Ashley the Crook... Via The Mag

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Status
Not open for further replies.
Nothing particularly new that's not already available.

The one thing that has always struck me with incredibility is how Ashley ended up with the club in the first place and the part John Hall played.

The title of the MAG article 'Sir John Hall Makes Clear Why Mike Ashley Bought Newcastle United' screams out at you and makes clear why Ashley bought the club as if we hadn't worked that one for ourselves these past seven years.

John Hall has readily absolved himself of all misfortune that has come NUFCs way since the sale, however, given what he has admitted in the course of interviews since touched on in the article, the question for me is why did John Hall sell the club to Ashley knowing damn fine well why he was buying it.

As quoted by John Hall;

“I was told that the man behind the deal was Mike Ashley and I sat with his representatives over 3 days thrashing out a deal. I was keen to know why they wanted the club and they were quite honest. They wanted to market their sports goods in the Far East and would use the club to help do this.”

It certainly didn't stop the Halls from selling up and making a cool £55m from their part in the sale, and an estimated £93m during there tenure at the helm. Nor did it stop them hiding the truth from Ashley about the true financial state of the club, which in some ways has led to the disastrous Ashley regime, or at least it hasn't helped matters.

NUFC Mismanagement at its best.
http://www.nufcmismanagement.info/mike-ashley.html
 
The phrase "dishonest manipulation of figures" springs to mind, only with respect to the author and not MA.

The suggestion that the debt was £71m and has risen to £129m can only have been made by someone who doesn't understand the figures or doesn't care about the truth.

There may be some interesting facts in that article: unfortunately you'd have to re-do the research to sort out the genuine from the spin.
 
Freddd said:
The phrase "dishonest manipulation of figures" springs to mind, only with respect to the author and not MA.

The suggestion that the debt was £71m and has risen to £129m can only have been made by someone who doesn't understand the figures or doesn't care about the truth.

There may be some interesting facts in that article: unfortunately you'd have to re-do the research to sort out the genuine from the spin.
Click to expand...


The figure of £129m has a chance to come from a recent article in The Guardian which showed 11/12 financial figures (turnover, debt etc).

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/apr/18/premier-league-club-accounts-debt#data
 
Freddd said:
The phrase "dishonest manipulation of figures" springs to mind, only with respect to the author and not MA.

The suggestion that the debt was £71m and has risen to £129m can only have been made by someone who doesn't understand the figures or doesn't care about the truth.

There may be some interesting facts in that article: unfortunately you'd have to re-do the research to sort out the genuine from the spin.
Click to expand...

I thought the debt began at around £140m and is now £111m? The difference being it was originally owed to the likes of Barclays, and others, whereas today it's all owed to Mike Ashley, who claims that by waiving the interest payments that would ordinarily be due, he takes 'free' advertising for SD.
 
The £129 million figure is accurate. The £71m figure isn't: that is the figure that was recorded in the clubs accounts as of 2007 but excluded amounts that were still payable (though not yet due) with respect to player transfers.

I believe the total actual debt has increased about £9m as a result of the relegation season (£20m advanced during that season, £11m of which has been repaid) but certainly not the £58m increase which the author is trying to portray.

There are some interesting points about the financing which I would like to know. What is the reason for the decline in commercial revenue ? Is it primarily due ot the absence of revenue from the stadium advertising ? If so, what is the commercial value of that advertising and how does it compare to the interest payments that would be due if the club debt was not an interest free loan ?

The trouble is finding someone who both knows the figures and doesn't have an axe to grind one way or the other.
 
Roland said:
I thought the debt began at around £140m and is now £111m? The difference being it was originally owed to the likes of Barclays, and others, whereas today it's all owed to Mike Ashley, who claims that by waiving the interest payments that would ordinarily be due, he takes 'free' advertising for SD.
Click to expand...

The debt was £140m. £11 has been repaid so it is now £129m.

MA provides an interest free loan and his company gets free advertising. I don't know the value of the advertising but the interest would be about £8m per year. It would be interesting to know whether that's a square deal all around or whether somebody is getting something on the cheap.
 
Freddd said:
The debt was £140m. £11 has been repaid so it is now £129m.

