News just in that pre-tax profits at Mike Ashley MASH Holdings have more than doubled from £256.4m to £542.6m for the financial year up to 30 April 2014.

(The previous year up to 30 April 2013 had seen the profits of Ashley’s shareholdings also double, from £130.6m up to £256.4m.)

The news has been broken by Drapers, the Fashion Business website.

Newcastle United is wholly within MASH Holdings and the part it plays in helping to create those huge £542.6m profits can’t be underestimated, via the free marketing and profile that the football club gives the Mike Ashley empire.

Only this headline profit figure is available at the moment but we will bring you more details as we get them.

We still await of course the Newcastle United accounts for 2013/14 being filed at Companies House when they will be available for the public to view, with only very limited figures/information released by the club so far at the end of March.

A profit for Newcastle United of only £18.7m shown after player trading when it was assumed they would be around £50m. The information released by the club giving no wages to turnover ratio and no explanation as to why costs had seemingly increased by almost £30m, or any other explanation as to what caused the profit figure to be significantly less than anticipated.

MASH Holdings is owned 100 per cent by Mike Ashley and the group profits before tax for the year up to April 2014 were £542.6m.

You may have wondered about the reference to ‘group structure’  in answer to a question previously asked at a past NUFC Fans Forum;

Question: If Mike Ashley is committed to owning the club, why doesn’t he just write the debt off?

Answer: The board explained that it would be an option that some clubs would consider, but from the perspective of our group structure there is a requirement to have debt within the structure.

When ‘Group Structure’ is talked about by Ashley and his employees at Newcastle United, it is this ‘MASH Holdings’ that they are referring to, where the Newcastle United owner has grouped together the football club and his brands/shareholdings. The reason for having that debt inside Newcastle United is because for business reasons it suits Mike Ashley, not any kind of goodness of his heart towards our club or the fans.

The following explanation on ownership appears on the Newcastle United official website;

Newcastle United Limited is the company which owns Newcastle United Football Club. The ultimate parent company of Newcastle United is MASH Holdings Limited and the ultimate controlling party of MASH Holdings Limited is Mike Ashley.



  • IntravenusMP

    Why would he write off a loan? That would make no financial sense.

    It really doesn’t make a difference to the likelihood of someone buying the club. If you assume the club’s valuation is a function of assets minus liabilities and earning ability, removing the liability will just make the value of the club to be £130m higher. A buyer will be no better off paying for the club and repaying the loan as opposed to paying for the club debt-free.

    The accounts are now available at companies house so take the mystery away

  • DownUnderMag

    It’s obvious the debt is there as a tax break for him, as well as providing adequate reasons for free advertising and lack of investment in the playing squad.  It would be interesting to see how much his brand would grow and how much more profit he would make by running the football club properly and being a success story in the football world – no not bankrolling a title, but just aiming for a competitive squad on a budget and bring good football back.  I am quite sure that positive publicity would be more profitable to his other business associations rather than the constant negative type currently a feature…

  • NottsToon

    What is your motivation here in continually defending Mike Ashley’s financial position? Genuine question as I have read a lot of posts from you in the last few days all with the same agenda.
    I also note that much of what you said in the other thread appears to be incorrect, another reason I must question your motivations

  • LeazesEnder

    IntravenusMP What debt….itemise it

  • LeazesEnder

    DownUnderMag It isn’t real….. the press thought otherwise, and that daft-lad from Deloitte who didn’t analyse it concurred….

    …. It was a piece of financial jiggery-pokery, which suited Ashley, and before him the Halls and Shepherds.

  • PeterS84

    If only the fat man would realise that if he spent money and invested in the squad with good players and tried to be successful then he wouldn’t have all this hate thrown his way.

  • IntravenusMP

    LeazesEnder that’s pretty stupid LE. So, when Ashley bought the club, the loan was repaid, overdraft cleared and pressing liabilities on outstanding player transfer creditors were cleared, how did that happen?

  • LeazesEnder

    IntravenusMP LeazesEnder There was No Loan… Are you pretending to be an accountant…. I’ll tell you what if you have the skill then itemise the ‘debt’….. 

    ….NUST have come the closest so far…. there’s a challenge for you!

  • gglenroofing

    RetroScot Skel_Perobares NUFCTheMag to think Sevco could have been a part of that U0001f602

  • NUFCTheMag

    gglenroofing RetroScot Skel_Perobares It is to a degree, MASH Holdings is all Ashley’s shares in different places, incl Rangers stake

  • JamesShaughnessyLawrence

    Out of interest – how much would it take to buy the club from Ashley – does anyone know what he values it at?

