Park Life 71 Posted August 4, 2009 Share Posted August 4, 2009 Even buying a club like ours with blue sky potential and a fanatical core support and even if you factor in the global development of football as a product and brand, no investor will see any likely return for 5 years at least. That isn't the kind of investment people without other motives normally go for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 30629 Posted August 4, 2009 Share Posted August 4, 2009 (edited) Even buying a club like ours with blue sky potential and a fanatical core support and even if you factor in the global development of football as a product and brand, no investor will see any likely return for 5 years at least. That isn't the kind of investment people without other motives normally go for. Well exactly, the club simply can't be run as a business for at least a few years yet, that's why we need someone will very deep pockets willing to throw money at us. Edited August 4, 2009 by ewerk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted August 4, 2009 Share Posted August 4, 2009 Well the pay back term will have to be something to be negotiated, Ashley will have severe difficulty finding anyone willing to repay the £100m over a couple of years, in fact he'll have difficulty finding anyone willing to repay the entire loan at all I reckon. Agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted August 4, 2009 Share Posted August 4, 2009 A greedy bastard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted August 4, 2009 Share Posted August 4, 2009 Actually I find all that very hard to believe. Under Shepherd/Hall the debt and wage bill had become unsustainable, and all the income streams (sponsorship, future season ticket sales) had already been mortgaged Administration was a virtual certainty if a sale didn't go through By marrying the debt up to the shares Ashley has ensured that whoever next buys the club will buy it for its true net value and the debt will finally be "written off" I don't really understand the full ins and outs of it but we're in at least as bad a position including financially as I see it because of the position the first team is in and the subsequent impact on revenue surely. Also, given we aren't privvy to the facts surrounding the 'sale' it's difficult to assess it but the true net value of something surely relates to what people are willing to pay. Unless you know something I don't and a sale has been agreed / is imminent. There is no way we were going into administration any time soon under Hall and FFS as things stood. Eventually? Yes, without a doubt. And with the credit crunch? Possibly. But realistically Assley has done more damage than FFS and the Halls could have managed in another 5 years of burying their heads in the sand. What is worse is Assley hasn't even had the reasons FFS and the Halls had (but he still hasn't learn any fucking lessons - if we are relegated this season it is because Assley has made all the same fuckwit mistakes he made to get us relegated last season, again. ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUICE690 0 Posted August 4, 2009 Share Posted August 4, 2009 (edited) http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/nufc/newcas...72703-24310740/ As suspected I guess Edited August 4, 2009 by JUICE690 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 10858 Posted August 4, 2009 Share Posted August 4, 2009 At least Harris is back... that's got to be good news right? who am I kidding? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wykikitoon 20198 Posted August 4, 2009 Share Posted August 4, 2009 Im confused Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMoog 0 Posted August 4, 2009 Share Posted August 4, 2009 http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/nufc/newcas...72703-24310740/ As suspected I guess After reading that things still look pretty much as bleak as they always have done. Nothing's happening and we're still fucked - sickening - I'm sliding further towards the idea that Ashley's being spiteful now and trying to piss everyone off for his own amusement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trophyshy 7083 Posted August 4, 2009 Share Posted August 4, 2009 (edited) Im confused Ditto. This is the weirdest time in my life supporting this mob. It's like the whole circus has been comatosed by the Fat Ringleader who, himself, has been abducted by aliens. And the monkeys are revolting. Edited August 4, 2009 by trophyshy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maggiespaws 0 Posted August 4, 2009 Share Posted August 4, 2009 Correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm useless at remembering football facts, so I probably am) but in the end under FS; we were about £70-100m in debt (depending upon the sources you choose to read/believe) and a premiership club with some good players who needed a decent manager. Our wage bill was high and was barely sustainable as long as we finished mid table. Under MA we are £140m in debt, in the Championship, our best players are looking to (and need to) leave, we still need a decent manager and our wage bill is now totally unsustainable. We're financially better under MA how? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spongebob toonpants 3997 Posted August 4, 2009 Share Posted August 4, 2009 Correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm useless at remembering football facts, so I probably am) but in the end under FS; we were about £70-100m in debt (depending upon the sources you choose to read/believe) and a premiership club with some good players who needed a decent manager. Our wage bill was high and was barely sustainable as long as we finished mid table. Under MA we are £140m in debt, in the Championship, our best players are looking to (and need to) leave, we still need a decent manager and our wage bill is now totally unsustainable. We're financially better under MA how? I cant be arsed looking, but hasnt the wage bill increased by ~20 million a year under Ashley. It seems to be accepted wisdom that FFS was a useless businessman, and clueless with money. It seems to me that he understood that you had to grow turnover and generate income, and to my untrained eye actually seemed to this pretty succesfully. Plainly he got stuff badly wrong(Souness) and gambled unsucessfully(Owen, Luque) which had left us in a position that was far from ideal, but I have yet to be convinced we were seconds from administration. I would rather have his brand of failure than Ashleys brand of success for sure. And to be honest I think we would have fared better with administration, 10 point deduction and FS in charge than Ashleys moronic performance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trophyshy 7083 Posted August 4, 2009 Share Posted August 4, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMoog 0 Posted August 4, 2009 Share Posted August 4, 2009 Correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm useless at remembering football facts, so I probably am) but in the end under FS; we were about £70-100m in debt (depending upon the sources you choose to read/believe) and a premiership club with some good players who needed a decent manager. Our wage bill was high and was barely sustainable as long as we finished mid table. Under MA we are £140m in debt, in the Championship, our best players are looking to (and need to) leave, we still need a decent manager and our wage bill is now totally unsustainable. We're financially better under MA how? I cant be arsed looking, but hasnt the wage bill increased by ~20 million a year under Ashley. It seems to be accepted wisdom that FFS was a useless businessman, and clueless with money. It seems to me that he understood that you had to grow turnover and generate income, and to my untrained eye actually seemed to this pretty succesfully. Plainly he got stuff badly wrong(Souness) and gambled unsucessfully(Owen, Luque) which had left us in a position that was far from ideal, but I have yet to be convinced we were seconds from administration. I would rather have his brand of failure than Ashleys brand of success for sure. And to be honest I think we would have fared better with administration, 10 point deduction and FS in charge than Ashleys moronic performance Yep, that's how I see it too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maggiespaws 0 Posted August 4, 2009 Share Posted August 4, 2009 Correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm useless at remembering football facts, so I probably am) but in the end under FS; we were about £70-100m in debt (depending upon the sources you choose to read/believe) and a premiership club with some good players who needed a decent manager. Our wage bill was high and was barely sustainable as long as we finished mid table. Under MA we are £140m in debt, in the Championship, our best players are looking to (and need to) leave, we still need a decent manager and our wage bill is now totally unsustainable. We're financially better under MA how? I cant be arsed looking, but hasnt the wage bill increased by ~20 million a year under Ashley. It seems to be accepted wisdom that FFS was a useless businessman, and clueless with money. It seems to me that he understood that you had to grow turnover and generate income, and to my untrained eye actually seemed to this pretty succesfully. Plainly he got stuff badly wrong(Souness) and gambled unsucessfully(Owen, Luque) which had left us in a position that was far from ideal, but I have yet to be convinced we were seconds from administration. I would rather have his brand of failure than Ashleys brand of success for sure. And to be honest I think we would have fared better with administration, 10 point deduction and FS in charge than Ashleys moronic performance Firstly, I wasn't say saying one was better than the other; although FS looks better when viewed through MA tainted glasses. I don't know about the wage bill either. There's no doubting he's signed some players on big money, and we have probably gotten rid of a few but it's a resonable assumption that it's higher now than when he took over. All I was comparing are the facts we know about. I dont think we were seconds away from administration either; but if the reported figures are true (weren't they back