Boycott

User avatar
PTAO?
Avoids Death. Until it Matters.
Avoids Death. Until it Matters.
Posts: 8710
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 9:42 pm
Location: Miami

Re: Boycott

Post by PTAO? » Mon Aug 12, 2019 5:27 pm

Tsi wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 5:15 pm
PTAO? wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 5:02 pm


Legally, sure.

Don't know why any fans would defend him crippling the club though.
I think it's more a case of debating than defending as there seems to be a mantra not wholly correct when it comes to our owner and the way he runs our club.
Oh there are definitely Ashley Apologists out there who are quick to jump down the throat of anyone claiming Ashley is taking money out of the club, or profiting from it in anyway.

Colly
Forum Legend
Forum Legend
Posts: 5671
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 6:44 pm
Location: Billingham

Re: Boycott

Post by Colly » Mon Aug 12, 2019 5:36 pm

I think there's a massive bit of balance that's missing. There's a lot of fans that think we should have massive net spend which we're never going to have while Ashley tries to recoup the investment he made without due diligence. It's his mistake but he's not going to write that off out of the goodness of his heart. Obviously there's a horrible list of mistakes made, mostly through being an idiot rather than evil, but we could be a hell of a lot worse as Sunderland, Blackpool, Bury and Bolton can attest. With Ashley it's the hope that kills you, the false dawns, the occasional signing, before a crippling error. For me, Rafa (maybe) aside, we're on a good Ashley period...

User avatar
Tsi
10 Champs Gold
10 Champs Gold
Posts: 12151
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 8:08 pm
Location: Up North

Re: Boycott

Post by Tsi » Mon Aug 12, 2019 5:37 pm

PTAO? wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 5:27 pm
Tsi wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 5:15 pm


I think it's more a case of debating than defending as there seems to be a mantra not wholly correct when it comes to our owner and the way he runs our club.
Oh there are definitely Ashley Apologists out there who are quick to jump down the throat of anyone claiming Ashley is taking money out of the club, or profiting from it in anyway.
Yeah i agree there is also a lot of Ashley haters quick to jump on anyone that picks holes in their argument, i was more talking this forum though than the wider supporters maybe you were as well <laugh>
I think there's a massive bit of balance that's missing
this is the key

User avatar
PTAO?
Avoids Death. Until it Matters.
Avoids Death. Until it Matters.
Posts: 8710
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 9:42 pm
Location: Miami

Re: Boycott

Post by PTAO? » Mon Aug 12, 2019 5:57 pm

Colly wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 5:36 pm
I think there's a massive bit of balance that's missing. There's a lot of fans that think we should have massive net spend which we're never going to have while Ashley tries to recoup the investment he made without due diligence. It's his mistake but he's not going to write that off out of the goodness of his heart. Obviously there's a horrible list of mistakes made, mostly through being an idiot rather than evil, but we could be a hell of a lot worse as Sunderland, Blackpool, Bury and Bolton can attest. With Ashley it's the hope that kills you, the false dawns, the occasional signing, before a crippling error. For me, Rafa (maybe) aside, we're on a good Ashley period...
I can forgive errors.
What I'll never accept is the lack of ambition. Whether or not you think Rafa was the right manager for us, this quote epitomizes Ashley's reign
When I came to Newcastle, they gave me the plans for the new training ground, I was talking to the architect about changing a few things and after three years . . . they painted the walls

User avatar
Bodacious Benny
Whiskey Club Member
Whiskey Club Member
Posts: 27329
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2012 11:18 am

Re: Boycott

Post by Bodacious Benny » Mon Aug 12, 2019 7:18 pm

I don’t think owning the club is costing Ashley anything. Sure he might not be raking it in, but if he was personally losing money year on year I’m sure he would have found an opportunity to sell (even if it wasn’t quite the price he wanted, if he was losing enough for a sustained period he’d eventually cut his losses). Maybe I’m over simplifying it but I think at worst he breaks even owning the club (at very worst), has very little involvement in the day to day running of the club so might as well sit tight and see what happens.
I'm the scumbag outlaw. You're the pillar of justice. Neither of us like looking at ourselves in the mirror. Do we have a deal?

