Mags spending loads

[SmellyMags]

on out of my own pocket for the club. I then poured another £110 million into the club not to pay off the debt but just to reduce it. The club is still in debt. Even worse than that, the club still owes millions of pounds in transfer fees.


That's what Ashley said of the initial loan Locke. So your "banked 30mill until 2015" suggestion is wrong. And ludicrous

 

[Locke's SAFC]

35 million of the 130 ashley put in when he bought us has been sat and is just getting spent now? Sorry locke i think you're misinterpreting. He paid the clubs debt off then he put more in to cover losses in the championship season. He's "bankrolled" nothing since then. We didn't even spend much the season we came up because we hadn't generated it. The reason we're spending it now is because several seasons of thriftiness and profits have left us in a position to do so. There's nothing to suggest he actively puts money to the club for players. He's even on record as saying he would no longer do so (when the Ashley hate first started)

You would have to point out where it's being misinterpreted then.

The figures are right there in front of you eyes.

NUFC has generated no cash for players in that 8 year period, only enough to pay players' wages, match day costs, general running costs, interest to the bank, capital improvements such as structural improvements to the ground. After that, nowt left.

Put it another way.

Your debt in 2007 was £67m in 2014 it was £95m. That's an increase in debt of £28m. Ashley's money which he has put in and is not charging you interest and so his £130m is now worth quite a bit less due to the time value of money.

In the same period your debt increased by £28m, you spent £30m net on players. Clearly the increase in debt, Ashley's money, has funded the net spend in players over that period.

That's another way of saying what I was saying above. If the debt has gone up in line with net spend on players then there's only one thing funding these players' - the increase in debt.

I know it's not palatable for Mags because you like to think of yourselves as a superclub generating shit loads of money. The fact is you're not. Not a penny to buy players.

 

[Sima]

Sima,

Have a look at NUFC accounts.

I had a look the other night.

Profit figures don't tell you anything about what cash the club is generating because it's skewed by player amortisation. Low transfer fees in the past = low amortisation = higher profits - which tell you nothing about the cash the club is generating each year. This chart is what you need to look at. It's the cash generated by the club from operating, financing and investing activities. I'll give you a summary below and I've added in NUFC's debt so you can see where the money is coming from.

You must be logged on to see external links

You must be logged on to see external links

Ashley has put in £130m, which paid off £70m bank debts, £25m has gone into funding the club - whether players or running costs and the remaining £35m of Ashley's money sat in the club's bank account which is presumably now all gone due to the funding of this season's players.

In the 8 year period 2007-2014, NUFC only generated £25m from its operating activities (essentially revenue less player's wages and match day costs), that's £3m a year on average made by the club to invest in players and pay interest to the bank.

Before Ashley took on the debt, of which he is charging the club no interest and so has saved you £5m a year in interest, you were paying interest to the bank which is £16m over the 8 year period, so before buying any players, because the bank has to be paid, you have made £25m less £16m over an 8 year period, meaning £9m or £1.1m a year for 8 years to buy players with.

Problem being, in that period you spent £9m on capital expenditure which I assume is structural improvements on the ground and the like. So, there's your £9m wiped out and so purely on what the club is generating you can't afford to buy any players.

Put simply, revenue from TV money/Premier League less player wages, less running costs and match day costs, less interest paid to the bank less capital improvements needed = 0. That's £0 generated by the club to buy players.

But, in that 8 year period you have spent net £30m on players. So, where has the money come from? Part of Ashley's £130m loan.

What is funding the money for players this year? Considering NUFC generated no cash for players in the past 8 years? The £30m sat in the bank left over from Ashley's loan.

Like it or not, NUFC is in the same boat as SAFC. Both chairmen are funding the purchasing of the club's players. Actually, Ashley has done better than Short in this respect because it's all his own money whereas we owe money to the bank and by buying the club's bank debt and charging you no interest he has saved you about £20m total over the last 4 years - not bad eh! Both club's are paying around £70m in wages and neither are seeing a return for that investment as both clubs can't finish around 7th or 8th in the league while paying the going rate of finishing around that spot.

We've made £63m profit over the last four years yet our net transfer spending for the same period is £26m (£37m difference). Before this summer's spending we were ridiculously in the black. Our debt has increased under Ashley and our commercial revenue has decreased which bucks the trend against other clubs that have spent 3+ years in the division.

As you know but for other readers of this, all of the information is here.

You must be logged on to see external links

 

[SmellyMags]

I then poured another £110 million into the club not to pay off the debt but just to reduce it. The club is still in debt.

The money he put in didn't even pay all of the debt. As if you think it's still paying for players now

 

[yfc54]

They havnt sacked 5 managers + backroom staff over the last 5 years.

And we haven't had any buoycoutts, horse punching or mock funerals.

