Old Board vs New Board

[Guest]

We are in 3 times as much debt as we were when Ashley bought the club (the source cant get much better, its the club itself), our turnover is probably half of what it was when Ashley bought the club, our standing in world football is probably a tenth of what it was when Ashley bought the club an d Id agree before you shout, that it was on the decline before Ashley but hes accelerated that decline.

 

I must be as thick as you say Leazes is because I cant for the life of me understand how its better to be £180m in debt than it is to be £60m. You keep talking about it being better to owe £60 and operate at a £10p/w profit than owe £20 and run at a loss. That would be all well and good if we were operating at a profit but we're not we haemorrage money. The only way to start operating at a profit is to make our incomings greater than our outgoings. Now that hes slashed the wage bill, sacked loads of hard working loyal staff and cut costs left right and centre then whats next? We're still running at a loss, we dont even have a Matchday sponsor and half the billboards around the ground are advertising Sports Direct so we're not bringing in revenue from those.

 

 

Article posted t'other day in this thread claims we'll be profitable next season if we stay up, I suppose yourself and Leazes know better though

Edited September 16, 2010 by AshleysSkidMark

[LeazesMag 0]

We are in 3 times as much debt as we were when Ashley bought the club (the source cant get much better, its the club itself), our turnover is probably half of what it was when Ashley bought the club, our standing in world football is probably a tenth of what it was when Ashley bought the club an d Id agree before you shout, that it was on the decline before Ashley but hes accelerated that decline.

 

I must be as thick as you say Leazes is because I cant for the life of me understand how its better to be £180m in debt than it is to be £60m. You keep talking about it being better to owe £60 and operate at a £10p/w profit than owe £20 and run at a loss. That would be all well and good if we were operating at a profit but we're not we haemorrage money. The only way to start operating at a profit is to make our incomings greater than our outgoings. Now that hes slashed the wage bill, sacked loads of hard working loyal staff and cut costs left right and centre then whats next? We're still running at a loss, we dont even have a Matchday sponsor and half the billboards around the ground are advertising Sports Direct so we're not bringing in revenue from those.

 

 

Article posted t'other day in this thread claims we'll be profitable next season if we stay up, I suppose yourself and Leazes know better though

 

you're so gullible it's unbelievable

[Guest]

We are in 3 times as much debt as we were when Ashley bought the club (the source cant get much better, its the club itself), our turnover is probably half of what it was when Ashley bought the club, our standing in world football is probably a tenth of what it was when Ashley bought the club an d Id agree before you shout, that it was on the decline before Ashley but hes accelerated that decline.

 

I must be as thick as you say Leazes is because I cant for the life of me understand how its better to be £180m in debt than it is to be £60m. You keep talking about it being better to owe £60 and operate at a £10p/w profit than owe £20 and run at a loss. That would be all well and good if we were operating at a profit but we're not we haemorrage money. The only way to start operating at a profit is to make our incomings greater than our outgoings. Now that hes slashed the wage bill, sacked loads of hard working loyal staff and cut costs left right and centre then whats next? We're still running at a loss, we dont even have a Matchday sponsor and half the billboards around the ground are advertising Sports Direct so we're not bringing in revenue from those.

 

 

Article posted t'other day in this thread claims we'll be profitable next season if we stay up, I suppose yourself and Leazes know better though

 

you're so gullible it's unbelievable

 

 

The media are lying to us.

 

Everythings well, Keegan and Wise aren't at war

 

 

Arsehole.

[LeazesMag 0]

We are in 3 times as much debt as we were when Ashley bought the club (the source cant get much better, its the club itself), our turnover is probably half of what it was when Ashley bought the club, our standing in world football is probably a tenth of what it was when Ashley bought the club an d Id agree before you shout, that it was on the decline before Ashley but hes accelerated that decline.