User avatar
Remember Colo
Forum Legend
Forum Legend
Posts: 9598
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 12:57 am
Location: Toronto

Re: Boycott

Post by Remember Colo » Mon Aug 12, 2019 7:23 pm

omegaprimevkm wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 2:22 pm
There is a big claim that 'profit' is being made by Ashley, because not all of the revenues that are required to run the club (TV, commercial, matchday) are left in the club. He is taking money from the club - it's not possible that a club this size is the only one in the league where the income isn't as high compared to, say, Brighton, Bournemouth etc. They're paying more for players, year on year, they're paying their players more.

The declared accounts can definitely be massaged to hide these aspects.
I never was implying that, my point is that most owners are willing to lose money on the club with the intent of winning, promoting their company/country, or bragging to their friends. Ashley has demonstrated that he cares more about the finances than anything. Doesn't mean I like that, just accepting that his priorities are different than many other football club owners, and clarifying that just because other clubs are paying more, doesn't mean he's pocketing money.

Besides, my underlying point in these conversations is that football clubs aren't a good money making venture relative to the other industries billionaires work in, and unfortunately it'd seem Ashley only realised that after buying Newcastle, just as he realised his tolerance for losing/spending money on a football club is lower than his peers.

User avatar
Remember Colo
Forum Legend
Forum Legend
Posts: 9598
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 12:57 am
Location: Toronto

Re: Boycott

Post by Remember Colo » Mon Aug 12, 2019 7:24 pm

Bodacious Benny wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 7:18 pm
I don’t think owning the club is costing Ashley anything. Sure he might not be raking it in, but if he was personally losing money year on year I’m sure he would have found an opportunity to sell (even if it wasn’t quite the price he wanted, if he was losing enough for a sustained period he’d eventually cut his losses). Maybe I’m over simplifying it but I think at worst he breaks even owning the club (at very worst), has very little involvement in the day to day running of the club so might as well sit tight and see what happens.
I think that's probably true. As you said, he is neither losing or earning a lot of money, compared to other ways he could invest 300m, but he retains just enough hope that if he holds onto the club he'll eventually get a better return.

User avatar
Bodacious Benny
Whiskey Club Member
Whiskey Club Member
Posts: 27329
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2012 11:18 am

Re: Boycott

Post by Bodacious Benny » Mon Aug 12, 2019 7:29 pm

Remember Colo wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 7:24 pm
Bodacious Benny wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 7:18 pm
I don’t think owning the club is costing Ashley anything. Sure he might not be raking it in, but if he was personally losing money year on year I’m sure he would have found an opportunity to sell (even if it wasn’t quite the price he wanted, if he was losing enough for a sustained period he’d eventually cut his losses). Maybe I’m over simplifying it but I think at worst he breaks even owning the club (at very worst), has very little involvement in the day to day running of the club so might as well sit tight and see what happens.
I think that's probably true. As you said, he is neither losing or earning a lot of money, compared to other ways he could invest 300m, but he retains just enough hope that if he holds onto the club he'll eventually get a better return.
The TV money bubble won’t end anytime soon either. If that ever looked like crashing that’s probably the only time he seriously and proactively try’s to sell up.
I'm the scumbag outlaw. You're the pillar of justice. Neither of us like looking at ourselves in the mirror. Do we have a deal?

