Colos Short and Curlies

sorry I'm not at home till Sunday. The stuff above is what I have on my site. Sorry, where I said the accounting date finished, I should have said changed. Oops! It would just be interesting to see the impact (if any) that this had on the numbers

thats the value though,not the viability. plenty of firms have gone under with future profit in the pipeline and full order books etc due to f***ed up cash flow. That is true, but the point I was trying to get across last night was that the club may have high liabilities at the end of June but they get a huge cash injection during July and August due to season ticket money coming in. It's a bit like looking at your bank account the day before pay day (for a lot of people they will be touching an overdraft) and a day after (nice and healthy). The one thing that most clubs (and I'd say all Premier League clubs) have are 'lumpy' cashflows, those who deal with this (banks etc) recognise this and therefore won't necessarly take the balance sheet into account. I'll also repeat that if Fred had continued to operate the club as a going concern when we were about to go into administration then he would be on criminal charges right now The club has generally banked the season ticket money by the end of June, and has it set aside when the accounts are published each year. This was why 2007 was so desperate, there was no cash around and the season ticket money was alread included. The season ticket figure was £19m. They release the money as the games are played. So there was no future revenue likely to help things along. The general total for crowd related revenue completely depends on home Cup matches, and that is so up to luck. As you have the accounts to hand, when you get a minute could you please post the following: The year which the accounting date finished. The net assets on the year prior to this and for the year of the change The cash position for the same. Just out of curiosity....

thats the value though,not the viability. plenty of firms have gone under with future profit in the pipeline and full order books etc due to f***ed up cash flow. That is true, but the point I was trying to get across last night was that the club may have high liabilities at the end of June but they get a huge cash injection during July and August due to season ticket money coming in. It's a bit like looking at your bank account the day before pay day (for a lot of people they will be touching an overdraft) and a day after (nice and healthy). The one thing that most clubs (and I'd say all Premier League clubs) have are 'lumpy' cashflows, those who deal with this (banks etc) recognise this and therefore won't necessarly take the balance sheet into account. I'll also repeat that if Fred had continued to operate the club as a going concern when we were about to go into administration then he would be on criminal charges right now

Maybe he failed a medical at Everton?

Unless the mighty Gemmil ever returns. Though I hear he has been banned from the forum by the government as punishment for his part in bringing down the Rock

Where are you getting the numbers from (I haven't seen a full balance sheet from the last set of plc accounts)? Also what are you classifying a going concern as and what basis are you saying we would have gone into administration? I have a couple of key doubts, but don't want to comment more until I see the figures SJPH (in effect Ashley) gave an undertaking lasting 12 months to settle certain liabilities and on that basis the board signed off that the club was a going concern; if they had not the alternative was administration. Probably a stupid question, but is this online anywhere other than Companies House? It's at Companies House. EY audited. I aint paying for it, so will take your word. However, there are a number of steps between going concern and administration, hence my initial doubt A mere £2?!?! There may be steps but they would have been quickly taken. Hmm, maybe - but Fred did claim to have outside funding in place. Also, if that was the situation and Fred had continue to 'trade' (signing a new Manager, selling season tickets etc) the he would be in deep s*** as a director operating like this. Did the EY statement explicitly state that had Ashley not come in as he had then the club would have gone into administration? It would be unusual if it did tbh. And many accounts get signed without a going concern statement in the auditors report, a large proportion of these recover successfully. Trade payables were astronomical. Net current liabilities. There was no exception by EY presumably because of the undertaking by SJPH. I'm sure they were, everything that as come out since backs up the poor state of the accounts. I'm just not convinced that we were in immediate risk of administration, I've worked on companies who have racked up debts year on year and eventually operated with net current liabilities. Its cash flow that is key, bear in mind when the season ticket money was coming in (not included in the current assets), as long as the club had cash to pay its debts in the short term then it could conceivably operate successfully in the year and come back to the same position - its a snapshot of the year only (Balance Sheet) and most of the clubs income is received just after this point in time

Where are you getting the numbers from (I haven't seen a full balance sheet from the last set of plc accounts)? Also what are you classifying a going concern as and what basis are you saying we would have gone into administration? I have a couple of key doubts, but don't want to comment more until I see the figures SJPH (in effect Ashley) gave an undertaking lasting 12 months to settle certain liabilities and on that basis the board signed off that the club was a going concern; if they had not the alternative was administration. Probably a stupid question, but is this online anywhere other than Companies House? It's at Companies House. EY audited. I aint paying for it, so will take your word. However, there are a number of steps between going concern and administration, hence my initial doubt A mere £2?!?! There may be steps but they would have been quickly taken. Hmm, maybe - but Fred did claim to have outside funding in place. Also, if that was the situation and Fred had continue to 'trade' (signing a new Manager, selling season tickets etc) the he would be in deep shit as a director operating like this. Did the EY statement explicitly state that had Ashley not come in as he had then the club would have gone into administration? It would be unusual if it did tbh. And many accounts get signed without a going concern statement in the auditors report, a large proportion of these recover successfully.