up by the published accounts) we were on a slippery slope. When you compare our state immediately before MA took over to now, it seems we are more in debt than ever and we've been relegated. This means our current financial commitments are such that we cannot sustain ourselves and yet we still have some of the same problems we had when he took over 2 yrs ago, which were the same problems we'd had for the 3yrs prior to that. I was trying to work out just how we are financially better off under MA as has been proffered by others. Going off the hard facts, was are not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spongebob toonpants 3997 Posted August 4, 2009 Share Posted August 4, 2009 Correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm useless at remembering football facts, so I probably am) but in the end under FS; we were about £70-100m in debt (depending upon the sources you choose to read/believe) and a premiership club with some good players who needed a decent manager. Our wage bill was high and was barely sustainable as long as we finished mid table. Under MA we are £140m in debt, in the Championship, our best players are looking to (and need to) leave, we still need a decent manager and our wage bill is now totally unsustainable. We're financially better under MA how? I cant be arsed looking, but hasnt the wage bill increased by ~20 million a year under Ashley. It seems to be accepted wisdom that FFS was a useless businessman, and clueless with money. It seems to me that he understood that you had to grow turnover and generate income, and to my untrained eye actually seemed to this pretty succesfully. Plainly he got stuff badly wrong(Souness) and gambled unsucessfully(Owen, Luque) which had left us in a position that was far from ideal, but I have yet to be convinced we were seconds from administration. I would rather have his brand of failure than Ashleys brand of success for sure. And to be honest I think we would have fared better with administration, 10 point deduction and FS in charge than Ashleys moronic performance Firstly, I wasn't say saying one was better than the other; although FS looks better when viewed through MA tainted glasses. I don't know about the wage bill either. There's no doubting he's signed some players on big money, and we have probably gotten rid of a few but it's a resonable assumption that it's higher now than when he took over. All I was comparing are the facts we know about. I dont think we were seconds away from administration either; but if the reported figures are true (weren't they back up by the published accounts) we were on a slippery slope. When you compare our state immediately before MA took over to now, it seems we are more in debt than ever and we've been relegated. This means our current financial commitments are such that we cannot sustain ourselves and yet we still have some of the same problems we had when he took over 2 yrs ago, which were the same problems we'd had for the 3yrs prior to that. I was trying to work out just how we are financially better off under MA as has been proffered by others. Going off the hard facts, was are not. I was agreeing - the only possible improvement in the financial position under Ashley is he claims to have paid off the debt Whether that turns out to be true, and if true has actually been beneficial is yet to be seen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaser 1217 Posted August 4, 2009 Share Posted August 4, 2009 This farce has gone on far too long. Im surprised the FA havent got involved in this as its ruining the club day by day. Surely they cant just look on as a member of the football league just implodes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maggiespaws 0 Posted August 4, 2009 Share Posted August 4, 2009 Correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm useless at remembering football facts, so I probably am) but in the end under FS; we were about £70-100m in debt (depending upon the sources you choose to read/believe) and a premiership club with some good players who needed a decent manager. Our wage bill was high and was barely sustainable as long as we finished mid table. Under MA we are £140m in debt, in the Championship, our best players are looking to (and need to) leave, we still need a decent manager and our wage bill is now totally unsustainable. We're financially better under MA how? I cant be arsed looking, but hasnt the wage bill increased by ~20 million a year under Ashley. It seems to be accepted wisdom that FFS was a useless businessman, and clueless with money. It seems to me that he understood that you had to grow turnover and generate income, and to my untrained eye actually seemed to this pretty succesfully. Plainly he got stuff badly wrong(Souness) and gambled unsucessfully(Owen, Luque) which had left us in a position that was far from ideal, but I have yet to be convinced we were seconds from administration. I would rather have his brand of failure than Ashleys brand of success for sure. And to be honest I think we would have fared better with administration, 10 point deduction and FS in charge than Ashleys moronic performance