ChezGiven 0 Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 I thought that Ashley owned around 70% of SD Not that it makes much difference to your logic. Not sure, the IPO gave away the majority of the share (>50%) but he has been buying them back (and making a tidy profit from doing so i imagine). If you adjust the dividend to shareholders to a more realistic level, the maths doesnt change that much if you assume he owns half the shares. I dont think he does own more than 50% though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 30611 Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 He's certainly the majority shareholder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 Well just for completeness then, there was no SD dividend paid to shareholders in 2009 or 2010 So, basically he is giving advertising space away and not reaping any benefits from the company being advertised either. It all makes perfect sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 30611 Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 72% according to this article. http://www.investorschronicle.co.uk/Column...omeback-kid.jsp So at 72% he can largely run the business for his own benefit (without taking the piss). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 72% according to this article. http://www.investorschronicle.co.uk/Column...omeback-kid.jsp So at 72% he can largely run the business for his own benefit (without taking the piss). In the 12 months post floatation his shareholding rose to 72% because the share price collapsed (companies buy-back shares when prices fall to maintain the price to keep investors happier about their capital). the 72% is in the past tense. As the price has now doubled, this will mean he will have had to reduce his holding as the price could not rise if he was not selling those shares. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Your Name Here Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 Well just for completeness then, there was no SD dividend paid to shareholders in 2009 or 2010 So, basically he is giving advertising space away and not reaping any benefits from the company being advertised either. It all makes perfect sense. He’s not reaping any immediate personal benefits in terms of dividends but the company he owns 70% of is clearly getting a great deal. The company he owns 100% of clearly isn’t. The question is why, when he sits on both sides of the negotiating table, is he sanctioning this kind of arrangement? I think your right about FF – the accounts clearly say a cost, which means a cost to the company lodging the accounts. In this case NUFC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Your Name Here Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 72% according to this article. http://www.investorschronicle.co.uk/Column...omeback-kid.jsp So at 72% he can largely run the business for his own benefit (without taking the piss). In the 12 months post floatation his shareholding rose to 72% because the share price collapsed (companies buy-back shares when prices fall to maintain the price to keep investors happier about their capital). the 72% is in the past tense. As the price has now doubled, this will mean he will have had to reduce his holding as the price could not rise if he was not selling those shares. From the SD 2010 Annual Report “The Group is controlled by Mike Ashley through his 100% shareholding in MASH Holdings Limited, which has a 71% shareholding in the company” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 72% according to this article. http://www.investorschronicle.co.uk/Column...omeback-kid.jsp So at 72% he can largely run the business for his own benefit (without taking the piss). In the 12 months post floatation his shareholding rose to 72% because the share price collapsed (companies buy-back shares when prices fall to maintain the price to keep investors happier about their capital). the 72% is in the past tense. As the price has now doubled, this will mean he will have had to reduce his holding as the price could not rise if he was not selling those shares. From the SD 2010 Annual Report “The Group is controlled by Mike Ashley through his 100% shareholding in MASH Holdings Limited, which has a 71% shareholding in the company” Referring to 2009. It probably has dropped since then, especially as this year he is giving £80m worth to employees and the share price only being able to rise by realising investor demand for shares. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 Well just for completeness then, there was no SD dividend paid to shareholders in 2009 or 2010 So, basically he is giving advertising space away and not reaping any benefits from the company being advertised either. It all makes perfect sense. He’s not reaping any immediate personal benefits in terms of dividends but the company he owns 70% of is clearly getting a great deal. The company he owns 100% of clearly isn’t. The question is why, when he sits on both sides of the negotiating table, is he sanctioning this kind of arrangement? I think your right about FF – the accounts clearly say a cost, which means a cost to the company lodging the accounts. In this case NUFC. Well i cant understand why either but the only evidence is this contradictory statement based on the 2007 accounts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irrelevant Nick KP 0 Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 Well just for completeness then, there was no SD dividend paid to shareholders in 2009 or 2010 So, basically he is giving advertising space away and not reaping any benefits from the company being advertised either. It all makes perfect sense. He’s not reaping any immediate personal benefits in terms of dividends but the company he owns 70% of is clearly getting a great deal. The company he owns 100% of clearly isn’t. The question is why, when he sits on both sides of the negotiating table, is he sanctioning this kind of arrangement? I think your right about FF – the accounts clearly say a cost, which means a cost to the company lodging the accounts. In this case NUFC. Well i cant understand why either but the only evidence is this contradictory statement based on the 2007 accounts. Some of Newcastle's players are earning the same in one week, as a Sports Direct manager earns in a year. So the company he owns 100% of is certainly getting the better part of the deal. It's not his fault that the other clubs in the Prem have even more ridiculously high salaries for players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peasepud 59 Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 Some of Newcastle's players are earning the same in one week, as a Sports Direct manager earns in a year.So the company he owns 100% of is certainly getting the better part of the deal. It's not his fault that