 

I must be as thick as you say Leazes is because I cant for the life of me understand how its better to be £180m in debt than it is to be £60m. You keep talking about it being better to owe £60 and operate at a £10p/w profit than owe £20 and run at a loss. That would be all well and good if we were operating at a profit but we're not we haemorrage money. The only way to start operating at a profit is to make our incomings greater than our outgoings. Now that hes slashed the wage bill, sacked loads of hard working loyal staff and cut costs left right and centre then whats next? We're still running at a loss, we dont even have a Matchday sponsor and half the billboards around the ground are advertising Sports Direct so we're not bringing in revenue from those.

 

 

Article posted t'other day in this thread claims we'll be profitable next season if we stay up, I suppose yourself and Leazes know better though

 

you're so gullible it's unbelievable

 

 

The media are lying to us.

 

Everythings well, Keegan and Wise aren't at war

 

 

Arsehole.

 

HE WON'T INVEST IT IN PLAYERS, DUMMY, EVEN IF THEY DO "MAKE A PROFIT". The crowds will be 10,000 less than now if we are at the foot of the table and that will only be the start.

 

Fuckin hell.

[Guest]

We are in 3 times as much debt as we were when Ashley bought the club (the source cant get much better, its the club itself), our turnover is probably half of what it was when Ashley bought the club, our standing in world football is probably a tenth of what it was when Ashley bought the club an d Id agree before you shout, that it was on the decline before Ashley but hes accelerated that decline.

 

I must be as thick as you say Leazes is because I cant for the life of me understand how its better to be £180m in debt than it is to be £60m. You keep talking about it being better to owe £60 and operate at a £10p/w profit than owe £20 and run at a loss. That would be all well and good if we were operating at a profit but we're not we haemorrage money. The only way to start operating at a profit is to make our incomings greater than our outgoings. Now that hes slashed the wage bill, sacked loads of hard working loyal staff and cut costs left right and centre then whats next? We're still running at a loss, we dont even have a Matchday sponsor and half the billboards around the ground are advertising Sports Direct so we're not bringing in revenue from those.

 

 

Article posted t'other day in this thread claims we'll be profitable next season if we stay up, I suppose yourself and Leazes know better though

 

you're so gullible it's unbelievable

 

 

The media are lying to us.

 

Everythings well, Keegan and Wise aren't at war

 

 

Arsehole.

 

HE WON'T INVEST IT IN PLAYERS, DUMMY, EVEN IF THEY DO "MAKE A PROFIT". The crowds will be 10,000 less than now if we are at the foot of the table and that will only be the start.

 

Fuckin hell.

 

 

Where did I say he would?

[Guest]

You're arguing with yourself mate

[Phil 6]

I don't give a shit about a miniscule amount for a warehouse when he backs his managers with enough money to put together teams to qualify for the Champions League and increase the clubs revenue and profile while doing it.

 

 

What about him backing Souness to rip apart that team, where does that fit into your bromance?

[Guest]

I don't give a shit about a miniscule amount for a warehouse when he backs his managers with enough money to put together teams to qualify for the Champions League and increase the clubs revenue and profile while doing it.

 

 

What about him backing Souness to rip apart that team, where does that fit into your bromance?

 

 

I'll answer for him.

 

Souness won the Scottish league, he was a good appointment. I think he won a league cup once too

[Kitman 2204]

I don't give a shit about a miniscule amount for a warehouse when he backs his managers with enough money to put together teams to qualify for the Champions League and increase the clubs revenue and profile while doing it.

 

 

What about him backing Souness to rip apart that team, where does that fit into your bromance?

 

 

I'll answer for him.

 

Souness won the Scottish league, he was a good appointment. I think he won a league cup once too

 

Whereas Joe Kinnear was a tip top appointment because he won, errr......

[Guest]

I don't give a shit about a miniscule amount for a warehouse when he backs his managers with enough money to put together teams to qualify for the Champions League and increase the clubs revenue and profile while doing it.

 

 

What about him backing Souness to rip apart that team, where does that fit into your bromance?

 

 

I'll answer for him.

 

Souness won the Scottish league, he was a good appointment. I think he won a league cup once too

 

Whereas Joe Kinnear was a tip top appointment because he won, errr......

 

As much as Roeder.