Colly
Forum Legend
Forum Legend
Posts: 5671
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 6:44 pm
Location: Billingham

Re: Boycott

Post by Colly » Mon Aug 12, 2019 7:40 pm

PTAO? wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 5:57 pm
Colly wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 5:36 pm
I think there's a massive bit of balance that's missing. There's a lot of fans that think we should have massive net spend which we're never going to have while Ashley tries to recoup the investment he made without due diligence. It's his mistake but he's not going to write that off out of the goodness of his heart. Obviously there's a horrible list of mistakes made, mostly through being an idiot rather than evil, but we could be a hell of a lot worse as Sunderland, Blackpool, Bury and Bolton can attest. With Ashley it's the hope that kills you, the false dawns, the occasional signing, before a crippling error. For me, Rafa (maybe) aside, we're on a good Ashley period...
I can forgive errors.
What I'll never accept is the lack of ambition. Whether or not you think Rafa was the right manager for us, this quote epitomizes Ashley's reign
When I came to Newcastle, they gave me the plans for the new training ground, I was talking to the architect about changing a few things and after three years . . . they painted the walls
I think if he could achieve his ambition to make money along with the ambition of footballing success he probably would (because it means even more money), the buy cheap sell high concept isn't even horrific in principle, but the biggest issue is he's surrounded by non football people who clearly don't have a ruddy clue. There must be a few decent ones there because we aren't quite s*** enough to utterly collapse, but it's not enough and it shows. His priority will always be the business side because that's what he is.

Is this quote actually from Rafa by the way, because it feels a bit bantsy?

User avatar
Remember Colo
Forum Legend
Forum Legend
Posts: 9598
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 12:57 am
Location: Toronto

Re: Boycott

Post by Remember Colo » Mon Aug 12, 2019 7:44 pm

Colly wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 7:40 pm
PTAO? wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 5:57 pm


I can forgive errors.
What I'll never accept is the lack of ambition. Whether or not you think Rafa was the right manager for us, this quote epitomizes Ashley's reign

I think if he could achieve his ambition to make money along with the ambition of footballing success he probably would (because it means even more money), the buy cheap sell high concept isn't even horrific in principle, but the biggest issue is he's surrounded by non football people who clearly don't have a ruddy clue. There must be a few decent ones there because we aren't quite s*** enough to utterly collapse, but it's not enough and it shows. His priority will always be the business side because that's what he is.

Is this quote actually from Rafa by the way, because it feels a bit bantsy?
Completely agree, his inability to hire smart footballing people, or hand over the keys to them when he actually makes a good hire has been a huge failure. And for the sell high concept, his risk aversion has been a problem, because it'd seem prior to this summer he was unwilling to buy expensive players that have upside, or alternatively, his bad decisions have made the club an unattractive option to players with huge upside.

User avatar
PTAO?
Avoids Death. Until it Matters.
Avoids Death. Until it Matters.
Posts: 8710
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 9:42 pm
Location: Miami

Re: Boycott

Post by PTAO? » Mon Aug 12, 2019 11:10 pm

Colly wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 7:40 pm
PTAO? wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 5:57 pm


I can forgive errors.
What I'll never accept is the lack of ambition. Whether or not you think Rafa was the right manager for us, this quote epitomizes Ashley's reign

I think if he could achieve his ambition to make money along with the ambition of footballing success he probably would (because it means even more money), the buy cheap sell high concept isn't even horrific in principle, but the biggest issue is he's surrounded by non football people who clearly don't have a ruddy clue. There must be a few decent ones there because we aren't quite s*** enough to utterly collapse, but it's not enough and it shows. His priority will always be the business side because that's what he is.

Is this quote actually from Rafa by the way, because it feels a bit bantsy?
Of course he would. I don't subscribe to the thought that he hates us fans, but he is quite happy plodding along with us finishing 17th every season using us to increase margins at his other investments.

The quote is from the Caulkin interview he gave after he left. A good read if you have the time. I know a number of people will read it and say Rafa is lying etc, but when you look at everything ex players/managers say about Ashley and the way NUFC is run after the leave, it adds up.

User avatar
omegaprimevkm
Aarons' Ailments
Posts: 185
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2018 7:31 pm

Re: Boycott

Post by omegaprimevkm » Tue Aug 13, 2019 10:45 am

Tsi wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 3:00 pm
Donkey Toon wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 2:42 pm


That is a baseless assertion that makes no sense. The club owes him hundreds of millions in interest free loans. If he wants or needs cash from the club he just has to request a loan repayment, just as he did in the last financial year when £8m (not sure of amount - going by memory) was repaid to him.

