irrespective of any measurables to the contrary. Without an Arab/Oligarch challenging for the C/L places again has been an unrealisable fantasy for years, irrespective of regime. I think all of the above has been my position throughout. I agreed with the plausability of your theory around Ashley's purchase, I vehemently disagree with you on just about everything else. Mainly becuase you have no answers. As I said at the top, please feel free to give examples of my "changing" position.

The moon's blue, a Leazes post I agree with, almost. The Champions league (at this time) would need a financial gamble that even he isn't rich enough to go at. To be honest, our best bet of C/L ever again is Platini's new rules, if fully enforced (which I doubt) because then, our "size" would have a material effect again.