Debt

[snakehips 0]

Was lying thinking about NUFC debt last night.

 

We know Ashley likes to pay for all the signings up front. When he bought the club, it was well reported (by the regime) that there were many transfer fees outstanding of players already at the club. Could it be that a lot of the debts incurred over the past few years were Ashley actually paying off those outstanding bills early instead of over the agreed period of time? If so, would the claims of Ashley having to put large amounts of money into the club be nothing more than his own doing?

 

Maybe I'm just chasing my tail, and it's all bollocks. Just wondering, that's all.

[ewerk 27488]

Going on past Ashley statements, he hadn't paid off player related debts. I also think there were some showing in the last accounts but I don't have them to hand.

[Toonpack 7356]

Was lying thinking about NUFC debt last night.

 

We know Ashley likes to pay for all the signings up front. When he bought the club, it was well reported (by the regime) that there were many transfer fees outstanding of players already at the club. Could it be that a lot of the debts incurred over the past few years were Ashley actually paying off those outstanding bills early instead of over the agreed period of time? If so, would the claims of Ashley having to put large amounts of money into the club be nothing more than his own doing?

 

Maybe I'm just chasing my tail, and it's all bollocks. Just wondering, that's all.

 

Paying off early or over time, makes no difference, it's the same amount of money out at some point.

 

If it was a "one off" you'd have seen his subsidy peak and then drop, it's been pretty consistent over time. This year'll be different I suspect and he probably wont have put owt in, maybe even recovered a lump.

[Matt 0]

Possibly. Although the 'debt' would just be the additional shareholder loan to pay off the fee if there wasn't enough cash in the club for it to do so on its own.

 

His method of paying up front but receiving in stages is the reverse of what most businesses would normally try to do- preferring to hold on to their cash as long as possible.

 

However, Ashley is cash-rich and may instead to get a better discount for paying up front, or premium for staggering receipts which will overall save him more than if he kept the extra cash in a bank account earning bugger all interest.

[Dr Gloom 20429]

Was lying thinking about NUFC debt last night.

 

We know Ashley likes to pay for all the signings up front. When he bought the club, it was well reported (by the regime) that there were many transfer fees outstanding of players already at the club. Could it be that a lot of the debts incurred over the past few years were Ashley actually paying off those outstanding bills early instead of over the agreed period of time? If so, would the claims of Ashley having to put large amounts of money into the club be nothing more than his own doing?

 

Maybe I'm just chasing my tail, and it's all bollocks. Just wondering, that's all.

 

Paying off early or over time, makes no difference, it's the same amount of money out at some point.

 

If it was a "one off" you'd have seen his subsidy peak and then drop, it's been pretty consistent over time. This year'll be different I suspect and he probably wont have put owt in, maybe even recovered a lump.

 

didn't you say September 1 was the time to judge Ashley. Just wondering what you make of his intentions now...

[snakehips 0]

Thanks for the input, lads

 

I had been thinking that these monies he had put in - and we were expected to be eternally grateful for - could've just been self-inflicted pain. As I said, I was probably just chasing my tail.

[Toonpack 7356]

Was lying thinking about NUFC debt last night.

 

We know Ashley likes to pay for all the signings up front. When he bought the club, it was well reported (by the regime) that there were many transfer fees outstanding of players already at the club. Could it be that a lot of the debts incurred over the past few years were Ashley actually paying off those outstanding bills early instead of over the agreed period of time? If so, would the claims of Ashley having to put large amounts of money into the club be nothing more than his own doing?

 

Maybe I'm just chasing my tail, and it's all bollocks. Just wondering, that's all.

 

Paying off early or over time, makes no difference, it's the same amount of money out at some point.

 

If it was a "one off" you'd have seen his subsidy peak and then drop, it's been pretty consistent over time. This year'll be different I suspect and he probably wont have put owt in, maybe even recovered a lump.

 

didn't you say September 1 was the time to judge Ashley. Just wondering what you make of his intentions now...

 

I answered that in another thread (can't recall which one) sadly.

 

But in essence, it appears obvious, due to the apparent financial "health" of the club, (and lack of visible spend) that he's recouping his exposure. Should have bought a striker, all would be well with the world.

 

As to his wider intentions, still can't work that one out. If he was in full blown "make money mode" he'd start charging interest on his loans, by not doing that he could be trimming to sell, alternatively he could be on an ego trip. "I'll show the fuckers how it's done, my fucking way". I'm leaning towards the latter possibility, which could all end in tears or maybe not.