[Gejon 2]

That sig

[Phil 6]

I don't give a shit about a miniscule amount for a warehouse when he backs his managers with enough money to put together teams to qualify for the Champions League and increase the clubs revenue and profile while doing it.

 

 

What about him backing Souness to rip apart that team, where does that fit into your bromance?

 

 

I'll answer for him.

 

Souness won the Scottish league, he was a good appointment. I think he won a league cup once too

 

Whereas Joe Kinnear was a tip top appointment because he won, errr......

 

JFK was Ashley's Plan Z. Souness was Fred's Plan A.

[Park Life 71]

The things here is that both sides of the case have merit. There was a time when finance was cheap and easy coming (which in turn made quality players more expensive) and now there is a case for tightening belts and smelling the coffee. There was only really one bad manegerial apppointment that did most of the damage, which at the tail end was exacerbated by the KK fiasco. Also it's no good saying Mort and FSam bought some of the duds, cause Mort was MA call (a lawyer with no football experience).

[OTF 7243]

We are in 3 times as much debt as we were when Ashley bought the club (the source cant get much better, its the club itself), our turnover is probably half of what it was when Ashley bought the club, our standing in world football is probably a tenth of what it was when Ashley bought the club an d Id agree before you shout, that it was on the decline before Ashley but hes accelerated that decline.

 

I'm genuinely interested in seeing the source stating that we're in 3 times as much debt as we were in June 2007. Are we now in £180m debt? So in June 2007 we were in only £60m debt? Is £100m of our debt interest free and owed to Ashley himself?

 

I thought the general concensus was that the club was £100m in debt when Ashley bought it? So instead of the debt tripling it has increased by 60%. Certainly not a good thing, but an increase of £80m is not as bad as an increase of £120m, and is quantifiable by virtue of the relegation. If you compare this season to 2007 & 2008 I would say that our wage bill would be a much lower percentage of our turn-over. Our turnover may be lower, but the decrease in corporate revenue may be slightly balanced by the increase in television revenue.

 

Ashley revealed that the debt he inherited at Newcastle was £100m but said that the speed of the purchase meant: "There was no time to do the usual due diligence on the deal because I had to move so quickly.

 

"So I paid £140m for the club with the expectation that there was a debt of £70m. Actually it was around £100m so there was suddenly an extra £30m to find. But I just thought: 'Shut up about it'. I'm a big boy and I didn't cry.

 

"To me the real issue was this: Was the debt bigger than I thought? Yes. Would I have changed my mind if I'd known the full extent of the debt? Not one iota.

 

"It might have been a different story if I had needed to go to the bank to borrow the money but I didn't. I have my own money and anyway, I tend to live by the saying you can't take it with you."

 

 

I'm not defending anyone here just wanting to get a full picture.

 

 

I must be as thick as you say Leazes is because I cant for the life of me understand how its better to be £180m in debt than it is to be £60m. You keep talking about it being better to owe £60 and operate at a £10p/w profit than owe £20 and run at a loss. That would be all well and good if we were operating at a profit but we're not we haemorrage money. The only way to start operating at a profit is to make our incomings greater than our outgoings. Now that hes slashed the wage bill, sacked loads of hard working loyal staff and cut costs left right and centre then whats next? We're still running at a loss, we dont even have a Matchday sponsor and half the billboards around the ground are advertising Sports Direct so we're not bringing in revenue from those.

 

Given those actions that were taken, how do you think we can start to operate at a profit? The difference in winnings according to the position on the league table is very small. I guess the only way would be to improve the corporate revenue. Performances on the pitch may go a large way towards doing that, but given the changes in the financial climate it's to be expected that there would be a shortfall in that area by comparison to 2007-2008 and before.

 

You have to have questions about other clubs in the league - are they operating at a profit? If so how?

[sammynb 3342]

We are in 3 times as much debt as we were when Ashley bought the club (the source cant get much better, its the club itself), our turnover is probably half of what it was when Ashley bought the club, our standing in world football is probably a tenth of what it was when Ashley bought the club an d Id agree before you shout, that it was on the decline before Ashley but hes accelerated that decline.