As for other clubs you mentioned, they don't regularly outspend us and you are making a massive assumption that their spending is financed by club revenues alone and not including some sort of debt incurment. It is also an assumption that their spending is affordable or sustainable.

This sort of idle speculation is indicative of the irrational negativity rife within the fanbase.
I'd also add are they really paying more for players when they pay in instalments whereas our policy over the years has been pay up front.
The loan is done for show to justify the logic of a long term legacy debt to him. Every other club is purchased and the purchasers will inject the club with funds to operate.

With respect to the commercial arrangements that are in place and the lack of increasing these (for his own benefit) these are the most obvious and transparent examples of how money is being sucked out of the club. IF a club like Newcastle can't match the commercial revenue acumen of an Everton or a West Ham, something is definitely awry.

On top of this, Financial statements from institutions that are not publicly traded have significantly lower obligations on what to declare publicly in their accounts. There's a higher responsibility to declare income statements and monitored cash flows, and not produce statements of assets.

As such, Ashley does not have to declare that there is £100m sitting in the bank account, and can siphon that off should he choose to do so. With sales - he is expecting purchasers to front him a £100m bonus for selling them the club in his debt being settled.

https://www.gov.uk/annual-accounts

User avatar
Colback's Orange Tufts
Ancient Forum Relic
Ancient Forum Relic
Posts: 10637
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 1:48 pm
Location: Near the ducks

Re: Boycott

Post by Colback's Orange Tufts » Tue Aug 13, 2019 10:53 am

omegaprimevkm wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 10:45 am
Tsi wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 3:00 pm


I'd also add are they really paying more for players when they pay in instalments whereas our policy over the years has been pay up front.
The loan is done for show to justify the logic of a long term legacy debt to him. Every other club is purchased and the purchasers will inject the club with funds to operate.

With respect to the commercial arrangements that are in place and the lack of increasing these (for his own benefit) these are the most obvious and transparent examples of how money is being sucked out of the club. IF a club like Newcastle can't match the commercial revenue acumen of an Everton or a West Ham, something is definitely awry.

On top of this, Financial statements from institutions that are not publicly traded have significantly lower obligations on what to declare publicly in their accounts. There's a higher responsibility to declare income statements and monitored cash flows, and not produce statements of assets.

As such, Ashley does not have to declare that there is £100m sitting in the bank account, and can siphon that off should he choose to do so. With sales - he is expecting purchasers to front him a £100m bonus for selling them the club in his debt being settled.

https://www.gov.uk/annual-accounts
Yes it isn't a plc, so he doesn't have to break down the Balance sheet. He could siphon off the BS if he wanted, but the point is we'd see this cashflow (and he hasn't so far).

I'm not arguing he's a good owner, or that he isn't benefiting from Sport Direct sponsorship. But some people (not you) seem insistent that he's drawing cash out, which he isn't
Sharing articles no-one reads since 2012

User avatar
Donkey Toon
Resident Financial Expert
Resident Financial Expert
Posts: 6515
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 7:46 pm

Re: Boycott

Post by Donkey Toon » Tue Aug 13, 2019 1:24 pm

omegaprimevkm wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 10:45 am
Tsi wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 3:00 pm


I'd also add are they really paying more for players when they pay in instalments whereas our policy over the years has been pay up front.
The loan is done for show to justify the logic of a long term legacy debt to him. Every other club is purchased and the purchasers will inject the club with funds to operate.

With respect to the commercial arrangements that are in place and the lack of increasing these (for his own benefit) these are the most obvious and transparent examples of how money is being sucked out of the club. IF a club like Newcastle can't match the commercial revenue acumen of an Everton or a West Ham, something is definitely awry.

On top of this, Financial statements from institutions that are not publicly traded have significantly lower obligations on what to declare publicly in their accounts. There's a higher responsibility to declare income statements and monitored cash flows, and not produce statements of assets.

