manc-mag 1 Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 “Do you think me and Mike call it the Sports Direct Arena? We call it St James’ Park, because it is St James’ Park. Santander and BP will be chomping at the bit to hoy £100m at that sort of sales pitch. Way to showcase the opportunity Decka. Aye, I read that and just thought: does he actually care how incompetent he sounds? I mean I get he doesnt mind being unpopular (revels in it probably), and the stadium name change is prime evidence of that, but theres a huge difference between seeming unpopular and seeming retarded. That difference basically boiling down to self respect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trophyshy 7073 Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Derek Shamblias Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 9252 Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 “Do you think me and Mike call it the Sports Direct Arena? We call it St James’ Park, because it is St James’ Park. Santander and BP will be chomping at the bit to hoy £100m at that sort of sales pitch. Way to showcase the opportunity Decka. Aye, I read that and just thought: does he actually care how incompetent he sounds? I mean I get he doesnt mind being unpopular (revels in it probably), and the stadium name change is prime evidence of that, but theres a huge difference between seeming unpopular and seeming retarded. That difference basically boiling down to self respect. That comment is irrelevant. Everyone knows people will call it SJP (in the UK). From a brand exposure perspective, the selling point is about getting the brand in front of the global TV audience. What Llambias said is of no importance and will have no effect on any prospective sponsor, to suggest it will, is all a bit silly tbh. It's about exposure of a brand to some folks in Timbuktu or other far flung markets and not what anyone in the vicinity of NE5 (or GB for that matter) thinks/says. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 “Do you think me and Mike call it the Sports Direct Arena? We call it St James’ Park, because it is St James’ Park. Santander and BP will be chomping at the bit to hoy £100m at that sort of sales pitch. Way to showcase the opportunity Decka. Aye, I read that and just thought: does he actually care how incompetent he sounds? I mean I get he doesnt mind being unpopular (revels in it probably), and the stadium name change is prime evidence of that, but theres a huge difference between seeming unpopular and seeming retarded. That difference basically boiling down to self respect. of course, the name change doesn't mean he's using the club as an advertising vehicle for Sports Direct though, does it ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted March 17, 2012 Share Posted March 17, 2012 Here is a brief summary of the published accounts, it is pretty much as reported in the press £millions Income Matchday 24 Media 49 Commercial 16 Total 89 Costs Wages 54 Amortisation17 Other costs 22 Total (93) Operating loss (4) Profit on transfers 37 Profit for the year 33 We are still technically insolvent. Ashley hasn't reduced his loan - however instead of having the £10 million overdraft we had last year, we now have £10 million cash in the bank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted March 17, 2012 Share Posted March 17, 2012 And the amount SD have paid NUFC for branding is £0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JawD 99 Posted March 17, 2012 Share Posted March 17, 2012 I think most clubs are technically insolvent. Its like when I checked on my credit thing at work, the recommended limit for nufc was £500. The balance sheet was shocking. The club owes MA millions but if the club was sold it would be exactly the same. Biggest difference is MA is giving us the loan interest free while we were paying the bank each year for the loan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 9252 Posted March 17, 2012 Share Posted March 17, 2012 Plus 27 new jobs created in admin and commercial. ..........................and not a penny taken out in salary, dividend or interest on loans. What's not to like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted March 17, 2012 Share Posted March 17, 2012 Plus 27 new jobs created in admin and commercial. ..........................and not a penny taken out in salary, dividend or interest on loans. What's not to like. The 33m profit and Williamson getting a game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandman02uk 0 Posted March 17, 2012 Share Posted March 17, 2012 there ya go leazes, MA hasn't pocked the 35m for andy carrol, he's pocked 33m instead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigWalrus 0 Posted March 17, 2012 Share Posted March 17, 2012 In terms of looking at the balance sheet, we have a "debt" to Mike Ashley. However, in substance, this is simply part of the purchase price, but is recognised as a loan as it is more tax efficient than converting to equity. Think of it this way - MA pays Shepherd and Hall £100m for their stake in the club. MA knows full well that once the change in ownership takes place, the loan covenants on the loan from Barclays dictate that a change in ownership immediately makes the loan repayable. MA then has two options - either renegotiate a loan at 10% interest rates again, or stump up his own cash. He opted for the latter and it is better for the club in every way. Ultimately, whilst he owns the club, there is no point at all in charging any interest on the balances. When it comes to selling up, he can dictate whatever terms he wishes, but only with agreement of the buying party. If they buyer doesn't like the terms, they will pull out of any purchase. The results are VERY positive in every single aspect. We no longer have any reliance on banks, we no longer give out or accept credit on transfer dealings (which makes the accounts much more transparent). The player trading profit is not as simple as it seems, as it can often include player contract write offs. I imagine the likes of Xisco and Alan Smith will have had their contracts written off early as the club clearly has no intention of playing them. Comments such as, "We are still technically insolvent" from Happy Face are so completely misinformed, it's embarrassing. If you don't know what you're talking about, it's better not to say anything at all... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigWalrus 0 Posted March 17, 2012 Share Posted March 17, 2012 I think most clubs are technically insolvent. Its like when I checked on my credit thing at work, the recommended limit for nufc was £500. The balance sheet was shocking. The club owes MA millions but if the club was sold it would be exactly the same. Biggest difference is MA is giving us the loan interest free while we were paying the bank each year for the loan. It's not really a loan. MA paid £100m to Shepherd and Hall. He knew in advance that the loan needed to be repaid due to change in ownership. The other alternative would have been for Shepherd and Hall to pump in their own money to repay the loan (which they certainly wouldn't do - S&H both took millions and millions OUT of the club) then MA to pay them the extra. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted March 17, 2012 Share Posted March 17, 2012 (edited) In terms of looking at the balance sheet, we have a "debt" to Mike Ashley. However, in substance, this is simply part of the purchase price, but is recognised as a loan as it is more tax efficient than converting to equity. Think of it this way - MA pays Shepherd and Hall £100m for their stake in the club. MA knows full well that once the change in ownership takes place, the loan covenants on the loan from Barclays dictate that a change in ownership immediately makes the loan repayable. MA then has two options - either renegotiate a loan at 10% interest rates again, or stump up his own cash. He opted for the latter and it is better for the club in every way. Ultimately, whilst he owns the club, there is no point at all in charging any interest on the balances. When it comes to selling up, he can dictate whatever terms he wishes, but only with agreement of the buying party. If they buyer doesn't like the terms, they will pull out of any purchase. The results are VERY positive in every single aspect. We no longer have any reliance on banks, we no longer give out or accept credit on transfer dealings (which makes the accounts much more transparent). The player trading profit is not as simple as it seems, as it can often include player contract write offs. I imagine the likes of Xisco and Alan Smith will have had their contracts written off early as the club clearly has no intention of playing them. Comments such as, "We are still technically insolvent" from Happy Face are so completely misinformed, it's embarrassing. If you don't know what you're talking about, it's better not to say anything at all... My entire post there was cut and paste from an accountant on another forum. I believe it to be true as our assets are valued at £113m and our debt £150m+. Edited March 17, 2012 by Happy Face Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaddockLad 17087 Posted March 17, 2012 Share Posted March 17, 2012 So say Ashley fancies selling up....he could accept what he paid for it, perhaps with a small profit, and leave us still with a lot of the debt from the Shepherd/Hall years? Would anyone be mad enough to buy us with around 50mill of debt still? I think Ashley will own us for a long, long time. Difficult to say how I feel about that..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JawD 99 Posted March 17, 2012 Share Posted March 17, 2012 I think most clubs are technically insolvent. Its like when I checked on my credit thing at work, the recommended limit for nufc was £500. The balance sheet was shocking. The club owes MA millions but if the club was sold it would be exactly the same. Biggest difference is MA is giving us the loan interest free while we were paying the bank each year for the loan. It's not really a loan. MA paid £100m to Shepherd and Hall. He knew in advance that the loan needed to be repaid due to change in ownership. The other alternative would have been for Shepherd and Hall to pump in their own money to repay the loan (which they certainly wouldn't do - S&H both took millions and millions OUT of the club) then MA to pay them the extra. I've not actually looked at the accounts yet, but didnt MA set up a holding company, he loans the holding company money and they buy the club? So the club is owned by the holding Co who own MA the cash? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JawD 99 Posted March 17, 2012 Share Posted March 17, 2012 So say Ashley fancies selling up....he could accept what he paid for it, perhaps with a small profit, and leave us still with a lot of the debt from the Shepherd/Hall years? Would anyone be mad enough to buy us with around 50mill of debt still? I think Ashley will own us for a long, long time. Difficult to say how I feel about that..... Its a bit like what happened to MUFC on a smaller scale. Someone could in theory come in, buy the club by loaning from the banks and we'd be back to square 1. We could rack up a loan of interest like MUFC do. Iirc the Glaziers didnt plump up the cash for MUFC, they got the banks to and the are crippled with (though manageable) interest. MA could sell but it needs someone to buy it and take on the debt which at the moment isnt with a bank and that is more