  • IntravenusMP

    LeazesEnder IntravenusMP

    He bought the club with a liability to Barclays for the stadium, an overdraft and liability for o/s transfer fees. He paid these liabilities after acquiring the shares so he ‘lends’ the company £130m in order to pay those liabilities. The BIG difference was the o/d & liabilities for player transfers were due immediately, Ashley’s loan is unlikely to be called in anger.

  • IntravenusMP

    JamesShaughnessyLawrence He bought it for £140m and then put in another £129m in to clear pressing debt so I’d say that’s the starting point at £270m. He overpaid for it but it was a busted flush when he got it. It now generates £20m EBIT and rising a year, real cashflows would appear to be 25-40m so he possibly wants around £400m

  • Maximus Moose

    Doesnt matter what angle you look at Big Mike the only conclusion is he`s a 1st class Scumbag

  • v0ices

    IntravenusMP what debt? The so called debt is Ashley’s left pocket owes his left its a accounting debt to write off tax profits fek off back to whatever Ashley company pays you.

  • v0ices

    IntravenusMP LeazesEnder lies mortgage was payable or could have been refinanced the player liabilities were standard football practice and offset by incoming outstanding transfers.

  • Gaffa201

    v0ices IntravenusMP that “debt” has nothing to do with tax

  • IntravenusMP

    v0ices IntravenusMP LeazesEnder Eh? That’s not the point, the ‘mortgage’ and transfer liabilities along with the overdraft were causing the previous regime a huge problem. transfering this to Ashley took the pressure away. Although paying for players in instalments was normal practice, we had over-stretched ourselves and could not meet the instalments. Ashley took this away and changed the way we bought players in future so we didn’t get into the clarts again.

  • If Ashley continues to treat his S*** Direct customers with total contempt, then that part of his wealth will start declining soon enough.  If S*** DIrect keep getting so many abysmal reviews on TrustPilot then at some point they’re going to go out of business:
    https://www.trustpilot.com/review/www.sportsdirect.com
    #ToxifyTheBrand

  • LeazesEnder

    IntravenusMP JamesShaughnessyLawrence You are clueless, you really are!

  • LeazesEnder

    IntravenusMP LeazesEnder Wrong he owed Cameron-Hall Investments for the Stadium not Barclays!

  • Gaffa201

    LeazesEnder IntravenusMP JamesShaughnessyLawrence out of interest what would you value the club at?

  • LeazesEnder

    Gaffa201 LeazesEnder IntravenusMP JamesShaughnessyLawrence £250 million

  • Gaffa201

    LeazesEnder Gaffa201 IntravenusMP JamesShaughnessyLawrence Interesting I would now see that as cheap at about 2 years sales

  • NottsToon

    IntravenusMP Still waiting for you to unveil your agenda here, I think it’s fair to say that your comments are (at best) treated with high degree of scepticism here.

  • NotFatFreddy

    He is a very clever businessman indeed with his ability never to answer any questions on his ambitions for the club i.e. his investment in the team. He has no real interest apart from personal profit .  Relegation and a second year in the championship rather than an immediate return would mean gates of 20-25,000, then he would be gone if he could sell the club, but it is catch 22, who would buy it and invest in players in the championship.  Ashley doesn’t need to sell as he makes big money with his ‘toy’, so where does a buyer come from?  Doesn’t look like it will ever happen, that is the sad thing.  Look at it this way you would need a consortium of 25 willing to put in £10 million each, that is the reality and it won’t happen!!

  • SGM

    Maximus Moose  Sounds like your a bit jealous.

  • v0ices

    NotFatFreddy but the asset is devalued in the championship and possibly running at a loss hopefully the Fatman will sell to the first taker as we already know he’s asset stripped his money back and more. Anything extra is just gravy.

  • SGM

    M.A. Has made NUFC into a very, very profitable business, you all should be very thankful because this makes the club a very attractive proposition to any prospective buyer.
    Would you buy a club up to its neck in debt?
    Would you buy a club who’s players/manager are on long contracts, are grossly over-paid, and over age?
    Would you buy a club who’s fans are continually gripping? 
    Maybe that’s the hold-up.

