Sports Direct Arena

It might have something to do with liquidity and cash flow as well. Obviously you can count owed transfer fees as an asset on a balance sheet, but I'm pretty sure Pardew mentioned that the big sales at the end of the January transfer window didn't generate any immediate income, and that the fees would be spread over a number of years - as most transfers are now.

I'm really enjoying watching Newcastle play this year and sincerely hope this doesn't affect their form - supporter backlash is never does any good to what goes on on the pitch!
 
I'm pretty sure Pardew mentioned that the big sales at the end of the January transfer window didn't generate any immediate income, and that the fees would be spread over a number of years - as most transfers are now.

I doubt anyone has any concrete info, but i'd be interested to know who Newcastle manage this side of things. It's pretty well known that when purchasing players MA likes to pay fees upfront as it was the outstanding fees owed for players (many of whom weren't even at the club anymore) that surprised him when he first took over the club. I assume that he pushes for shorter terms on sales than most other clubs.
 
I imagine the debt will be the financial reports from your 2009/2010 season, with last seasons reports to follow next year.

I agree on the transfer fees issue - It's a real pain, but the technique of spreading payments out over a number of years seems to like a domino affect, and now most team's can;t afford the upfront payment as they're owed so much in transfer fees themselves.

Don't quote me on it, but I seem to remember a television interview at the time of Andy Carroll's sale in which Pardew mentioned that they weren't going to see any of that money - I imagine it's not an easy thing to do to shift £35mm from one place to another that quickly!

Unfortunately it seems to be rife that teams often delay on payment of fees, and I think WHU are having a big old issue with a couple of teams at the moment (being owed money by the Italians probably isn't helped giving what's going on in the financial markets :p)
 
Pardew has only ever said the money WILL be put back into the club, anyone who accuses Ashley of taking money out of the club frankly needs a beating, he's sunk a HUGE amount of money into the club and hasn't taken a penny out. As for the stadium, he didn't "rebuild" the landmark, a rose by any other name.......... Who would care what its called, if as a fan you realise it means more money for your club I have no idea how you can possibly complain.

Most likely the 35mil won't be upfront, but even if it was it SHOULD go to pay off debt because you pay interest on the debt which is good for no one. Either way, if you have say 50mil of debt, that adds 5mil in debt a year, you could spend 35mil on transfer fee's, then end up with 55mil of debt, then 60mil the year after, building up and up and never being able to afford another transfer again, or you can pay off a huge chuck of debt, have it become more managable and long term be able to afford players when the club is profitable rather than fighting debt.

The only thing Pardew has said is that 35mil won't go all on transfer fee's. Take Carroll on say 30-40k a week, maybe a lot less than that, but call it 2mil a year. Now you spend 35mil on one big name player, he'll want 100k a week, thats 5mil a year, you're already be down 3mil, for a club looking to cut costs and become stable, bad.

In reality, if you buy 4 5million players, thats 20mil gone, and each on 40k a week, is 8mil a year....... over a 4 year contract Carroll would have made 8 mil, the 4 new players would make 32million over the same 4 year period.

You can't exclude wage spending, 35mil on multiple players adds up to much higher wages than one player and that gets factored in.

Personally if my team were in heavy debt, making heavy losses and someone came in, bought the team offset the loses by pumping their own money into the club to prevent the club folding I wouldn't know what there was to complain about. If someone comes in and takes a profitable or stable club then loads on 500mil of debt....... thats completely different, when the opposite happens, someone comes in with a huge amount of debt and gets rid of it.

Likewise once the club is profitable and stable I wouldn't begrude them wanting the money back eventually like any other business. Buy a business, invest, turn it around and get profits, that's life. The only time to complain is, team struggling, making a profit and instead of improving the team at all the owners took every last penny of profits out of the club.
 
It is not enclosed. Therefore it is not an arena. It is a stadium.

Anyway, I can understand why they would want to sell the naming rights. I still hate it but they are not the first club to sell their soul for a quick buck and sooner or later it will be something all clubs have to do if they want to play in the Premier League.

Also, the Sports Direct in Newcastle is a horrible, horrible shop.
 
I thought reports were that we would break even at the end of this season so I don't know where the £35m worth of debt has come from?

You are right. They will, apparently, be balanced if not in profit this year which is a great thing.

So you have little to no debt, making a profit, running things well.... Why rename the stadium if there is no need?