the other clubs in the Prem have even more ridiculously high salaries for players. And the relevance of your totally random statement is? What the hell has the salaries of the players got to do with any deal between two companies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 30611 Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 72% according to this article. http://www.investorschronicle.co.uk/Column...omeback-kid.jsp So at 72% he can largely run the business for his own benefit (without taking the piss). In the 12 months post floatation his shareholding rose to 72% because the share price collapsed (companies buy-back shares when prices fall to maintain the price to keep investors happier about their capital). the 72% is in the past tense. As the price has now doubled, this will mean he will have had to reduce his holding as the price could not rise if he was not selling those shares. That makes no sense. There is still 28% of the company to be traded. And given that Ashley doesn't appear to be selling then that would only increase the competition for share, thus contributing slightly to the share price rise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig 6682 Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 I've said it jokingly in the past but I genuinely wouldn't put it past them to re-brand the club at some point - probably retain 'Newcastle' in some capacity but either change the name or our colours. We'll all say now something like "they wouldn't, there'd be hell on!" but 3 years ago we'd have said the same thing about the posibility of painting their logo on the Gallowgate roof and renamining the ground. Wimbledon I was meaning more along the lines of Red Bull Salzburg, only with Ashley it'll be done on the cheap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 72% according to this article. http://www.investorschronicle.co.uk/Column...omeback-kid.jsp So at 72% he can largely run the business for his own benefit (without taking the piss). In the 12 months post floatation his shareholding rose to 72% because the share price collapsed (companies buy-back shares when prices fall to maintain the price to keep investors happier about their capital). the 72% is in the past tense. As the price has now doubled, this will mean he will have had to reduce his holding as the price could not rise if he was not selling those shares. That makes no sense. There is still 28% of the company to be traded. And given that Ashley doesn't appear to be selling then that would only increase the competition for share, thus contributing slightly to the share price rise. Think of it in terms of trading positions, you've got traders short and long. Once the short traders have realised the share price is moving upwards, they sell to the long positions. Once the traders who are long on SD have the shares, where do they get more? You quote an article that shows MA changed his shareholding position by 20% of the company in response to a price fall but deny the possibility that this would reverse with a reversal in price direction? Why is that logical? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OTF 7295 Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 What's to say that NUFC missed out on 5M worth of revenue because they paid to put up the Sports Direct ads? Surely some revenue, but not 5M. ...and what's the bet that Ashley will sell his shares in Sports Direct before too long. Use the free ads to help with turnover driving up the share prices to their peak before cashing out. Then he can start charging for the ads on the stadium, or use SD as a case profile for the effect of stadium advertising to other potential clients. Wildly speculating is fun, isn't it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
U_V 0 Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 From the 2009 accounts:During the current and prior year, advertising and promotional services were provided to companies associated with Mr MJW Ashley, the ultimate shareholder of the company's parent company, St James' Holdings limited. No consideration was paid or payable for these services and the cost associated with the services in the prior year was £42,250. The club received no money from SD in 2008 & 2009, in fact we paid the costs for the privilege. If that wasn't happening to us it would be comical. I think you've both misunderstood the statement (I'm also pretty sure that SD branding at SJP arrived in 2010?). Anyway, that fee is for services promoting Newcastle, not SD. A statement on SD's promotions isnt relevant to our accounts. Its basically saying that we got assistance in selecting e.g. promotional channels and refining brand messages for NUFC from the enormously powerful and successful marketing department at SD. It does NOT mean we paid SD £42k to advertised SD at SJP. I stand corrected. I don't. That convoluted attempt to try and turn a pretty clear statement around is clearly absurd. Advertising and promotional services were provided BY the club TO an Ashley owned company (obviously SD) and nothing was paid for that service. The cost to the club for setting up/performing the services in FY2008 was £42k. The only thing correct in that post is that the @SJP and the defacing of the ground didn't start until 2010. I've since got hold of the 2010 accounts which would cover that time, and there's a similar paragraph in the related party transactions section there too. Still not getting paid. This time however it doesn't go into the costs to the club of painting the classy SD logo on the roof, etc. During the current and prior year, advertising and promotional services were provided to companies associated with Mr M J W Ashley, the ultimate shareholder of the company’s ultimate parent undertaking, MASH Holdings Limited. No consideration was paid or payable for these services. If money changes hands or services are provided between the club and any companies it's directors have an interest in they have to be declared in the accounts. http://www.frc.org.uk/asb/technical/standards/pub0097.html The club advertises and promotes SD. Ashley is the owner of the club and the major shareholder of SD. Any money paid by SD to the club would have to be declared in the related party transactions section of the accounts. The accounts state that nothing is being paid for the services provided. Speculate all you want on why the club is not getting paid, but you can't dispute the fact that it's not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 4725 Posted July 28, 2011 Author Share Posted July 28, 2011 I've said it jokingly in the past but I genuinely wouldn't put it past them to re-brand the club at some point - probably retain 'Newcastle' in some capacity but either change the name or our colours. We'll all say now something like "they wouldn't, there'd be hell on!" but 3 years ago we'd have said the same thing about the posibility of painting their logo on the Gallowgate roof and renamining the ground. Wimbledon I was meaning more along the lines of Red Bull Salzburg, only with Ashley it'll be done on the cheap. we aint got it so bad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom 14011 Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 Doing the sign of the cross is going to be a mistake I reckon. There'll be some loons round there no doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenL 0 Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 I think it's funny Probably be alot worse if it was us like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 UV, the sponsorship money is declared on the club website. See bottom of the page, it fell by £4m in the championship. http://www.nufc.co.uk/articles/20110330/ne...2281670_2326465 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