  • NotFatFreddy

    v0ices NotFatFreddy 

    That is why I said it would take 2 seasons of championship failure and low crowds before he would sell as he would expect to come straight back up like last time. He is still on the gravy train even in the championship providing we came up first time. The fact is that we can see no one on the horizon with he slightest interest in buying the club.  The fear is that we end up like Cardiff and playing in red and white, or like Leeds …never ending sh**e…with an even worse owner…is that possible?  WE could be called instead of the Hull Tigers, ‘Newcastle Simple’ 

    SPORTS DIRECT IS SH**T* banners would have more effect than a boycott, and can be better organised for all away games when we are on the TV.  That might make him choke on his pie and mash and splatter gravy all over his Lilly white sports direct 100% polyester made in China shirt!

  • AP69

    We are in more debt than the club has ever been in SGM
    We don’t have any major advertising contracts or make any money from merchandise and I bet you can guarantee he will demand to keep this going after any sale of the club
    Maybe they are the stumbling blocks eh???
    Plant
    Get Out Of Our Club

  • mactoon

    SGM The club is in debt to the tune of £129 million! how is that a very attractive proposition?

  • No Brainer

    mactoon Thats just structure the business was worth£270 when it was bought by Mike ashley as the business had debt the money which went to the owners at the time was around £143. something million the rest was debt. 

    We should not be confused that what was debt is still debt its all just part of MA’s cost of purchase.

    The business is worth a lot more now so  and hyper competitive at the very top there is n o saviour going to come in.

    If they were wouldn’t expect anyone looking at the loan any differently it is just part of the price.

  • Sickandtiredstill

    SGM Sky tv has made this a profitable business. Without their money we would be making nothing – at least according to Ashley’s accountants.

  • mactoon

    No Brainer mactoon  It still remains that SGMs comment does not ring true, any offer for the club needs to include the £129 million we are in debt to Ashley. Not an attractive position to any potential buyer

  • Sickandtiredstill

    StrategicReport
    NewcastleUnitedFootballClub
    Turnover fortheyearended30April 2014was£117.5m(2013:£102.3m)
    Matchdayrevenuewasdown6.8%to£25.9m  (2013:£27.8m).Thedecreasewasinpartduetonotparticipatingin theEuropaLeague,wherebyanadditional7fixtureswereheldatStJames’Parkinthe2012/13 
    season.
    Mediarevenueincreased53.5%to£78.3m(2013:£51.0m)asaresultofthePremierLeague’snewthreeyear broadcastingdealthatcommencedin2013/14.The10thplacedfinishinthePremierLeague(2013:16th)also contributed totherecordhighbroadcastingrevenues.
    Commercialrevenueincreasedby49.7%to£25.6m(2013:£17.1m)asaresultofnewcommercialdealswithshirt partnerWongaandanextensionwithourkit partnerPuma.Asnotedinpreviousannualaccounts,thisisanareathat theclubisworkinghardtoimprovewiththeadditionofnewsponsors  andotherrevenuestreamsandwelook forwardtocontinuingimprovements overthenextfewyears.
    Operatingexpensesincreased26.0%to£105.5m(2013:£83.7m).Thewages
    toturnoverratiofellto60.4%from
    64.3%in2014, whichiswithintheclub’sdesiredrange.

  • GToon

    Wonder what he’ll do with all of his money. Put it next to all of his other money? Count it? Who knows, but i know what he wont be doing with it.

  • SGM

    AP69 There is no debt, and you can guarantee anyone who is spending £300 mill+ will not accept any ongoing sponsorship deals, are you mad? buyers hold all the negotiating rights

  • SGM

    Sickandtiredstill SGM Neither would any other club in that case.

  • NottsToon

    SGM AP69 So we don’t owe Ashley £129m then as his board have stated at fans forums and in the accounts announcement….phew that’s a relief…..lying ba5tards eh?

  • NottsToon

    SGM Sickandtiredstill Well, no club without any merchandising or branding rights of its own at least…. like one who had all those rights passed over to a tatty sports retailer by an unscrupulous owner.

  • Sickandtiredstill

    As others state- many other Clubs have increased their commercial revenues. They dont give revenue away free to another companys shareholders.

  • SGM

    NottsToon SGM AP69 £542mil profit …..£129debt? 
    Creative accounting.

  • NottsToon

    SGM NottsToon AP69 The correlation being £542m profit…..for Mike Ashley, £129m debt to……Mike Ashley. 

    Another win for big Mike and sh1t all for Newcastle United, you must be overjoyed.

