Will he stay or will he go?

[PaddockLad 17660]

I know Football Manager is NOT an accurate comparison but on the new update is has us owing FMA 135mil repayable once profitable.

 

That figure probably is about right given the 100mil he loaned us and then the money pumped in to keep us afloat last year.

 

I just wonder if any of the sponsorship money and TV many has been used to pay off some of our other oustanding debt from the previous regime?

 

The club itself has to be worth less than what it was when he bought it. The squad is certainly worth less and our reputation has declined what with a year in the CC and no european football in a few years.

 

Thats how much he paid the Hall's and Shepherd for their shares in 2007, which made the club hugely overpriced.

 

Now how much has he put in since then?

 

Never played any online management game but it doesn't appear to be very accurate from what you've said there.

 

Don't believe the spin, Ashley got the club for a fair price, which took all the debt into consideration. The ground alone is worth 300m.

 

Ashley messed up by not knowing the mortgage (around £50m) was repayable straight away when the club was sold.

 

So how much did he pay then Phil?....we were a PLC then, the price would have to have been disclosed to the stock market.

 

Anyone else want to take a guess at how much he'll want for the club so he can make his money back? For me, that figure is high and is going to be the biggest obstacle to the club moving forward in the short,medium and long term.

[Guest Your Name Here]

I dont think he is takin the piss as such.

 

He wants to break even and run at a profit and he is well on his way to doing that. Thats not a bad thing but we wont see much ambition when this plan is in operation.

 

In the long run it is good for the club what he is doing. Putting us on a very strong financial footing but its mid-table obscurity whilst he's here.

Club still owes him money doesn't it?

 

I think it's more than that, he won't sell because the advertising value we add to his shitty stack it high company is worth more than people give it credit.

When 16 year old kids I coach in Australia talk about buying stuff from SportsDirect.com you know there is a bigger purpose to his owning Newcastle - by the way they all think I'm a fucking loony supporting the toon but if they can buy a pair of boots cheaper from the fcb then they don't care.

Just think what the top 6 clubs get for their shirt/stadium sponsor and realise that cunt Ashley is getting the equal for an undisclosed sum, which could be anything from nowt to 10m quid (but you know it's not), no one has said and it's not their on the books - so you have to wonder.

It’s hard to put a figure on the value of advertising SD get on the back of NUFC but it must be worth a lot of money. Their logo is all over the ground, on the electronic advertising hoarding, in the atrium, on the roof, on the pitch pre-kick off and prominently displayed on the post match interview back drop. And of course the ground is now sort of known as SJP@Sportsdirect.com. The value of a package like that on the open market must be at least £5m a season.

 

What’s often overlooked is the companies who take out sponsorship deals with PL clubs only do so because they expect the exposure to generate more money than the value of the deal. For example, if the pay £5m a year for a shirt sponsorship they’ll be expecting the increased sales of whatever product they are flogging to be worth significantly more than this. Giving away the clubs commercial assets to SD for peanuts wouldn't be good for the club, but as a major shareholder in SD it wouldn't necessarily be bad news for FMA. Not that we know for certain he is giving these assets away for next to nowt, but the absence of any figures says a lot. I can’t think of another club that doesn’t publicise how much money their major sponsorship deals bring in.

 

So, after that long winded preamble, I reckon FMA will be looking for £135m (what he paid for the cub) + £150m (roughly how much he has lent the club if various claims made by Mort and Lambias are to be believed) +£100m (a guess at how much the advertising is worth to SD over a five year period). Giving a sale price in excess of £350m... or in other words, more than anyone will be prepared to pay.

Edited March 20, 2011 by Your Name Here

[Craig 6700]

He'll still be here sadly. The tanglible value of the club and it's assets are considerably lower than when he took over 4 years ago. Some of that is his fault, others are matters that have been beyond even his control.

 

He clearly wants to recoup his losses but that'll mean someone coming in and paying way over the odds for the club which simply isn't going to happen.

 

As for this summer being HUGE for our club, it's been huge ever since the transfer windows were intoduced. Even before Ashley's time.

[Craig 6700]

The ground alone is worth 300m.

 

The ground is owned by the city council, not Ashley.

[Matt 0]

Ashley bought us on an adrenaline wave after the Sports Direct IPO and as a result massively overpaid for the club. He's in good company, there are a lot of investors who, in the cold light of day, now know they did likewise for all kinds of businesses. The question will be whether Ashley would be rational about this and consider an offer based on the true merits of the club's operations or whether he we fall into the trap of 'loss-aversion' with his pride unable to let him consider anything that could, on paper, be considered as a loss. It's hard to imagine what goes on inside his head, but I can't help but suspect the latter.