Where are you getting the numbers from (I haven't seen a full balance sheet from the last set of plc accounts)? Also what are you classifying a going concern as and what basis are you saying we would have gone into administration? I have a couple of key doubts, but don't want to comment more until I see the figures SJPH (in effect Ashley) gave an undertaking lasting 12 months to settle certain liabilities and on that basis the board signed off that the club was a going concern; if they had not the alternative was administration. Probably a stupid question, but is this online anywhere other than Companies House? It's at Companies House. EY audited. I aint paying for it, so will take your word. However, there are a number of steps between going concern and administration, hence my initial doubt

Where are you getting the numbers from (I haven't seen a full balance sheet from the last set of plc accounts)? Also what are you classifying a going concern as and what basis are you saying we would have gone into administration? I have a couple of key doubts, but don't want to comment more until I see the figures SJPH (in effect Ashley) gave an undertaking lasting 12 months to settle certain liabilities and on that basis the board signed off that the club was a going concern; if they had not the alternative was administration. Probably a stupid question, but is this online anywhere other than Companies House?

Where are you getting the numbers from (I haven't seen a full balance sheet from the last set of plc accounts)? Also what are you classifying a going concern as and what basis are you saying we would have gone into administration? I have a couple of key doubts, but don't want to comment more until I see the figures

The whole "industry" is in a mess? I really don't care whether Leeds go bust, or Liverpool can't finance a stadium, or the state of others. NUFC had £19m in the bank in July last year. We had borrowed against everything, ground, training ground, future season ticket, sponsorship money there was no where else to get cash from. The banks were lending to us at 13% we were such a bad risk. The £19m would have paid the wages for 4 months, then what ? We wouldn't have been able to pay players, we wouldn't have been able to buy goods to sell itn he club shop, we wouldn't be able to pay the police to stage games, we wouldn't be able to pay hotels to put players up for away games, we wouldn't be able to pay visiting teams their share of the gate receipts. We would have gone bust. I''ve just re-read all that and it sounds over the top, and wil raise the question "why is it different fomr any other season". Well the answer to that is that things deteriorated hugely in 2006 onwards. I hate to shwo graphs but I will cos it highlights the way things spun out of control as Shepherd chased his dream, and ran the club into a mess ... http://www.football-finances.org.uk/newcastle/2007/assets14.gif So up to 2005 he coudl always borrow more, as peopel knew we had asssets. By 2007 we didn't have any assets. no more borrowing. The end. Thats where the refinancing of debts comes into play. Anyone involved in the football industry knew that TV revenues were about to shoot up and the (virtual) certainty is that the TV rights across Asia etc are about to be opened up in favour of the clubs. Add on the expected (overdue) utilisation of the internet for rights and you have some very strong forward income streams. Now bear in mind Ashley came in pre Credit Crunch. There would have been plenty of willing lenders in those circumstances. It would have been costly yes, but its wrong to say that we couldn't borrow any more. All it would have taken is one good/lucky season to break the top 4 again and the clubs finances would have been a lot healthier. Shepherd needed this season to happen quickly, hence he was prepared to gamble on high transfer fees and wages, eventually though he would reach a dead end with this if the top 4 was not reached. Ashley on the other hand was prepared to bide his time and build up from the youth team, his barrier would be different to Shepherds as within a short space of time the fans would turn on this policy if the first team was not performing. Get a hybrid Shepherd/Ashley figure in and you've got a winner. Unfortunately there aint that many of these about Oh, is that all? Aye, simple this chairman lark. Can't see what the fuss is all about

What a twat. probably just paper bullshit. No, he is a twat

The key is that they are showing profit BEFORE player trading. Essentially it suggests that we have a net £2.6 million a year to spend. It could of course exclude other 'paper' costs which yu would need to factor into a longer term view

