Colos Short and Curlies

You're not laughing anymore

Always straight line, or equal amount each year and it's based on the original contract length, you can't rebase it

We haven't reported a profit before player trading yet. Operating profit for the last 7 years has been... -29.0m -24.7m -37.7m -33.5m -3.9m -5.1m -0.6m I'd expect us to spend in Summer. That's a very misleading set of numbers IYAM. Those numbers are £(turnover - op ex - player amortisation), but ignoring transfers. You're including the downside of player trading (amortisation) but not the upside (sale profit/loss). The important thing to point out if you use that as a base is that when you include transfers it's pretty much all profit. Correct me if I'm wrong, but players brought in for however much don't affect the profit at all in that year except for any amortisation which you have included (they are assets at the value of the transfer fee). However players sold will add £(sale price - book value) to the final profit margin. For example Cabaye - Bought for £4.3m on a 5 year contract. Sold half way through contract so book value=£2.15m. Sale price=£19m. Profit=£16.8m to be added onto whatever that value is for 13-14 When transfers are included, the final profit/loss numbers are: 07-08: -£20.3m 08-09: -£15.2m 09-10: -£17.1m 10-11: £32.6m 11-12: £1.4m 12-13: £9.9m In that context it seems a very strange conclusion to draw that the amount we have available to spend on player purchases is related to profit before trading. Would you not be better just looking at the cashflow? That's not right. Players being brought in affect the profits of that year because they are an expenditure. Let's say we spent £12m on Cabella. It's an expenditure in this year. Our profits will decrease by £12m. At the same time, he also becomes an 'asset' valued at £12m. This asset depreciates according to the number of years on his contract. You're wrong in saying that when you buy a player, it doesn't affect the accounts in that year because it's an acquisition of an asset. It has a cost and it also depreciates. The best way of looking at clubs is to look at whether they can make an operating profit or not because those are the underlying financial data that will predictable from year to year. Your fixed costs of wages and salary to non-playing staff and employees are included in this, as is sponsorship income. So operating profit/loss is a good way of saying whether the model of the club is sustainable or not, or whether it depends on sales. Players trading (buying or selling) is extremely unpredictable, that's why looking at operating profit (loss) is better. Sorry but that's wrong, let's make it easy and say we buy a player (cash up front) for 10m on a 5 year deal. Profit is reduced by 2m a year. There is no other expense apart from their wages. Cash flow will show 10m going out but that's different to the impact on profit

Assuming we are about to post a profit of at least £40m imminently, that would make the average profit over the past 4 financial periods £20m. Hardly insignificant. He would be "up" something like £30m as well since taking over the club. Don't let accounting jargon fool you. The club is swimming in cash. That's the most important thing. Amazon never makes any "profit" but it has loads of cash. He's way up on £30m in terms of real cash. The sponsorship of SD and its assets must run into the 10's of millions since he's been here, that he would've otherwise had to pay for. That's a pure cash saving. The way we pay for transfers, rarely renew contracts for first team players and sell before it runs out means we've got loads of cash floating around. But the SD sponsorship is actually a cash loss to the club, benefits him and SD yes, not the club. Then going on UVs cash results, assuming we are up £40m in cash this year then its an average loss of £4m cash over the 7 years. But the overall point is that from this year onwards we should have plenty of cash or profit to play with, which ever way you want to look at it. Will it go on players etc? Probably not but we have cross a watershed in the results

We do spread costs, we don't spread cashflow. Paying upfront was a good bargaining tool early on, shame the conduct of our negotiators have blunted the willingness of sellers to engage with us

Just had a quick google, looks like they were paying royalties to a Sister Company, also selling coffee beans to themselves at a higher price so made it look as though no profit was made. A couple of other sneaky tricks too. Its also growing really rapidly, its easy to 'lose' profit in a rapidly gorwing company whilst maintaining a good cashflow. I guess I'm trying to rally against the perceived wisdom that NUFC will always spend the minimum amount necessary to survive. The fact is that under Mike Ashley, NUFC has spent the maximum amount it can afford without having to borrow any more from Mike Ashley. That capacity takes a massive leap with every new TV deal. Those amounts are probably the same

I'm expecting the biggest face turn ever from Mike this summer - he's going for Cenaesq face status

Have you seen Curbishley's record in the second half of seasons? Anyway it was 9 points once the full weekend schedule of games had been completed and Man U let a 12 point gap slip a couple of seasons later against Arsenal so its not like it hasn't happened before or after. We were a 2 goal swing against Man U away from winning the league less than 5 years after being one game away from the third tier of the league structure, yes it was a step too far but only a tiny step

I'd love it if all media ignored NUFC until the end of the season, no match reports, no interviews, nothing. If we've written off the season then the media should do the same

Best the Mackams 6-1 last year I think. Scored 6 in their last 11 games including FA cup.

Yup - want to get a few wins asap so that I can switch off and not worry about a relegation scrap. Also there is a chance of seeing Abeid again, interest will plummet at 11:45 no doubt

Ayoze in place of Obertan but playing as a wide forward and not a 2nd right back. Cisse up front. Its Hull, we should beat them even with JC at the helm no reason at all not to have 3 genuine forward players on the field

That Ryder tweet read like Obertan is possibly playing CB

Was that interview Carver's 'tell your mate he's just cost me my job' moment? Bloody Koeman involved again

2nd home game in a row where we've scored within 30 mins. Suck on that pards!

I hate 433. There's never anyone in the fucking box

It doesn't matter what Taylor J posted, that jabroni just needs to know his role

Harper's Peoples Elbow in the Arsenal game was class

Frank Sinclair - scorer of about 1000 own goals

He's not though, from £20k a week and any sponsorship that comes from being an international to £2k a week in the lower leagues being subsidised by his better halves dad. It's a different level of career available to him now

Non obscure in their own right, and it would involve a change in formation but can we not have the famous Fish-Costa-Fortune centre back trio?

Isn't it the forbidden dance?

This is very terrible. Its got the lot. The holy trinity: deluded, Leeds and pitiful acceptance of fans not having any say whatsoever. Genius. It needed a Portsmouth for a full house but not a bad effort. B+

Id take that.

Good enough to beat Leicester, all comes down to the attitude Carver sends them out with