Matt 0 Posted March 29, 2009 Share Posted March 29, 2009 Would be very interesting to know exactly what that mortgage obligation is all about. Wasn't it an unsecured loan rather than a mortgage? Ashley's loan was, but there's nothing to say this hasn't since been refinanced by secured bank debt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 30162 Posted March 29, 2009 Share Posted March 29, 2009 Would be very interesting to know exactly what that mortgage obligation is all about. Wasn't it an unsecured loan rather than a mortgage? Ashley's loan was, but there's nothing to say this hasn't since been refinanced by secured bank debt. Aye but there has been nothing to suggest that has there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt 0 Posted March 29, 2009 Share Posted March 29, 2009 (edited) Aye but there has been nothing to suggest that has there? Got to be a reason for us filing the mortgage, and these whispers of administration make no sense with the debts as they stood at the last set of accounts. Equally, could be nothing serious- impossible to tell. Edited March 29, 2009 by Matt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peasepud 59 Posted March 29, 2009 Share Posted March 29, 2009 Would be very interesting to know exactly what that mortgage obligation is all about. Wasn't it an unsecured loan rather than a mortgage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douggy B 0 Posted March 29, 2009 Share Posted March 29, 2009 Would be very interesting to know exactly what that mortgage obligation is all about. Wasn't it an unsecured loan rather than a mortgage? Its a securitised bond. Nothing out of the ordinary. Depends how much it was for I guess. Does seem a bit odd seeing as they wanted to keep the club debt free. You cant be in any more of a state than you were than when FFS left thats for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 You cant be in any more of a state than you were than when FFS left thats for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douggy B 0 Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 You cant be in any more of a state than you were than when FFS left thats for sure. Your ever expanding debt was unsustainable and administration on the cards. I think the problems hyave come from Ashley trying to make the club viable over night where as a slower plan may have been better suited. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 You cant be in any more of a state than you were than when FFS left thats for sure. Your ever expanding debt was unsustainable and administration on the cards. I think the problems hyave come from Ashley trying to make the club viable over night where as a slower plan may have been better suited. Ashley has us in more of a state though, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snakehips 0 Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 I don't understand how is going into administration would benefit Ashley at all. I'm no financial guru, but it just wouldn't make any sense at all. Im guessing (and its merely my uneducated mind working so its probably bollocks) that because hes paid off the debts the club had by replacing them with a loan of his own then he will be the sole or at least main creditor. This would give him anything raised from Administration therefore its free reign to sell everything thats there plus those players who are on stupid money cannot possibly want to stay if they have the threat of not getting paid. Everyone out and all funds raised to good old Mikey boy not the club. I foresee a future where the half a dozen glossy shiny club merchandising stores are replaced by the tin hut out the back of the West stand, where the training ground has gone and the first team is running round Leazes Park on a Friday afternoon. Shearers has become a Weatherspoons and we are ground sharing SJP with the Falcons. In short I think hes decided that hes got more chance of recouping more cash this way than actually running a football club. Maybe one of our financial experts (Matt?) could reassure us that my thoughts are bollocks.....please As Matt works for a bank, isn't that statement you make a HUUUUUUGE oxymoron, given the status quo ???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peasepud 59 Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 As Matt works for a bank, isn't that statement you make a HUUUUUUGE oxymoron, given the status quo ???? Fuck knaas where he works these days, everytime Ive sat down for a pint with the bugger hes had a different career! "Hows banking?" "Oh I dont do that now, I desing fucking runways or summat equally mental" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snakehips 0 Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 As Matt works for a bank, isn't that statement you make a HUUUUUUGE oxymoron, given the status quo ???? Fuck knaas where he works these days, everytime Ive sat down for a pint with the bugger hes had a different career! "Hows banking?" "Oh I dont do that now, I desing fucking runways or summat equally mental" He's multi-talented, our Matt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peasepud 59 Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 Meanwhile, Newcastle have rubbished suggestions made in one Sunday newspaper that United are considering going into administration this season. The club’s managing director Derek Llambias last night told The Journal: “There is absolutely no truth in the story whatsoever. It’s ridiculous, it’s usually based on a rumour and I don’t know where these things are hatched.” Good to see they've come out and rubbished it, at least we can get on with backing the team.... although that does seem remarkably familiar as a quote, isnt it exactly what Llambarse said in the Journal interview? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 (edited) When going into administration, you have to pay up in full if you owe any of the following: (i) The Association (ii) The Football Association Premier League Limited (iii) The Football League Limited (iv) The Football Conference Limited (v) The Northern Premier League Limited (vi) The Southern Football League Limited (vii) The Isthmian Football League Limited (viii) Any member club of any of the organisations listed in (i) to (vii) above (ix) Any full-time or part-time employee of a member club, as defined in (viii) above, or former full-time or part-time employee of such a member club, in respect of sums due to such person by way of arrears of remuneration or expenses (x) The Professional Footballers’ Association (xi) The Football Foundation (xii) Any Affiliated Association (xiii) Any other affiliated clubs or leagues. From TheFa.com Also a bit at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7741859.stm Paying for players in full up front makes more sense if Ashley's got Administration in the back of his head. Ensures he's top of the list for money back rather than Wigan or Bolton. Edited March 30, 2009 by Happy Face Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 30162 Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 (edited) Ensures he's top of the list for money back rather than Wigan or Bolton. Aye but he already is isn't he? Given that he owns the club. Edit: If we don't go into administration that is. Edited March 30, 2009 by ewerk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Onion 0 Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 (edited) Fuller quotes: "It's ridiculous, unfair and unfounded, and it's upsetting because there is no truth in it. "We're in a situation fighting relegation where we need everybody behind us." "(If we were relegated) We'd have to restructure our own business plan like everybody else. "But our finances are strong, and there would be no threat of administration. "Mike (Ashley) has been affected by the credit crunch – why should he be different to anybody else? "The club is not for sale and we've made it clear. It's not where we want to go." If by 'fighting' he means dithering for weeks on end with a stand-in manager who can't cope while we drop points week after week, then I suppose it's fair comment. It doesn't half feel like we're going down without a fight to me like. And I shudder to think what the 'restructured' version of the plan will look like. As the current one patently isn't working, wouldn't it be better to have an entirely new one? Edited March 30, 2009 by Big Onion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 "It's ridiculous, unfair and unfounded, and it's upsetting because there is no truth in it. Like most of the stuff that comes out of the club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 4355 Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 I think the big question for me led by HF's analysis over the last couple of months is why there has been a big push to getting everything part of ths ~£100m loan owed to Ashley himself by the holding company. The point about counting the "full" value of things like Xisco's fee rather than his true worth makes sense but I'm beginning to think its part of a bigger overall ploy. I have no idea (I'll admit) into how administration would facilitate this cunning plan but I have no doubt if theres some sly accounting trick to it all then the twat will have no hesitation in doing it. I'd also say all the speculation reminds me of the stuff that he was looking for a buyer pre last summer - vehemently denied but suspiciously accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 You cant be in any more of a state than you were than when FFS left thats for sure. Your ever expanding debt was unsustainable and administration on the cards. I think the problems hyave come from Ashley trying to make the club viable over night where as a slower plan may have been better suited. Ashley has us in more of a state though, right? Not only that but any repercussions from the debt issue with FFS were still years away, Ashley's done a much better job of destroying the club in a much quicker time-scale, plus at least we'd have gone out with a bang, not with a sad note of wet flatulence. I think the problems hyave come from Ashley trying to make the club viable over night where as a slower plan may have been better suited. And what exactly has he done (or tried to do) to make the club "viable" over night? Getting relegated? Man U would be fucked if someone took them over and took swift action to make them "viable", by destroying their management, team and getting then relegated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 I think the big question for me led by HF's analysis over the last couple of months is why there has been a big push to getting everything part of ths ~£100m loan owed to Ashley himself by the holding company. The point about counting the "full" value of things like Xisco's fee rather than his true worth makes sense but I'm beginning to think its part of a bigger overall ploy. I have no idea (I'll admit) into how administration would facilitate this cunning plan but I have no doubt if theres some sly accounting trick to it all then the twat will have no hesitation in doing it. I'd also say all the speculation reminds me of the stuff that he was looking for a buyer pre last summer - vehemently denied but suspiciously accurate. I seriously doubt he has the willpower to destroy us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 “We won’t clear the debt for those players as it will take us until 2011” Who knows how much debt that is? Would/could it be worth his while do do something like this to have it written off? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 “We won’t clear the debt for those players as it will take us until 2011” Who knows how much debt that is? Would/could it be worth his while do do something like this to have it written off? Plus those stories last month that he was dipping into his pocket for running costs every month. **I don't want to think about this anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 (edited) I don't understand how is going into administration would benefit Ashley at all. I'm no financial guru, but it just wouldn't make any sense at all. I know nowt about how it works, so these are genuine questions, for someone who knows more to answer. In his last 2 years at the club, Shepherd spent £65M. Most of it to foreign clubs. Do the above FA rules or similar apply? If it was all spread over (say) 5 years, we might be about half way through on avarage so it could be as much as £30M still to pay (total finger in the air stuff). If there are rules like the above that cover UEFA, it's not a consideration, but if there aren't, writing off that debt would be a huge incentive for administration. Then there's player contracts. Can they be terminated under administration? Barton 2012 Duff 2011 Smith 2012 Geremi 2010 Those four will have cost the best part of £15m in wages by the time their contracts run down. No club would match those wages or pay a significant fee, not to mention Butt, Ameobi or Xisco. Edited March 30, 2009 by Happy Face Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 I don't understand how is going into administration would benefit Ashley at all. I'm no financial guru, but it just wouldn't make any sense at all. I know nowt about how it works, so these are genuine questions, for someone who knows more to answer. In his last 2 years at the club, Shepherd spent £65M. Most of it to foreign clubs. Do the above FA rules or similar apply? If it was all spread over (say) 5 years, we might be about half way through on avarage so it could be as much as £30M still to pay (total finger in the air stuff). If there are rules like the above that cover UEFA, it's not a consideration, but if there aren't, writing off that debt would be a huge incentive for administration. Then there's player contracts. Can they be terminated under administration? Barton 2012 Duff 2011 Smith 2012 Geremi 2010 Those four will have cost the best part of £15m in wages by the time their contracts run down. No club would match those wages or pay a significant fee, not to mention Butt, Ameobi or Xisco. Gretna made players redundant... http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/t...tna/7312756.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 I don't understand how is going into administration would benefit Ashley at all. I'm no financial guru, but it just wouldn't make any sense at all. I know nowt about how it works, so these are genuine questions, for someone who knows more to answer. In his last 2 years at the club, Shepherd spent £65M. Most of it to foreign clubs. Do the above FA rules or similar apply? If it was all spread over (say) 5 years, we might be about half way through on avarage so it could be as much as £30M still to pay (total finger in the air stuff). If there are rules like the above that cover UEFA, it's not a consideration, but if there aren't, writing off that debt would be a huge incentive for administration. Then there's player contracts. Can they be terminated under administration? Barton 2012 Duff 2011 Smith 2012 Geremi 2010 Those four will have cost the best part of £15m in wages by the time their contracts run down. No club would match those wages or pay a significant fee, not to mention Butt, Ameobi or Xisco. Question is why doesn't MA just pay those debts? His Paper worth is roughly £800m ish even in the current market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 30162 Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 I don't understand how is going into administration would benefit Ashley at all. I'm no financial guru, but it just wouldn't make any sense at all. I know nowt about how it works, so these are genuine questions, for someone who knows more to answer. In his last 2 years at the club, Shepherd spent £65M. Most of it to foreign clubs. Do the above FA rules or similar apply? If it was all spread over (say) 5 years, we might be about half way through on avarage so it could be as much as £30M still to pay (total finger in the air stuff). If there are rules like the above that cover UEFA, it's not a consideration, but if there aren't, writing off that debt would be a huge incentive for administration. Then there's player contracts. Can they be terminated under administration? Barton 2012 Duff 2011 Smith 2012 Geremi 2010 Those four will have cost the best part of £15m in wages by the time their contracts run down. No club would match those wages or pay a significant fee, not to mention Butt, Ameobi or Xisco. Question is why doesn't MA just pay those debts? His Paper worth is roughly £800m ish even in the current market. I assume we're not paying any interest on those debts, therefore it wouldn't make sense to may them now, unless we got a discount for it. Link to comment 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