 

Regarding asking price, he overpaid IMO as the share price didn't really reflect the worsening cash position. With high-earners on long contracts, he could have picked the club up much cheaper in 6-8 months later on.

 

SJP is worth virtually nothing without a functioning football club, so in no way can you attach a valuation of £300m to it.

 

For all the rules proposed on debt in football, at Liverpool's debt-laden structure forced out poor owners. We just have to live with ours.

[Matt 0]

Also, on the SD advertising, this should be disclosed in the financials under 'Related Party Transactions'.

[Deano 0]

So with all that said, and it makes perfect sense that a figure of over and above 300mil is what he would be looking for, we wont be sold in the forseeable future.

 

Looks like he will stay on for another 5 years...didnt he say the club would be running at a profit in 3 years?

 

We will spend little, sell players at a profit...speeding up the plan. He will then make the money he lent the club back once profitable.

 

And then sell the club with it being debt free and on a very strong financial footing. But where will we be then in terms or league position and stature?

 

Its not a bad plan but it means years of mediocrity and frustration....but maybe this is the mangitude of the hole the last regime left us in?

 

At the same time he is using us for free advertising to increase his own wealth from SD.

[orioncards 0]

Also, on the SD advertising, this should be disclosed in the financials under 'Related Party Transactions'.

 

 

It should be but do you think he really pays to have SD plastered everywhere? I doubt it but who knows. Some will say it is his club so he is entitled to advertise his other business. I just think it looks tacky - don't mind the advertising boards but to have it on the stand roof, on chairs in the dugout, incorporated in the stadium name and pretty much anywhere there is a free space is over the top.

[Deano 0]

Also, on the SD advertising, this should be disclosed in the financials under 'Related Party Transactions'.

 

 

It should be but do you think he really pays to have SD plastered everywhere? I doubt it but who knows. Some will say it is his club so he is entitled to advertise his other business. I just think it looks tacky - don't mind the advertising boards but to have it on the stand roof, on chairs in the dugout, incorporated in the stadium name and pretty much anywhere there is a free space is over the top.

 

The idiology of it all is a good one. Its the fact it is SD and related to FMA which irks people.

 

Should it be a worldwide company who would pay the club for the advertising package then i wouldnt mind.

Edited March 20, 2011 by Tioté's Nutz

[Matt 0]

I will defer to any accontants on here, but I think you need to disclose based on what would have been paid by a non-related party, whether any cash changed hands or not (and I suspect not).

[orioncards 0]

Also, on the SD advertising, this should be disclosed in the financials under 'Related Party Transactions'.

 

 

It should be but do you think he really pays to have SD plastered everywhere? I doubt it but who knows. Some will say it is his club so he is entitled to advertise his other business. I just think it looks tacky - don't mind the advertising boards but to have it on the stand roof, on chairs in the dugout, incorporated in the stadium name and pretty much anywhere there is a free space is over the top.

 

The idiology of it all is a good one. Its the fact it is SD and related to FMA which irks people.

 

Should it be a worldwide company who would pay the club for the advertising package then i wouldnt mind.

 

 

I agree with that if the club was seeing some benefit from it then I'm all for it but Ashley is that tight he is not going to be paying for all of that or if he is it will be peanuts. I just feel sick everytime I see that horrible SD logo everywhere

[Deano 0]

Also, on the SD advertising, this should be disclosed in the financials under 'Related Party Transactions'.

 

 

It should be but do you think he really pays to have SD plastered everywhere? I doubt it but who knows. Some will say it is his club so he is entitled to advertise his other business. I just think it looks tacky - don't mind the advertising boards but to have it on the stand roof, on chairs in the dugout, incorporated in the stadium name and pretty much anywhere there is a free space is over the top.

 

The idiology of it all is a good one. Its the fact it is SD and related to FMA which irks people.

 

Should it be a worldwide company who would pay the club for the advertising package then i wouldnt mind.

 

 

I agree with that if the club was seeing some benefit from it then I'm all for it but Ashley is that tight he is not going to be paying for all of that or if he is it will be peanuts. I just feel sick everytime I see that horrible SD logo everywhere

 

If it was some huge insurance company like Zurich or Aviva who had the advertising package the club would see a huge financial benefit. FMA is just using SD as an example to his own benefit.

 

It is sickening.

[Asprilla 96]

The sponsorship value is pretty much the sole reason he bought us.

