Ashley 'Balancing the books'

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/newcastle-united-joe-kinnear-been-2075136

It mentions in this piece (OT-loving the picture of kinnear proudly holding his manager of the year strip of plastic from the mirror)
It says that Ashley took 11 million back in loans just so the club didn't announce a profit.
Did everyone know of this?
I was quite surprised because it is to me a massive indication Ashley still wants purely to recoup his money. and we have zero intention of improving over time. I also now think we'll be lucky to get a striker in the window and will definetly not see anymore transfers with mike considering those january signings to be more than enough to see us through another seson of disjointed football.
So, it's probably been done to death but how many players does everyone genuinely think we will sign over the window?

 

Not sure how that is balancing the books - taking back the interest fee loan he gave us. If anything all it shows is that if there is any profit he will take it out as repayment of that loan. This makes perfect sense to me. Especially as it wasn't as if we hadn't spent money on players.

 

since January we are in the top 8 for net transfer spending

 

Telt ya matey

 

I'm sure Mr Bird reads the fans forums as a means of coming up with his pieces of art.

The latest is just regurgitated and nothing new.

We know the situation and the questions and the potential of Pardew being replaced by JFK etc.

We don't need a national newspaper rubbing our noses in the s*** time and time again.

If he's going to write something, try to do what the good hacks do, and write something new.

As for the £11m, the sooner the loan amount comes down the better as it will make the club more sellable.

 

It's not balancing the books, it's scooping the cream off the top!

 

Precisely. Its good news.

 

I can't see the problem here. He is owed money and has got us into a financially stable position where he can recoup some of that owed. He has also improved the team in the same period, and it will be in his interests to improve it further if he wants to recoup more. I think we will get at least one striker. I can't see the need to go buying a flurry of others just for the sake of it. We have a good squad, and spent a small fortune in January. I understand that other clubs are spending quite wildly, some buying loads of players, some overhauling whole squads. Personally I'm quite pleased we are not in that boat because you face an uncertain future as QPR found out. Sometimes it will come off, sometimes it won't. We on the other hand can expect to do better than last year with 5 new players bought in January having had 6-7 months to adapt and a full pre season, whilst also not facing the same challenges we faced last year with the Europa etc. We do need to get some attacking options, but if we do we're in good shape.

 

Alarm bells would be ringing if it were us mate. What sort of loan repayments work where they can take what they like when they like? Surely it should be to set to a repayment plan? It begs the question is it even a legitimate loan to the club. Or is he just putting in and taking out willy nilly? Doesn't sound very business like to me. If I was a tax man it would prick my ears regarding financial paperwork. Not saying there's foul play, just comes across disorganized and unstructured. Like a Sports direct stockroom. Think it would put potential buyers off.

 

I can't comment on the legality of how he takes the money in or out, or the tax implications. I don't know how the loan is structured etc.

I'm simply saying that if he has taken money back, there is no problem or nothing to get excited about. He is owed a great deal of money. If you lend money, you do so with the intention of repaying it. The club needed to loan money from him, the club needs to repay that. Quite simple really.

 

Is Newcastle owned by Sports Direct PLC orMike Ashley Ltd. If it's Sports Direct then Ashley does not own the club outright and it will be a subsidiary of the parent company where anything removed from the club ( or put in) would need to go through the board for approval and audited on a yearly basis.
if it's owned 100% by Mike Ashley (which I thought it was) then as a Limited Company he owns 100% of the assets or the debts and therefore I can't see how a "loan" has gone into the company from Mike Ashley when Mike Ashley owns the company. why loan money from yourself to yourself?

 

NUFC not owned by Sports Direct, but by St James Holdings Ltd of which MA is the major if not only shareholder. Nothing wrong from a legal or tax point of view in how the company is being run.

 

Then he isn't loaning Newcastle United anything and he isn't owed anything. Just the assets of the company.

 

Its intermediation, where money is borrowed from the surplus sector i.e sports direct and lent to the defecit sector nufc, when it done through a finacial institution, its called disintermediation when the middle man is missed out. Both perfectly legal but what it does tell us is that the sports direct empire is masking the true finacial footing of nufc

 

i understand the term but as Sports direct is a PLC and Newcastle is privately owned then back to my first point. Everything needs to be audited and approved by the board of sports direct and the accounts will show how much has been put into Newcastle. What needs to be repaid and at what % rate. Not allowing Mike Ashley to dip in and out of a PLC,s coffers.

 

I agree mate, it stinks, just trying to think of something logical to explain it, you can certainly understand why there are no potential suitors.

So if nufc is privately owned then they couldnt have even issued corporate bonds could they?

 

I have just started my own FA affiliated club in the Guildford and Woking alliance leagues and I literally just transfer from my personal account to my "business account" with a reference chairman loan and therefore am allowed to take it back as and when I like.

 

That,s fine mate. But sports Direct IS A PLC and you CANNOT do that wit a PLC which Ashley does not own. He is a major shareholder and accountable to the board of the PLC. He would get jailed if he did that.

The above is of course irrelevant if he owns he owns the company 100%,so as I said he is lending money to himself.

And being a multi billionaire, why would he do that.

 

It certainly looks like falsifying the books from where i'm typing

 

As you say, quite simple. No problem with that.