 

I'm genuinely interested in seeing the source stating that we're in 3 times as much debt as we were in June 2007. Are we now in £180m debt? So in June 2007 we were in only £60m debt? Is £100m of our debt interest free and owed to Ashley himself?

 

I thought the general concensus was that the club was £100m in debt when Ashley bought it?

 

Isn't the biggest issue that the majority of the club's debt was for the redevelopment of SJP and that it was financed on easy to manage terms for the previous board but once twat face Ashley bought the club it was repayable immediately?

TBH, Ashley has no one else to blame than himself - the stupid cunt should have completed a thorough due diligence instead of bumbling his way into town as the new sheriff, here to save the day. Fuck I hate what he's done to the club

[OTF 7243]

We are in 3 times as much debt as we were when Ashley bought the club (the source cant get much better, its the club itself), our turnover is probably half of what it was when Ashley bought the club, our standing in world football is probably a tenth of what it was when Ashley bought the club an d Id agree before you shout, that it was on the decline before Ashley but hes accelerated that decline.

 

I'm genuinely interested in seeing the source stating that we're in 3 times as much debt as we were in June 2007. Are we now in £180m debt? So in June 2007 we were in only £60m debt? Is £100m of our debt interest free and owed to Ashley himself?

 

I thought the general concensus was that the club was £100m in debt when Ashley bought it?

 

Isn't the biggest issue that the majority of the club's debt was for the redevelopment of SJP and that it was financed on easy to manage terms for the previous board but once twat face Ashley bought the club it was repayable immediately?

TBH, Ashley has no one else to blame than himself - the stupid cunt should have completed a thorough due diligence instead of bumbling his way into town as the new sheriff, here to save the day. Fuck I hate what he's done to the club

 

I think prior to Ashley the club was tenuously balanced near enough the edge of a cliff face. Ashley, by virtue of incompetence not only pushed us over edge but did so with such gusto that we didn't come to a stop for some time. What would have happened if Ashley hadn't bought the club? Noone knows, but the mere fact that he was able to do so with such ease, particularly given his apparent lack of professionalism to me is a huge marker that the current owners wanted out.

 

The redevelopment of SJP wasn't greater than £100m so it doesn't really matter given that £100m is the apparent figure than the club owes to Mike Ashley that is not being charged interest on. However good the finance for the redevelopment was, it wasn't 0%. Perhaps that is the mystery £30m that Ashley was not aware of when he purchased the club - the initial redevelopment costs were £42m in 2000 so it's feasible that there could still have been £30m owing some 7 years later.

 

I still want to see peaspud's response to my post BTW.

[Guest]

We are in 3 times as much debt as we were when Ashley bought the club (the source cant get much better, its the club itself), our turnover is probably half of what it was when Ashley bought the club, our standing in world football is probably a tenth of what it was when Ashley bought the club an d Id agree before you shout, that it was on the decline before Ashley but hes accelerated that decline.

 

I'm genuinely interested in seeing the source stating that we're in 3 times as much debt as we were in June 2007. Are we now in £180m debt? So in June 2007 we were in only £60m debt? Is £100m of our debt interest free and owed to Ashley himself?

 

I thought the general concensus was that the club was £100m in debt when Ashley bought it?

 

Isn't the biggest issue that the majority of the club's debt was for the redevelopment of SJP and that it was financed on easy to manage terms for the previous board but once twat face Ashley bought the club it was repayable immediately?

TBH, Ashley has no one else to blame than himself - the stupid cunt should have completed a thorough due diligence instead of bumbling his way into town as the new sheriff, here to save the day. Fuck I hate what he's done to the club

 

I think prior to Ashley the club was tenuously balanced near enough the edge of a cliff face. Ashley, by virtue of incompetence not only pushed us over edge but did so with such gusto that we didn't come to a stop for some time. What would have happened if Ashley hadn't bought the club? Noone knows, but the mere fact that he was able to do so with such ease, particularly given his apparent lack of professionalism to me is a huge marker that the current owners wanted out.

