Oh My!

[Hadrian 0]

hey thats all im doing , just like everyone .

all i was saying is that the story has changed since it was first put out there , it was 70/80 mill debt and that he'd spent 20+ million on players and wages in smith viduka ect so he'd forked out 100mill ontop of the price of the club, they also failed to put down the cash we got back in from player sales which i remember was a bit of a talking point .

now the story is he spent 134 on the club and a further 100mill , that every paper has down as debt , and even mort seems tobe running with it .

you have to admit it's been shoved in our face's lately as a reason we wont do a 'leeds' . now spending cash before you recive it is general business practice , who benefits from clearing that debt ? when some of it didnt even have interest payments on it .

our debt was roughly the same size as our income , man u's is 4 times what they bring in per year .

Edited May 16, 2008 by Hadrian

[ewerk 31195]

hey thats all im doing , just like everyone .

all i was saying is that the story has changed since it was first put out there , it was 70/80 mill debt and that he'd spent 20+ million on players and wages in smith viduka ect so he'd forked out 100mill ontop of the price of the club, they also failed to put down the cash we got back in from player sales which i remember was a bit of a talking point .

now the story is he spent 134 on the club and a further 100mill , that every paper has down as debt , and even mort seems tobe running with it .

you have to admit it's been shoved in our face's lately as a reason we wont do a 'leeds' . now spending cash before you recive it is general business practice , who benefits from clearing that debt ? when some of it didnt even have interest payments on it .

our debt was roughly the same size as our income , man u's is 4 times what they bring in per year .

 

Income means fuck all, it's profitability you have to look at, the majority of our income goes on wages, Man U's does not.

 

And I doubt that Mort or Ashley would have paid back interest free payments in full. If you look at what Man U did with the Ferdinand transfer, they ended up paying significantly less than agreed because they paid the remainder of what they owed in a lump sum which benfited Leeds because of their situation and also taking the time value of money into account. When it comes to money, Mike Ashley is not a stupid man, he will have had accountants in to look at the club and get the best deal for us. If the debts were all paid off then I have no doubt that it was in the financial interests of the club.

[Tom 14013]

This thread has been Fopped!

 

Minus the Fop

[ewerk 31195]

This thread has been Fopped!

 

Minus the Fop

 

Why don't you Fop off?

 

 

 

[Tom 14013]

This thread has been Fopped!

 

Minus the Fop

 

Why don't you Fop off?

 

 

 

 

Get to Fop man

[Bizza 105]

You two, stop fopping around

[Fop 1]

Is Owen getting a daily pay rise btw?

[Hadrian 0]

Following that review, carried out by Mort, Ashley has decided to make refinancing the club's £80 million of debts a priority. "The debt's too high and it's something we'll look to address quickly," Mort said.

 

Newcastle took out a 15-year, £55 million bond in 2001, securitised against ticket sales, which incurs a 7.43 per cent annual interest charge. On top of that, there is another £25 million of short-term debt, the majority of which is player related.

 

But Ashley should not have been surprised by the level of debt at Newcastle as a cursory glance at the most recent set of accounts, for the six months to the end of December 2006, would have showed him that Newcastle had net debts of £77 million.