Kitman 2207 Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 HF, how much of that $288m is the purchase cost (which to me is the cost of the shares plus the stadium mortgage?). To my simplistic way of thinking, there's 1) what it cost him to buy us and 2) what he's invested in new funds into the club since then. The first I don't see as money put into the club, it's what he willingly paid to acquire it, which was up to him. If we've made a massive net profit on transfer dealings, and that's all gone to fund operating losses rather than repay debt, it suggests either the club is completely financially screwed or he's made a big mess of running it. Or possibly both, who knows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 HF, how much of that $288m is the purchase cost (which to me is the cost of the shares plus the stadium mortgage?). To my simplistic way of thinking, there's 1) what it cost him to buy us and 2) what he's invested in new funds into the club since then. The first I don't see as money put into the club, it's what he willingly paid to acquire it, which was up to him. If we've made a massive net profit on transfer dealings, and that's all gone to fund operating losses rather than repay debt, it suggests either the club is completely financially screwed or he's made a big mess of running it. Or possibly both, who knows. I think it's what would need to be paid for Ashley to break even. Just got it from the link in robs delloite thread and they don't go into detail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 and that is why HF is a legend on this board. (he's the only one who can be arsed - fair play to the man) The mrs was watching Camelot. Fair bit of tits and Arthur is Andy Carroll but shite really. Gave me something to do other than dishes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoveTheBobby 1 Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 Large Michael currently renegotiating down on PR company contracts as 'Chris Gray' is left face-down on the draining board having had his anus seen to with a bottle brush there . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OTF 7492 Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 96/97 - £20.25m Vs £5.2m 97/98 - £0.8m Vs £22.37 98/99 - £13.8m Vs £22.5m 99/00 - £22.85m Vs £24.8m 00/01 - £35m Vs £13m 01/02 - £15.25m Vs £29m 02/03 - £6.6m Vs £15m 03/04 - £16m Vs £3.6m 04/05 - £1m Vs £22m 05/06 - £32.35m Vs £30.8m 06/07 - £11.9m Vs £25.7m 07/08 - £13.2m Vs £16.75m 08/09 - £30.8m Vs £16.8m 09/10 - £19.7m Vs £4m 10/11 - £0 Vs £4.5m Total £239.5m Vs £256m Over 15 years, arsenal have spent 94% as much as us, not really a "lot less". For ten years it was enough to get us into europe, competing with them. Over the last 5 years, we haven't spent as much as Arsenal...and we've not competed with them That’s the model to follow. All you Ashley-bashers really haven’t a clue. Happy Face what are the above figures from? - And what spendings do they take into account? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irrelevant Nick KP 0 Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 Keegan or Shearer were not foisted on Ashley. But Keegan got 2 million pounds because the club signed someone without asking him (boo-hoo). Apart from inaccurately saying Keegan or Shearer was foisted on Ashley, the article basically says the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sammynb 3508 Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 Keegan or Shearer were not foisted on Ashley.But Keegan got 2 million pounds because the club signed someone without asking him (boo-hoo). Apart from inaccurately saying Keegan or Shearer was foisted on Ashley, the article basically says the truth. Fuck off you moron. Keegan rightly was compensated because Ashley is a lying cunt. You know it, we know it, Ashley, Dekka and his minions (such as yourself) know it. And no matter how many times people try to rewrite history, it doesn't change the FACTS! btw no I don't grow roses or buy watermelons or whatever other dullard response you will have. So shut it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irrelevant Nick KP 0 Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 btw no I don't grow roses or buy watermelons or whatever other dullard response you will have.So shut it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 9973 Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 HF, how much of that $288m is the purchase cost (which to me is the cost of the shares plus the stadium mortgage?). To my simplistic way of thinking, there's 1) what it cost him to buy us and 2) what he's invested in new funds into the club since then. The first I don't see as money put into the club, it's what he willingly paid to acquire it, which was up to him. If we've made a massive net profit on transfer dealings, and that's all gone to fund operating losses rather than repay debt, it suggests either the club is completely financially screwed or he's made a big mess of running it. Or possibly both, who knows. I think it's what would need to be paid for Ashley to break even. Just got it from the link in robs delloite thread and they don't go into detail. Purchase price £132 Million, repaying pre-exisiting debts of £70 Million (of which £45 Million was the stadium mortgage, the rest was "other loans") plus £27 Mill owed on transfers, whatever else since has been injected working capital. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 96/97 - £20.25m Vs £5.2m 97/98 - £0.8m Vs £22.37 98/99 - £13.8m Vs £22.5m 99/00 - £22.85m Vs £24.8m 00/01 - £35m Vs £13m 01/02 - £15.25m Vs £29m 02/03 - £6.6m Vs £15m 03/04 - £16m Vs £3.6m 04/05 - £1m Vs £22m 05/06 - £32.35m Vs £30.8m 06/07 - £11.9m Vs £25.7m 07/08 - £13.2m Vs £16.75m 08/09 - £30.8m Vs £16.8m 09/10 - £19.7m Vs £4m 10/11 - £0 Vs £4.5m Total £239.5m Vs £256m Over 15 years, arsenal have spent 94% as much as us, not really a "lot less". For ten years it was enough to get us into europe, competing with them. Over the last 5 years, we haven't spent as much as Arsenal...and we've not competed with them That’s the model to follow. All you Ashley-bashers really haven’t a clue. Happy Face what are the above figures from? - And what spendings do they take into account? Soccerbase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OTF 7492 Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 Was curious as it only takes into account players bought and not those sold. If you include players sold I suspect Arsenal would have a greater spend over the same period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McFaul 35 Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 (edited) Not the best thing to read first thing in the morning. As Deano said, not one mention of the scores of bad decisions, insulting gestures and cuntishness his 4 years has delivered. We are where we are now more by luck than judgement as well. Mugs like this bloke should be strung up there's too many of them as well. Edited June 13, 2011 by McFaul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 (edited) Was curious as it only takes into account players bought and not those sold. If you include players sold I suspect Arsenal would have a greater spend over the same period. Not sure, especially if Fabregas goes for a fortune. But aye, especially over the last 5 years I reckon their net spend would be even more ahead of ours, which strengthens my point. Edited June 13, 2011 by Happy Face Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 9973 Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 (edited) Between 07/8 and 10/11 (last 4years) Arsenal's player trading shows a profit of £21Mill. But if extended back over the last decade their position on transfers shows an overall deficit (net spend) of £31Mill. If Fabregas and Nasri nick off I'd be surprised if they're not in player trading profit again. Figures are as stated in their accounts. Similarly, Liverpool over the same 4 years have a net deficit of £18Mill and extended over the decade a net spend of £97.3Mill (Doesn't include Carroll/Suarez/Henderson - but Torres/Babel cash balanced the first two). Edited June 13, 2011 by Toonpack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 The comments following on from Chris Gray's on the Chronicle site make me feel sick tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitman 2207 Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 Purchase price £132 Million, repaying pre-exisiting debts of £70 Million (of which £45 Million was the stadium mortgage, the rest was "other loans") plus £27 Mill owed on transfers, whatever else since has been injected working capital. So 288 - 132 - 70 - 27 = 59 million that Mike Ashley's put into the club since 2007? Not an inconsiderable amount of money but some of that is presumably for a) paying compo to managers and their staff that have been sacked/forced out paying the cost of getting relegated from the PL c) paying high wages of players which were signed under his ownership (Smith, Collo, Gutti, etc) I'm not including transfer errors here like having to pay compo for Gutti's Bosman or the Xisco signing. So 229 to buy the club and 59 mill to keep it solvent? With a chunk of the 59 mill needed because of Ashley's own errors. Or is that just too simplistic? 59 mill sounds less impressive than 288 mill, although obviously it's 59 mill of his own money not a bank's, so good on him. I expect he'll want that back at some point.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howmanheyman 33876 Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 HF, how much of that $288m is the purchase cost (which to me is the cost of the shares plus the stadium mortgage?). To my simplistic way of thinking, there's 1) what it cost him to buy us and 2) what he's invested in new funds into the club since then. The first I don't see as money put into the club, it's what he willingly paid to acquire it, which was up to him. If we've made a massive net profit on transfer dealings, and that's all gone to fund operating losses rather than repay debt, it suggests either the club is completely financially screwed or he's made a big mess of running it. Or possibly both, who knows. I think it's what would need to be paid for Ashley to break even. Just got it from the link in robs delloite thread and they don't go into detail. Purchase price £132 Million, repaying pre-exisiting debts of £70 Million (of which £45 Million was the stadium mortgage, the rest was "other loans") plus £27 Mill owed on transfers, whatever else since has been injected working capital. Did we not have any transfer fees owed to us? It's just I've heard the fact that we owed outstanding amounts ad nauseum from different sources defending Ashley, but rarely hear of any amounts that we were waiting on and as the football world largely pays in installments I find this a bit odd. Just saying, like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OTF 7492 Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 Here's an interesting comparison looking at how much was paid for existing members of the team. GK Newcastle Steve Harper - Free Tim Krul - 200K Fraser Forster - Academy Total: £0.2M Arsenal Manuel Almunia - £1.5M (transfermarket.co.uk reckon 4M + ) Lukasz Fabianski - £3.8M Szczesny - Free (as good as) Total: £5.3M Defense Newcastle Fabricio Coloccini - £10.3 Jose Enrique - £6.3 Mike Williamson - 960K Danny Simpson - 750K James Perch - £1M Ryan Taylor - Free Steven Taylor - Free Total - £19.31M Arsenal Bacary Sagna - £7.9M Thomas Vermaelen - £8.8M Laurent Koscielny - £11M Sebastian Squillaci - £5.7M Johan Djourou - Free Gael Clichy - 330K Kieran Gibbs - Free Total - £33.73M Midfield Newcastle Kevin Nolan - £4M Joey Barton - £5.8M Danny Guthrie - £2.5M Dan Gosling - Free Alan Smith - £6M Jonas Gutierrez - £5M (compensation) Cheik Tiote - £3.5M Kazenga Lualua - Free Haris Vuckic - 100K Hatem Ben Arfa - £7M (£2M loan + £5M signing) Yohan Cabaye - £4.3 Total: £38.2M Arsenal Abou Diaby - £2M Cesc Fabregas - £2.5M Tomas Rosicky - £8M Samir Nasri - £14M Denilson - £4M Aaron Ramsey - £5M Alex Song - £3M Jack Wilshere - Free Andrei Arshavin - £14.5M Emmanuel Eboue - £1.9M Total: £54.9M Forwards Newcastle Peter Lovenkrands - Free Xisco - £5.7M Leon Best - £1M Shola Ameobi - Free Nile Ranger - Free Phil Airey - Free Total: £6.7M Arsenal Robin van Persie - £3M Carlos Vela - 550K (some dispute) Theo Walcott - £10M + Marouane Chamakh - Free Nicklas Bendtnar - 200K Total: £13.75 Newcastle Total Squad Purchase Price: £64,410,000 Arsenal Total Squad Purchase Price: £107,680,000 So, despite Arsenal's squad being very frugally assembled they still spent in excess of £43M more than Newcastle did. I'm not even saying that there should be a comparison between the two, but the author of the original article drew the comparison so it's free to be commented on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irrelevant Nick KP 0 Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 Did we not have any transfer fees owed to us? . I don't know the answer to that question. Can anyone please answer this question. When Freddie was ousted, were we owed lots of money? And if so, from which transfers? What do people think? Personally, I can't think of any big sales that could have made us big creditors. But if anyone knows different, please answer the question. Were we owed lots of money on transfers when Freddie was kicked out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howmanheyman 33876 Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 Cheers, Nick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 9973 Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 Purchase price £132 Million, repaying pre-exisiting debts of £70 Million (of which £45 Million was the stadium mortgage, the rest was "other loans") plus £27 Mill owed on transfers, whatever else since has been injected working capital. So 288 - 132 - 70 - 27 = 59 million that Mike Ashley's put into the club since 2007? Not an inconsiderable amount of money but some of that is presumably for a) paying compo to managers and their staff that have been sacked/forced out paying the cost of getting relegated from the PL c) paying high wages of players which were signed under his ownership (Smith, Collo, Gutti, etc) I'm not including transfer errors here like having to pay compo for Gutti's Bosman or the Xisco signing. So 229 to buy the club and 59 mill to keep it solvent? With a chunk of the 59 mill needed because of Ashley's own errors. Or is that just too simplistic? 59 mill sounds less impressive than 288 mill, although obviously it's 59 mill of his own money not a bank's, so good on him. I expect he'll want that back at some point.... Purchase cost was £132Mill, which has been leveraged against the club, not sure it should really be called “debt” per se as it was the cost of purchasing the shares and as such is really the “value of the club”. It’s just the same as if anyone else had bought the shares, it’s the minimum cost anyone would have to pay to buy the club. The £70Mill is additional money he had no option but to “put in” due to change of ownership clauses on the existing debts. Whilst that debt hasn’t gone away the benefit is that he’s paid that off as a loan, interest free and unsecured, saves the club £7Mill a year interest and the capital sum of the stadium expansion mortgage (£45Mill) which was due for repayment in 2013 is no longer an issue. It could be argued that as it’s a debt to the owner and as such to all intents and purposes the club is the owner and visa versa, it’s not really a debt at all, but I wouldn’t go that far as no doubt he will want it back at some point. That said unlike virtually all the other owners who are “in deep” he’s not charging interest and hasn’t secured his lending on club assets, that’s an important point. He therefore has no guarantee, he’ll get it back. The £27Mill transfer fee’s “owed” had to come from somewhere so in essence he’s covered some of that, as well, in his subsidies to the bottom line. Manager compensation (Alardarse and KK) was £10Mill IMO the only thing you can really discount from his “subsidy” is the original purchase price, he could have tried to refinance the £70Mill against the club, but he didn’t, he really did “pay it off” it’s now technically his risk/liability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 9973 Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 