Football Clubs & Debt

[Toonpack 9294]

He moved up the Forbes list to number 491 in the world this week.

 

Up 150 places

 

15th richest in UK

 

Net worth $2.5 Billion now.

 

I know he is, but I just look at other Billionaires, then I look at Mike Ashley and... I don't know I just fully expect is wealth to be considerably less than it is. I mean.. seriously Just look at him

 

Bill Gates doesn't exactly look minted, he's looks more like someone who would play with a trainset (when he's not collecting stamps).

[The Fish 10776]

Yeah but if someone were to point out a bookish looking fellow I could accept he may be wealthy. I look at Ashley and he just looks like a bloke who owns a few Car Dealerships.

[Kid Dynamite 7008]

The press release is on .Cock now.

 

Makes for good reading. If Ashley didn't fuck around with the stadium he would be back in a lot of people's good books by now.

[LeazesMag 0]

Also, I think his attitude towards the club has changed (again) the purchase of Cisse isn't the action of a man who simply wants to survive the Premier League. If he just wanted to remain in the top flight he could have done that without any January purchases at all.

 

Billionaire's don't like to fail (or be also rans) at anything they do, they'll do it 100% their way though. T'is one of the things I'm optimistic about.

 

What would be interesting ( and something I doubt we'll know until after his reign) is what exactly his measure of success is?

 

Also I know this may seem odd, but I just don't think of Ashley as a Billionaire.

 

a profit, while retaining premiership status, and a worldwide publicity vehicle for Sports Direct ?

Edited March 8, 2012 by LeazesMag

[BestBaNone 0]

a profit, while retaining premiership status, and a worldwide publicity vehicle for Sports Direct ?

He could probably make a bigger profit by sticking his £270m in a savings account

[The Fish 10776]

 

 

a profit, while retaining premiership status, and a worldwide publicity vehicle for Sports Direct ?

Then why buy Cisse? He could do all that without an additional £10m expenditure/gamble.

[trophyshy 7073]

Imagine how much more free publicity he could get if Newcastle get into Europe?

 

Or, god forbid, we actually won something. The devious bastard.

Edited March 8, 2012 by trophyshy

[Happy Face 29]

 

 

a profit, while retaining premiership status, and a worldwide publicity vehicle for Sports Direct ?

Then why buy Cisse? He could do all that without an additional £10m expenditure/gamble.

 

For next season when Ba has gone.

 

Planning.

[LeazesMag 0]

a profit, while retaining premiership status, and a worldwide publicity vehicle for Sports Direct ?

He could probably make a bigger profit by sticking his £270m in a savings account

 

makes you wonder why people buy football clubs doesn't it

[The Fish 10776]

a profit, while retaining premiership status, and a worldwide publicity vehicle for Sports Direct ?

Then why buy Cisse? He could do all that without an additional £10m expenditure/gamble.

 

For next season when Ba has gone.

 

Planning.

why not just unearth another striker available on a free transfer? There'll be a few.

[LeazesMag 0]

a profit, while retaining premiership status, and a worldwide publicity vehicle for Sports Direct ?

Then why buy Cisse? He could do all that without an additional £10m expenditure/gamble.

 

could he ?

[Happy Face 29]

 

why not just unearth another striker available on a free transfer? There'll be a few.

 

Because we'll get canny wedge off Ba and his wages are quite high, we could bring in cisse without spending too much and gives us a better chance of retaining top flight status than best and shola.

[LeazesMag 0]

why not just unearth another striker available on a free transfer? There'll be a few.

 

Because we'll get canny wedge off Ba and his wages are quite high, we could bring in cisse without spending too much and gives us a better chance of retaining top flight status than best and shola.

 

too straightforward and logical that like.

[The Fish 10776]

why not just unearth another striker available on a free transfer? There'll be a few.

 

Because we'll get canny wedge off Ba and his wages are quite high, we could bring in cisse without spending too much and gives us a better chance of retaining top flight status than best and shola.

 

too straightforward and logical that like.

 

 

So, what you're both saying is that this £10m gamble is only to secure survival? Right.

 

[Happy Face 29]

 

 

So, what you're both saying is that this £10m gamble is only to secure survival? Right.