  • SGM

    NottsToon SGM AP69 Not at all. I just believe it could be a lot worse.
    Blackburn,
    Cardiff,
    Leeds,
    Notts Forrest,
    to mention but a few.

  • NottsToon

    SGM NottsToon AP69 92 league clubs and the apologist throws up the usual sprinkling. Do I have to list the 80 odd clubs where this hasn’t happened? Why flog that dead horse when the odds are so stacked against it?

  • SGM

    NottsToon SGM AP69 I prefer to be 1 of the 80, not one of the 12

  • IntravenusMP

    mactoon No Brainer It’s fairly simple, say the club is worth £429m without debt, with the 129m debt, the purchase price will be £300m and then pay off £129 loan.

    It’s actually slightly better to have debt in place. Then after the purchase, pay off the debt by introducing your own loan.

  • IntravenusMP

    NottsToon SGM AP69 But for £18m, the rest isn’t down to NUFC

  • IntravenusMP

    NottsToon   I have told you above.

  • IntravenusMP

    LeazesEnder IntravenusMP Not according to the 2006 accounts

  • Sickandtiredstill

    IntravenusMP v0ices LeazesEnder The 129 million includes money he had to spend/loan/borrow because he got us relegated!  

    He also remortgaged St James’ in 2009 to Barclays, though  I am not sure if that was cleared or not. But, Companies House show there are deeds of assignments over Benton land, all PL income, and badges/intellectual property. That’s a hell of a lot of security for just an overdraft. You would do well to remember that fact even if you ignore it. 

    Fact remains we won’t find out where these supposed extra operating costs come from as nothing is fully itemised any longer.

    Not sure how anyone can reasonably believe we have operating costs in these accounts which were larger than our previously reported turnover? 95.9 million turnover for 12/13, now operating expenses alone are over and above 105 million.

    Tv money up, wage bill further reduced, commercial ‘increased’ (though still only at pre Ashley level) yet operating costs around 30% higher through to June 30th ’14? How can a business which brings in more revenue while reducing costs and expenditure have a third greater operating expenses in one year??

    As for accounts, as has been mentioned elsewhere and I comment on here –

    *  Why does the Club have two sets of accounts submitted for last year? Those are a) Newcastle United Ltd b) Newcastle Football Company Ltd. Both show similar numbers.
    * Newcastle United Football Company Ltd is not specifically named in the MASH accounts as a major subsidiary
    * Newcastle United Football Company Ltd is described as a sporting goods retail operator – with a  registered office at St James’, but a trading address as a defunct post code in Blyth (docks)!

  • AP69

    Other than Wonga I don’t think we have any outside sponsorship deals

  • v0ices

    Sickandtiredstill did the club purchase Ashley a mega yacht as part of its operating costs? Will we ever know where he’s hiding the money?

  • IntravenusMP

    Sickandtiredstill No, wages went up to £78m from £62m. Player amortisation went up from £12m to £19m.

  • IntravenusMP

    LeazesEnder I think you are confused. Cameron-Hall Investments was a vehicle set up by Hall (jnr) to extract fees away from UK tax. Since Ashley has taken over, no further fees have been paid. It’s a Hall thing.

    really, if you are going to learn anything, you really have to  stop being abusive. You also end up looking silly if you call people clueless when you are at best, mistaken about your facts

  • IntravenusMP

    LeazesEnder Gaffa201 IntravenusMP JamesShaughnessyLawrence It than on a new asset value basis or Earnings basis? It looks very low if it’s the latter.

  • IntravenusMP

    v0ices Seariously, just because someone has a different view to yours, it does not make us stooges, just people who know enough to read the information and make our own mind up rather than follow the knuckle-draggers who paint abuse on their mam’s bedspread.

  • IntravenusMP

    AP69 No, there is not more debt now. The debt used to be owed to Eurobond holders, Barclays, other clubs whom we owed transfer money to etc. It’s now owed to Ashley. 

    The fact there is more scope for advertising means a prospective buyer would be more attracted to buy the club.

  • IntravenusMP

    v0ices The debt is very straightforward and real. 

    Circa. £70m that he loaned the club to pay down the various Eurobond that was effectively a mortgage covering the stadium expansion and avoid the ongoing interest payments that were significant.
    Another £35m or so overdraft that he inherited from the previous regime.
    Around £25m or so was outstanding in deferred transfer fees.
    later, when we were relegates circa. £30-40m was advanced as working capital to keep the club going when it was relegated. This relegation loan has now been repaid. 

