The Mags have beaten us again

Status
Not open for further replies.


Sima said:
Debt has nearly doubled.

‘Financially stable’...
Click to expand...

Soft debt - it doesn't increase instability, since it's just another mechanism for owner investment. It was external before, which is inherently unstable. Owners like to put loans in, rather than shares. This is because any repayments to them are non-taxable, unlike dividends if they've put in share capital. Also, given the right deal structure, it provides some measure of CGT advantage if they subsequently sell the club.
 
Grumpy Old Man said:
Soft debt - it doesn't increase instability, since it's just another mechanism for owner investment. It was external before, which is inherently unstable. Owners like to put loans in, rather than shares. This is because any repayments to them are non-taxable, unlike dividends if they've put in share capital. Also, given the right deal structure, it provides some measure of CGT advantage if they subsequently sell the club.
Click to expand...

So if its another mechanism for owner investment does that mean he's actually invested?

Sure the mags say he's not put a penny in and is starving the cleerb.
 
What A Waster said:
12 years going nowhere under Ashley. Think it's worth spinning the wheel to see where it lands.
Click to expand...
You don’t know what you’ve got till it’s gone.
I’m sure there’s a lot of teams that were in a better position than you that would swap with you right now
Stoke
Us
Swansea
Villa
 
BigPete said:
So if its another mechanism for owner investment does that mean he's actually invested?

Sure the mags say he's not put a penny in and is starving the cleerb.
Click to expand...

When Ashley took over, Newcastle had a total of £67m in external loans, and a £10m overdraft. In June 2018, they had loans payable to Ashley of £144m. Replacing external debt with internal debt is investment, whether the Mags like it or not. But even ignoring that, he's put an additional £67m in. What they really mean is that he hasn't put in as much as Abramovic or the Mansours (the fact that he's not in the same league as regards net worth is clearly a minor technicality). He's not actually needed to put more in than that because, in general, they've been pretty astute in the transfer market, and their transfer business has been by and large self-financing (unlike another NE team I could name).
 
Sima said:
Debt has nearly doubled.

‘Financially stable’...
Click to expand...
Really?
I thought Hall n fletcher had left you in a right state?

I know we take the piss out of their mags for their sense of entitlement, but sometimes we're far too accepting of shite.
 
Grumpy Old Man said:
When Ashley took over, Newcastle had a total of £67m in external loans, and a £10m overdraft. In June 2018, they had loans payable to Ashley of £144m. Replacing external debt with internal debt is investment, whether the Mags like it or not. But even ignoring that, he's put an additional £67m in. What they really mean is that he hasn't put in as much as Abramovic or the Mansours (the fact that he's not in the same league as regards net worth is clearly a minor technicality). He's not actually needed to put more in than that because, in general, they've been pretty astute in the transfer market, and their transfer business has been by and large self-financing (unlike another NE team I could name).
Click to expand...

So as we all knew they are just a bunch of deluded, spoilt bairns hoying their toys out the pram.
 
Grumpy Old Man said:
Soft debt - it doesn't increase instability, since it's just another mechanism for owner investment. It was external before, which is inherently unstable. Owners like to put loans in, rather than shares. This is because any repayments to them are non-taxable, unlike dividends if they've put in share capital. Also, given the right deal structure, it provides some measure of CGT advantage if they subsequently sell the club.
Click to expand...

Dress it up how you want, Ashley has still doubled the debt of the club. Mostly through his own incompetence, too.

If he wasn’t so absolutely shite, he wouldn’t have had to put £67m in.
 
Sima said:
If he wasn’t so absolutely shite, he wouldn’t have had to put £67m in.
Click to expand...

Could it not have been due to you're previous owners he had to put it in to prevent you going under?

One person who knows finances is @Grumpy Old Man

Love it how you actually get a detailed response but since it doesn't suit your agenda he's just dressing it up how he sees fit :rolleyes::lol::lol:
 
Sima said:
Dress it up how you want, Ashley has still doubled the debt of the club. Mostly through his own incompetence, too.

If he wasn’t so absolutely shite, he wouldn’t have had to put £67m in.
Click to expand...

So, if he'd created £144m in shares, you wouldn't be complaining, even though the effect would be no different. Soft debt is just that - it's essentially capital investment in another guise.
 
BigPete said:
Could it not have been due to you're previous owners he had to put it in to prevent you going under?

One person who knows finances is @Grumpy Old Man
Click to expand...

The two big chunks he has put outside of the original taking on of the debt from Barclays in have been to keep the club afloat following relegations under his watch.

Grumpy Old Man said:
So, if he'd created £144m in shares, you wouldn't be complaining, even though the effect would be no different. Soft debt is just that - it's essentially capital investment in another guise.
Click to expand...

Might as well say if he’d created £1bn in shares as there’s not a chance he would have put in any more than is absolutely necessary.
 
Last edited:
Sima said:
The two big chunks he has put outside of the original taking on of the debt from Barclays in have been to keep the club afloat following relegations under his watch.



Might as well say if he’d created £1bn in shares as there’s not a chance he would have put in any more than is absolutely necessary.
Click to expand...

See, to me that's the mark of a good owner.

Here's a pic of someone who thought the same way you do

Logon or register to see this image


She went bust as well.
 
Grumpy Old Man said:
See, to me that's the mark of a good owner.

Here's a pic of someone who thought the same way you do

Logon or register to see this image


She went bust as well.
Click to expand...

No matter what you say, he will not have his opinion changed.

Ashley is bad all that there is too it, didn't save the club from going under due to the previous owners misspending.

Doesn't invest to keep the club afloat, doesn't invest to get them back to the Premier league, doesn't care...

Get oot wa cleeerb!
 
That brief spell under Keegan in the early 90’s up until Robson was sacked really has made them deluded as fuck, divine right to be challenging top 4 every year, apart from that spell in their history (now almost 20 years ago since Robson left) they haven’t got a good a record as us on the silverware front.
 
What A Waster said:
They were indeed. Doesn't mean its anything to thank him for. Are Sunderland grateful to Short and Grayson and Coleman for landing them in league one which was the season you won the most games since your promotion?
Click to expand...

Definately not...but tbf Ashley had no real influence on you going down those two times. He did though ensure you had the strongest squad by far enabling you to bounce straight back. You could argue though that our owners did directly influence our demotion and inability to bounce straight back....particularly the last two seasons under Short
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top