 

 

I'm guessing its not a gamble, I'm considering it a cost effective replacement. The alternative is its only ambitious to the extent that we're happy to lose our 2 main strikers next January, rather than 1, which will fuck our season up big style.

[The Fish 10776]

 

 

I'm guessing its not a gamble, I'm considering it a cost effective replacement. The alternative is its only ambitious to the extent that we're happy to lose our 2 main strikers next January, rather than 1, which will fuck our season up big style.

Howay HF, I expect Howl at the Moon stuff from Leazes, but I thought you more rational.

 

Carroll was sold because of the batshit mental fee we were offered, Jose wanted to go, but everybody else that went has been improved upon. We're not the asset stripping club that Leazes makes us out to be.

[Gemmill 44491]

Something tells me HF has taken on this role out of sympathy for the madman.

[Happy Face 29]

I'm guessing its not a gamble, I'm considering it a cost effective replacement. The alternative is its only ambitious to the extent that we're happy to lose our 2 main strikers next January, rather than 1, which will fuck our season up big style.

Howay HF, I expect Howl at the Moon stuff from Leazes, but I thought you more rational.

 

Carroll was sold because of the batshit mental fee we were offered, Jose wanted to go, but everybody else that went has been improved upon. We're not the asset stripping club that Leazes makes us out to be.

 

How's that howl at the moon stuff? It must be one of limited options...in decreasing order of preference

 

1) Cisse and Ba will remain and we'll bring in even better forwards than Best, Shola and Ranger to cover their absence.

2) Cisse has been bought with the knowledge Ba is getting off and we'll be adding better forwards to cover his absence.

3) Cisse and Ba are the main strikers for next season, and we'll miss them both for at least a month for the African Nations.

4) Cisse has been bought with the knowledge Ba is getting off and we'll get by with him Best, Shola & Ranger

 

I'd love it to be number 1 or 2.

 

3 would be ok, but a right pisser when January roles arouind and derails the season.

 

Given that I'm hoping for a significant investment in a couple of defensive position and maybe on the right wing too, it would be asking too much to bring in more quality strikers I think, so 4 isn't at all daft. We entered the back end of last season in a worse position than number 4, and started this season in almost exactly that boat (assuming Ba = Cisse).

[The Fish 10776]

I'm guessing its not a gamble, I'm considering it a cost effective replacement. The alternative is its only ambitious to the extent that we're happy to lose our 2 main strikers next January, rather than 1, which will fuck our season up big style.

Howay HF, I expect Howl at the Moon stuff from Leazes, but I thought you more rational.

 

Carroll was sold because of the batshit mental fee we were offered, Jose wanted to go, but everybody else that went has been improved upon. We're not the asset stripping club that Leazes makes us out to be.

 

How's that howl at the moon stuff? It must be one of limited options...in decreasing order of preference

 

1) Cisse and Ba will remain and we'll bring in even better forwards than Best, Shola and Ranger to cover their absence.

2) Cisse has been bought with the knowledge Ba is getting off and we'll be adding better forwards to cover his absence.

3) Cisse and Ba are the main strikers for next season, and we'll miss them both for at least a month for the African Nations.

4) Cisse has been bought with the knowledge Ba is getting off and we'll get by with him Best, Shola & Ranger

 

I'd love it to be number 1 or 2.

 

3 would be ok, but a right pisser when January roles arouind and derails the season.

 

Given that I'm hoping for a significant investment in a couple of defensive position and maybe on the right wing too, it would be asking too much to bring in more quality strikers I think, so 4 isn't at all daft. We entered the back end of last season in a worse position than number 4, and started this season in almost exactly that boat (assuming Ba = Cisse).

 

but you're forgetting that the purchase of Cisse is in direct contradiction of the transfer policy we've been expecting. He's not old, but he's £10m investment and his stock is unlikely to rise that significantly imo.

 

I think the most likely is

 

5. Cisse and Ba will be the first choice, when they're away at ACN we will rely on squad players/young players to fill in. We're likely to buy a young striker who isn't ready for the first team yet, who will "get their chance" while 9 and 19 are away.

[Kitman 2204]

I do think the club is trying to improve the squad, just not as quickly as most of us would like. They're obviously trying to balance improvement with cost control too, which hampers the speed of progress. imo.