    Now, fek off back to Sunderland

  • Sickandtiredstill

    IntravenusMP Sickandtiredstill What do you mean, NO? The info is from the MASH accounts released yesterday!
    The Club wage bill decreased a further 3.9% to 60.4%. if you do the sums then from turnover of 117 million at that time (to April 30th), Club wages would be 70.668 million (117 – 39.6%).
    Nonsense about amortisation also.

  • Sickandtiredstill

    IntravenusMP v0ices No it hasn’t. He ‘advanced’ 29 million or so for relegation and 18 is still ‘owed’ which is included in the 129 million ‘debt’. The regime make much of the fact it hasn’t been repaid – or maybe it now has hence our reduced profits.
    You’re still not even attempting to suggest why literally all Club assets and income are listed as security to Barclays, if that is only to cover a working overdraft?

  • LeazesEnder

    Sickandtiredstill IntravenusMP I think he’s pretending to be an accountant again!

  • LeazesEnder

    IntravenusMP mactoon No Brainer Would you elaborate on this…. because this is the reason he ‘constructed’ a debt to himself?

  • LeazesEnder

    IntravenusMP AP69 Are you a parrot, what the hell are you prattling out that dead excuse for the free advertising…. How much does Arsenal get from it per annum…. how much do we get….

    …/this parrot is no more….deceased…ceased to be…. gone to meet its maker….pushing up the daisies

  • LeazesEnder

    IntravenusMP LeazesEnder

  • LeazesEnder

    IntravenusMP LeazesEnder Have you got them?

  • v0ices

    Sickandtiredstill IntravenusMP v0ices see that ones already been pointed out as being untrue

  • v0ices

    IntravenusMP v0ices always happy to listen to a opposing viewpoint but when people invent figures and defend Ashley beyond any reasonable doubt it does point to paid stooges or the mentally unwell I newcastle7’s case.

  • Sickandtiredstill

    SGM AP69 No debt? Funny that, as the accounts say NET Debt 94.9 million!

  • Sickandtiredstill

    IntravenusMP AP69 Advertising where? He gives it away free, in every available space, to the shareholders of SD!

  • Sickandtiredstill

    IntravenusMP AP69 NET DEBT is recorded as 94.9 Million. 
    Term loans (Ashley) of 129 Million are also in the notes. 
    What’s that you say about debt???

  • NottsToon

    But you aren’t you f**kwit, that’s the whole point, your pretending everything is fine whilst one bloke is robbing your house, wiping his ar5e on photos of your dead relatives, laughing about it and charging you for his services.

  • IntravenusMP

    Sickandtiredstill IntravenusMP The info is in Newcastle United Limited accounts co no 2529667, I’m looking at page 2 advising that wages as a % of turnover fell to 60.3% from 64.3%. Given that runover went up to £129.7m from £95.9 you should be able to work it out. Note 3 on page 13 tells you staff costs went up to £78,297,000 from £61,706,000.

    See a 64% of a small number is less than 60.3% of a big number.

  • IntravenusMP

    NottsToon look at it this way, NUFC under Hall & Shep was like being governed by Gordon Brown & Labour, it felt OK for a while but it was always going to go t*ts up. Ashley is like the coalition, it may not seem exciting or super popular but we still get to eat and have a house.

  • AP69

    So Intravenous we had servicable debt to debt that will never be paid off and used against the club if ever any buyer came in?
    So you are agreeing the club is being run to fund SD then?
    By giving them free advertising
    You can go against the knuckle draggers all you want but you do come across as a stooge rather than a fan
    No fan can be happy at the club’s demise
    Agreed?
    Get Out Of Our Club

  • Sickandtiredstill

    IntravenusMP Sickandtiredstill Players out, 6 (inc Cabaye). Players in, 1 (Kemen + Remy & L d Jong on loan)

    18 new playing, academy, management, coaching staff, costing apparently the additional 15 million – hence staff cost rise. All other staff numbers went down again except for one additional admin position.

    Like to see anyone work that one out.

  • IntravenusMP

    LeazesEnderIntravenusMPAP69 Jeez, were you held back in school?

