Asset stripping

[bix01]

Been done by stealth for 14 years, now blatantly in our faces. Whatever the club selling price that was agreed, there’s no way the fat twāt will lose out on that. It’s often been said that in his mind the club has been sold and there’s no way he’ll budge from that price no matter how he does it. From selling the handful of players with value, pocketing income, CAT compensation, parachute payments to possibly even taking out loans on assets that he has no intention to pay and might even sell the lease on the ground to a finance company which will cripple the club for decades. Fit and proper - absolute total fücking spineless bästard.

[Jammy89]

Aye - it's something else really.

He would do that all and then act really surprised when the Saudi's don't want to pay the previous price.

[Andy1981_2]

Yeah, I made a similar point elsewhere - this transfer window is the epitome of asset stripping, particularly if he's serious about selling the club at the price previously agreed. The only real assets we own are player contracts, and we now own fewer of those. So, if I was the buyer I'd be adjusting my bid accordingly.

This is one of the many frustrating things about outside commentary on the Ashley ownership of the club. They tend to claim some set of the following things:

1. Ashley saved the club from financial ruin.
2. Ashley is a great businessman and is running the club like a business now (rather than irresponsibly spending).
3. That Ashley HAS invested in the club (usually the figure is between £120m i.e. the purchase price and, only yesterday via TalkSport, £300m i.e. the figure they've made up off the top of their collectively vacuous heads).

But here's the thing. The money Ashley has put in over the purchase price is there as a loan. The selling price (we have to assume) of £300m+ INCLUDES repayment of these loans. That will mean that, once Ashley sells the club, he'll have invested £0 in Newcastle United.

Presumably their reply to this would be something like 'he must have done a good job if he's able to sell the club now for more money than he paid for it'. But this is clearly nonsense, for 2 reasons. Firstly, he's likely to make only a small profit from that, since the purchase price and the loans is somewhere around £240m-£260m. That'll be around £40m profit when, over the same period, PL TV revenues have increased by around 500%. So, that isn't good business at all.

They might even try and draw an analogy with someone like Man City - they're worth about £2.5bn now compared to the relative pittance they were bought for. So, he must have done something right if the club's value has gone in the same direction. However, besides underlining the point I've just made, that also misses the point. Man City has a new stadium, new state of the art training and medical facilities, a much larger scouting network, enormously increased brand awareness and commercial revenue, not to mention the small matter of winning a bunch of trophies. IF Ashley manages to sell at the end of this season, say, what will he have achieved in the same period? We'll have won nothing, had several relegations, allowed the stadium to fall into disrepair in several key areas, have stagnated commercial revenues and reduced brand awareness (or increased negative brand associations), have the same training facilities which are now sub-standard due to technological advances elsewhere, not to mention the reduced relative value of the playing squad.

So, which of the things above are actually true?

Did he 'save' Newcastle? This is literally impossible to know since there are millions of variables that could have thrown us into jeopardy, but based on an analysis of the books I did for another post a few years back I suspect this is utter nonsense. We've actually increased our total debt since Ashley took over, and if the previous owners had the same spending approach as Ashley the increased TV revenues would have alleviated any issues of repayment on the smaller debts we had (an overdraft and a loan).

Is Ashley a great businessman and running the club like a business? Well, not if he's only making a small profit from a club who should have increased in value in line with the enormously increased revenue streams. Moreover, a 'good' businessman would have added value beyond that, which is what City have done. Sure, they've spent £1.1bn, but they're worth over TWICE that. That's how investment works, and a good businessman understands that. ALL of Ashley's 'investments' have been short term solutions to foreseeable problems his own approach to running the business have caused. They've all been about spending our way out of financial trouble - which is terrible business.

And has Ashley invested in the club? Well, not if all of his investments are structured as loans to be recouped directly from the sale of the club. He hasn't invested in the club, he's invested his money for himself. But isn't football club ownership about more than simply making money for the owner? Aren't they meant to be stewards of the club, protecting it for future generations? The same pundits pay lip service to that idea in all cases but ours. We're ungrateful. We're overly demanding. All because we expect our businessman owner - a billionaire - to do a little more than the bare minimum to keep the stadium or training ground from collapsing on his cheaply assembled playing assets.

The pundits want to have it all ways - that Ashley is a business genius and a great owner because he's going to leave the club with money in his back pocket, and that we should be grateful he swooped in and saved us from unscrupulous owners only out for themselves. And yet, in reality, he'll actually leave with a profit and with the club a fractured, ageing shell of what it used to be.

[Zippity]

You look at how far behind we are compared to clubs who were around-or even below-our level when fatso bought us and you could weep.

Look at what Leicester have achieved with ambitious owners who care. Even West Ham's owners have done decent business this summer, ffs.

The damage he has done to us will take years and years for us to recover from-if we ever do-but none of that will matter for a while on the glorious day that fat, greedy, lying, piss-taking, ignorant lump of shit leaves our club.

[Scott Kirkland]

It's like selling a car, but taking out the engine, taking off the wheels. Then being suprised when the buyer decides to pull out of the deal.

[Alberts__Lob]

Ashley has got to be the most obstinate man on the planet

[Scott Kirkland]

Are the government still paying for stafff of furlough?

[bix01]

I often think we’re stuck with him until he dies, but I wouldn’t be surprised if his will states that the club withdraws from all football, resigns from the FA & EPL etc., are liquidated and become part of his ShÃ*te Direct estate. The Fat Fùck laughing at us from beyond the grave like The Hooded Fücking Claw.

[dagenhamJohn]

I often think we’re stuck with him until he dies, but I wouldn’t be surprised if his will states that the club withdraws from all football, resigns from the FA & EPL etc., are liquidated and become part of his ShÃ*te Direct estate. The Fat Fùck laughing at us from beyond the grave like The Hooded Fücking Claw.

Has he got a son?
Take care now
John...

[Jammy89]

Has he got a son?
Take care now
John...

A son in law - he's taken over the Sports Direct Chairmanship