Billionaire Ashley £378m richer

[Guest Your Name Here]

Tbh, when you looked at what's happened since he took over it's impossible to read his intentions. I could imagine waking up tomorrow to hear we've been sold and I could just as easily imagine him owning us 5+ years down the line.

 

Much the way I imagine it, however, he got involved for fun and I cant see mid table mediocrity keeping him entertained which either points to really trying to build something exciting or selling up.

 

Hmmmm, which way could it go.

 

CT I've never understood where your optimism comes from? don't get me wrong, i think its great, but when you look at the facts in the cold light of day you must realise that Ashley isn't going to create a europen great here. The guy is a billionaire, he has no affiliation with the club or the north east and he bought it on a whim (as he says, to have fun) I can guarantee he's not having fun anymore. You on the other hand, are from the North East and you love the club, the idea of having all that money and not spending it on something you love doesnt compute with you, thats not a bad thing but its simply not going to happen

 

So why would he keep pumping money into a club when he knows that a large chunk of the fanbase dislike him, he wont, what he will do is keep the club afloat and make money from player sells/image rights/tax relief against other business's or someone buys us. Even money he puts into the club he will claw back eventually

 

You could well be right, but the FACTS are, as yet, he hasnt taken one penny out of the club.

 

My point wasnt really about optimism, it was trying to guess his next move.

 

He either wants to prove every fucker wrong and bring success his way or he wants to sell. Just cant see him hanging around for mediocre / no fun times.

 

*** And its worth bearing in mind that this is a bloke who has just made an extra £378 million in one year. I dont think hanging around Newcastle in the hope of syphoning off a few million here and there is on his agenda tbf.

Has he put any money in?

 

Newcastle United PLC (or whatever it was called under SJH/FF) borrowed money from the banks.

Newcastle Limited (or whatever it’s called now) has borrowed money from Mike Ashley.

 

Nobody ever went on about how Barclays were putting money into NUFC, yet apart from the interest payments the current scenario is essentially the same.

 

And it could be argued that the difference between the market rate for all the advertising SD get and what they actually pay is taking money out.

Edited May 9, 2011 by Your Name Here

[Guest Your Name Here]

ashley wont be spending big on transfers ie 15mill for the likes of shit owen hell no. ashley will buy cheap and thats all so it doesnt damage his precious sports dicrap

 

Depends what you call buying cheap.

 

Buying you cheap can get you Perch or Tiote.

I appreciate the point you’re making but ultimately if you buy cheap you end up with an inferior squad.

 

Collocini £10m / Williamson £1m

Jose £4m / Routledge £1m

Barton £5.5m / Guthrie £1.5m

Ben Arfa £5m / Lovenkrands £0

Enrique £6.5m / Perch £1m

 

At this point I was going to compare strikers but the most expensive striker we’ve bought since Ashley has been at the club is Best, who cost £1m. In fact I’m struggling to think of another striker we’ve bought since he’s been in charge.

 

I stand to be corrected but Best is the only striker we’ve paid a fee for in four years!?

[Christmas Tree 4424]

Has he put any money in?

 

Newcastle United PLC (or whatever it was called under SJH/FF) borrowed money from the banks.

Newcastle Limited (or whatever it’s called now) has borrowed money from Mike Ashley.

 

Nobody ever went on about how Barclays were putting money into NUFC, yet apart from the interest payments the current scenario is essentially the same.

 

And it could be argued that the difference between the market rate for all the advertising SD get and what they actually pay is taking money out.

 

Quite a big difference,

 

And lets not forget that the source of funding from the banks had either dried up or was about too, hence the Halls swift exit.

[LeazesMag 0]

Has he put any money in?

 

Newcastle United PLC (or whatever it was called under SJH/FF) borrowed money from the banks.

Newcastle Limited (or whatever it’s called now) has borrowed money from Mike Ashley.

 

Nobody ever went on about how Barclays were putting money into NUFC, yet apart from the interest payments the current scenario is essentially the same.

 

And it could be argued that the difference between the market rate for all the advertising SD get and what they actually pay is taking money out.