 

I don't hold with the, keep it plodding along and milk it theory, a) because he could be milking more already (interest on loans for example, or b ) It's not his style, he likes to make a really BIG splash, milking the club (no matter how financially sound) is loose change to him and c) He, probably most of all, likes to buck trends, he's a maverick, the city boys hate him, he doesn't play by the rules yet still makes money.

 

Millionaires (I've known a couple well) don't play a short game, ever, and they have MASSIVE ego's. Billionaire's will be even worse I would think. It ceases to be about the money it's about the "doing it" whatever the "it" may be, the "it" does usually result in more massive dosh mind, but that's not the primary driver.

Edited September 15, 2011 by Toonpack

[ewerk 27488]

Millionaires (I've known a couple well) don't play a short game, ever, and they have MASSIVE ego's. Billionaire's will be even worse I would think.

 

Seriously? Ashley? The man who lost a fortune betting on HBOS shares and thinks nothing of losing a couple of million on the roulette table?

[Gemmill 37446]

Was lying thinking about NUFC debt last night.

 

Blatantly having a wank.

[ChezGiven 0]

Deb T, his old secretary.

[Toonpack 7356]

Millionaires (I've known a couple well) don't play a short game, ever, and they have MASSIVE ego's. Billionaire's will be even worse I would think.

 

Seriously? Ashley? The man who lost a fortune betting on HBOS shares and thinks nothing of losing a couple of million on the roulette table?

 

Hence, making a few million a year from NUFC would seem irrelevant.

[Guest alex]

I think he is playing the long game. I.e. keep the club ticking over by breaking even and even possibly turning a small profit until the time is right to sell. No great mystery and not a lot to get excited about in the foreseeable (unless it goes tits up).

[manc-mag 1]

I think he is playing the long game. I.e. keep the club ticking over by breaking even and even possibly turning a small profit until the time is right to sell. No great mystery and not a lot to get excited about in the foreseeable (unless it goes tits up).

 

Basically, aye.

 

I think people getting riled by the small profits element of it miss the point a bit too. Everyone whos run the club has had a nice regular dividend/salary out of it so Ashley's no different in that regard if he does take sums at intervals; whatever the true figure is (and this will be disputed til the cows come home) he will have definitely sunk a big investment in and he may just decide he'll take 'loan repayments' instead of a dividend. The point for me is that those sums wouldn't get us to the next level anyway in terms of player investment-as you say, that's where it's a long game for him-he's not interested in kicking on in a footballing sense, just an even keel and the right time to exit.

 

The exception was the refusal to buy a striker however. That could have been achieved at a relatively modest level, he couldn't argue it was outside of the established spending practices (ie a 'next level' acquisition) it was very clearly just a basic footballing requirement. The refusal to spend there was a willful dereliction and he can fuck off with any other spin.

[Guest alex]

I think he is playing the long game. I.e. keep the club ticking over by breaking even and even possibly turning a small profit until the time is right to sell. No great mystery and not a lot to get excited about in the foreseeable (unless it goes tits up).

 

Basically, aye.

 

I think people getting riled by the small profits element of it miss the point a bit too. Everyone whos run the club has had a nice regular dividend/salary out of it so Ashley's no different in that regard if he does take sums at intervals; whatever the true figure is (and this will be disputed til the cows come home) he will have definitely sunk a big investment in and he may just decide he'll take 'loan repayments' instead of a dividend. The point for me is that those sums wouldn't get us to the next level anyway in terms of player investment-as you say, that's where it's a long game for him-he's not interested in kicking on in a footballing sense, just an even keel and the right time to exit.

 

The exception was the refusal to buy a striker however. That could have been achieved at a relatively modest level, he couldn't argue it was outside of the established spending practices (ie a 'next level' acquisition) it was very clearly just a basic footballing requirement. The refusal to spend there was a willful dereliction and he can fuck off with any other spin.

Think the 'good start' probably helped make his mind up. I think you were right when you mentioned that strikers in excess of £10m will demand wages outside of the structure in place too though. That said, I think we still could have done business if he'd really wanted to. I can't see someone like Shane Long, for example, being on a massive wage.

[manc-mag 1]

I think he is playing the long game. I.e. keep the club ticking over by breaking even and even possibly turning a small profit until the time is right to sell. No great mystery and not a lot to get excited about in the foreseeable (unless it goes tits up).

 

Basically, aye.

