Colos Short and Curlies

FYP

There's a risk that people can lose a lot of their pensions just by leaving it with the pension people!

I cant see any way we're making profit this year reduced income wages while lower still are a huge percentage of our current income etc. Transfers are a red herring yes, personally I would never include them in determining the Profit or Loss (I would also exclude the ammortisation of the transfer fee, but thats just me). As an accountant I would say that it is possible that we will scrape a profit either last year or this, however as a fan I would say that we have made a Loss on the Martins transfer etc and therefore would say that the club has been losing money.

If buying players only affects the P&L over time (ie spend over the period of the contract), surely the same is the case for selling players? Profits/losses on player sales are shown in the year the player is sold. Example: Player is bought for £8 million on a 4 year contract. The P&L is charged (amortisation) £2 million every year of the contract. If however the player is sold after 2 years for £6 million then the P&L will show a profit that year of £2 million - being £6 million less the written down value of the player of £4 million(8-4). Edit: Just for clarification - once the player has been sold no further charges are made to the P&L and the player disappears from the club accounts. So given what we paid for the players sold in the last 5 months, shouldn't the profit on players in the last 5 months be hefty? Genuine question.... Bassong is bought for £0 on a 4 year contract. The P&L is charged (amortisation) £0 million every year of the contract. However the player is sold after 1 year for £8 million then the P&L will show a profit that year of £8 million - being £8 million more the marked up value of the player of £8 million(8-0). and the other players were Martins Beye and Duff who's combined profit/loss is dwarfed by the size of the bassong deal. Similarly large profits would have been realised on Given, Nzogbia and Milner recently too if I understand you right. No? I've got a feeling that you're thinking along the lines of highlighting this "profit" as reasons against Ashley when the accounts are released, non? Not particularly. The only thing I slag Ashley off for is lying. I'm only posting in here because people are saying it's ridiculous to think for a moment that the club could currently be making money and I still can't see how it isn't (at least before profit is used to satisfy the debt to Ashley). That's not to say Ashley has taken out more than he's put in or that if he were to sell at the moment he would walk off with a profit. You have got to remember that its only an accounting profit anyway. I'm sure we have in reality lost money on Martins in terms of fees paid and received, but the accounts will show a profit

Simples, thats the rules. And I don't agree that fair value accounting would be appropriate here, players values are so subjective that it would be very difficult to get a fair comparison between clubs and would create too many opportunities to boost profitability

If buying players only affects the P&L over time (ie spend over the period of the contract), surely the same is the case for selling players? Profits/losses on player sales are shown in the year the player is sold. Example: Player is bought for £8 million on a 4 year contract. The P&L is charged (amortisation) £2 million every year of the contract. If however the player is sold after 2 years for £6 million then the P&L will show a profit that year of £2 million - being £6 million less the written down value of the player of £4 million(8-4). Edit: Just for clarification - once the player has been sold no further charges are made to the P&L and the player disappears from the club accounts. So given what we paid for the players sold in the last 5 months, shouldn't the profit on players in the last 5 months be hefty? Genuine question.... Bassong is bought for £0 on a 4 year contract. The P&L is charged (amortisation) £0 million every year of the contract. However the player is sold after 1 year for £8 million then the P&L will show a profit that year of £8 million - being £8 million more the marked up value of the player of £8 million(8-0). and the other players were Martins Beye and Duff who's combined profit/loss is dwarfed by the size of the bassong deal. Similarly large profits would have been realised on Given, Nzogbia and Milner recently too if I understand you right. No? Yes - Martins will have a decent profit on him btw as we had owned him for a while so his value will have been relatively small. We should see the proft for Given, N Zog and Milner in these accounts, Bassong et al next year. You will see two numbers in the accounts. Profit/Loss before player trading (which will exclude these sales) Profit/Loss (which includes them) You want the profit in the first one to be a high proportion of the second one, otherwise it shows that on a day to day basis we are in the shit!

If buying players only affects the P&L over time (ie spend over the period of the contract), surely the same is the case for selling players? Shouldnt you be posting something in there? The quote button always f***s up when I'm on my work laptop?!?!! No probs mate, wasnt sure if you were being arsey til i saw your edit I'm never Arsey! :colo:

Correct

If buying players only affects the P&L over time (ie spend over the period of the contract), surely the same is the case for selling players? Shouldnt you be posting something in there? The quote button always fucks up when I'm on my work laptop?!?!!