 

Quite a big difference,

 

And lets not forget that the source of funding from the banks had either dried up or was about too, hence the Halls swift exit.

 

some people are going to get a shock next season.

[Christmas Tree 4424]

Has he put any money in?

 

Newcastle United PLC (or whatever it was called under SJH/FF) borrowed money from the banks.

Newcastle Limited (or whatever it’s called now) has borrowed money from Mike Ashley.

 

Nobody ever went on about how Barclays were putting money into NUFC, yet apart from the interest payments the current scenario is essentially the same.

 

And it could be argued that the difference between the market rate for all the advertising SD get and what they actually pay is taking money out.

 

Quite a big difference,

 

And lets not forget that the source of funding from the banks had either dried up or was about too, hence the Halls swift exit.

 

some people are going to get a shock next season.

 

Not you though Leazes because you aint got the bottle to predict what would be a good finish next season. Leaves you lots of wriggle room to keep on moaning.

[Toonpack 8644]

Has he put any money in?

 

Newcastle United PLC (or whatever it was called under SJH/FF) borrowed money from the banks.

Newcastle Limited (or whatever it’s called now) has borrowed money from Mike Ashley.

 

Nobody ever went on about how Barclays were putting money into NUFC, yet apart from the interest payments the current scenario is essentially the same.

 

And it could be argued that the difference between the market rate for all the advertising SD get and what they actually pay is taking money out.

 

 

Tell me you're not serious, really

[peasepud 59]

How come we owe over £100m to Ashley in money hes loaned the club, anyone got details of how much hes put in for each of the years hes been here?

[Rob W 0]

Hanging onto the club and keeping it ticket over for several years, until the world economy picks up to the extent that there are people out there that are willing to pay what he wants for it, is a much more likely plan than anything 'exciting' from an Ashley viewpoint. Although relegation battles are exciting I suppose.

 

agreed - just keep drizzling cash into the club and when everyone above is in foreign hands there's his chance - he'll be gone in seconds

[peasepud 59]

Hanging onto the club and keeping it ticket over for several years, until the world economy picks up to the extent that there are people out there that are willing to pay what he wants for it, is a much more likely plan than anything 'exciting' from an Ashley viewpoint. Although relegation battles are exciting I suppose.

 

agreed - just keep drizzling cash into the club and when everyone above is in foreign hands there's his chance - he'll be gone in seconds

In several years time that could he a hell of a lot of clubs

[Toonpack 8644]

How come we owe over £100m to Ashley in money hes loaned the club, anyone got details of how much hes put in for each of the years hes been here?

 

Over and above the purchase price and existing debt pay-off (£132Mill +£70Mill), the additional working capital that he's loaned is, as far as I can see, £69.8Mill up to 09/10. Not sure what the year by year increments are, it was around £41 Mill total up to year end 08/09.

Edited May 10, 2011 by Toonpack

[peasepud 59]

How come we owe over £100m to Ashley in money hes loaned the club, anyone got details of how much hes put in for each of the years hes been here?

 

Over and above the purchase price and existing debt pay-off (£132Mill +£70Mill), the additional working capital that he's loaned is, as far as I can see, £69.8Mill up to 09/10. Not sure what the year by year increments are, it was around £41 Mill total up to year end 08/09.

 

So £70m was because he didnt do due diligence and then hes loaned a further £70m to the club to help it run.

 

Seeing as hes been here now for 4 years then we dont owe him £140m, we either owe him £60m or (and I think this is the case) he owes the club £20m. But conveniently he seems to gloss over that when announcing how lovely hes been to us.

[Toonpack 8644]

How come we owe over £100m to Ashley in money hes loaned the club, anyone got details of how much hes put in for each of the years hes been here?

 

Over and above the purchase price and existing debt pay-off (£132Mill +£70Mill), the additional working capital that he's loaned is, as far as I can see, £69.8Mill up to 09/10. Not sure what the year by year increments are, it was around £41 Mill total up to year end 08/09.