    In May 2007, Ashley took over the company, he bought it off the then
    shareholders (Halls & Shepherds) got that.
    At That time, he bought a business with debt: got that?
    The debts were roughly:
    £70m for the various Eurobonds that was effectively
    a mortgage covering the stadium expansion which was accruing
    significant interest. 
    Another
    £35m or so was the overdraft.
    Around £25m or so was outstanding in deferred
    transfer fees. Got that?
    He could have tried renegotiating the debts
    but he didn’t need to. Barclays had already shown they were unhappy to continue
    as it was and he had just had major proceeds for the float of Sports Direct. He
    paid off those debts, but yo can’t magic away unless he issued more shares to
    himself but why would he? So he lent the business (post takeover) enough money
    to pay off those debts that were causing serious problems, this allowed him to
    finance the purchase of Alan Smith and others that followed.

  • IntravenusMP

    Sickandtiredstill IntravenusMP AP69 He does but let’s say you and I bought the club. Would we give the perimeter advertising away for free? Unless you or I had a brand that would benefit hugely from perimeter advertising, I suspect we’d go hawking the advertising to any brand who will pay. So we can add value so we may believe that we can make the business make more money hence it’s more valuable to us.

  • IntravenusMP

    Sickandtiredstill IntravenusMP AP69 Which line are you looking at? 

    The term loan is the £129m loan Ashley lent the business to clear the eurobond (mortgage), OD etc (see above). 

    Now sure the point unless you are saying I’m right, in which case, you are right, I am right and I was in the first place.

  • kb12

    and newcastle still owe you how much…. you could easily make us a top 4 club and still make a couple of mill a season

  • IntravenusMP

    AP69 No we did not have serviceable debt, Barclays wanted their bit back, the fees we owed on transfers were due immediately and we would not have been able to buy more players without serious problems. 

    I was not happy with the clubs demise and threat of administration back in 2007, no. Admisttedly, Ashley would have saved himself about £130m had he allowed us to go into admin and then bought it as a pre-pack – which he’s not averse to do (see USC)

  • Sickandtiredstill

    IntravenusMP Sickandtiredstill AP69 What?

    Of course no one else would give that away for free!!! Are you aware of any other Club which does so? Is there a reason Wonga pays to have its name on our shirt? Damn right.

    In 8 years, Ashley finds it more beneficial to give SD saturation free advertising than actually make revenue for the Club by allowing others to make use of, and pay, for it.

    Why? SD is a PLC which has not provided NUFC with one single penny or other benefit. How does any of that add any value to the Club?

    get real man.

  • Sickandtiredstill

    IntravenusMP AP69 Bollix.

    Mortgages required immediate repayment on change of ownership – player deals did not. That is how many Clubs still finance them – deferred.

    Please, provide some factual evidence where it states anywhere that Barclays was going to pull the plug prior to Ashley arriving? Not opinion pieces,or Ashley’s propaganda, but cold hard facts.

    All in all the Club was allegedly so bad and in a perilous state, he bought it anyway. 

    Give yourself a shake, lad.

  • IntravenusMP

    Sickandtiredstill IntravenusMP AP69 It doesn’t add any money into the club but it makes the club more attractive to a buyer.

    I don’t know this to be true but this is my theory with SD advertising. 

    As it is, if SD pays for it’s advertising, the shareholders of SD may ask questions because we have SD a company that Ashley has a IIRC 55% stake, it’s paying let’s say £10m to NUFC, a company that Ashley has a 100% stake. The stock exchange does not like shareholders that are dominant and do deal where one shareholder will benefit. 

    By giving it away free, I think it stops Ashley looking like he’s abusing his majority shareholder power.

    However, He’s also demonstrating to SD plc that advertising in football works well for the brand. I would not be surprised if SD plc bought either NUFC off Ashley and Ashley bought Rangers OR SD plc bought Rangers.

  • Sickandtiredstill

    IntravenusMP Sickandtiredstill AP69 Please, that’s just regurgitating the Llambias line.
    He told us the advertising was there to promote the opportunities to others. Then he suggested it was recompense for Ashley’s ‘loans’ being interest free! Same with the ground naming rights.
    Like no one in 8 years wants to advertise at St James’? Give it a rest.
    Your opinions are just opinions. They mean nowt unless you have facts to back them up.
    The above are facts as we know them. SD gets advertising for free which was an initial aim of Ashley buying the Club.

  • Sickandtiredstill

    IntravenusMP LeazesEnder AP69 As I said – provide one factual piece of evidence which states Barclays wanted all debt repaid immediately.
    Mortgages were repayable only because of change of ownership/sale clause.