MA provides an interest free loan and his company gets free advertising. I don't know the value of the advertising but the interest would be about £8m per year. It would be interesting to know whether that's a square deal all around or whether somebody is getting something on the cheap.
Click to expand...

The shareholders in Sports Direct other than Mike Ashley are getting a very good deal out of it as they really are getting advertising for free. Ashley has paid a lot for his 'free' advertising. He now owns just 55% of Sport Direct so if interest payments on the debt would be £8m, like you say, then a truly square deal would be if advertising revenue was only worth £4.4m. I'm not really sure you get that much for stadium pitch-side advertising to be honest though.

The article doesn't really cover the losses that have been made over the years and therefore ignores the fact that transfer surpluses have been swallowed up by balancing the books. Apart from this year, of course. We must have £50m or in the bank now so let's see how much of that gets spent this summer. If I see £35m (plus whatever is brought in from player sales) spent then I'll not be too disappointed.
 
General Lee Speaking said:
The shareholders in Sports Direct other than Mike Ashley are getting a very good deal out of it as they really are getting advertising for free. Ashley has paid a lot for his 'free' advertising. He now owns just 55% of Sport Direct so if interest payments on the debt would be £8m, like you say, then a truly square deal would be if advertising revenue was only worth £4.4m. I'm not really sure you get that much for stadium pitch-side advertising to be honest though.

The article doesn't really cover the losses that have been made over the years and therefore ignores the fact that transfer surpluses have been swallowed up by balancing the books. Apart from this year, of course. We must have £50m or in the bank now so let's see how much of that gets spent this summer. If I see £35m (plus whatever is brought in from player sales) spent then I'll not be too disappointed.
Click to expand...

I agree - hopefully we spend a decent amount and spend it well. None of this £10million on Jonjo Shelvey business.
 
The figures we get are from mikes puppets, so you probably only get half of the information required to make a true judgement.If they told me it was 2 pm I would look in the sky to see if it was the moon or the sun that was floating around,i don't believe a word they say !As for the Halls there as bad as the previous lot they took over from,actually they took a LOT MORE from the club than any one else!
 
I'm not sure we'll spend a lot of money. I do think we will buy/sign quite a few players. I also think those players will be of enough quality to secure a 9th-13th place finish in the league. Exciting times.

Some of the figures in there look a bit wonky. To be fair we all know what Mike is and what the purchase of our club is about. We are a vehicle for his other company. To be fair to him, taking all the emotion out of it, it appears to be working out quite well for him. The club is profitable and his other business is booming.
 
I've just realized how vital this new TV deal is. Were going to earn roughly 40 million more that last year after prizes. This puts out revenue on par with Galatasary and above hamburg, roma, athletico and more. There's definitely going to be money. I'm starting the think we'll spend fairly big this summer, and ashley will still make a profit. Essentially ashley could spend 40 million each year in transfers and wages, still keep the money from outgoing transfers and his free advertising and the club would be where it is today. Oh... That and the fans would be happy. I think the quality of players about to come into this league will be staggering. I just pray that some of them come to our team!
 
YankMag said:
I've just realized how vital this new TV deal is. Were going to earn roughly 40 million more that last year after prizes. This puts out revenue on par with Galatasary and above hamburg, roma, athletico and more. There's definitely going to be money. I'm starting the think we'll spend fairly big this summer, and ashley will still make a profit. Essentially ashley could spend 40 million each year in transfers and wages, still keep the money from outgoing transfers and his free advertising and the club would be where it is today. Oh... That and the fans would be happy. I think the quality of players about to come into this league will be staggering. I just pray that some of them come to our team!
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, I just don't see it! There's no way he will spend £40M. If he spent £20M I'd be surprised! I'm not sure where all this optimism comes from either!
 
I don't think he'll spend 40 million either. I would like to think we'll spend more than 20 considering thats what we paid for cabaye. I think it'll be around 20 with loads of freebies.
 
The issue is, it's not just us with the money. That's why clubs like Cardiff and Norwich were able to spend big last summer (and don't they look the better for it might I add). Alright, we can compete for European talent, but we have to face it that we're not in a privileged position in that respect. As always, the quality of a) our scouts and b) our academy, are what will make the difference.

Oh and c) our next manager.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back