If buying players only affects the P&L over time (ie spend over the period of the contract), surely the same is the case for selling players? No. Lets say you buy a player for 12 million on a four year contract. Every year you take 3 million into the profit/loss account (so after 1 year the player is worth £9million, after two £6 million, after 3 £3million and after 4, nothing) - you never add value to a player even if you give them a new contract, and players who you don't buy (inlcuding players brought through the youth system) are always worthless!) Now lets say we sell this player after 3 years for £12 million. He is worth £3million so we make a £9 million profit which goes into the accounts in one go. (Its just an accounting thing, in reality we haven't made any profit)

Have our 2010 accounts arrived a year early like? No. Two separate issues. The season 2009/2010 will show a profit.....then i asked about last years books...which won't. This is the point I've been making for months. (link 1) (link 2) He doesn't WANT to sell man. Saying he does is how he justifies having a manager with no experience whatsoever and a transfer budget of zero. Its no less wrong now then it was then though. I'd be surprised if we can make any profit by the end of this year, never mind 30 odd million like you predicted (not to mention NUST's mental claims of £7m every month). We'll see. 50,000 crowds in the championship with premier league parachute payments and zero transfer budget and still no profit? It amazes me football can survive as the money drain you seem to think it is? I think we are beginning to see now that it can't survive in its current model!

Player sales? Yup they made an £18m profit on selling players. Koumas, Kamara, Ellington and Kuszczak left them that year for decent fees. They also spent £16m on players that year. http://www.soccerbase.com/transfers_by_team.sd?teamid=2744 We've spent zero. Buying players makes little difference on the profit/loss though. The cost is spread over the length of the contract, so £16m purhcases over (for example) an average of 4 years contract period would only put £4m into the accounts HF - it's things like this that make me wonder why you devote so much time in trying to analyse the club's accounts in some vain attempt to 'prove' that Ashley is making money from the club If buying players makes no difference on profit or loss it's rather quite annoying that Ashley won't buy any players. Er, you still need to have the finance in place to afford the transfer (whether it be cash, player exchange or credit). Your investigations into the club's finances will no doubt have illuminated the path to ruin that the good shepherd was leading us down before MA's intervention. Trying to make the club self-sufficient (for whatever intention), is that a crime? Not at all. People don't seem to think he has though. Sorry, buying players will impact the P&L over time, just not in one hit. They will however impact cash flow and creidt availability, which is much more important on a day to day basis

Average crowd was about 8,000 last night. Reckon we will beat that?

Got to admit i am struggling to see how we could make a profit though. i cant see any way we're making profit this year reduced income wages while lower still are a huge percentage of our current income however our wages should be WAY lower. We lost alot of players earning big time here. Not in the accounts due we didnt IF (a big if on purpose) he has half a brain he would make reference to the salary savings in the directors report. Brilliant selling point for the company

Player sales? Yup they made an £18m profit on selling players. Koumas, Kamara, Ellington and Kuszczak left them that year for decent fees. They also spent £16m on players that year. http://www.soccerbase.com/transfers_by_team.sd?teamid=2744 We've spent zero. Buying players makes little difference on the profit/loss though. The cost is spread over the length of the contract, so £16m purhcases over (for example) an average of 4 years contract period would only put £4m into the accounts

If you were playing deal or no deal and had an 8 box game containing 1p, £1 (some other amounts), £100,000 and £250,000 would you take an offer of £25k for the box knowing that you were potentially one round away from at least £100,000? all about the risk takig view of the player/seller. Ashley may get £150m if we get promoted, but if we don't then he is stuck with a loss making lame duck in the eyes of potential buyers and he may walk away with the penny

(2) would win by a country mile. On the whole the NUST have been organised, earnest and effective. This is clearly a mis-step but it's a long term, well backed campaign amongst fans and the media. Such clangers hurt them all the more having built up the level of momentum they have exactly because they're a far more well publicised and organised group than whoever knocked up the pamphlet on powerpoint that no-one outside of a couple of message boards has any clue about. Do they have your support still, and more importantly your money if they make a bid? I've paid my membership and pledged nothing else because i don't agree with making a bid to buy the club. They still have my unwavering support though. They're Newcastle fans. I'll say when i don't agree with something. i won't call the entire endeavour flawed and insist a stop be put to it. You'd have to be a mackem to do that. To me a Supporters Trust which has access to the board on scheduled, regular occaisions to discuss certain aspects of the club (not including transfers, management etc) could only be a good thing. The NUST isn't this model though (imo obviously). Buying the club this way was never going to work within English Football (for better or worse) and nothing which they have done/said in relation to the campaign has strengthened the appeal of the trust to me. They started off like a couple of piss heads in a pub, got better, but now have slipped back to appearing to be a key stone cops type organisation (again this is my perception obviously). I don't have to be a Mackem to state that this Trust has failed at present You don't, and I never said you would. I said only a mackem would insist they wrap it all up. What have been the biggest failures for you? You seem to be suggesting it was a failure from day 1 and will be until it succeeds. It won't be a failure in my opinion until they lose the financial support of fans and therefore run out of money to keep campaigning The "Yes We can" campaign is only 8 weeks old and only started because of the refusal from the club to give the fans the recognition that you say would be your aim. How else would you go about achieving that? I'm not going to trawl back and pick up every early example of mis-information which has come out of the press rooms of NUST, its just that the tone of what was released early doors was very childish and made the Trust appear to be nothing more than a one trick 'Ashley Out' protest group. If you were MA or DL would you encourage such a group to engage in discussions on the direction/activites of the club? A bit like Osama Bin Laden inviting Bush and Blair around for tea. Not really. Bush & Blair never wanted the same thing as Bin Laden. Don't we all want success for Newcastle United? You'd have thought Ashley would bend over backwards to keep his customers happy. You don't walk on egg shells with the manager at Argos when the widescreen telly he sold you blew up after a week. A lot of successful businessmen don't give a toss about their customers if they keep coming back. See Ryanair for example. I'd also say that Bin Laden and Bush/Blair then do want the same thing, their way of life to be accepted as being the right way of doing things