  • IntravenusMP

    Sickandtiredstill IntravenusMP AP69 Yes, that was the terms of the mortgage so wither Mike Ashley lent the money to NUFC to pay the loan off, NUFC borrowed from elsewhere to pay the loan off or NUFC renegotiated the loan which almost certainly would mean more security and likely to be a PG from Ashley. I think that’s why Ashley thought he may as well pay it off and stop paying interest. 

    I can’t give you confidential letters from Barclays if that’s what you want. It was common knowledge, rather like it was later with Hick and Gillette at Liverpool, the banks were saying enough was enough. 

    The Club was in a state but Hall hoodwinked Ashley a little. Ashley didn’t do proper due diligence and  paid over the odds. 

    He may not have cared, (this is just a guess) but he may have needed a home for his SD floatation monies so he either paid a load of tax of gambled on NUFC.  He may have been so confident that he could turn the ship around and use it as a vehicle to promote Sd that he was prepared to pay up to get the NUFC brand?

  • IntravenusMP

    Sickandtiredstill IntravenusMP Jeez, it’s in the accounts, when we didn’t know what was in the accounts, I suggested wages adn amortisation may be the big increase. You said I’m an idiot.  Having seen them, guess what, it’s wages and amortisation and you are now saying it’s not true. FFS!

  • IntravenusMP

    Sickandtiredstill IntravenusMP AP69 I’m suggesting that’s the case. Re-read my post. 

    I’m getting a little fed up with explaining the accounts and the situation. It’s not difficult and you [Sickandtiredstill] seemed to have some understanding a few days ago, I can’t see why you are playing dumb now.

  • IntravenusMP

    Sickandtiredstill IntravenusMP AP69 “SD gets advertising for free which was an initial aim of Ashley buying the Club ” YES!! it was one of the reasons for Ashley buying the club, that’s not a problem is it?

  • pissed off mag

    IntravenusMP Sickandtiredstill  another ashley arse kissing moron intravenus mikes prick

  • Sickandtiredstill

    IntravenusMP Sickandtiredstill AP69 I know you can’t provide evidence, that’s the point. This has all just became myth, largely from Ashley’s hand. 

    Common knowledge is actually only information told (or spun) in a certain way, because no actual facts confirm it.

    If he was hoodwinked, then it could only have been about player financing. Not for one single moment do I, or should anyone, believe this financial machine and his advisors did not know of mortgages and overdraft.

  • Sickandtiredstill

    pissed off mag IntravenusMP Sickandtiredstill Wages for who, that remains the question! 

    Entire amount of amortisation for the year before (12/13) increased by only 350 thousand in those accounts. You now want to believe it was millions the next year? 

    Simply does not add up I’m afraid. These are inflated for some other reason and probably Kinnear is part of that.

  • Sickandtiredstill

    IntravenusMP Sickandtiredstill AP69 Damn right it’s a problem!
    Hate to point this out again, but SD is a PLC. It’s not Ashley’s and ceased being so when he floated it. 
    Why should the Club be giving away commercial revenue, vital under FFP, to someone else’s shareholders?

  • IntravenusMP

    LeazesEnder IntravenusMP mactoon No Brainer If MA or a new owner wanted to take money out, they could draw in the loan owed. If it’s in reserves, they will need to take divi’s and paying tax – essentially in the case of MA, paying tax on his own money.

  • IntravenusMP

    Sickandtiredstill IntravenusMP AP69 It’s hardly an isssue with NUFC. We buy players for cash, we are nicely within the FFP perameters. 

    IF another buyer comes in, they can utilise perimenter advertising as a a revenue stream but mike Ashley doesn’t need to and it suits the City that he doesn’t. 

    As I said, it’s just my theory but it makes sense.

  • IntravenusMP

    Sickandtiredstill IntravenusMP AP69 Look, in the accounts, there was quite a big debt, a series of Eurobonds, an overdraft and a load of creditors. All that was drastically reduced and a new debt that wasn’t being called upon appeared. It’s very simple, the debt was transferred from being owed to banks and creditors to being owed to Mike Ashley.

  • Sickandtiredstill

    IntravenusMP Sickandtiredstill AP69 UEFA FFP? A red herring – as it only applies to Clubs playing in their competitions.

    PL FFP? Commercial revenue profit can be used to strengthen the team. The football Club and team could certainly do with that ‘pound for pound’.