Firstly, I wasn't say saying one was better than the other; although FS looks better when viewed through MA tainted glasses. I don't know about the wage bill either. There's no doubting he's signed some players on big money, and we have probably gotten rid of a few but it's a resonable assumption that it's higher now than when he took over. All I was comparing are the facts we know about. I dont think we were seconds away from administration either; but if the reported figures are true (weren't they back up by the published accounts) we were on a slippery slope. When you compare our state immediately before MA took over to now, it seems we are more in debt than ever and we've been relegated. This means our current financial commitments are such that we cannot sustain ourselves and yet we still have some of the same problems we had when he took over 2 yrs ago, which were the same problems we'd had for the 3yrs prior to that. I was trying to work out just how we are financially better off under MA as has been proffered by others. Going off the hard facts, was are not. I was agreeing - the only possible improvement in the financial position under Ashley is he claims to have paid off the debt Whether that turns out to be true, and if true has actually been beneficial is yet to be seen. I know you were My point was aimed primarily at those who feel we on a better financial footing under MA, as I don't think we are. MA claims to have paid off the debt - maybe he has in terms of the numerous debtors perhaps (although dont we still owe for some players?); however, he's merely transferred the debt to himself and he can dictate the repayment terms. The club is in debt, it owes the bank £40m or whatever in o/d etc but it's primary debtor is the owner. NUFC owe MA £100m. So by definition, the club is £140m in debt - which is more than we were under FS if I understand correctly. On top of that, we're in a worse position for the future as our wage bill cannot be subsidised/managed by PL status and monies because we were relegated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMoog 0 Posted August 4, 2009 Share Posted August 4, 2009 This farce has gone on far too long. Im surprised the FA havent got involved in this as its ruining the club day by day. Surely they cant just look on as a member of the football league just implodes? I must admit that thought did cross my mind but then what could they do? Sad times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trophyshy 7083 Posted August 4, 2009 Share Posted August 4, 2009 Do clubs pay a subscription to the FA? What, exactly, is the nature of the relationship? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 10858 Posted August 4, 2009 Share Posted August 4, 2009 To be honest, if they're being fed the same lines as us, I doubt that there is much they can do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Dynamite 7033 Posted August 4, 2009 Share Posted August 4, 2009 The cold hard facts are: Ashley wants £100million for the club, £100million back that he loaned the club, and we owe £40million to the bank. You could buy all but 4 or 5 premierleague clubs for less than half of that so who in their right fucking mind is going to pay £240million for a Championship club with no manager, no decent players and a season of negative equity looming!? Its fucking crazy, hed have a job on giving the club away at the minute! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnthebrief 0 Posted August 4, 2009 Share Posted August 4, 2009 The cold hard facts are: Ashley wants £100million for the club, £100million back that he loaned the club, and we owe £40million to the bank. You could buy all but 4 or 5 premierleague clubs for less than half of that so who in their right fucking mind is going to pay £240million for a Championship club with no manager, no decent players and a season of negative equity looming!? Its fucking crazy, hed have a job on giving the club away at the minute! Good analysis A pertinent point precisely posited Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted August 4, 2009 Share Posted August 4, 2009 The cold hard facts are: Ashley wants £100million for the club, £100million back that he loaned the club, and we owe £40million to the bank. You could buy all but 4 or 5 premierleague clubs for less than half of that so who in their right fucking mind is going to pay £240million for a Championship club with no manager, no decent players and a season of negative equity looming!? Its fucking crazy, hed have a job on giving the club away at the minute! Good analysis A pertinent point precisely posited I thought we were better off (in a financial sense) though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 10858 Posted August 4, 2009 Share Posted August 4, 2009 Thing is, Ashley must see that the value of the club is only ever going to go down. He'd be better off taking a hit now and selling the club for £40m say, rather than hope some idiot billionaire is going to come in a bail him out. He should know that he's pretty much a breed apart as Billionaires go. (Is he still a Billionaire?) 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