As such, Ashley does not have to declare that there is £100m sitting in the bank account, and can siphon that off should he choose to do so. With sales - he is expecting purchasers to front him a £100m bonus for selling them the club in his debt being settled.

https://www.gov.uk/annual-accounts
The loan is not just for show, it is how cash injections are treated and i'd be willing to bet that the accounts of virtually every club will contain loan balances from their owner. To state that "every other club" is just given the money as a debt free gift is an utterly inaccurate and dishonest statement. Just one example would be the Glaziers at Man U who actually settled the debt they had incurred in buying the club into Man Utd and effectively made the club pay it off. Have you viewed the accounts of all the other clubs in order to make this claim or are you just making s*** up?

And balance sheet items, whether cash or otherwise cannot just be siphoned off, the corresponding double entries would show on both cash flow and p&l and you can also establish cash balances from comparing cash flow reports. And whilst not having to give a detailed balance sheet they do have to give one and you cannot just make assets disappear without that showing in cross year comparisons.

MA has done more than enough stuff for fans to want him out without inventing **** conspiracy theories. Speculating s*** like this does nothing to help the cause that the fans have justifiable criticisms and aren't just the whinging militant assholes the media loves to portray us as.

User avatar
Remember Colo
Forum Legend
Forum Legend
Posts: 9598
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 12:57 am
Location: Toronto

Re: Boycott

Post by Remember Colo » Tue Aug 13, 2019 1:44 pm

Donkey Toon wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 1:24 pm
omegaprimevkm wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 10:45 am


The loan is done for show to justify the logic of a long term legacy debt to him. Every other club is purchased and the purchasers will inject the club with funds to operate.

With respect to the commercial arrangements that are in place and the lack of increasing these (for his own benefit) these are the most obvious and transparent examples of how money is being sucked out of the club. IF a club like Newcastle can't match the commercial revenue acumen of an Everton or a West Ham, something is definitely awry.

On top of this, Financial statements from institutions that are not publicly traded have significantly lower obligations on what to declare publicly in their accounts. There's a higher responsibility to declare income statements and monitored cash flows, and not produce statements of assets.

As such, Ashley does not have to declare that there is £100m sitting in the bank account, and can siphon that off should he choose to do so. With sales - he is expecting purchasers to front him a £100m bonus for selling them the club in his debt being settled.

https://www.gov.uk/annual-accounts
The loan is not just for show, it is how cash injections are treated and i'd be willing to bet that the accounts of virtually every club will contain loan balances from their owner. To state that "every other club" is just given the money as a debt free gift is an utterly inaccurate and dishonest statement. Just one example would be the Glaziers at Man U who actually settled the debt they had incurred in buying the club into Man Utd and effectively made the club pay it off. Have you viewed the accounts of all the other clubs in order to make this claim or are you just making s*** up?

And balance sheet items, whether cash or otherwise cannot just be siphoned off, the corresponding double entries would show on both cash flow and p&l and you can also establish cash balances from comparing cash flow reports. And whilst not having to give a detailed balance sheet they do have to give one and you cannot just make assets disappear without that showing in cross year comparisons.

MA has done more than enough stuff for fans to want him out without inventing **** conspiracy theories. Speculating s*** like this does nothing to help the cause that the fans have justifiable criticisms and aren't just the whinging militant assholes the media loves to portray us as.
Accountanted! <applause>

User avatar
omegaprimevkm
Aarons' Ailments
Posts: 185
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2018 7:31 pm

Re: Boycott

Post by omegaprimevkm » Wed Aug 14, 2019 10:14 am

Donkey Toon wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 1:24 pm


The loan is not just for show, it is how cash injections are treated and i'd be willing to bet that the accounts of virtually every club will contain loan balances from their owner. To state that "every other club" is just given the money as a debt free gift is an utterly inaccurate and dishonest statement. Just one example would be the Glaziers at Man U who actually settled the debt they had incurred in buying the club into Man Utd and effectively made the club pay it off. Have you viewed the accounts of all the other clubs in order to make this claim or are you just making s*** up?

