Howay 12496 Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 Must say I'm confused HF, I'm nowhere near as knowledgeable about the clubs accounts but I remember you mentioning in the past Ashley has been taking money out the club the last 3 (?) years, if so what is that money going to? it doesn't seem to be lowering the 134m amount the club owe him too much and now it's being stated that he's still owed 18m from the last relegation as we're heading for another one. Sick to the back teeth of this fucking chancer, the daft cunt deserves a massive amount of the blame for the relegation season so he can fuck off claiming he's owed that money back ffs, he should be taking money to pay the 134m off first and foremost (again this was also his fault/problem for not doing proper due diligence but nevermind) getting 'paid back' for the relegation should be the last money he takes out before finally claiming it as just profit imo. What a fucking left testicle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Kelly 1205 Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 Must say I'm confused HF, I'm nowhere near as knowledgeable about the clubs accounts but I remember you mentioning in the past Ashley has been taking money out the club the last 3 (?) years, if so what is that money going to? it doesn't seem to be lowering the 134m amount the club owe him too much and now it's being stated that he's still owed 18m from the last relegation as we're heading for another one. Sick to the back teeth of this fucking chancer, the daft cunt deserves a massive amount of the blame for the relegation season so he can fuck off claiming he's owed that money back ffs, he should be taking money to pay the 134m off first and foremost (again this was also his fault/problem for not doing proper due diligence but nevermind) getting 'paid back' for the relegation should be the last money he takes out before finally claiming it as just profit imo. What a fucking left testicle. I don't really know any of the details but would it make any difference if he was claiming to be taking back the money from the relegation loan or what he put in at the begining? We're not paying interest on either are we? Totally agree he was to blame for the relegation anyway so he should just have written the whole thing off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 Some new rules coming if Labour get in regarding fan representation on football club boards. /clutchingatstraws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howay 12496 Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 I don't really know any of the details but would it make any difference if he was claiming to be taking back the money from the relegation loan or what he put in at the begining? We're not paying interest on either are we? Totally agree he was to blame for the relegation anyway so he should just have written the whole thing off. Aye I guess not, I just have issue that the 134m is tacked onto the possible selling price (not that he'd sell short of mental money anyway) and would like to see this reduced and then when it's done and the club is down to whatever the market price would be (vague I know) he could then pay himself back for the relegation season. Of course this is all idealistic, pie in the sky stuff anyway, couldn't say what I would do if I was in a similar position as owner of Spurs. I just have real issue, like you, of them constantly referencing the money 'owed' for relegation as if he done everyone a favour. He was just saving his asset from his numerous fuck ups. I also agree in an ideal world I'd like to see him write it off but I don't expect it. Just this patronising nature of making it seem like Mike is an awesome bloke who done us all a big favour and he deserves paid back in full that I'm not having, take the money pay off the 134m loan then take a fair amount of the profits and call it whatever the fuck you want but they need to pack in listing all these things as loans from Mike. Again though this is the way these cock jockeys see everything, the same way as they'll come out and say we have a 20m warchest, sign two 3m players and say "weww we 'aaad to give tiote and Krul new contracts so that caaaaam aaaaht the 20 miwww" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 Must say I'm confused HF, I'm nowhere near as knowledgeable about the clubs accounts but I remember you mentioning in the past Ashley has been taking money out the club the last 3 (?) years, if so what is that money going to? it doesn't seem to be lowering the 134m amount the club owe him too much and now it's being stated that he's still owed 18m from the last relegation as we're heading for another one. Sick to the back teeth of this fucking chancer, the daft cunt deserves a massive amount of the blame for the relegation season so he can fuck off claiming he's owed that money back ffs, he should be taking money to pay the 134m off first and foremost (again this was also his fault/problem for not doing proper due diligence but nevermind) getting 'paid back' for the relegation should be the last money he takes out before finally claiming it as just profit imo. What a fucking left testicle. I've said "In 4 years nufc has paid Mike Ashley £11m". It was a single payment 3 years ago, but my point was that Ashley has not been putting any money into the club for over 4 years now. Every year Newcastle foot the bill for more advertising for his company (now on a plush new telly)...AND he takes money out of the club, rather than puts it in. The debt inherited, the mortgage that became instantly repayable in full, the early spending spree on players and then relegation while already running at a loss came to a total cost of £140m. £111m accrued before relegation, £29m after. £139m outstanding in the last accounts after the £11m repayment, the £18m being repaid would leave £111m again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 Aye I guess not, I just have issue that the 134m is tacked onto the possible selling price (not that he'd sell short of mental money anyway) and would like to see this reduced and then when it's done and the club is down to whatever the market price would be (vague I know) he could then pay himself back for the relegation season. Of course this is all idealistic, pie in the sky stuff anyway, couldn't say what I would do if I was in a similar position as owner of Spurs. I just have real issue, like you, of them constantly referencing the money 'owed' for relegation as if he done everyone a favour. He was just saving his asset from his numerous fuck ups. I also agree in an ideal world I'd like to