 

The redevelopment of SJP wasn't greater than £100m so it doesn't really matter given that £100m is the apparent figure than the club owes to Mike Ashley that is not being charged interest on. However good the finance for the redevelopment was, it wasn't 0%. Perhaps that is the mystery £30m that Ashley was not aware of when he purchased the club - the initial redevelopment costs were £42m in 2000 so it's feasible that there could still have been £30m owing some 7 years later.

 

I still want to see peaspud's response to my post BTW.

 

So do I mate. I find it amusing that you're not interested in Leazes' view on the subject Any reason why?

[Renton 21224]

We are in 3 times as much debt as we were when Ashley bought the club (the source cant get much better, its the club itself), our turnover is probably half of what it was when Ashley bought the club, our standing in world football is probably a tenth of what it was when Ashley bought the club an d Id agree before you shout, that it was on the decline before Ashley but hes accelerated that decline.

 

I must be as thick as you say Leazes is because I cant for the life of me understand how its better to be £180m in debt than it is to be £60m. You keep talking about it being better to owe £60 and operate at a £10p/w profit than owe £20 and run at a loss. That would be all well and good if we were operating at a profit but we're not we haemorrage money. The only way to start operating at a profit is to make our incomings greater than our outgoings. Now that hes slashed the wage bill, sacked loads of hard working loyal staff and cut costs left right and centre then whats next? We're still running at a loss, we dont even have a Matchday sponsor and half the billboards around the ground are advertising Sports Direct so we're not bringing in revenue from those.

 

I'm probably being thick as mince here but didn't the debt effectively come from the over-evaluation of the club? So basically the Shepherds and Halls made enormous profits from the club over and above the decade of unjustified salaries and dividends they paid themselves?

 

I suppose that I'll have to add the mandatory disclaimer that I in no way, shape, or form am I definding Ashley of course.

Edited September 17, 2010 by Renton

[Park Life 71]

We are in 3 times as much debt as we were when Ashley bought the club (the source cant get much better, its the club itself), our turnover is probably half of what it was when Ashley bought the club, our standing in world football is probably a tenth of what it was when Ashley bought the club an d Id agree before you shout, that it was on the decline before Ashley but hes accelerated that decline.

 

I must be as thick as you say Leazes is because I cant for the life of me understand how its better to be £180m in debt than it is to be £60m. You keep talking about it being better to owe £60 and operate at a £10p/w profit than owe £20 and run at a loss. That would be all well and good if we were operating at a profit but we're not we haemorrage money. The only way to start operating at a profit is to make our incomings greater than our outgoings. Now that hes slashed the wage bill, sacked loads of hard working loyal staff and cut costs left right and centre then whats next? We're still running at a loss, we dont even have a Matchday sponsor and half the billboards around the ground are advertising Sports Direct so we're not bringing in revenue from those.

 

I'm probably being thick as mince here but didn't the debt effectively come from the over-evaluation of the club? So basically the Shepherds and Halls made enormous profits from the club over and above the decade of unjustified salaries and dividends they paid themselves?

 

I suppose that I'll have to add the mandatory disclaimer that I in no way, shape, or form am I definding Ashley of course.

 

Shouldn't get messed up in this one Renty it's the blind leading the dead.

[peasepud 59]

I still want to see peaspud's response to my post BTW.

 

So do I mate.

 

This post?

 

Given those actions that were taken, how do you think we can start to operate at a profit? The difference in winnings according to the position on the league table is very small. I guess the only way would be to improve the corporate revenue. Performances on the pitch may go a large way towards doing that, but given the changes in the financial climate it's to be expected that there would be a shortfall in that area by comparison to 2007-2008 and before.

Theres two things need to be done to get us operating at a profit:

 

Firstly we need to get the advertisers and corporate sponsors back on board and the only way to do that is to give them a team that their clients will want to come and see. What you have to remember is neither of those entities have any real affiliation to the club, they are using a football team as a means to get their name out to the widest audience and/or entertain potential clients. The day we were relegated a number of corporate sponsors will have moved 10 miles down the road. What sounds better to a potential multi-million pound client "today we're taking you to see the local team play Manchester United" or "today we thought we'd treat you to the wonder of Stockport". Once they've moved and got their box with the scum then its going to be hard to get them back unless the reverse happens or we make them an offer too good to refuse but while theres the threat of relegation then they'll not want the hassle.