attractive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggio 0 Posted March 17, 2012 Share Posted March 17, 2012 So say Ashley fancies selling up....he could accept what he paid for it, perhaps with a small profit, and leave us still with a lot of the debt from the Shepherd/Hall years? Would anyone be mad enough to buy us with around 50mill of debt still? I think Ashley will own us for a long, long time. Difficult to say how I feel about that..... I don't see a situation where he would sell the club without the debt going as part of the package. The results are promising, it looks like the overdraft with Barclays has all but gone too so all we owe is what we owe Ashley and he seems happy to leave it. We've also got plenty of room for growth in areas too so it's a case of keeping costs under control and continuing to move forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Your Name Here Posted March 17, 2012 Share Posted March 17, 2012 I think most clubs are technically insolvent. Its like when I checked on my credit thing at work, the recommended limit for nufc was £500. The balance sheet was shocking. The club owes MA millions but if the club was sold it would be exactly the same. Biggest difference is MA is giving us the loan interest free while we were paying the bank each year for the loan. It's not really a loan. MA paid £100m to Shepherd and Hall. He knew in advance that the loan needed to be repaid due to change in ownership. The other alternative would have been for Shepherd and Hall to pump in their own money to repay the loan (which they certainly wouldn't do - S&H both took millions and millions OUT of the club) then MA to pay them the extra. That only threatens to make sense if MA valued a solvent NUFC at £270m. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigWalrus 0 Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 The loans do not involve any holding companies, they are directly from MA's personal bank account. As explained, whilst they are shown as loans on the balance sheet, they're essentially part of the purchase price. Undoubtedly, MA will struggle to get back the £240m he put it. However, when he first bought the club, he would have struggled to get £50m. By turning the club into a profitable entity, he will obtain a much higher selling price. I imagine any buyer would stipulate that the loans are written off as part of the deal. The buyer has the power here, as MA paid over the odds in the first place, and paying silly money for a football club isn't a particularly smart thing to do... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 It starts its downward trend from 2007 though, it would be too simplistic to suggest that this was the year Ashley bought the club. Exactly what the Swiss Ramble has done in yesterdays article.... 4. What difference has Ashley really made to the club’s profit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 21814 Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 This thread has turned into a really interesting read. The absence of a certain someone benefitting this place hugely already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt 0 Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 So say Ashley fancies selling up....he could accept what he paid for it, perhaps with a small profit, and leave us still with a lot of the debt from the Shepherd/Hall years? Would anyone be mad enough to buy us with around 50mill of debt still? I think Ashley will own us for a long, long time. Difficult to say how I feel about that..... Its a bit like what happened to MUFC on a smaller scale. Someone could in theory come in, buy the club by loaning from the banks and we'd be back to square 1. We could rack up a loan of interest like MUFC do. Iirc the Glaziers didnt plump up the cash for MUFC, they got the banks to and the are crippled with (though manageable) interest. MA could sell but it needs someone to buy it and take on the debt which at the moment isnt with a bank and that is more attractive. It would be extremely unusual to leave a shareholder loan like this in place after a sale. You do sometime see vendor notes used as part of acquisition financing but this is very rare. In reality any buyer would purchase the club for a price which would involve the defeasement of the £140m loan from MA. Debt ranks senior to equity, so leaving the loan in would still leave the club beholden to the terms of that loan, so I see that as a non-starter. Any such arrangement would likely create conflict and have a negative impact on NUFC's operations. As for bank finance. No bank should touch a football club with even the longest bargepole known to man. Commercial decisions are potentially compromised by fan campaigns- aside from the fact they are rotten credits to start with. Swissramble has EBITDA at 16.2m- giving a ratio of Net Debt to EBITDA ratio of 8.1x. That is perhaps sustainable for a regulated utility company, but for a see-saw moneypit like football it is absolutely off the scale. It's worth remembering that much of our debt pre-2007 was secured on a dependable cash stream. We could try something like that again (Ticketus-style investors) but you won't find banks going for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 This thread has turned into a really interesting read. The absence of a certain someone benefitting this place hugely already. stop your moaning man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Plus 27 new jobs created in admin and commercial. ..........................and not a penny taken out in salary, dividend or interest on loans. What's not to like. The 33m profit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew 4718 Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 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