 

 

His business (SD) is doing well again, he pretty much wants to keep us stable without investing much.

 

Sad really cause I think ultimately he'd do even better with SD if we were challenging for stuff.

[plausibledenial 0]

Ashley will remain ..until hes squeezed every last penny he can out of this club ....

[Deano 0]

Ashley will remain ..until hes squeezed every last penny he can out of this club ....

 

Please on behalf of all the people who keep saying this....tell me what money he has taken out of the club so far?

[ChezGiven 0]

Imo the accounts will show SD paid the Market rate for sponsorship. Why would Ashley allow a financially strong entity to not pay a financially weaker entity? Doesn't make financial sense to me.

[Deano 0]

Imo the accounts will show SD paid the Market rate for sponsorship. Why would Ashley allow a financially strong entity to not pay a financially weaker entity? Doesn't make financial sense to me.

 

I dont understand?

 

You saying that he would HAVE to of paid NUFC for SD's advertising?

[Phil 6]

The ground alone is worth 300m.

 

The ground is owned by the city council, not Ashley.

 

I meant the stadium.

[ChezGiven 0]

Imo the accounts will show SD paid the Market rate for sponsorship. Why would Ashley allow a financially strong entity to not pay a financially weaker entity? Doesn't make financial sense to me.

 

I dont understand?

 

You saying that he would HAVE to of paid NUFC for SD's advertising?

 

Doesnt have to but why waste the opportunity to distribute wealth between the businesses? By not charging anything, he strengthens SD which is already strong and weakens NUFC which he apparently has to subsidise. Would make no sense to pass on the opportunity.

[Gemmill 46034]

Imo the accounts will show SD paid the Market rate for sponsorship. Why would Ashley allow a financially strong entity to not pay a financially weaker entity? Doesn't make financial sense to me.

 

I dont understand?

 

You saying that he would HAVE to of paid NUFC for SD's advertising?

 

Doesnt have to but why waste the opportunity to distribute wealth between the businesses? By not charging anything, he strengthens SD which is already strong and weakens NUFC which he apparently has to subsidise. Would make no sense to pass on the opportunity.

 

There's probably even an argument for NUFC overcharging SD for advertising, from a corporation tax perspective. NUFC don't pay tax as they're loss-making.

[Jusoda Kid 1]

Either way we wont see that 35 million spent

 

It really depends on what his actual intentions are doesnt it?

 

If he is willing to sell then no he wont spend a great deal.

 

If he does actually want to stay then he will HAVE to spend in and around that figure.

 

This summer is HUGE for our club.

 

He doesn't have to do anything, we didn't think he'd force Carroll out but he did, the man clearly doesn't give a fuck about upsetting the fans.

 

What will the fans do? SFA The same as what they've done already, continue to turn up and line his pockets while he sits laughing his cock off.

[Matt 0]

Also, he owns 100% of NUFC and only half of SD.

[snakehips 0]

Imo the accounts will show SD paid the Market rate for sponsorship. Why would Ashley allow a financially strong entity to not pay a financially weaker entity? Doesn't make financial sense to me.

 

I dont understand?

 

You saying that he would HAVE to of paid NUFC for SD's advertising?

 

Doesnt have to but why waste the opportunity to distribute wealth between the businesses? By not charging anything, he strengthens SD which is already strong and weakens NUFC which he apparently has to subsidise. Would make no sense to pass on the opportunity.

 

There's probably even an argument for NUFC overcharging SD for advertising, from a corporation tax perspective. NUFC don't pay tax as they're loss-making.

 

I think your clarification tells us everything we need to know about what payments are being made between the two companies

[Guest Your Name Here]

Imo the accounts will show SD paid the Market rate for sponsorship. Why would Ashley allow a financially strong entity to not pay a financially weaker entity? Doesn't make financial sense to me.

 

I dont understand?

 

You saying that he would HAVE to of paid NUFC for SD's advertising?

 

Doesnt have to but why waste the opportunity to distribute wealth between the businesses? By not charging anything, he strengthens SD which is already strong and weakens NUFC which he apparently has to subsidise. Would make no sense to pass on the opportunity.

A little over two years again SD was carrying £450m of debt. This figure has improved but they still had to arrange a three year £220m banking facility recently. In absolute terms it’s debatable which of the two companies is in the worse financial position.

[Matt 0]

A little over two years again SD was carrying £450m of debt. This figure has improved but they still had to arrange a three year £220m banking facility recently. In absolute terms it’s debatable which of the two companies is in the worse financial position.

 

The better-off is that which has actually turned a profit more than once in the last ten years.