I cansee the business sense behind the decision if, for example, it was Audi buying the rights for a hundred mill or whatever they go for these days then great. But sticking his own company on stinks of wanting to boost his own brand and not help the club.
 
What happens if no other sponsor is interested? will it just stay as Sports Direct for free advertising for Mike Ashley's company? or is his company actually paying for it?
 
What happens if no other sponsor is interested? will it just stay as Sports Direct for free advertising for Mike Ashley's company? or is his company actually paying for it?

There's no mention of Sports Direct paying anything and I'd imagine if nobody is willing to pay more than the value of the free advertising Sports Direct is getting then it will stay as Sports Direct.

It's common knowledge that Ashley's been trying to sell the naming rights to St James's Park for a while now but hasn't found a taker. Had City renamed and/or Chelsea indicated they're going to rename earlier then I'd imagine Ashley would have done this a while ago too. It makes little difference to him wither Newcastle get £xm from company x or wether Sports Direct get £xm worth of free advertising. He benefits the same.
 
I cansee the business sense behind the decision if, for example, it was Audi buying the rights for a hundred mill or whatever they go for these days then great. But sticking his own company on stinks of wanting to boost his own brand and not help the club.

It's quite clever really. If they had immediately sold it to someone like Audi then there would have been massive negative publicity which no brand is going to pay money for. This way MA takes the flak and anyone who comes in later for the rights won't get that and will probably get bonus goodwill for sounding better than SDA and not being MA.
 
[DOD]Asprilla;20534331 said:
It's quite clever really. If they had immediately sold it to someone like Audi then there would have been massive negative publicity which no brand is going to pay money for. This way MA takes the flak and anyone who comes in later for the rights won't get that and will probably get bonus goodwill for sounding better than SDA and not being MA.

You might have a point had Ashley not been trying to sell the naming rights for the last year or so. He's not renamed it the Sports Direct Arena to take the sting out of a 2nd sponsor, he's done it because he couldn't sell the rights before.

By remaning it the Sports Direct Arena, he's actually devalued the proposition to any potential new sponsor in the future. Why would anybody pay a premium to sponsor a stadium that will have already had 2 names? You only have to look at naming rights deals in the US; the more times a stadium is renamed/sponsored the less they make.
 
Stuff like this has been done before, St Mary's used to be called 'The Friends Provident St Mary's Stadium' @_@ that didn't last thankfully

The Ethadi will always be that commonwealth games place for me...
 
You might have a point had Ashley not been trying to sell the naming rights for the last year or so. He's not renamed it the Sports Direct Arena to take the sting out of a 2nd sponsor, he's done it because he couldn't sell the rights before.

By remaning it the Sports Direct Arena, he's actually devalued the proposition to any potential new sponsor in the future. Why would anybody pay a premium to sponsor a stadium that will have already had 2 names? You only have to look at naming rights deals in the US; the more times a stadium is renamed/sponsored the less they make.

He couldnt sell the rights because of the scenario I outlined. This is his way around it and some money is better for him than no money.
 
Mods - please remove if you don't approve me pimping a blog I write for (I've read the FAQ and it's not for financial gain or a rival communtiy)

My thoughts on the matter

http://www.nufcblog.org/2011/11/has-mike-ashley-lost-all-creditability-with-the-toon-faithful/

After the uproar of the announcement this morning and much discussion with the lads at work, I’ve come to the feeling that Ashley has completely lost any trust that he has managed to claw back over the past few months.

As a previous nufcblog.org article has already pointed out, Derek Llambias has previously gone on record and stated that the St James Park would never be dropped from our grounds name. Bet he regrets putting that comment in the press now.

I honestly think the timing of this announcement is terrible. Newcastle are finally getting themselves back onto an even keel, why risk upsetting the apple cart?

I’m also none too impressed about the way he has suckered people into committing themselves to additional cheap season tickets, and then made the announcement about changing the name. He knows people have paid good money to be there, so there won’t be any risk of financial loss by mass walkouts. I’m sure there will be a few belated protests, but to be honest it’s not going to change anything.

To be honest, the name change hasn’t angered me that much, it was and always will be St James Park. However the underhand way it was done, with Sports Direct not giving us a penny is what is griping with me at the moment. From now on, I cannot trust anything the board say, so I’m just sticking my head in the sand and hope that we continue to do the business on the pitch.

I’ll finish with a belated Howay the Lads and invite a comedy comments section. What’s the worst company name that could sponsor St James Park? My vote is the Big Yellow Skip Company Arena.
 
Back
Top Bottom