 

[Locke's SAFC]

on out of my own pocket for the club. I then poured another £110 million into the club not to pay off the debt but just to reduce it. The club is still in debt. Even worse than that, the club still owes millions of pounds in transfer fees.


That's what Ashley said of the initial loan Locke. So your "banked 30mill until 2015" suggestion is wrong. And ludicrous

The club has no external debt. It's there in the accounts. You pay no interest, another indicator of whether or not you have external debt because the bank isn't going to give you free money. The only debt you owe is to Ashley - £130m.

He did initially pay off some of the debt and in following years paid the lot off.

If you don't like the answer because it doesn't fit in with your desire to believe that Ashley is robbing you, then you need to re-evaluate your opinions. The figures don't lie; what you want to believe is the problem here.

 

[Sima]

You would have to point out where it's being misinterpreted then.

The figures are right there in front of you eyes.

NUFC has generated no cash for players in that 8 year period, only enough to pay players' wages, match day costs, general running costs, interest to the bank, capital improvements such as structural improvements to the ground. After that, nowt left.

Put it another way.

Your debt in 2007 was £67m in 2014 it was £95m. That's an increase in debt of £28m. Ashley's money which he has put in and is not charging you interest and so his £130m is now worth quite a bit less due to the time value of money.

In the same period your debt increased by £28m, you spent £30m net on players. Clearly the increase in debt, Ashley's money, has funded the net spend in players over that period.

That's another way of saying what I was saying above. If the debt has gone up in line with net spend on players then there's only one thing funding these players' - the increase in debt.

I know it's not palatable for Mags because you like to think of yourselves as a superclub generating shit loads of money. The fact is you're not. Not a penny to buy players.

I skimmed this post then noticed this sentence bolded which just shows you can't look at the figures with an even bat.

The club has no external debt. It's there in the accounts. You pay no interest, another indicator of whether or not you have external debt because the bank isn't going to give you free money. The only debt you owe is to Ashley - £130m.

He did initially pay off some of the debt and in following years paid the lot off.

If you don't like the answer because it doesn't fit in with your desire to believe that Ashley is robbing you, then you need to re-evaluate your opinions. The figures don't lie; what you want to believe is the problem here.

He hasn't paid anything off. The amount (now increased) will be due when he sells the club.

He also uses this 'paying off the debt' as a millstone round the club's neck suffocating the potential commercial growth that has been seen at other clubs.

 

[Locke's SAFC]

We've made £63m profit over the last four years yet our net transfer spending for the same period is £26m (£37m difference). Before this summer's spending we were ridiculously in the black. Our debt has increased under Ashley and our commercial revenue has decreased which bucks the trend against other clubs that have spent 3+ years in the division.

As you know but for other readers of this, all of the information is here.

You must be logged on to see external links

Last time, mate, profits are not an indicator of the cash a club is generating.

You're looking a certain figures to give you an answer on what cash the club is generating. Those figures won't give you the answer.

Players aren't bought out of profit figures on a bit of paper, they're bought out of cash you have in the bank.

 

[SmellyMags]

The club has no external debt. It's there in the accounts. You pay no interest, another indicator of whether or not you have external debt because the bank isn't going to give you free money. The only debt you owe is to Ashley - £130m.

He did initially pay off some of the debt and in following years paid the lot off.

If you don't like the answer because it doesn't fit in with your desire to believe that Ashley is robbing you, then you need to re-evaluate your opinions. The figures don't lie; what you want to believe is the problem here.

I find it astonishing that you've put so much effort into reading accounts and have concluded something so batshit. His 110 million paid off debt. That's from the horses mouth. If it paid off debt, then there isn't any of it left to buy players. Understand?

 

[Locke's SAFC]

I skimmed this post then noticed this sentence bolded which just shows you can't look at the figures with an even bat.



He hasn't paid anything off. The amount (now increased) will be due when he sells the club.

He also uses this 'paying off the debt' as a millstone round the club's neck suffocating the potential commercial growth that has been seen at other clubs.

Wasted time then, mate. You've made up your mind, you want to believe one thing but the figures tell you different. You keep on believing what you want regardless of whether or not it's true.

And, yes, more arrogance from Mags who would rather go on believing something that isn't true than accept that NUFC simply can't afford to buy players without Ashley's money.

Where does this arrogance come from? I don't know many Mags so can't really say but I'd guess it's because you like to think you're one of the super-clubs and should be generating shit loads of money.

 

[Billy2Sheds]

Wasted time then, mate. You've made up your mind, you want to believe one thing but the figures tell you different. You keep on believing what you want regardless of whether or not it's true.

And, yes, more arrogance from Mags who would rather go on believing something that isn't true than accept that NUFC simply can't afford to buy players without Ashley's money.

