Comments on: Ashley’s spin to win?

By: AngelOfDeath

AngelOfDeath — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 18:31:58 +0000

Portsmouth will become the first English Premier League club to go into financial administration on Friday, after they missed a deadline for a potential takeover.

Andrew Andronikou of accountancy firm UHY Hacker Young told The Associated Press on Thursday that “we made a conscious decision to put it into administration tomorrow morning.”

Four undisclosed buyers failed to prove they had the funds to buy the club by a Thursday afternoon deadline and Andronikou, who will act as the administrator, will issue a detailed statement on Friday outlining how the club will be restructured and made attractive for a potential buyer.

Pompey chief executive Peter Storrie told Soccernet: “We are all waiting to hear what happens next. The staff face savage cuts. There are three parties, though, interested in taking over the club, so I don’t anticipate it will be in the hands of the administrator for long.

By: Rangerman

Rangerman — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 18:14:23 +0000

Komfort – Because what we value our players at at their book price through amortisation is not necessarily what they are worth, for example Steven Taylor’s book price is £0, so while we would struggle to borrow money as our assets are viewed as negative by book price this might not be a true reflection of how much our assets are worth.

You wouldn’t just be purchasing the assets either, you’re buying the name, the brand and the potential which isn’t taken into consideration when valuing assets.

By: stevep

stevep — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 17:24:12 +0000

@komfort – same way sullivan and gold bought west ham for 50 mill even tho club was completely crippled financially along with numerous people who have paid good money to Portsmouth thinking they can turn it round or at least get a chunk of money – pure speculation mate – theres no real business sense in owning a football club, however you can take a couple of mill in dividends and pay yourself a fiar whack while all the while loaning the club money at a lowish interest rate ( but at least interbank rate + 0.5) so you’re quids in really, you’ll eventually get your loans back unless club goes to the wall!

By: komfort

komfort — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 17:02:25 +0000

rangerman , you seem to know what your talking about so could you please explain to me …if the club is technically insolvent how it has a valuation of £100 + million ?…

…thanks.

By: TROJAN 69

TROJAN 69 — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 16:44:18 +0000

rangerman,newcastle is in the north east and has never been located in the solent lol.

By: Rangerman

Rangerman — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 16:40:13 +0000

The clubs debt wasn’t ‘just £70 million’ when he took over, after he had bought SJH’s shares but before he bought the rest the club announced a loss of £33 million for the previous year which Ashley had to pay for.

You also have to include the stadium debt too as the club has continually made repayments on the loan only to borrow back on it again to cover running costs, so we’ve only been servicing the interest on the loan rather than paying any of it off.

Also where is the talk of Moat only having £70 million to buy us that people seem to be taking as fact? Moat didn’t buy us because he couldn’t afford to do what Ashley is doing now which is putting money in to support cashflow and he couldn’t get an overdraft off anyone as the club is technically insolent.

By: Rangerman

Rangerman — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 16:25:14 +0000

What people have to understand is it’s not as simple as saying we brought in £20 million in sales so how can we be losing money, I think the club could be break even if going off P&L but cashflow wise we are struggling, that would mean Ashley puts it in as a loan to cover costs like players wages etc.

By: toonsy

toonsy — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 16:12:30 +0000

Craig – Perhaps because he never really wanted to sell in the first place?

We are seeing things now that make me think maybe he is here for a while. Things such as the scouting network, sensible buys, relative stability.

The amount of debt is kind of irrelavant I’ll agree. It’s just a number. The key thing in those links that I supplied is the fact there was nothing else to borrow against so we would have run out of money under Shepherd regardless, the only difference being that Sir Pie-a-lot didn’t have a personal fortune to fall back on and bail us out.

By: eastcoastmag

eastcoastmag — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 15:49:29 +0000

as someone already pointed out, there was that article a few weeks ago saying he’s making money each month off the club. honestly, whether he’s making or losing money, who cares? he owns the club, and thus has every right to spend/not spend where he sees fit. he’s paid off the debt we had, and got us steady financially despite being relelgated. i’m by no means a big fan of the guy, given the mistakes he’s made, but credit where credit is due.
we’re (fingers crossed) on track for promotion, which is the ultimate goal, and getting back up with reduced running costs will only further help us moving forward.

By: craig chisholm

craig chisholm — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 15:46:24 +0000

toonsy…. it all means nothing mate. Its all about who you belive. In 2007 the debt was 70 million but lo and behold, when ashley takes over and gets his high flying acocutnants to twist the figures in any direction he wants they say its 124 million… wtf did that figure come from. also, the whole article has several areas that are not factual, for instance having to pay off all the debt when he bought it… he didnt, he only had to pay off the stad. It all begs the simple question….. why is ashley hanging onto the club for grim death instead of selling it?? he wanted 80 million form moat but moat only hhad 70. so… why not seel for 70 million instead of keeping it nad having to pump in another 20/25 (if you believe a single word)!