macbeth

spot on

Me too Or turn it the other way around... What happens to our ability to borrow/pay off loans when all the cash in the company has been given away? I am seriously interested in what happens when shareholders sell up. My site is there to try and explain the clu's finances. I totally accept I'm no more than a keen amateur in these things, and I need to know more. If you have a good concise explanation of what difference it would make if the share price went down, or up, then I will happily include it. (It has to have no jargon in it ) As far as not paying dividends having a negative effect on share-price, surely it doesn't make any difference ? Pay dividends and business has less assets and is worth less, so share price drops, investors see some short term gain so buy. So share price nets out as unchanged. Don't pay dividends and business is worth more so share price rises, but has less short term enticement to an investor so the price nets out as unchanged. Roughly

From the accounts in 2003 ... "....Under the terms of the securitisation, funds have to be held ina designated account to meet the annual capital and interets repayment due on 30 September each year. An additional amount, equivalent to 50% of forthcoming repayment has to be held in a separate desinated account on a permanent basis. These funads are not therefore available to the Group as part of working capital. At 31 July 2003 the balace held in these accounts was £9.4m (2002 £9.4m)" followed by "The Group has in issue £52.9m of senior loan notes with a fixed interest rate of 7.43%" They could probably get a lot better rate than the 7.43%, even in their precarious position, as they can prove previous abilityto pay. If the club had not paid any dividends, and had not bought back shares from the Halls, and had used that £35m on paying of the stadium, then they would now have no repayments left to make. (Get EXcel going, do a mortgage calcualtion with 17 years at 7.43% on 52m, then add £4m to the payments, and voila nothing left)

My spin on this is now at www.nufc-finances.org.uk I've spent this evening trying to work out what the numbers mean. I am now toally and utterly depressed. As NE5 and his family have often said I have often been driven by the club's dividend policy. I really wanted to stop the leeches bleeding all that money out of my club. They've stopped that now. Now they are just incompetetently running the busines into the ground. £9.8m loss in 6 months, which was only that good cos they got £3.3m compensation for Owen. So without that it would have been over £12m loss for 6 months business. £2m per month loss !!! . Wages at a run rate of £60m per year. Try and work that one out Income dropping. Interest payments rising.

and miles ahead of sunlun

pretty soon they'll be paying somebody to take it off their hands

you could have corrected my typos

It is £6.8m if you don't count having to pay £2.9m in interest to the banks for all the borrowing s they've neede to make

The report contains the wonderful line "The return of Kieron Dyier to the first team has been akin to a new signing ..." So Oliver is doing their financial reports on the side too

The club included the £3.3m in insurance for Owen as income. If they did not then the loss for the 6 months would have been over £13m, so £2m per month.

Despite the Chronicles spin .... The bit that is the most depressing is the section which has "liabilities" in it. Ignoring the obvious defence jokes, this is really bad. A year ago for the first time ever the club announced they had a bank overdraft. Up til then the club had always had moneyin the bank to get by with tday to day things. Suddenly last January they told us they had an overdraft of £17.8m, by last July it was down to £5.5m as the season ticket money came in. This time the overdraft is £20.8m, so up £3m on last year. The reason this is particulalrly bad is that last sumer season ticket sales were okay, there have been a lot more rumblings this year and it could well be that they will go into next season starting with an overdraft. In all the short term amount that is owed totals £76.3m. this time last year it was £69.6m The net worth of the whole business was £56m back in 1998 when it was first a PLC, it is now worth just under £7m. By mid summer the club, with its continuing losses of over £1m per month should be worth nothing. If there is someone out there who understands these things I'd love to kow whether this has any sort of legal ramifications.

Edinburgh ?

2002 £4.5m cash, on loss of £3.1m 2003 £4.1m cash, on profit of £4.2m 2003 £4.5m share buy back to one shareholder 2004 £3.95m cash, on profit of 4.2m 2005 £1.3m cash, £2.6m shares, on breaking even 2006 no dividend on loss of £12m. 5 year total £13.9m in cash, £2.6m in shares, and £4.5m to buy back shares, total of £20.9m given to shareholders on top of nett loss of £6.8m

sure it wasn't "Borin' Fart Manager" ?

Or you could get and FA statement ..... "England fans showed that they backed the team and the manager by not at any time criticising them. If the fans are solidly behind the team and manager then so are we".

The "Racing and Football Outlook" has a ranking system for every side going back ten years. Very detailed, and very good at highlighting when sides are improving or deteriorating. The rankings end up with the top of the PL being roughly 970 points, the bottom being 820. One of the things that is useful is the ability to look back and compare rankign from the past to today. We are currently ranked as 10th best, with 874 points. We are in the middle of the middle group of 5 who are all essentially the same - Reading, Everton, us, Boro and Portsmouth. If you go back and try and see how we were previously then the highest was at the end of last season when we were 890 points which then made us ~6th best. If you search back and try and find the last time we were at our current ranking it was 50 games ago, so towards the end of the Souness era. Essentially we are back where we started form when Roeder came in.

so same as Rangers and Celtic then ? Or Olympiakos, or FC Bruge, or Brondby or .... and Porto are only the second side in Portugal behind Benfica

Clearly he had money to spend at Chelsea. Not convinced he had enough money to take a Portugese side to consecutive European titles. Porto have a lot less money to spend than even Rangers and Celtic, never mind the mighty NUFC

what does that make mourinho somebody who took a Portugese side to win the Uefa then CL He also got lots of brownie points for turning Joe Cole from a step-over ponce to a good team player. That he also had a blank cheque book doesn't mean he can't do other things too

Two major injuries, can play at centre-half and right -back, seems to fit the profile perfectly

A manager should be able to improve the players in his squad. He shouldn't have to just spend money to bring in his "own" new players. Presumably Roeder (and Souness before him) would have been totally unable to ever manage a national team as they would be limted to a pool of players that they couldn't go about and imrpove through buying.

I f you ignore any the team's defeats it is a fact that Souness was out best ever manager

I understand that. I do. I read your posts, and know what you believe. That was why I am so confused you justifying stopping it, and the club 'investing' elsewhere instead.

As you know, what I said was that the club as a PLC the club has a plan to allocate 'x' funds to each activity/requirement to run the business. Funds had been allocated for transfers and had been spent by the manager. It was decided to allocate certain funds to dividends. I don't like the club being a PLC but it's now a fact of life. Just as long as they financially back the manager I think they are fulfilling their responsibilities to the manager and also the hopes of the fans. They must also attempt to fulfill their responsiblities to the shareholders, whether you and others like it or not. So they had always planned to offer the Halls £4.5m for a chunk of their shares? YOu don't really belive that do you? Why to no one else? Why only in the year that Cameron Hall made such disastrous results? Wy have the dividends suddenly stopped? Why did Shepherd tell us that the signing of Woodgate was from the unexpected windfall from CL success? Why did the subsequent planning mean we had to have an overdraft for the first time, or that we had to take £8m worth of sponsorship early? I just don't see a plan, or not as you describe it. If they did plan to be in this mes s then they want shooting. I don't believe they did plan it, it just 'happened' withotu them really noticing. In much the same was as a new manager is appointed on the hoof, they have financial planning on the hoof. Hopefully the new guy wil bring some discipline.