 

I think people getting riled by the small profits element of it miss the point a bit too. Everyone whos run the club has had a nice regular dividend/salary out of it so Ashley's no different in that regard if he does take sums at intervals; whatever the true figure is (and this will be disputed til the cows come home) he will have definitely sunk a big investment in and he may just decide he'll take 'loan repayments' instead of a dividend. The point for me is that those sums wouldn't get us to the next level anyway in terms of player investment-as you say, that's where it's a long game for him-he's not interested in kicking on in a footballing sense, just an even keel and the right time to exit.

 

The exception was the refusal to buy a striker however. That could have been achieved at a relatively modest level, he couldn't argue it was outside of the established spending practices (ie a 'next level' acquisition) it was very clearly just a basic footballing requirement. The refusal to spend there was a willful dereliction and he can fuck off with any other spin.

Think the 'good start' probably helped make his mind up. I think you were right when you mentioned that strikers in excess of £10m will demand wages outside of the structure in place too though. That said, I think we still could have done business if he'd really wanted to. I can't see someone like Shane Long, for example, being on a massive wage.

 

Given the time that had been available since January, theres only two possible scenarios. Either: 1) you can't (and are therefore not a competent footballing administration) or 2) you won't. End result is the same from the fans point of view.

[Guest alex]

Aye, they had all that time, so (as you say) no excuses really.

[LeazesMag 0]

Was lying thinking about NUFC debt last night.

 

We know Ashley likes to pay for all the signings up front. When he bought the club, it was well reported (by the regime) that there were many transfer fees outstanding of players already at the club. Could it be that a lot of the debts incurred over the past few years were Ashley actually paying off those outstanding bills early instead of over the agreed period of time? If so, would the claims of Ashley having to put large amounts of money into the club be nothing more than his own doing?

 

Maybe I'm just chasing my tail, and it's all bollocks. Just wondering, that's all.

 

Paying off early or over time, makes no difference, it's the same amount of money out at some point.

 

If it was a "one off" you'd have seen his subsidy peak and then drop, it's been pretty consistent over time. This year'll be different I suspect and he probably wont have put owt in, maybe even recovered a lump.

 

does the performance of the team on the pitch interest you at all, in any way ?

 

Just asking. Or do you just buy scarves with the balance sheet woven into them ?

[LeazesMag 0]

Was lying thinking about NUFC debt last night.

 

We know Ashley likes to pay for all the signings up front. When he bought the club, it was well reported (by the regime) that there were many transfer fees outstanding of players already at the club. Could it be that a lot of the debts incurred over the past few years were Ashley actually paying off those outstanding bills early instead of over the agreed period of time? If so, would the claims of Ashley having to put large amounts of money into the club be nothing more than his own doing?

 

Maybe I'm just chasing my tail, and it's all bollocks. Just wondering, that's all.

 

Paying off early or over time, makes no difference, it's the same amount of money out at some point.

 

If it was a "one off" you'd have seen his subsidy peak and then drop, it's been pretty consistent over time. This year'll be different I suspect and he probably wont have put owt in, maybe even recovered a lump.

 

didn't you say September 1 was the time to judge Ashley. Just wondering what you make of his intentions now...

 

I answered that in another thread (can't recall which one) sadly.

 

But in essence, it appears obvious, due to the apparent financial "health" of the club, (and lack of visible spend) that he's recouping his exposure. Should have bought a striker, all would be well with the world.

 

As to his wider intentions, still can't work that one out. If he was in full blown "make money mode" he'd start charging interest on his loans, by not doing that he could be trimming to sell, alternatively he could be on an ego trip. "I'll show the fuckers how it's done, my fucking way". I'm leaning towards the latter possibility, which could all end in tears or maybe not.

 

I don't hold with the, keep it plodding along and milk it theory, a) because he could be milking more already (interest on loans for example, or b ) It's not his style, he likes to make a really BIG splash, milking the club (no matter how financially sound) is loose change to him and c) He, probably most of all, likes to buck trends, he's a maverick, the city boys hate him, he doesn't play by the rules yet still makes money.

 

Millionaires (I've known a couple well) don't play a short game, ever, and they have MASSIVE ego's. Billionaire's will be even worse I would think. It ceases to be about the money it's about the "doing it" whatever the "it" may be, the "it" does usually result in more massive dosh mind, but that's not the primary driver.

 

so how much longer are you giving him to "prove" himself now ?

[LeazesMag 0]

I think he is playing the long game. I.e. keep the club ticking over by breaking even and even possibly turning a small profit until the time is right to sell. No great mystery and not a lot to get excited about in the foreseeable (unless it goes tits up).