    As for what Ashley needs or doesn’t, that is what this whole protest is about.

  • Sickandtiredstill

    IntravenusMP Sickandtiredstill AP69 Agreed.

    However, the Club STILL has charges, by Barclays, held over Benton land, ALL PL income, brands/badge and intellectual property rights.

    If we have unsecured loans from Ashley, what are Barclays actually securing at that level?

  • SGM

    LeazesEnder IntravenusMP AP69  Id like to nail you to a perch.

  • IntravenusMP

    Sickandtiredstill IntravenusMP AP69 It looks like it’s the overdraft facility. At 30 June 2014, it was un-utilised but it was used in 2013.

  • NottsToon

    Or look at this way, we’re plummeting in free fall with money in bank, no quality players and an idiot on the touchline.
    I suggest that all the wannabe accountants should also remember that this used to be a football club.

  • IntravenusMP

    Sickandtiredstill IntravenusMP LeazesEnder AP69 You need to ask, why was Hall selling, why had Shepherd sounded out Polygon and Belgravia who were hedge funds that got cold feet when looking at the figures

  • IntravenusMP

    Sickandtiredstill IntravenusMP AP69 Yep, it hardly applies and we are now in such a strong position, neither does PL FFP.

  • SGM

    NotFatFreddy  More like 30

  • IntravenusMP

    NottsToon We used to have Bill MacGarry, Jim smith, Glenn Roeder etc on the touchline. 

    Don’t get me wrong, I’d like to see a decent replacement for Cisse in, I’d like an additional Centre Half to lacelles, a full back and something better than we have out wide. 

    But, that doesn;t make the whining about finance valid.

  • SGM

    IntravenusMP v0ices  I’ve noticed Intravenous you have to repeat yourself a lot to these muppets

  • v0ices

    IntravenusMP Sickandtiredstill AP69 give it up lad no one believes a word you say and add in the dodgy arithmetic and you just look worse.

  • IntravenusMP

    Sickandtiredstill IntravenusMP v0ices well if you have the exact figures, well done, that’s why I used the approximate figures.

    I’m not sure that you are right though, I think the amount put in during the relegation time was £42m of which a lot was recovered within the year as it proved not to be as costly as anticipated.  I thought the relegation money was reapid in two £18m tranches. 

    If the loan is repaid at all, it’s just a balance sheet figure, nothing to do with profit. 

    As for security, barclays may as well take a charge on everything, they will only need enough to cover what is borrowed and I don;t see Ashley being anything other than prudent.

  • IntravenusMP

    v0ices Sorry fella, there is no getting through to you. I’ve been paid handsomely for this teaching before but the pupils are usually a little brighter.

  • IntravenusMP

    LeazesEnder I have had them, are you saying Cameron-Hall Investments were the lender to NUFC to extend SJP?

  • IntravenusMP

    v0ices which ones?

  • IntravenusMP

    SGM IntravenusMP v0ices I do seem to have to go over the basics a few times, perhaps I’m assuming too much knowledge.

  • IntravenusMP

    pissed off mag IntravenusMP Sickandtiredstill Brilliant, really good that. Do you do stand up?

  • Sickandtiredstill

    IntravenusMP Sickandtiredstill v0ices See 12. footnote. 18 million still outstanding – secured on future broadcasting income and repayable on demand.
    13. 111 million is unsecured and payable after more than ne year.

  • IntravenusMP

    Sickandtiredstill IntravenusMP v0ices That’s not necessarily right, the loan isn’t itemised as being a separate loan, simply that £18m is on demand and secured, the rest being unsecured and for which over 12 months notice must be given. 

    Possibly this is simply to structured so that hte Balance sheet does not scare anyone with £129 due within one year.

  • Sickandtiredstill

    IntravenusMP Sickandtiredstill v0ices Why isn’t it necessarily right, if that’s what the accounts actually say?

    Nor sure why you are having trouble accepting it when the Club has submitted this.

  • IntravenusMP

    Sickandtiredstill IntravenusMP v0ices

    Without  a doubt, £129m is owed to MA, £18m secured and payable on demand.

    I’m simply pointing out that the £18m is not necessarily a separate loan (it may well be, I’m not bothered enough to go through all the previous accounts). There could be just the one loan with £18m payable on demand and secured (for the reasons given)

    We agree that there is a loan of £129m 
    We agree £18m is payable on demand and secured.
    I think you agree that this is not going to put anyone off buying the club.