 

So £70m was because he didnt do due diligence and then hes loaned a further £70m to the club to help it run.

 

Seeing as hes been here now for 4 years then we dont owe him £140m, we either owe him £60m or (and I think this is the case) he owes the club £20m. But conveniently he seems to gloss over that when announcing how lovely hes been to us.

 

How's that work ????

[DEADMAN 0]

perch is rubbish compare to tiote

[peasepud 59]

I knew that the club would cost me money every year after I had bought it. I have backed the club with money. You can see that from the fact that Newcastle has the fifth highest wage bill in the Premier League. I was always prepared to bank roll Newcastle up to the tune of £20 million per year but no more. That was my bargain. I would make the club solvent. I would make it a going concern. I would pour up to £20 million a year into the club and not expect anything back.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/t...ted/7615655.stm

 

so thats 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 at £20m per year with another 20m this year and next and the year after.

 

Now to me the words "bank roll" mean give, not lend. Thats backed up by the last sentence ending with "and not expect anything back". Again if you dont expect anything back then its a gift, its being given not a loan. Interest free credit from DFS isnt advertised with the words "we give you a sofa and dont expect anything back"

 

 

So by that logic he should have put in £80m which means that if we take the full £140m into account hes lent us a further £60m (which frankly should be written off because thats how much relegation cost us, but thats a different argument).

 

The 2nd option is that we owe him nothing and hes behind on his payments. The £70m to clear existing debt could be argued as not part of the running costs, it should have been advertised properly by Hall either paying off the debt then selling for £200m or advertising it for £132m + take on debts. If the former then the inclusion in the sale price would mean the cost wasnt passed onto the club.

[ewerk 29419]

The fact that they're loans rather than gifts is a tax dodge isn't it? They may be some implications if he were to write them off.

 

And of course, if they're loans then he's more likely to get the money back if/when we're sold.

Edited May 10, 2011 by ewerk

[Toonpack 8644]

I knew that the club would cost me money every year after I had bought it. I have backed the club with money. You can see that from the fact that Newcastle has the fifth highest wage bill in the Premier League. I was always prepared to bank roll Newcastle up to the tune of £20 million per year but no more. That was my bargain. I would make the club solvent. I would make it a going concern. I would pour up to £20 million a year into the club and not expect anything back.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/t...ted/7615655.stm

 

so thats 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 at £20m per year with another 20m this year and next and the year after.

 

Now to me the words "bank roll" mean give, not lend. Thats backed up by the last sentence ending with "and not expect anything back". Again if you dont expect anything back then its a gift, its being given not a loan. Interest free credit from DFS isnt advertised with the words "we give you a sofa and dont expect anything back"

 

 

So by that logic he should have put in £80m which means that if we take the full £140m into account hes lent us a further £60m (which frankly should be written off because thats how much relegation cost us, but thats a different argument).

 

The 2nd option is that we owe him nothing and hes behind on his payments. The £70m to clear existing debt could be argued as not part of the running costs, it should have been advertised properly by Hall either paying off the debt then selling for £200m or advertising it for £132m + take on debts. If the former then the inclusion in the sale price would mean the cost wasnt passed onto the club.

 

Aye OK

 

By that logic the debts he did pay off saved the club £7Mill a year in interest which would be a total of £28Mill, so we owe him another £8Mill

[LeazesMag 0]

from the 5th best team in the land to the 5th best business in the land.

 

Maybe the club will start marketing new shirts with the share price on the back.

[Phil 6]

ashley wont be spending big on transfers ie 15mill for the likes of shit owen hell no. ashley will buy cheap and thats all so it doesnt damage his precious sports dicrap

 

Depends what you call buying cheap.

 

Buying you cheap can get you Perch or Tiote.

I appreciate the point you’re making but ultimately if you buy cheap you end up with an inferior squad.

 

Collocini £10m / Williamson £1m

Jose £4m / Routledge £1m

Barton £5.5m / Guthrie £1.5m

Ben Arfa £5m / Lovenkrands £0

Enrique £6.5m / Perch £1m

 

At this point I was going to compare strikers but the most expensive striker we’ve bought since Ashley has been at the club is Best, who cost £1m. In fact I’m struggling to think of another striker we’ve bought since he’s been in charge.