[LeazesMag 0]

I'm guessing its not a gamble, I'm considering it a cost effective replacement. The alternative is its only ambitious to the extent that we're happy to lose our 2 main strikers next January, rather than 1, which will fuck our season up big style.

Howay HF, I expect Howl at the Moon stuff from Leazes, but I thought you more rational.

 

Carroll was sold because of the batshit mental fee we were offered, Jose wanted to go, but everybody else that went has been improved upon. We're not the asset stripping club that Leazes makes us out to be.

 

We are. If you are right, you could point to the fee for Carroll and what the manager did with it. Otherwise you are wrong.

 

Basic kids stuff this like.

[LeazesMag 0]

Something tells me HF has taken on this role out of sympathy for the madman.

 

are you going to take my bet ?

Edited March 9, 2012 by LeazesMag

[JawD 99]

On the OP about debt of clubs. It's foolish to think clubs are immune to action when they push too far.

 

I think LM is wrong when the undertone of his posts suggests nothing will happen to a club however he is bang on when saying clubs are a "different" business.

 

I use a credit report facility at work and when you look at NUFC as a standard business it is shocking, but no shocking than other clubs, in fact better than many.

 

According to the report, they wouldn't even get credit at PC World to buy a PC such is their recommended limit.

 

Coming into today not only do we have the Rangers debacle on going and Portsmouth on the precipice but Port Vale have again gone into administration.

 

On Rangers though, I was reading how they got in to such a mess. Essentially it seems they should never have been bought by whyte. He paid off the original club debt of £18m and bought the club for £1. He funded it though by loaning £24M from future ticket sales. Then also used unpaid VAT and PAYE money to fund day to day running (at a loss). It's only because HMRC have caught up with the club that this came out.

 

Rangers need to come out of administration but it's unlikely (not impossible) they would be liquidated. More likely a CVA will be agreed much to the annoyance of the rest of the league. Or a new Rangers is founded buying the assets of the old co and getting voted back in to the league.

 

I think it is scare mongering to suggest NUFC were at that stage though. We had debts and were mortgaged up to the hilt. There were no other means of borrowing but there was no hidden HMRC debt about to come crashing in.

 

The difficulty I think for NUFC would have been further down the road. Unsure how they would have continued to fund losses.

[Toonpack 9294]

On the OP about debt of clubs. It's foolish to think clubs are immune to action when they push too far.

 

I think LM is wrong when the undertone of his posts suggests nothing will happen to a club however he is bang on when saying clubs are a "different" business.

 

I use a credit report facility at work and when you look at NUFC as a standard business it is shocking, but no shocking than other clubs, in fact better than many.

 

According to the report, they wouldn't even get credit at PC World to buy a PC such is their recommended limit.

 

Coming into today not only do we have the Rangers debacle on going and Portsmouth on the precipice but Port Vale have again gone into administration.

 

On Rangers though, I was reading how they got in to such a mess. Essentially it seems they should never have been bought by whyte. He paid off the original club debt of £18m and bought the club for £1. He funded it though by loaning £24M from future ticket sales. Then also used unpaid VAT and PAYE money to fund day to day running (at a loss). It's only because HMRC have caught up with the club that this came out.

 

Rangers need to come out of administration but it's unlikely (not impossible) they would be liquidated. More likely a CVA will be agreed much to the annoyance of the rest of the league. Or a new Rangers is founded buying the assets of the old co and getting voted back in to the league.

 

I think it is scare mongering to suggest NUFC were at that stage though. We had debts and were mortgaged up to the hilt. There were no other means of borrowing but there was no hidden HMRC debt about to come crashing in.

 

The difficulty I think for NUFC would have been further down the road. Unsure how they would have continued to fund losses.

 

I thinkthat "furtherdown theroad" was a short road timewise tbh

 

On the tax, apart from the one we've just settled with HMRC for historical EBT's, amount not yet known/confirmed. (saw a report the other day, can't recall where dammit!!)

 

Rangers (on EBT's) are looking at another £48Mill debt landing if they lose the "big tax case" as it's called, that goes way back to Murray's time btw.

[ewerk 30368]

The case we settled was related to payment of image rights rather than use of an EBT.