• The forums will be unavailable for a few hours on Saturday 6th June, when they do return they will initially be in a degraded state with some features missing, but normal posting/reading will be possible. The main website will not be affected by these updates.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.
    Some other features of the forum are also currently disabled.

New buyers put off by £20 million hole in accounts

Status
Not open for further replies.
sksk3021 said:
Why is this causing such a load of fuss now? We have known most of this for ages.
No idea why they weren’t just clear about the parachute payments from the start. Maybe it was Part of the deal with short is all I can think of.
Click to expand...
Because Donald said they'd pay it back.
 

sksk3021 said:
Why is this causing such a load of fuss now? We have known most of this for ages.
No idea why they weren’t just clear about the parachute payments from the start. Maybe it was Part of the deal with short is all I can think of.
Click to expand...
Because they said they would pay it back. Was obvious at the time they wouldn’t really though. Charlie even said at the time they’ve paid a club debt with clubs money so there’s no obligation to. As usual though they’ve lied and misled so it looks far more shady than it needs to
 
Ericsgate said:
It is a reminder of the old adage that “if something appears too good to be true it obviously is”.

My interpretation was the Donald being perceived as a White Knight was always a stretch once it transpired how little funding he made towards the purchase price.

That said he was the only one foolish / brave enough to take on the project when the future wage obligations meant negative cash flow was certain. It was all predicated on winning promotion and repackaging a deal for a new buyer with premier league aspirations.

His intervention did defer inevitable administration because if Ellis Short had of pulled the plug it would have been the largest insolvency in English football history. It may come to pass, now, that Donald’s arrival was a mere deferral of that insolvency?

Covid is going to wreck the outlook for many institutions football clubs amongst them.
Click to expand...

the correct adage is

If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is
 
sksk3021 said:
Yes and they claim they have been putting money back in (whether it’s true or not no idea). Charlie told us there was no obligation to pay it back.
Click to expand...
The obligation was in the legal accounts filed at companies House. It's that obligation which they have written off.
 
Evester said:
Are you Lee Ryder?
Click to expand...
Dreadful journalist.

Ryder, by extension the Chronicle, has singularly failed to hold Ashley to account down the years as should be the objective of the free press.

No, I’m just an avid consumer of business and sports who is looking forward to the inevitability of Mike Ashley’s other business ventures failing.

Newcastle United will not be the last time we see him as a distressed seller.
 
Ericsgate said:
It is a reminder of the old adage that “if something appears too good to be true it obviously is”.

My interpretation was the Donald being perceived as a White Knight was always a stretch once it transpired how little funding he made towards the purchase price.

That said he was the only one foolish / brave enough to take on the project when the future wage obligations meant negative cash flow was certain. It was all predicated on winning promotion and repackaging a deal for a new buyer with premier league aspirations.

His intervention did defer inevitable administration because if Ellis Short had of pulled the plug it would have been the largest insolvency in English football history. It may come to pass, now, that Donald’s arrival was a mere deferral of that insolvency?

Covid is going to wreck the outlook for many institutions football clubs amongst them.
Click to expand...
Nailed on
 
sksk3021 said:
Yes and they claim they have been putting money back in (whether it’s true or not no idea). Charlie told us there was no obligation to pay it back.
Click to expand...

I'd say fair play for charlie being honest had he not said they the parachute payments were not going to be used in this manner prior.
 
As GOM has pointed out seemingly last night (I went to bed as had enough) these are the 2018-19 trading results, so this item has now gone, providing it was in the statutory accounts on submission.

2019-20 and 2020-21 going forward, in terms of accounts are seperate and the club itself should be capable of carrying on, barring the impact of Covid-19.

The sale of the club will be hampered, if Madrox wants this £20.5m paid to them, which would be disingenuous, imo. Should they restrict their valuaton of the club to the £12.7m share purchase, with the capital input by Madrox (said to be £7.5m), plus the FPP loan of £9m, then that is where a deal can still be done. Again, IMO, anyone incoming with the financial backing to do a deal to circa £30m can get the club, add in maybe a small premium due to Madrox on promotion(s). This is where FPP already have a clear advantage and if they want us, they can get us.

Where I'm a little bit in the dark on this is why this £20.5m has ben removed in 2018/19. Gut instinct tells me it's at the insistence of FPP in terms of them agreeing to the loan, otherwise it could have stayed in for 2019/20 and been reduced by any additonal funds incoming from Madrox, said to be £2.5m and that figure would be down to £18m.
 
The Beautiful Game said:
No one is suggesting the latter there like. He signed off on this deal despite there being other people involved who were willing to put more up front, his final bad decision. They must have fed him the same shit we got and he must have fallen for it just as hard
Click to expand...
I am suggesting it. Yeah he fell for it too, just as we did. Short made lots of mistakes but wasn’t a chancer. He is a fan. Him back with proper football people could work
 
Ashley In!! said:
The obligation was in the legal accounts filed at companies House. It's that obligation which they have written off.
Click to expand...
Yes but they told us that months ago. I’m not sure why they would. I’m by no means an expert on this type of thing but it seems possible it could be to do with a sale.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top