LeazesMag 0 Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 So, is the big assumption ashley makes that 45,000 will still turn up to provide the revenue along with TV money to pay back the debt until he decides to sell at an acceptable profit? Or keep it as a cash cow. If we don't go, the shit hits the fan? It's not like he can demolish SJP and build condos to get his money back. Probably both. When/if a point arrives when his loans are repaid he’s into pure profit, plus having a PL club to promote his other company with. It would take a hell of an offer for him to give that up. I don’t think it’ll pan out like that as you are spot on when you say ‘if we don’t turn up he’s fucked’ and attendances are already starting to fall by significant numbers and the tedium of being a nothing club has yet to kick in. the reality of being a nothing club, hasn't even started yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monroe Transfer 0 Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 One day I aspire to be as intelligent as the likes of Leazes and Sniffer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 10972 Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 One day I aspire to be as intelligent as the likes of Leazes and Sniffer. If you do, I could smash you in the face with a Horseshoe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 (edited) Anyway, Am I getting this right, he borrowed the money to buy us, and now he is selling off assets to get that money back? Meaning in 5 years or whatever the club will be effectively free for him and he can still make £100+mil when he sells uo? If I've read it right, he (potentially) set up a company (SJH) to buy the club, then loaned the company in question the money in order to buy NUFC. SJH then directly owns the club but owes MA the money. By reducing costs and turning a profit NUFC / SJH can then repay Ashley the money over a period of time. The net result being that (if it goes to plan) MA will get back all the money he paid out to buy the club, in effect getting it for nowt. It's not so much selling off assets (although Carroll would fit into that) it's more that the overall operating costs are less than the money coming in over a long enough period of time. Understood perfectly. So how does all this fit into what the club said about breaking even after this season? Does that mean SJH/FMA has got his 138mil back or that the club itself is running at break even? Has there been anything to suggest monies have been paid to SJH? In other words, we have listened for 4 years to the "experts" telling us how good old Mike was "done" by the ex owners into buying a lame duck of a football club [including his own PR machine], and believed by tossers only too happy to peddle such a story, but he knew all along what he was doing [or discovered pretty sharpish] and the situation today is exactly what he "planned" ? Not really the sort of "planning" those who knocked the ex owners for not having a "plan", had in mind, is it ? I wish I had the intelligence of a solicitor, who knows everything about everything [although they don't know anything about me ] Edited September 1, 2011 by LeazesMag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 One day I aspire to be as intelligent as the likes of Leazes and Sniffer. If you do, I could smash you in the face with a Horseshoe and one day, you might actually wake up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeys Fist 43115 Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 What was on offer tonight Leazes? Best Scotch or Exhibition? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 What was on offer tonight Leazes?Best Scotch or Exhibition? what a sad man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeys Fist 43115 Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 Happy as pigs in shit me, Leazes old chap. How about you? Nurse!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duo 0 Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 As I see it, the Glazers robbed Peter to pay Paul. Ashley robbed himself to pay himself so it's immaterial whether he leaves the purchase price sized hole in his company or in his own current account, he wants it back sooner or later. Can't really tell if he'll take out the profit until we turn a profit. I see no difference in Ashley lending the money or a bank lending the money other than it being interest free. At the end of the day the clubs still owes money be it to Ashley or the bank. That debt is on the club regardless. Its at the same sitation with Chelsea. The club owes Abramoivch £739.5 Mil and should he wish for the money to be paid back the club would only have 18 months with which to do it. Scary thought. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/...and-rising.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sniffer 0 Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 One day I aspire to be as intelligent as the likes of Leazes and Sniffer. You could certainly do a lot worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitman 2207 Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 I see no difference in Ashley lending the money or a bank lending the money other than it being interest free. At the end of the day the clubs still owes money be it to Ashley or the bank. Presumably with Ashley's debt the club has a bit less control over when it gets paid off. For instance if there was 35 mill lying around in a bank account, Ashley could demand the cash rather than it being used say to buy a new striker. Assuming his debt was repayable on demand of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 9986 Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 As I see it, the Glazers robbed Peter to pay Paul. Ashley robbed himself to pay himself so it's immaterial whether he leaves the purchase price sized hole in his company or in his own current account, he wants it back sooner or later. Can't really tell if he'll take out the profit until we turn a profit. so now we have the Toonpacks, Newcastle Online posters and skunkers posters saying "give him until 2015" etc etc etc.... Please supply that link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 9986 Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 (edited) I see no difference in Ashley lending the money or a bank lending the money other than it being interest free. At the end of the day the clubs still owes money be it to Ashley or the bank. Presumably with Ashley's debt the club has a bit less control over when it gets paid off. For instance if there was 35 mill lying around in a bank account, Ashley could demand the cash rather than it being used say to buy a new striker. Assuming his debt was repayable on demand of course. Nope, a bank could take all of the money at any time it liked (as Barclays all but did once in the late 80's) if Ashley increases the debt in the club to pay himself back all he would be doing is creating losses which he himself would be liable for or at least have to cover. Your statement forgets that Ashley as the single owner with no shareholders, to all intents and purposes, is the club. If he's recovering money, it would be by reducing the debt the club owes to him from the operating subsidies he's put in, which based upon the lack of spend this window, may be exactly what he's doing. Recovery of the £130-odd Million would come when and if the club is sold again. Edited September 2, 2011 by Toonpack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 If this is true then what I want to know is where was Parky's conspiracy theory. Surely couldn't have happened on his watch? Too wild and outlandish even for me to handle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 As I see it, the Glazers robbed Peter to pay Paul. Ashley robbed himself to pay himself so it's immaterial whether he leaves the purchase price sized hole in his company or in his own current account, he wants it back sooner or later. Can't really tell if he'll take out the profit until we turn a profit. I see no difference in Ashley lending the money or a bank lending the money other than it being interest free. At the end of the day the clubs still owes money be it to Ashley or the bank. That debt is on the club regardless. Its at the same sitation with Chelsea. The club owes Abramoivch £739.5 Mil and should he wish for the money to be paid back the club would only have 18 months with which to do it. Scary thought. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/...and-rising.html If you can't manage payments to a bank your business could fold, but he's not likely to foreclose on himself in order to recoup whatever proportion of his loans he can. The loans are there purely as security if someone appears who is willing to buy.....then it becomes a problem....if they can't afford to pay it off in full. We should also remember that in order to recoup his losses Ashley would have to turn a £30m profit every season for a decade. He's yet to get a penny back. I don't think there's anything more sinister at play than stopping the debt spiralling following his own incompetence costing the club another 40 - 50 million. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 Anyway, Am I getting this right, he borrowed the money to buy us, and now he is selling off assets to get that money back? Meaning in 5 years or whatever the club will be effectively free for him and he can still make £100+mil when he sells uo? If I've read it right, he (potentially) set up a company (SJH) to buy the club, then loaned the company in question the money in order to buy NUFC. SJH then directly owns the club but owes MA the money. By reducing costs and turning a profit NUFC / SJH can then repay Ashley the money over a period of time. The net result being that (if it goes to plan) MA will get back all the money he paid out to buy the club, in effect getting it for nowt. It's not so much selling off assets (although Carroll would fit into that) it's more that the overall operating costs are less than the money coming in over a long enough period of time. Aye, that's how I see it. But to think that he hopes to recover the full £138m is fanciful. In fact the only way he'll recover any significant amount of that loaned is if the club is sold. Bottom line is that he's one sneaky fucker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Dynamite 7182 Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 Must be a right bastard having the glazers in charge of you like, what with all your 15 to 20mil buys, league titles and champions league finals Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 I see no difference in Ashley lending the money or a bank lending the money other than it being interest free. At the end of the day the clubs still owes money be it to Ashley or the bank. Presumably with Ashley's debt the club has a bit less control over when it gets paid off. For instance if there was 35 mill lying around in a bank account, Ashley could demand the cash rather than it being used say to buy a new striker. Assuming his debt was repayable on demand of course. Nope, a bank could take all of the money at any time it liked (as Barclays all but did once in the late 80's) if Ashley increases the debt in the club to pay himself back all he would be doing is creating losses which he himself would be liable for or at least have to cover. Your statement forgets that Ashley as the single owner with no shareholders, to all intents and purposes, is the club. If he's recovering money, it would be by reducing the debt the club owes to him from the operating subsidies he's put in, which based upon the lack of spend this window, may be exactly what he's doing. Recovery of the £130-odd Million would come when and if the club is sold again. As I've suspected for some time MA doesn't actually have that much 'paper money'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig 6700 Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 Well done lads for 100% ignoring the shite attempt of a windup a page or so back... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 One day I aspire to be as intelligent as the likes of Leazes and Sniffer. You could certainly do a lot worse. quite amazing how the few people who called Ashley correctly a long time ago are deemed "less intelligent" than those who have still not seen through him/are continuing to give him the benefit of the doubt/pretending they saw through him ages ago too "I'm a solicitor/doctor etc I am always right boohoo how can I be wrong they are only morons and I'm a clever boy boohoo"....etc etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 As I see it, the Glazers robbed Peter to pay Paul. Ashley robbed himself to pay himself so it's immaterial whether he leaves the purchase price sized hole in his company or in his own current account, he wants it back sooner or later. Can't really tell if he'll take out the profit until we turn a profit. so now we have the Toonpacks, Newcastle Online posters and skunkers posters saying "give him until 2015" etc etc etc.... Please supply that link your deadline of Sep 1st is now gone ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 IIRC Toonpack you did say this was the transfer window in which Ashley should be judged (or words to that effect). Not playing the 'he said, she said' game as such but I wonder what your assessment of the window is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 IIRC Toonpack you did say this was the transfer window in which Ashley should be judged (or words to that effect). Not playing the 'he said, she said' game as such but I wonder what your assessment of the window is. indeed he did, on many occasions, and it was also quoted on many occasions too [by me] that it was also Mike Ashleys NINTH transfer window, not the 1st or 2nd, but the NINTH Posters on other sites are now blaming the ex owners for selling the club to Mike Ashley. You really couldn't make it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 IIRC Toonpack you did say this was the transfer window in which Ashley should be judged (or words to that effect). Not playing the 'he said, she said' game as such but I wonder what your assessment of the window is. indeed he did, on many occasions, and it was also quoted on many occasions too [by me] that it was also Mike Ashleys NINTH transfer window, not the 1st or 2nd, but the NINTH Posters on other sites are now blaming the ex owners for selling the club to Mike Ashley. You really couldn't make it up. I don't always agree with TP but I think he makes his case well and so on. I think that you could conceivably make excuses for Ashley (at times I hasten to stress) before this window. I'm not defending his myriad errors but I can see why he might do x,y and z in order to make up for them. There's no excuse now though imo. A few will continue to make excuses but they're so stupid as to barely consider. In a perverse way I'm almost pleased now that virtually all and sundry can see him for what he is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted September 2, 2011 Author Share Posted September 2, 2011 IIRC Toonpack you did say this was the transfer window in which Ashley should be judged (or words to that effect). Not playing the 'he said, she said' game as such but I wonder what your assessment of the window is. indeed he did, on many occasions, and it was also quoted on many occasions too [by me] that it was also Mike Ashleys NINTH transfer window, not the 1st or 2nd, but the NINTH Posters on other sites are now blaming the ex owners for selling the club to Mike Ashley. You really couldn't make it up. 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