 

Secondly is merchandising, sales of the famous black and white stripes across the world, sales in Newcastle would not have dropped by hugely significant numbers if they had given us a shirt of the Adidas quality but as it stands some have been lost through that. Worldwide though and we've been hit heavily by the shite thats gone on. No longer are we everyones second team or the entertainers, we no longer have players the calibre of Shearer that make kids up and down the country want to replicate being them in the playground by pulling on the shirt. Same goes for abroad, its players that sell shirts to the Japanese and Africans not clubs. Man U shirts are embalzoned with Rooney (especially in Thailand ) while numerous kids in Tokyo wear LA Galaxy shirts purely for the word Beckham.

 

Have a successful team and you sell shirts, mugs, calendars, posters, branded bog roll, you name it they'll buy it. You tie up sponsorship deals with Asian network tv to launch your own channel etc etc.

 

Contrary to what you may think Im in no way a Shepherd lover, I danced a fucking jig the day Ashley took over and berated Leazes about it but I can clearly see the gulf between him and the current lot. Shepherd knew how to maximise the assets we had, yes it went to shit but not because of off the field business decisions.

[OTF 7243]

That post, yes. But more so the first part of it in relation to the club being in three times the debt that we were when Mike Ashley took over.

 

All good points you have raised above, however like I said I was mainly wanting a response to the first part of my post.

[Guest]

That post, yes. But more so the first part of it in relation to the club being in three times the debt that we were when Mike Ashley took over.

 

All good points you have raised above, however like I said I was mainly wanting a response to the first part of my post.

 

So do i

[peasepud 59]

Firstly, the club had £69m debt at the end of the 06/07 season, more importantly though they were one of only 8 Premiership clubs to make a profit (£6.8m) so Im a little lost as to where this "club in the shit before Ashley" line ever comes from.

 

Ashley reckoned that he lent the club £111m on taking over to "pay some of the debt off, not all of it but some". How is that when the season before we had £69m? where did the other £42m magically appear from?

 

So anyway in 07/08 we were £111m and near the start of the 08/09 season we were told that MA was covering the losses of half a million per week so that equates to £26m putting us £137m in debt however there was also a £30m overdraft on top of the Ashley debt so by my reckoning we were £167m in debt at the end of 08/09 we then lost £30m through relegation putting us almost £200m in debt. We clearly lost money last season but then got promoted and a statement was made that we'd cleared £25m of debt through that so I reckon conservatively we're £180m+ in debt at this point in time.

 

SO..back to my question, how can we say that we were in the shit when we were only one of 8 clubs to make a profit?

[Guest]

Firstly, the club had £69m debt at the end of the 06/07 season, more importantly though they were one of only 8 Premiership clubs to make a profit (£6.8m) so Im a little lost as to where this "club in the shit before Ashley" line ever comes from.

 

Ashley reckoned that he lent the club £111m on taking over to "pay some of the debt off, not all of it but some". How is that when the season before we had £69m? where did the other £42m magically appear from?

 

So anyway in 07/08 we were £111m and near the start of the 08/09 season we were told that MA was covering the losses of half a million per week so that equates to £26m putting us £137m in debt however there was also a £30m overdraft on top of the Ashley debt so by my reckoning we were £167m in debt at the end of 08/09 we then lost £30m through relegation putting us almost £200m in debt. We clearly lost money last season but then got promoted and a statement was made that we'd cleared £25m of debt through that so I reckon conservatively we're £180m+ in debt at this point in time.

 

SO..back to my question, how can we say that we were in the shit when we were only one of 8 clubs to make a profit?

 

 

Apart from the headline, that article has nothing about us making a profit What a load of fuckin' bollocks.

[Guest]

Oh wait, you linked to the 2nd page of the article. Useless cunt