(2) would win by a country mile. On the whole the NUST have been organised, earnest and effective. This is clearly a mis-step but it's a long term, well backed campaign amongst fans and the media. Such clangers hurt them all the more having built up the level of momentum they have exactly because they're a far more well publicised and organised group than whoever knocked up the pamphlet on powerpoint that no-one outside of a couple of message boards has any clue about. Do they have your support still, and more importantly your money if they make a bid? I've paid my membership and pledged nothing else because i don't agree with making a bid to buy the club. They still have my unwavering support though. They're Newcastle fans. I'll say when i don't agree with something. i won't call the entire endeavour flawed and insist a stop be put to it. You'd have to be a mackem to do that. To me a Supporters Trust which has access to the board on scheduled, regular occaisions to discuss certain aspects of the club (not including transfers, management etc) could only be a good thing. The NUST isn't this model though (imo obviously). Buying the club this way was never going to work within English Football (for better or worse) and nothing which they have done/said in relation to the campaign has strengthened the appeal of the trust to me. They started off like a couple of piss heads in a pub, got better, but now have slipped back to appearing to be a key stone cops type organisation (again this is my perception obviously). I don't have to be a Mackem to state that this Trust has failed at present You don't, and I never said you would. I said only a mackem would insist they wrap it all up. What have been the biggest failures for you? You seem to be suggesting it was a failure from day 1 and will be until it succeeds. It won't be a failure in my opinion until they lose the financial support of fans and therefore run out of money to keep campaigning The "Yes We can" campaign is only 8 weeks old and only started because of the refusal from the club to give the fans the recognition that you say would be your aim. How else would you go about achieving that? I'm not going to trawl back and pick up every early example of mis-information which has come out of the press rooms of NUST, its just that the tone of what was released early doors was very childish and made the Trust appear to be nothing more than a one trick 'Ashley Out' protest group. If you were MA or DL would you encourage such a group to engage in discussions on the direction/activites of the club? A bit like Osama Bin Laden inviting Bush and Blair around for tea.

(2) would win by a country mile. On the whole the NUST have been organised, earnest and effective. This is clearly a mis-step but it's a long term, well backed campaign amongst fans and the media. Such clangers hurt them all the more having built up the level of momentum they have exactly because they're a far more well publicised and organised group than whoever knocked up the pamphlet on powerpoint that no-one outside of a couple of message boards has any clue about. Do they have your support still, and more importantly your money if they make a bid? I've paid my membership and pledged nothing else because i don't agree with making a bid to buy the club. They still have my unwavering support though. They're Newcastle fans. I'll say when i don't agree with something. i won't call the entire endeavour flawed and insist a stop be put to it. You'd have to be a mackem to do that. To me a Supporters Trust which has access to the board on scheduled, regular occaisions to discuss certain aspects of the club (not including transfers, management etc) could only be a good thing. The NUST isn't this model though (imo obviously). Buying the club this way was never going to work within English Football (for better or worse) and nothing which they have done/said in relation to the campaign has strengthened the appeal of the trust to me. They started off like a couple of piss heads in a pub, got better, but now have slipped back to appearing to be a key stone cops type organisation (again this is my perception obviously). I don't have to be a Mackem to state that this Trust has failed at present

We should have a poll on what was more embarrasisng (1) NUST's press releases (2) The golf course dossier

Can I just add, Rober Peston = Wanker.

People generally get a feeling when something isn't right. I can't believe that Redknapp didn't have the 'this is wrong' moment when he was signing some of the players on the wages begin paid. He may not have signed the cheques, but imo any manager has a responsibility to question the chairman when stupid figures are being paid, especially in the post Leeds United era

So lets say team x (probably invovlnig Harry Redknapp) wants to buy a player (who is remarkedly like David James) and Pompey want 2million for him and need to sell in the next week to avoid administration, would tema x be better placed to delay any bid for 6 days, push Pompey into adminsitration and get the player for nearer £1m? I can't see where they are going to raise the £6m+ from in the next week as I'm sure a number of chairmen of clubs who would be interested in their players would be looking for the lowest possible price for them and would wait for administration to strike.

The story was run on Saturday, its now Tuesday and despite all of the shite weather etc we've had its still the headline sotry in South Wales. Does it really matter to people that much that a guy happens to pack fudge?

http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/nufc/newcastle-united-news/2009/12/21/nufc-starlet-ranger-relishing-super-sub-role-72703-25439805/