And balance sheet items, whether cash or otherwise cannot just be siphoned off, the corresponding double entries would show on both cash flow and p&l and you can also establish cash balances from comparing cash flow reports. And whilst not having to give a detailed balance sheet they do have to give one and you cannot just make assets disappear without that showing in cross year comparisons.

MA has done more than enough stuff for fans to want him out without inventing **** conspiracy theories. Speculating s*** like this does nothing to help the cause that the fans have justifiable criticisms and aren't just the whinging militant assholes the media loves to portray us as.
There's no conspiracy theory - ultimately most people agree that the club has been mismanaged and that has to be continually highlighted. The question is you're prepared to accept Ashley's logic in that he was buying a club which was unexpectedly debt laden and that he was a white knight in loaning it money to keep it operating as a going concern? Capital can be added into the holding company not as a loan but a dilution of shares, should he so wish. He owns all the shares, so a dilution is irrelevant.

Investment is the expectation of any new owner attempting to turnaround a struggling business. In his case, he 'loans' the club money in order to pretty much right the 'overspend' he made on the investment, that a future purchaser can repay to him for his loss at their cost. It is very different from other owners of premier league clubs who buy clubs under the premise and understanding that they are buying a football team that will be unlikely to ever be considered a sound financial investment.

In any situation where clubs are purchased in the manner that Ashley bought Newcastle, you would see money injected by the owner to 'right' the club. Of course he was aware of the club's debt when he bought it. You should have a check into what Sir John Hall has to say about Ashley, how he behaved and intimated his intentions when buying the club and how he feels in hindsight.

The Glazers are a great example, thanks for raising it - the leveraged buyout arrangement there is very much the reason why they're so unpopular with their own respective fans themselves. The worst that it does is slow the growth and expansion of the club temporarily - while their buyout is being serviced by club revenue, the club will stagnate. You have to remember that Manchester United is a different kettle of fish - the Glazers bought a cash cow - It's the world's biggest club and raises an incomparable level of commercial revenue, above and beyond the operating costs of the club, in order to rationalise their ownership. But even in doing so, the Glazers can still run a club that can afford to buy and pay players at a ridiculous expenditure level and retain the competitive playing level, which Newcastle does not, because Ashley runs the club in a manner which ties the revenue streams with one hand behind its back to his own personal benefit.

User avatar
Donkey Toon
Resident Financial Expert
Resident Financial Expert
Posts: 6515
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 7:46 pm

Re: Boycott

Post by Donkey Toon » Wed Aug 14, 2019 3:55 pm

omegaprimevkm wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 10:14 am
Donkey Toon wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 1:24 pm


The loan is not just for show, it is how cash injections are treated and i'd be willing to bet that the accounts of virtually every club will contain loan balances from their owner. To state that "every other club" is just given the money as a debt free gift is an utterly inaccurate and dishonest statement. Just one example would be the Glaziers at Man U who actually settled the debt they had incurred in buying the club into Man Utd and effectively made the club pay it off. Have you viewed the accounts of all the other clubs in order to make this claim or are you just making s*** up?

And balance sheet items, whether cash or otherwise cannot just be siphoned off, the corresponding double entries would show on both cash flow and p&l and you can also establish cash balances from comparing cash flow reports. And whilst not having to give a detailed balance sheet they do have to give one and you cannot just make assets disappear without that showing in cross year comparisons.

MA has done more than enough stuff for fans to want him out without inventing **** conspiracy theories. Speculating s*** like this does nothing to help the cause that the fans have justifiable criticisms and aren't just the whinging militant assholes the media loves to portray us as.
There's no conspiracy theory - ultimately most people agree that the club has been mismanaged and that has to be continually highlighted. The question is you're prepared to accept Ashley's logic in that he was buying a club which was unexpectedly debt laden and that he was a white knight in loaning it money to keep it operating as a going concern? Capital can be added into the holding company not as a loan but a dilution of shares, should he so wish. He owns all the shares, so a dilution is irrelevant.