 

I stand to be corrected but Best is the only striker we’ve paid a fee for in four years!?

 

Xisco £6m / Best £1m

Smith £6m / Tiote £3.5m

 

It isn't about cutting corners, but getting value for money. If you look at all of them players, we'd get our money back on almost all of them. Take Routledge for example, picked up on the cheap to do a job and has now been moved on.

 

I would say its more of a case of buying first team regulars, which is what most of the players on the left are.

[Ayatollah Hermione 13554]

£6 million for Xisco, man. I think it's definitely more often than not, you've got to pay more money for better quality. You're never going to unearth players like Tiote for £3.5 million all the time.

 

Best is still a poor striker who went through a decent patch.

[peasepud 59]

I knew that the club would cost me money every year after I had bought it. I have backed the club with money. You can see that from the fact that Newcastle has the fifth highest wage bill in the Premier League. I was always prepared to bank roll Newcastle up to the tune of £20 million per year but no more. That was my bargain. I would make the club solvent. I would make it a going concern. I would pour up to £20 million a year into the club and not expect anything back.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/t...ted/7615655.stm

 

so thats 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 at £20m per year with another 20m this year and next and the year after.

 

Now to me the words "bank roll" mean give, not lend. Thats backed up by the last sentence ending with "and not expect anything back". Again if you dont expect anything back then its a gift, its being given not a loan. Interest free credit from DFS isnt advertised with the words "we give you a sofa and dont expect anything back"

 

 

So by that logic he should have put in £80m which means that if we take the full £140m into account hes lent us a further £60m (which frankly should be written off because thats how much relegation cost us, but thats a different argument).

 

The 2nd option is that we owe him nothing and hes behind on his payments. The £70m to clear existing debt could be argued as not part of the running costs, it should have been advertised properly by Hall either paying off the debt then selling for £200m or advertising it for £132m + take on debts. If the former then the inclusion in the sale price would mean the cost wasnt passed onto the club.

 

Aye OK

 

By that logic the debts he did pay off saved the club £7Mill a year in interest which would be a total of £28Mill, so we owe him another £8Mill

So are you disagreeing that he lied at the start when he said hed "bankroll" the club to the tune of £20m per year? Youre saying that means lend?

 

I wish I could have fun that way, is it fair to say that my ST payments are simply a loan that I expect back at some time?

[Toonpack 8644]

I knew that the club would cost me money every year after I had bought it. I have backed the club with money. You can see that from the fact that Newcastle has the fifth highest wage bill in the Premier League. I was always prepared to bank roll Newcastle up to the tune of £20 million per year but no more. That was my bargain. I would make the club solvent. I would make it a going concern. I would pour up to £20 million a year into the club and not expect anything back.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/t...ted/7615655.stm

 

so thats 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 at £20m per year with another 20m this year and next and the year after.

 

Now to me the words "bank roll" mean give, not lend. Thats backed up by the last sentence ending with "and not expect anything back". Again if you dont expect anything back then its a gift, its being given not a loan. Interest free credit from DFS isnt advertised with the words "we give you a sofa and dont expect anything back"

 

 

So by that logic he should have put in £80m which means that if we take the full £140m into account hes lent us a further £60m (which frankly should be written off because thats how much relegation cost us, but thats a different argument).

 

The 2nd option is that we owe him nothing and hes behind on his payments. The £70m to clear existing debt could be argued as not part of the running costs, it should have been advertised properly by Hall either paying off the debt then selling for £200m or advertising it for £132m + take on debts. If the former then the inclusion in the sale price would mean the cost wasnt passed onto the club.

 

Aye OK

 

By that logic the debts he did pay off saved the club £7Mill a year in interest which would be a total of £28Mill, so we owe him another £8Mill

So are you disagreeing that he lied at the start when he said hed "bankroll" the club to the tune of £20m per year? Youre saying that means lend?