HF, how much of that $288m is the purchase cost (which to me is the cost of the shares plus the stadium mortgage?). To my simplistic way of thinking, there's 1) what it cost him to buy us and 2) what he's invested in new funds into the club since then. The first I don't see as money put into the club, it's what he willingly paid to acquire it, which was up to him. If we've made a massive net profit on transfer dealings, and that's all gone to fund operating losses rather than repay debt, it suggests either the club is completely financially screwed or he's made a big mess of running it. Or possibly both, who knows. I think it's what would need to be paid for Ashley to break even. Just got it from the link in robs delloite thread and they don't go into detail. Purchase price £132 Million, repaying pre-exisiting debts of £70 Million (of which £45 Million was the stadium mortgage, the rest was "other loans") plus £27 Mill owed on transfers, whatever else since has been injected working capital. Did we not have any transfer fees owed to us? It's just I've heard the fact that we owed outstanding amounts ad nauseum from different sources defending Ashley, but rarely hear of any amounts that we were waiting on and as the football world largely pays in installments I find this a bit odd. Just saying, like. The £27Mill figure I believe is the net figure. Obviously any figures are skewed by the Owen deal but it was an incomming deal nonetheless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 Between 07/8 and 10/11 (last 4years) Arsenal's player trading shows a profit of £21Mill. But if extended back over the last decade their position on transfers shows an overall deficit (net spend) of £31Mill. If Fabregas and Nasri nick off I'd be surprised if they're not in player trading profit again. Figures are as stated in their accounts. Similarly, Liverpool over the same 4 years have a net deficit of £18Mill and extended over the decade a net spend of £97.3Mill (Doesn't include Carroll/Suarez/Henderson - but Torres/Babel cash balanced the first two). do people like you go to games with the balance sheet printed on their scarves ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 If you write FACT at the end of any old shite, it automatically makes it the truth. Stone wall. Undeniable. End of discussion. FACT you are now spouting exactly what you gave me flak for saying for years. FACT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 Purchase price £132 Million, repaying pre-exisiting debts of £70 Million (of which £45 Million was the stadium mortgage, the rest was "other loans") plus £27 Mill owed on transfers, whatever else since has been injected working capital. So 288 - 132 - 70 - 27 = 59 million that Mike Ashley's put into the club since 2007? Not an inconsiderable amount of money but some of that is presumably for a) paying compo to managers and their staff that have been sacked/forced out paying the cost of getting relegated from the PL c) paying high wages of players which were signed under his ownership (Smith, Collo, Gutti, etc) I'm not including transfer errors here like having to pay compo for Gutti's Bosman or the Xisco signing. So 229 to buy the club and 59 mill to keep it solvent? With a chunk of the 59 mill needed because of Ashley's own errors. Or is that just too simplistic? 59 mill sounds less impressive than 288 mill, although obviously it's 59 mill of his own money not a bank's, so good on him. I expect he'll want that back at some point.... Purchase cost was £132Mill, which has been leveraged against the club, not sure it should really be called “debt” per se as it was the cost of purchasing the shares and as such is really the “value of the club”. It’s just the same as if anyone else had bought the shares, it’s the minimum cost anyone would have to pay to buy the club. The £70Mill is additional money he had no option but to “put in” due to change of ownership clauses on the existing debts. Whilst that debt hasn’t gone away the benefit is that he’s paid that off as a loan, interest free and unsecured, saves the club £7Mill a year interest and the capital sum of the stadium expansion mortgage (£45Mill) which was due for repayment in 2013 is no longer an issue. It could be argued that as it’s a debt to the owner and as such to all intents and purposes the club is the owner and visa versa, it’s not really a debt at all, but I wouldn’t go that far as no doubt he will want it back at some point. That said unlike virtually all the other owners who are “in deep” he’s not charging interest and hasn’t secured his lending on club assets, that’s an important point. He therefore has no guarantee, he’ll get it back. The £27Mill transfer fee’s “owed” had to come from somewhere so in essence he’s covered some of that, as well, in his subsidies to the bottom line. Manager compensation (Alardarse and KK) was £10Mill IMO the only thing you can really discount from his “subsidy” is the original purchase price, he could have tried to refinance the £70Mill against the club, but he didn’t, he really did “pay it off” it’s now technically his risk/liability. so when he bought the club we had about 25m quid of debt ? In big football club terms, that is fuck all and is well worth those 15 years. Thanks, thats about what I thought it was. What is it now, since your financial whizz kid took over ? Have you posted that on skunkers so all those clowns can digest it too ? 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