U_V 0 Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 UV, the sponsorship money is declared on the club website. See bottom of the page, it fell by £4m in the championship. http://www.nufc.co.uk/articles/20110330/ne...2281670_2326465 Err, yes, that's all the club's Commercial, Catering & Sponsorship Revenue which understandably fell when we were in the Championship. Generously the money from SD didn't fall while we were in the Championship, it remained at £0.00. The article also mentions the new sponsorship deals with Puma and NR. Strangely it doesn't mention the great new club branding deal with SD. I wonder why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 UV, the sponsorship money is declared on the club website. See bottom of the page, it fell by £4m in the championship. http://www.nufc.co.uk/articles/20110330/ne...2281670_2326465 Err, yes, that's all the club's Commercial, Catering & Sponsorship Revenue which understandably fell when we were in the Championship. Generously the money from SD didn't fall while we were in the Championship, it remained at £0.00. The article also mentions the new sponsorship deals with Puma and NR. Strangely it doesn't mention the great new club branding deal with SD. I wonder why. Its not clear from the accounts or the statements if this is absolutely true. The reduction to £15.4m is associated with the catering outsourcing and the reduced income from the NR sponsorship. Thats all it tells us without a detailed breakdown of how its made up. As i've said all along, its very possible he is not paying anything and the notes from the related transactions section does suggest this but it doesnt confirm it. Whilst NUFC was making a loss during this period, i cant think of one single financial reason why he would do it. Its not even as if SD is a brand-sensitive business, its built on a price discount model that doesnt require high brand recognition. Its the loss he makes from NUFC over these 2 seasons that makes it the hardest to understand though. Instead of using SD funds to legitimately cover some of these personal losses, he prefers to accept them completely. Any chance you could send us the detailed accounts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Your Name Here Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 UV, the sponsorship money is declared on the club website. See bottom of the page, it fell by £4m in the championship. http://www.nufc.co.uk/articles/20110330/ne...2281670_2326465 Err, yes, that's all the club's Commercial, Catering & Sponsorship Revenue which understandably fell when we were in the Championship. Generously the money from SD didn't fall while we were in the Championship, it remained at £0.00. The article also mentions the new sponsorship deals with Puma and NR. Strangely it doesn't mention the great new club branding deal with SD. I wonder why. Its not clear from the accounts or the statements if this is absolutely true. The reduction to £15.4m is associated with the catering outsourcing and the reduced income from the NR sponsorship. Thats all it tells us without a detailed breakdown of how its made up. As i've said all along, its very possible he is not paying anything and the notes from the related transactions section does suggest this but it doesnt confirm it. Whilst NUFC was making a loss during this period, i cant think of one single financial reason why he would do it. Its not even as if SD is a brand-sensitive business, its built on a price discount model that doesnt require high brand recognition. Its the loss he makes from NUFC over these 2 seasons that makes it the hardest to understand though. Instead of using SD funds to legitimately cover some of these personal losses, he prefers to accept them completely. Any chance you could send us the detailed accounts? Loans are repayable. Payments for advertising space aren’t. Simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 The loan bears no interest and the shareholders of SD also pay for advertising and share in its benefits. Thats the bit i dont get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 4725 Posted July 28, 2011 Author Share Posted July 28, 2011 UV, the sponsorship money is declared on the club website. See bottom of the page, it fell by £4m in the championship. http://www.nufc.co.uk/articles/20110330/ne...2281670_2326465 Err, yes, that's all the club's Commercial, Catering & Sponsorship Revenue which understandably fell when we were in the Championship. Generously the money from SD didn't fall while we were in the Championship, it remained at £0.00. The article also mentions the new sponsorship deals with Puma and NR. Strangely it doesn't mention the great new club branding deal with SD. I wonder why. Its not clear from the accounts or the statements if this is absolutely true. The reduction to £15.4m is associated with the catering outsourcing and the reduced income from the NR sponsorship. Thats all it tells us without a detailed breakdown of how its made up. As i've said all along, its very possible he is not paying anything and the notes from the related transactions section does suggest this but it doesnt confirm it. Whilst NUFC was making a loss during this period, i cant think of one single financial reason why he would do it. Its not even as if SD is a brand-sensitive business, its built on a price discount model that doesnt require high brand recognition. Its the loss he makes from NUFC over these 2 seasons that makes it the hardest to understand though. Instead of using SD funds to legitimately cover some of these personal losses, he prefers to accept them completely. Any chance you could send us the detailed accounts? They are on the corporate site below. Look very professional to me. http://www.sports-direct-international.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.png.403f4a475ac3bb53997c2626c09ef800.png)
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