The whole "industry" is in a mess? I really don't care whether Leeds go bust, or Liverpool can't finance a stadium, or the state of others. NUFC had £19m in the bank in July last year. We had borrowed against everything, ground, training ground, future season ticket, sponsorship money there was no where else to get cash from. The banks were lending to us at 13% we were such a bad risk. The £19m would have paid the wages for 4 months, then what ? We wouldn't have been able to pay players, we wouldn't have been able to buy goods to sell itn he club shop, we wouldn't be able to pay the police to stage games, we wouldn't be able to pay hotels to put players up for away games, we wouldn't be able to pay visiting teams their share of the gate receipts. We would have gone bust. I''ve just re-read all that and it sounds over the top, and wil raise the question "why is it different fomr any other season". Well the answer to that is that things deteriorated hugely in 2006 onwards. I hate to shwo graphs but I will cos it highlights the way things spun out of control as Shepherd chased his dream, and ran the club into a mess ... http://www.football-finances.org.uk/newcastle/2007/assets14.gif So up to 2005 he coudl always borrow more, as peopel knew we had asssets. By 2007 we didn't have any assets. no more borrowing. The end. Thats where the refinancing of debts comes into play. Anyone involved in the football industry knew that TV revenues were about to shoot up and the (virtual) certainty is that the TV rights across Asia etc are about to be opened up in favour of the clubs. Add on the expected (overdue) utilisation of the internet for rights and you have some very strong forward income streams. Now bear in mind Ashley came in pre Credit Crunch. There would have been plenty of willing lenders in those circumstances. It would have been costly yes, but its wrong to say that we couldn't borrow any more. All it would have taken is one good/lucky season to break the top 4 again and the clubs finances would have been a lot healthier. Shepherd needed this season to happen quickly, hence he was prepared to gamble on high transfer fees and wages, eventually though he would reach a dead end with this if the top 4 was not reached. Ashley on the other hand was prepared to bide his time and build up from the youth team, his barrier would be different to Shepherds as within a short space of time the fans would turn on this policy if the first team was not performing. Get a hybrid Shepherd/Ashley figure in and you've got a winner. Unfortunately there aint that many of these about

He would have to prove that Guthrie assaulted him though and it was not just a very poor challenge wouldn't he? My law is more than a bit rusty, but I'm fairly sure that you cannot sue for an injury ocurring from normal play in football (you remove the duty of care argument as you are agreeing to take part in an activity with a good chance of injury), and a mistimed/misplaced challenge would be deemed to be 'normal play'. I'm sure someone on here has a better grasp of the Personal Injury aspect here and will correct me if I'm wrong

You need to put a bit of perspective on the fixtures though Man U away x2 Arsenal away x 2 Liverpool away Chelsea home Everton away Portsmouth away Villa away Thats nine games where based on last seasons form most of our managers would have struggled to pick up many points.

Don't Panic!!!

He may have heart and done alright since he came, but he is a very very average footballer. Have to disagree. He's showed real potential to be a very very good player in my opinion. Totally agree. Very, very good players: Jonas, Coloccini, Owen, Beye. Very, very average players: Guthrie, Taylor etc Very, very shit players: Smith, Shola etc

I can actually understand no-one from the club going to the dinner atm. The evening would have been dominated by them being questioned. It would have done neither the player, the club or the charity any favours. I would fully expect the players to recommence supporting such dinners once the media storm dies down a bit.

The worst piece of writing I have ever seen regarding the club today. (Think it was the sun) Newcastle have been dealt a further BLOW with the news that Alan Smith faces 12 weeks out with a suspected stress fracture

Excellent someone is joining while using facts rather than just "nah nah nah" The problem with removing amortisation and player trading is that the club need to invets in players, and that cost will never go away. The club need to have players, and will need to buy some of them to actually allow their business to run. It would be like XL pointing to how well their business is run while asking us to ignore the cost of planes. Their fuel bill being the equivalent of NUFC's wage bill. For the last three years the net amount the club paid on players was between £10 and £11m. That was the figure that Shepherd felt the business could, or had, to run at. At the same time the amortisation was running at roughly £16m per year. This was higher players are sodl before the end of their contracts to try and rescue some cash before they are sold off. The stadium debt which hit Ashley by surprise came to £45m, which had been costing the club £6.2m per year under the Hall ownership. That he didn't know was very poor. The other loans taken out by Shepherd, not as part of the stadium expansion were £13.1m borrowed form Northern Rock at 8.55%, to be completely paid off by July 2010 (this was the sponsorship money), paid off by Ashley £4.5m loan taken out in 2002 guaranteed against the training ground. This was at 2.25% over the base rate, and had £1.8m left to be paid off when Ashley took over. £8m loan taken out in August 2007, under Ashley , this one is interesting for anyone who can be bothered. It was used to take the Sky money early, rather than having to wait until they gave at the season end. The interest on this loan was at 11.7% !! £4m loan taken out in 2007 at 8.8% interest, paid off by Ashley £2.4m worth of loans taken out to buy "assets", to be paid off by August 2009. £1.5m interest free loan, linked to a "commercial agreement". There is no explanation of who or what thsi was about, but a similar deal was in place in the 1990s when S&N lent the club money at no interest whiel they had the pouring rights at teh ground. The land owed around the ground is included in the assets of the club. It isn't clear how much for exactly. The land IS an asset if you plan to do something with it, otherwise it is just land. Overall the club has liabilities of £16m rather than assets, as it actually owes more than the value of the ground and all the players put together. So the spare land is actually helping to make the figures look good at £16m !! The other issue aroudn the land is that to build on it would require to borrow money first. The size of the debt meant there was nothing left to borrow against. The ground, the training ground, the pouring rights, the future Sky money had already been used as back up. By the end the interest rates being charged were nearly 12%, even the banks knew how risky a lend it was and charged more. I wasn't sure getting the sponsorship money up front was a bad thing. The club was in such a desperate position they had to spend to avoid going down. What I hadn't realised until the last set of accounts form Shepherd was that the money was borrowed from Northern Rock. So on the surface it seemed we were getting money every yera from NR, and really we had got £13.1m loan and were paying them £2.5m a year I have a record of all the club accounts, if you want a copy then let me know. All I want is the information to be out there, so that some of us can ask questions I've often championed profit before ammortisation as it shows the annual performance rather than taking the past transfer fees into account. But if we were breaking even before this figure then we had zero cash to spend on players. Not a good situation to be in! And as for the XL point, why shouldn't they show the cost of running the business excluding the cost of buying a plane. If they bought a plane 5 years ago, the actual cost of it has no bearing on the current years trading which has led to its faliure.