 

Basically, aye.

 

 

 

oh dear. When I said this ages ago, you said it was bollocks [words to that effect].

 

[Toonpack 7356]

Was lying thinking about NUFC debt last night.

 

We know Ashley likes to pay for all the signings up front. When he bought the club, it was well reported (by the regime) that there were many transfer fees outstanding of players already at the club. Could it be that a lot of the debts incurred over the past few years were Ashley actually paying off those outstanding bills early instead of over the agreed period of time? If so, would the claims of Ashley having to put large amounts of money into the club be nothing more than his own doing?

 

Maybe I'm just chasing my tail, and it's all bollocks. Just wondering, that's all.

 

Paying off early or over time, makes no difference, it's the same amount of money out at some point.

 

If it was a "one off" you'd have seen his subsidy peak and then drop, it's been pretty consistent over time. This year'll be different I suspect and he probably wont have put owt in, maybe even recovered a lump.

 

does the performance of the team on the pitch interest you at all, in any way ?

 

Just asking. Or do you just buy scarves with the balance sheet woven into them ?

 

Reading this forum, everyone should stop going because there's a distastefull logo on the roof, the fact the teams had a good start doesn't seem to matter.

[Toonpack 7356]

Was lying thinking about NUFC debt last night.

 

We know Ashley likes to pay for all the signings up front. When he bought the club, it was well reported (by the regime) that there were many transfer fees outstanding of players already at the club. Could it be that a lot of the debts incurred over the past few years were Ashley actually paying off those outstanding bills early instead of over the agreed period of time? If so, would the claims of Ashley having to put large amounts of money into the club be nothing more than his own doing?

 

Maybe I'm just chasing my tail, and it's all bollocks. Just wondering, that's all.

 

Paying off early or over time, makes no difference, it's the same amount of money out at some point.

 

If it was a "one off" you'd have seen his subsidy peak and then drop, it's been pretty consistent over time. This year'll be different I suspect and he probably wont have put owt in, maybe even recovered a lump.

 

does the performance of the team on the pitch interest you at all, in any way ?

 

Just asking. Or do you just buy scarves with the balance sheet woven into them ?

 

Reading this forum, everyone should stop going because there's a distastefull logo on the roof, the fact the teams had a good start doesn't seem to matter.

[LeazesMag 0]

Was lying thinking about NUFC debt last night.

 

We know Ashley likes to pay for all the signings up front. When he bought the club, it was well reported (by the regime) that there were many transfer fees outstanding of players already at the club. Could it be that a lot of the debts incurred over the past few years were Ashley actually paying off those outstanding bills early instead of over the agreed period of time? If so, would the claims of Ashley having to put large amounts of money into the club be nothing more than his own doing?

 

Maybe I'm just chasing my tail, and it's all bollocks. Just wondering, that's all.

 

Paying off early or over time, makes no difference, it's the same amount of money out at some point.

 

If it was a "one off" you'd have seen his subsidy peak and then drop, it's been pretty consistent over time. This year'll be different I suspect and he probably wont have put owt in, maybe even recovered a lump.

 

does the performance of the team on the pitch interest you at all, in any way ?

 

Just asking. Or do you just buy scarves with the balance sheet woven into them ?

 

Reading this forum, everyone should stop going because there's a distastefull logo on the roof, the fact the teams had a good start doesn't seem to matter.

 

good start ?

 

Bollocks.

 

Its the easiest set of fixtures we have had in years.......and only by going to games, can you evaluate the performance, which is without a doubt inferior to even last years effort, which for some reason satisfied those who have lowered their standards and expectations.

 

Posters on your other message board ie skunkers, were posting how wonderful life was just because we beat the mackems 5-1 last season. The same posters who laughed at mackems for thinking how their ultimate ambition was simply to beat us, they have now sunk to the same level.

 

FWIW, the logo on the roof wouldn't matter a shite if the team was winning and soopa Mike was backing his managers instead of running the club down, that is why I support this football team. I don't care in the slightest about logos, warehouses etc, but it only shows how daft some people are tbh when things like that get in the way of their judgements.

 

How long are you giving Mike Ashley now ? Did you mean September 1st 2018 ?

[Toonpack 7356]

Was lying thinking about NUFC debt last night.