Investment is the expectation of any new owner attempting to turnaround a struggling business. In his case, he 'loans' the club money in order to pretty much right the 'overspend' he made on the investment, that a future purchaser can repay to him for his loss at their cost. It is very different from other owners of premier league clubs who buy clubs under the premise and understanding that they are buying a football team that will be unlikely to ever be considered a sound financial investment.

In any situation where clubs are purchased in the manner that Ashley bought Newcastle, you would see money injected by the owner to 'right' the club. Of course he was aware of the club's debt when he bought it. You should have a check into what Sir John Hall has to say about Ashley, how he behaved and intimated his intentions when buying the club and how he feels in hindsight.

The Glazers are a great example, thanks for raising it - the leveraged buyout arrangement there is very much the reason why they're so unpopular with their own respective fans themselves. The worst that it does is slow the growth and expansion of the club temporarily - while their buyout is being serviced by club revenue, the club will stagnate. You have to remember that Manchester United is a different kettle of fish - the Glazers bought a cash cow - It's the world's biggest club and raises an incomparable level of commercial revenue, above and beyond the operating costs of the club, in order to rationalise their ownership. But even in doing so, the Glazers can still run a club that can afford to buy and pay players at a ridiculous expenditure level and retain the competitive playing level, which Newcastle does not, because Ashley runs the club in a manner which ties the revenue streams with one hand behind its back to his own personal benefit.
This is boring and pointless so this will be my last comment on the subject.

Yes there has been mismanagement that is not in dispute. I deliberately avoided the share dilution rabbit hole because it is no more relevant to the structure of NUFC, which you acknowledged yourself, than it is to the vast majority of other clubs which also have sole shareholders. So interest free repayable on demand loans remain the standard way of recording owner cash injections for the majority of clubs. Making the assertion that the loan balance is "for show only" and not what "every other club" does patently false. None of your response offers any evidence of those claims.

I'd also point out that it is irrelevant whether the cash injection is shown as a loan creditor or a share allocation, it records an asset to the owner on the books of the club either as a creditor or as "financed by" until repaid, written-off or privately sold and none of those entries could be described as "for show only" by anybody who wasn't looking at it with an agenda. It is also irrelevant in determining the sale value of the club if the owner is determined to recoup the investment, as MA is.

The rest does nothing to prove the assertion that MA could be siphoning off assets without it being detectable and that you suggest it is again putting agenda ahead of evidence.

The poor commercial performance is worrying but hardly surprising. The SD advertising obviously removes a revenue stream, but I've always said I could live with that decision if it is the price to be paid for the clearance of interest charging debts and replacement with interest free loans and continued top ups to overcome cash flow issues. Not great for the fans, but nothing nefarious. I'd also point out that poor merchandise sales are also probably a factor as many fans have been boycotting the club shop ever since the end of the brief honeymoon period, and who else is going to be buying nufc merchandise if the nufc fans aren't?

That's it i'm logging out of this conversation.

User avatar
overseasTOON
Much Ado About Blogging
Much Ado About Blogging
Posts: 19677
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 10:53 am
Location: Location: Location

Re: Boycott

Post by overseasTOON » Wed Aug 14, 2019 4:19 pm

So in short DT. Mike might be a cronut but he's a law abiding cronut and everything he's done is perfectly legal and above board.

User avatar
Toondes
f uck tha police
f uck tha police
Posts: 7752
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 12:23 pm
Location: Newcastle, High Heaton

Re: Boycott

Post by Toondes » Wed Aug 14, 2019 4:21 pm

Well I’m boycotting this thread.
# stolen from nufc.com :)

User avatar
Donkey Toon
Resident Financial Expert
Resident Financial Expert
Posts: 6515
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 7:46 pm

Re: Boycott

Post by Donkey Toon » Wed Aug 14, 2019 5:05 pm

overseasTOON wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 4:19 pm
So in short DT. Mike might be a cronut but he's a law abiding cronut and everything he's done is perfectly legal and above board.
Cronut, definitely. As for the rest, no evidence of illegality so far … but to be fair to omegaprime's argument I wouldn't put it past him.

Post Reply