see him write it off but I don't expect it. Just this patronising nature of making it seem like Mike is an awesome bloke who done us all a big favour and he deserves paid back in full that I'm not having, take the money pay off the 134m loan then take a fair amount of the profits and call it whatever the fuck you want but they need to pack in listing all these things as loans from Mike. Again though this is the way these cock jockeys see everything, the same way as they'll come out and say we have a 20m warchest, sign two 3m players and say "weww we 'aaad to give tiote and Krul new contracts so that caaaaam aaaaht the 20 miwww" £134m was Ashley's total purchase price I think Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howay 12496 Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 Cheers for clearing that up HF, so it'd probably take 6 or so years (of course the TV money increasing will lower it a little) of steady mid-table finishes to clear that. Pity the football club is going to need to actually buy players to stay up which will lower profits. So really the advertisements and the taking over of the merchandising etc could be looked at as a sort of interest on the loan the club doesn't pay interest on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 That's how the club present it, I don't think it's an argument that stands up though... Ashley would like us to believe that the quid pro quo element comes from two words, “interst free”. The board explained that the owner's position is clear and that the Club is not attempting to hide it. To add context, it was explained that the Club's debt cost £8m in interest alone every year before Mike Ashley purchased the club. This context should not go unquestioned. The club’s figure for interest payments here is exaggerated. Almost every year prior to Ashley’s arrival Interest was payable at £4.5m a year. In the year prior to Ashley’s arrival this grew by £3m to £7.5m. Also, every other billionaire that owns a club that had any debt has not only stopped interest payments, they have converted their loans into equity, effectively wiping out the debt at their clubs. Abramovich at Chelsea (£340m), Mansour at man City (£305m), Al Fayed at Fulham (£212m), Lerner at Villa (£90m), Short at Sunderland (£69m), Leibherr at Southampton (£38m) etc. None of these advertise their other companies for free or hold their loans over the club as a stick to beat them. They write off the loans and maximise the financial performance of the club. To give Ashley as much benefit of the doubt as possible, we can accept that interest could be charged, that the club save somewhere between £4.5m and £8m given that it is not. It is also true that the amount is in excess of the income Newcastle could reasonably expect to receive by selling the space to any other company at the moment. Had Newcastle kept up with Spurs and Liverpool these past few years, perhaps we could have attracted larger sums, but what makes Newcastle the host to Sport’s Direct’s parasite is that the club’s association with them, the stadium renaming, relegation, the toxic relationship between owner and fans is what has cheapened the brand to the degree that we now compete financially with Stoke and Southampton rather than Liverpool and Spurs. The true commercial cost to Newcastle of associating with Sports Direct is seen in the drop in commercial revenue of the club which still shows little possibility of recovering to pre-existing levels any time soon. £10m every year less than prior to relegation. However the board try to spin the interest free loan, the difference in commercial income received would have covered that interest easily with millions left over spare. It’s this fact that means, even if the interest were the £8m the club claim, we would have had better earnings had we continued to pay that interest and maintained our commercial standing and brand attractiveness in the game. Man U pay £70m a year in interest because they can afford to as a commercial behemoth. It can also be seen that every other club in the league (relegated no more than once, like NUFC) over Ashley’s time has not just maintained commercial income but grown it. So the recession or factors other clubs deal with cannot be blamed. http://nufc-ashlies.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/how-newcastle-united-has-been-exploited.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 (edited) HF is like Edward Scissorhands obsessively cutting and snipping graphs in his ongoing internal battle with the dark regime. Edited October 23, 2014 by Park Life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 I'm an outlier. I put in the 10000 hours years ago. Instant recall now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howay 12496 Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 So it'd be far better to just pay interest anyway, what a sack. Imagine HF at one of these fan forums btw, they'd have him escorted out "Okay now that rude man and his difficult questions are gone can we hear some more from Vishal Vedhara about how all of our signings from the summer have been okay? and some more softball questions" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howay 12496 Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 It's also fucking disgraceful that our commercial revenue has dropped below West Ham, Aston Villa and the mackems. This is really going to fuck the club up in the long term as our brand recognition will be dropping and we'll be viewed as the same shitty level as the tramps, West Ham, Fulham etc in emerging markets. Thanks Michael. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 We're missing some of the key brand signposts right now and it takes time even in perfect conditions to get them all back... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitman 2204 Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 Turning good brands into cheap shite is what the fat cunt does. Filling his pockets is all that matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howay 12496 Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 We're missing some of the key brand signposts right now and it takes time even in perfect conditions to get them all back... Yup, it'll take a good length of time for the next owner to build back up to being a known brand again. The longer chubby Mike stays around the lower and lower our recognition will become. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 21302 Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 HF blatantly needs to attend the next one. 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