 

We know Ashley likes to pay for all the signings up front. When he bought the club, it was well reported (by the regime) that there were many transfer fees outstanding of players already at the club. Could it be that a lot of the debts incurred over the past few years were Ashley actually paying off those outstanding bills early instead of over the agreed period of time? If so, would the claims of Ashley having to put large amounts of money into the club be nothing more than his own doing?

 

Maybe I'm just chasing my tail, and it's all bollocks. Just wondering, that's all.

 

Paying off early or over time, makes no difference, it's the same amount of money out at some point.

 

If it was a "one off" you'd have seen his subsidy peak and then drop, it's been pretty consistent over time. This year'll be different I suspect and he probably wont have put owt in, maybe even recovered a lump.

 

does the performance of the team on the pitch interest you at all, in any way ?

 

Just asking. Or do you just buy scarves with the balance sheet woven into them ?

 

Reading this forum, everyone should stop going because there's a distastefull logo on the roof, the fact the teams had a good start doesn't seem to matter.

 

good start ?

 

Bollocks.

 

Its the easiest set of fixtures we have had in years.......and only by going to games, can you evaluate the performance, which is without a doubt inferior to even last years effort, which for some reason satisfied those who have lowered their standards and expectations.

 

Posters on your other message board ie skunkers, were posting how wonderful life was just because we beat the mackems 5-1 last season. The same posters who laughed at mackems for thinking how their ultimate ambition was simply to beat us, they have now sunk to the same level.

 

FWIW, the logo on the roof wouldn't matter a shite if the team was winning and soopa Mike was backing his managers instead of running the club down, that is why I support this football team. I don't care in the slightest about logos, warehouses etc, but it only shows how daft some people are tbh when things like that get in the way of their judgements.

 

How long are you giving Mike Ashley now ? Did you mean September 1st 2018 ?

 

I have no deadline for Ashley, he and he alone controls that.

 

I have stated what I think he's doing, that's it really.

 

We still needed him (or someone as rich as him) see Chez's Everton post.

[LeazesMag 0]

Was lying thinking about NUFC debt last night.

 

We know Ashley likes to pay for all the signings up front. When he bought the club, it was well reported (by the regime) that there were many transfer fees outstanding of players already at the club. Could it be that a lot of the debts incurred over the past few years were Ashley actually paying off those outstanding bills early instead of over the agreed period of time? If so, would the claims of Ashley having to put large amounts of money into the club be nothing more than his own doing?

 

Maybe I'm just chasing my tail, and it's all bollocks. Just wondering, that's all.

 

Paying off early or over time, makes no difference, it's the same amount of money out at some point.

 

If it was a "one off" you'd have seen his subsidy peak and then drop, it's been pretty consistent over time. This year'll be different I suspect and he probably wont have put owt in, maybe even recovered a lump.

 

does the performance of the team on the pitch interest you at all, in any way ?

 

Just asking. Or do you just buy scarves with the balance sheet woven into them ?

 

Reading this forum, everyone should stop going because there's a distastefull logo on the roof, the fact the teams had a good start doesn't seem to matter.

 

good start ?

 

Bollocks.

 

Its the easiest set of fixtures we have had in years.......and only by going to games, can you evaluate the performance, which is without a doubt inferior to even last years effort, which for some reason satisfied those who have lowered their standards and expectations.

 

Posters on your other message board ie skunkers, were posting how wonderful life was just because we beat the mackems 5-1 last season. The same posters who laughed at mackems for thinking how their ultimate ambition was simply to beat us, they have now sunk to the same level.

 

FWIW, the logo on the roof wouldn't matter a shite if the team was winning and soopa Mike was backing his managers instead of running the club down, that is why I support this football team. I don't care in the slightest about logos, warehouses etc, but it only shows how daft some people are tbh when things like that get in the way of their judgements.

 

How long are you giving Mike Ashley now ? Did you mean September 1st 2018 ?

 

I have no deadline for Ashley, he and he alone controls that.

 

I have stated what I think he's doing, that's it really.

 

We still needed him (or someone as rich as him) see Chez's Everton post.

 

didn't you say your "deadline" was September 1st ?

 

We would NOT have gone bust btw, despite the scaremongering you have bought into. The only time this club would have gone bust was in 1991, and soopa Mike is now restoring the long term apathy which would have brought that into becoming reality, not a club signing top footballers, filling the 3rd biggest ground in the country located right in the middle of one of the biggest cities in the country, and having the 14th biggest revenues in world football.

[Guest alex]

He did say that, aye (or words to that effect). Moving the goalposts tbh.

Edited September 15, 2011 by alex