 

I wish I could have fun that way, is it fair to say that my ST payments are simply a loan that I expect back at some time?

 

To bankroll is to: support (a person, organization, or project) financially

 

A loan is: a thing that is borrowed, especially a sum of money that is expected to be paid back with interest

 

(Oxford English Dictionary)

 

He is doing the former. In the accounts etc. it's called the latter, but he's not charging interest (unlike just about every other owner in the Prem). I don't believe the term bankroll is usually used in financial statements

 

Ordinarily a wealthy investor or institution will bankroll a start up company, for example, as they require amounts of capital they can't generate themselves until they're up and running and successful (usually for a portion of equity, see Dragon's Den as an illustration). The "Bankrollers" always expect their money back, plus lots more usually.

 

As for your season ticket, No it's not a loan, it's a fee you pay for something you get in return, or rather, are guaranteed to get in return i.e. acces to the ground and a games to watch.

 

As I said, with reasoning, on another thread (Carroll thread post #383), you can beat Ashley with multiple sticks, but the money stick truly isn't one of them.

 

How he'll make his money back will be the interesting bit. I doubt he'll get the club to take out loans from banks so he can pay himself dividends mind.

[ewerk 29419]

Sunday Times Rich List 2012: Newcastle United's owner enters list as his team climbs Premiership

 

Mike Ashley, the owner of Newcastle United Football Club, makes a surprise appearence in this year's Sunday Times

 

 

Mr Ashley has seen the team’s recent success matched by the performance of his Sports Direct clothing and equipment stores.

 

According to the Rich List his personal fortune has leapt to £1.7 billion from £1.2 billion, putting him in 36th place overall. After an investment loan of £140 million into the Newcastle team, the newly renamed Sports Direct Arena looks set to host European football for the first time since 2007.

 

This year's Rich List will show the continuing growth of fortunes made in the world of entertainment and celebrity.

 

Sir Paul McCartney, whose marriage to Nancy Shevell, the millionaire daughter of a US trucking magnate, has seen his estimated worth rocket from £495 to £665 million, making him the third-wealthiest man in British music.

 

Daniel Ek, the London-based owner of the music download site Spotify, makes his first appearance on the Rich List at 395, equalling the £190 million valuation of David and Victoria Beckham, who themselves added £25 million to their combined worth.

 

At the same time Chris Martin, the Coldplay singer, has entered the Rich List for the first time. Last year saw the release of Coldplay's fifth studio album Mylo Xyloto, which helped to boost the joint wealth of Martin and his wife, the actress Gwyneth Paltrow to £72 million.

 

Jamie Oliver has become the world's richest chef, with a £150million fortune. In the last year alone his wealth has rocketed by £44million.

 

In another surprise Sir Philip Green and his wife have lost almost a billion pounds of their estimated fortune over the past year, according to the Rich List.

 

The rankings are set to show that his wealth has fallen by almost a quarter from an estimated £4.2 billion to about £3.3 billion.

 

That leaves the tycoon falling from 13th to 17th on the overall list of the nation’s wealthiest people.

 

Profits in Arcadia, the Greens’ clothing-store empire, which is owned by his wife, Tina, fell 38 per cent in 2010-11. It includes the high street brands Topshop, Topman, British Home Stores, Dorothy Perkins, Evans, Wallis, Miss Selfridge and Burton.

 

According to the Rich List much of the loss is attributable to the poor performance of BHS, which has hampered Arcadia’s growth.

 

Arcadia’s overseas expansion is set to continue into China this year, with the expected launch of Topman and Topshop stores to follow its US and Australian ventures. Sir Philip’s daughter Chloe, 21, is about to launch a shoe collection. His office declined to comment.

[Gemmill 42460]

Who are the people in British music ranking higher than McCartney at 600m ffs?

[ewerk 29419]

IIRC, it's some guy who sold his record company about 15 years ago. That's about all the detail I can remember.

[noaliasmike 0]

Clive Calder and Sir Cameron Mackintosh. Full musicians list at the bottom of this link:

 

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/public/richlist/article1024783.ece