If they are not factual then Shepherd has been lying to everyone, which I cannot believe for one second. If they are not factual then he has opened himslef up to prosecution. The Financial Services would have him for fraud. The other reason to not doubt them is that they are appalling results. If he had been making them up they would look okay The figures in the accounts show A true and fair view, not THE true and fair view. There is a lot of subjective and biased reporting in figures based on where the directors want them to go - as long as the Auditor agrees with them which they would as long as there is a business rationale behind the numbers and it does not contravene accounting standards. For example, after one season Luque would be valued at £8m (give or take a million). Was he worth that in reality after his first season? So yes the numbers may be 'factual' but the context and actual meaning of them is as subjective as me saying you are wearing nice y-fronts tonight (memo to all - I have never met the guy, never mind shifted through his smalls).

I think that would have come under the 'front loaded sponsorship money etc' bit of the statement There's no way we spent the TV money a full year before we got it and knew where we would finish, unless Fat Fred could see the future. He would have had a rough idea and budgetted accordingly. In the same way my company budgets its expenditure based on expected sales up to 15 months in advance

What I said (but more concisely!)

A few did, but you just came back with... "It is a possibility" It may be unlikely, but it's still very possible, and by the looks of things quite common (granted more-so in smaller Private companies). I'd counter that with a view that is LESS likely in smaller private companies. In my experience (and as an auditor for 4 and a bit years I worked with a different company every couple of weeks of all sizes) the smaller the company the more direct control the owner has. Conversly, the larger the company the more diluted the ownership and the more delegated the control So what are your views on my original post, that he may have stripped himself of some of the say on matters regarding the day to day running of the club, with the employment of a Managing Director and Executive Directors. Bearing in mind that I'm basing this on A level economics so I don't, neither do I profess, to know the ins and outs. I'm just working off the way I understood it. Ok, this is veering ever so slightly off topic: If one person owns a business it is his decisions which ultimately drive the direction of the business. He may have a finance director/controller who look after the numbers, a marketing director/manger to print colourful brochures, a sales director to look after the customers and a Managing Director to control the rabble which he has assembled. Each of the above will have a remit to carry out their jobs but ultimately work to the benefit of the owner. If he tells the MD, I want to move to a new market or prodcut then the MD cascades this down to the marketing guy etc and they do their job accordingly. If the FD throws a hissy fit over this and quits then the owner can intervene to reinstate the FD or to instruct the MD to find a replacement - again it is decision what to do. Now Mr owner may simply want to be a sugar daddy to the company and let the 'board' run it for him. Thats his choice, but he retains the right to step in. You are right in saying that Llambias etc can not be sacked for disagreeing with the owner, but under contract law a contract can be temrinated with the appropriate compensation regardless of the reason (tribunals ocurr where this cannot be reached amicably). Now, imagine a plc. 100s, if not thousands of shareholders own the company, and hence the board have to work to their wishes. Impossible! This is where the powers of the articles etc come into play and the board is given power to act in the interests of the shareholders as a whole - typically taken to be profit maximisation (simplification there!). So NUFC are owned by one man who has set out a blueprint to which Wise et al work with. Ashley could easily turn to them and say, stuff this deliver me Ronaldo. He can also reinstate Keegan over Llambias's head if he wishes. A bit rushed and simplified in parts, the subject can get quite technical so you could probably find grey areas in this if you want. But that is essentially the key difference between control of a company and the running of the company