Where does this arrogance come from? I don't know many Mags so can't really say but I'd guess it's because you like to think you're one of the super-clubs and should be generating shit loads of money.

Yep,we all think we're a super-club.Every single one of us

 

[Locke's SAFC]

I find it astonishing that you've put so much effort into reading accounts and have concluded something so batshit. His 110 million paid off debt. That's from the horses mouth. If it paid off debt, then there isn't any of it left to buy players. Understand?

You're not reading the posts. Are you usually so f***ing dim or do you like to come to an SAFC board and humiliate yourself?

For the last time.

Ashley loaned £130m to NUFC. Of this:

£67m paid off the bank loan.

£35m was still sat in NUFC's bank account at the end of 2014.

That's £30m from Ashley's loan that has gone somewhere because it's not in your bank account which means it has been spent.

What have you spent on players in this 8 year period......£30m....dada!

 

[Sima]

Wasted time then, mate. You've made up your mind, you want to believe one thing but the figures tell you different. You keep on believing what you want regardless of whether or not it's true.

And, yes, more arrogance from Mags who would rather go on believing something that isn't true than accept that NUFC simply can't afford to buy players without Ashley's money.

Where does this arrogance come from? I don't know many Mags so can't really say but I'd guess it's because you like to think you're one of the super-clubs and should be generating shit loads of money.

It says in the images you posted that there is £30m positive in cash fl0w over Ashley's tenure. Again, you've went off on a tangent trying to back up your argument with assumptions letting yourself down.

We still have that debt in the club man, just Ashley owns it instead of the bank.

Yes, Ashley has assisted in allowing his maintenance of the debt in accruing no interest payment. I accept that wholeheartedly but the debt has actually increased under his tenure which is restrictive in other areas that I've went into previously.

 

[SmellyMags]

You're not reading the posts. Are you usually so f***ing dim or do you like to come to an SAFC board and humiliate yourself?

For the last time.

Ashley loaned £130m to NUFC. Of this:

£67m paid off the bank loan.

£35m was still sat in NUFC's bank account at the end of 2014.

That's £30m from Ashley's loan that has gone somewhere because it's not in your bank account which means it has been spent.

What have you spent on players in this 8 year period......£30m....dada!

No, 110 paid off debt. That's from mike Ashley, you spenk. Then he put in more to cover losses during the Championship season. The money paid debt and became a dormant debt to Mike Ashley. Anything in the accounts in 2014 is separate money that the club has generated. How are you this stupid?

 

[KarlM]

Them and other teams are giving it a go and using the TV money, whilst we're scraping around Poundland's reduced bin.

 

[Locke's SAFC]

It says in the images you posted that there is £30m positive in cash fl0w over Ashley's tenure. Again, you've went off on a tangent trying to back up your argument with assumptions letting yourself down.

We still have that debt in the club man, just Ashley owns it instead of the bank.

Yes, Ashley has assisted in allowing his maintenance of the debt in accruing no interest payment. I accept that wholeheartedly but the debt has actually increased under his tenure which is restrictive in other areas that I've went into previously.

Yes it does say net cash inflow of £30m.

That is after Ashley's loan. The net inflow takes into account what Ashley has loaned to NUFC and the bank debt he paid off. In other words, without Ashley's loan you wouldn't have a net inflow of £30m - you'd have a net outflow!

Look, go back and read the posts and digest them.

No use in talking to you because you simply don't want to believe that NUFC can't afford to buy players without Ashley's money. Either that or you can't understand what I'm saying. Either way, no use in trying to clue someone in who either doesn't want to believe it or just skims the figures staring him in the face because he can't be bothered to take the time to know the truth.

Tell you what, mate, you lot don't care about your club as much as you'd like to think, clearly, because you couldn't care less what the problem is - you just want to believe a certain thing which fits in with your idea that NUFC can't possibly be generating no money to buy players because you're one of the big hitters - in your own minds that is.

 

[Sima]

You're not reading them correctly, man. The debt is still there, just it's owed to him (dormant) instead of the bank.

Ashley himself is on record a number of years back saying he isn't putting any more money in.

 

[SmellyMags]

So Ashley, who openly said he won't bankroll the club, is bankrolling the club? Ok.

 

[Locke's SAFC]

Them and other teams are giving it a go and using the TV money, whilst we're scraping around Poundland's reduced bin.

They're not using this year's TV money because that's all accounted for.

They're using next year's increase in the TV money - worth approx. £40m on top of current Premier League revenue.

This season's NUFC transfer kitty is coming from the £30m sat in the bank as a result of the money Ashley put in, and the rest from next year's TV money increase.

 

[Sima]

We're breaking FFP as well it seems

Mike Ashley breaking FFP, you couldn't make it up.