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.
Boycott
Re: Boycott
Re: Boycott
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...
Re: Boycott
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
this is the keyI think there's a massive bit of balance that's missing
Re: Boycott
I can forgive errors.Colly wrote: ↑Mon Aug 12, 2019 5:36 pmI 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...
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
- Bodacious Benny
- Whiskey Business
- Posts: 35827
- Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2012 11:18 am
Re: Boycott
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?
- Remember Colo
- Ancient Forum Relic
- Posts: 11990
- Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 12:57 am
- Location: Toronto
Re: Boycott
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.omegaprimevkm wrote: ↑Mon Aug 12, 2019 2:22 pmThere 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.
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.
- Remember Colo
- Ancient Forum Relic
- Posts: 11990
- Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 12:57 am
- Location: Toronto
Re: Boycott
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.Bodacious Benny wrote: ↑Mon Aug 12, 2019 7:18 pmI 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.
- Bodacious Benny
- Whiskey Business
- Posts: 35827
- Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2012 11:18 am
Re: Boycott
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.Remember Colo wrote: ↑Mon Aug 12, 2019 7:24 pmI 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.Bodacious Benny wrote: ↑Mon Aug 12, 2019 7:18 pmI 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?
Re: Boycott
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.PTAO? wrote: ↑Mon Aug 12, 2019 5:57 pmI can forgive errors.Colly wrote: ↑Mon Aug 12, 2019 5:36 pmI 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...
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
Is this quote actually from Rafa by the way, because it feels a bit bantsy?
- Remember Colo
- Ancient Forum Relic
- Posts: 11990
- Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 12:57 am
- Location: Toronto
Re: Boycott
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.Colly wrote: ↑Mon Aug 12, 2019 7:40 pmI 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?
Re: Boycott
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.Colly wrote: ↑Mon Aug 12, 2019 7:40 pmI 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?
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.
- omegaprimevkm
- Wilson's Loose Tooth
- Posts: 207
- Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2018 7:31 pm
Re: Boycott
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.Tsi wrote: ↑Mon Aug 12, 2019 3:00 pmI'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.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.
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
- Colback's Orange Tufts
- USA USA USA (Pulisic)
- Posts: 11949
- Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 1:48 pm
- Location: Near the ducks
Re: Boycott
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).omegaprimevkm wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2019 10:45 amThe 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
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
- Donkey Toon
- Croatia (Modric)
- Posts: 8134
- Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 7:46 pm
Re: Boycott
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?omegaprimevkm wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2019 10:45 amThe 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
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.
- Remember Colo
- Ancient Forum Relic
- Posts: 11990
- Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 12:57 am
- Location: Toronto
Re: Boycott
Accountanted!Donkey Toon wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2019 1:24 pmThe 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?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
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.
- omegaprimevkm
- Wilson's Loose Tooth
- Posts: 207
- Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2018 7:31 pm
Re: Boycott
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.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.
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.
- Donkey Toon
- Croatia (Modric)
- Posts: 8134
- Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 7:46 pm
Re: Boycott
This is boring and pointless so this will be my last comment on the subject.omegaprimevkm wrote: ↑Wed Aug 14, 2019 10:14 amThere'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.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.
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.
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.
- overseasTOON
- Uruguay (Nunez)
- Posts: 21882
- Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 10:53 am
- Location: Location: Location
Re: Boycott
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.
- Donkey Toon
- Croatia (Modric)
- Posts: 8134
- Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 7:46 pm
Re: Boycott
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.overseasTOON wrote: ↑Wed Aug 14, 2019 4:19 pmSo 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.