Colos Short and Curlies

That was his actuall words: but because too many people around the club, off and on the field, didn't know how to win something Curious to find out who is he refering abot off field people? The same reason that Spurs won't win anything in the next few years.

He's still great on pro evo as the middle of a front three

Even Gemmil has turned! Though it was one hell of a pass

Doubt he would be interested, left Preston because he felt that tje expectations there did not reflect the realities he faced, he chose Derby as he felt the reverse was true and he would have a better chance of achieving success

My family is split down the middle, Mam's side all die hard Mackems, Dad's Geordies (Granda used to work with Wor Jackie no less). Mam's dad has had to take a 'passing' interest in both sides and due to family ties I don't dispise the dorty unwashed as much as most (mild hatred I'd put it as)

So say we had won the UEFA cup and received say £10million prize fund 9made up figure - I don't know the prize fund) would it be fair to include this in turnover as its a one off cash injection? Not denying the ratio is high, but you have to include all your costs and income however they arise

Or when they sell the club

"ran out of cash"? but hang on, isn't this the same NUFC plc that you claim pays out dividends whether there was a profit or not? Vic, Profit and cash are not the same thing. Profit (or loss) includes depreciation/ammortisation etc which have nil cash impact. Admittedly in the long term profit is realised as cash, but looking at it in a 1-5 year span wold mean that it is the cash position (and accumulated profits) that dictate a dividend - hence the shares taken as divi a couple of yers back

(a) Can't find anything on the final numbers from 2006 - but in the prelim (i.e. not signed by auditors) accounts no dividuend was proposed for the year. In terms of cash dividends I don't believe that any have been paid for a few years now, they took additional shares in lieu of dividends a couple of years back. (b) Depends on how they are paid/how the club structures transfers - i.e cash up frot or installments. If you've got surplus cash, why not. As a plc its expected no matter how a company could put the cash to better use

The future's bright, the future's orange

The one thing I dont get is that that the top 4 are unbreakable. ManU and Chelsea maybe, but look at the past 4-5 years, the top 4 has not been a foregone conclusion. Everton got there 2 years ago, Spurs were a Lasgne away from it last year, Bolton have threaterned this year. All it takes is one good season / iffy season from Liverpool/Arsenal and you can get top 4 - the league ain't great outside of the top 2 so a good run can get you far. Then its waht you do with the money/momentum thats important. Everton blew it, Spurs blew it, we blew it back in 2001/2/3/etc

Is Vic Adrian Durham in disguise? Have they ever ben spotted in the same room together?

Are you a professional footballer? No? In that case please refrain from commenting on whether anyone was ever 'rubbish' etc. He is wrong, I run a business of 70 million sterling. yeah but I bet its not a football club, so you still aren't allowed to comment Meh, I'm the only one on here qualified to comment on football club finances. But I cant be bothere most of the time

In the 9 years as a PLC to June 2006 the club made a combined loss of £59.7m. I love your belief that there is a plan in there somewhere. I'd have hoped to see the club looking mroe healthy on the playing front than it is today. If we about to compete in Europe with a team of young players, led by a bright innovative coach, all ready to blossom into the next great team then the idea that there was a plan of some sort may be right. [Potential agenda alert} Of that 9-year loss nearly 60% comes from giving money away to needy causes, and is nothing at all do with the way the business has performed. If for the next 9 years we did exactly the same, but didn't give away ll that money we'd be doign very well. The sad thing is that the only reason we got away with giving so much money away was because of the money put in at the launch of the PLC. That money has now gone, and the current financial results show we're a bit stuck. [/Potential agenda alert] I would like to see better success on the playing front as well but we've been up against a lot. And you don't get success on the playing field without spending money. You have to speculate to accumulate as they say. Do you think we would have had the success with Keegan without spending a world record fee on Shearer? No way. The club has tried to do the same with Martins and Owen which of course will have a negative effect on the financial situation but the club is trying to get us into the UEFA cup/Champions League and they only way they can do this is by spending money. Is the NUFC finances site yours btw? I doubt you would have set it up/or continued if we had qualified for the champions league last year because we would have a much greater revenue. Take Amazon again for example. I'm not saying NUFC are as busines savvy as those guys but.. Anyway, they have still not made a profit, overall, the losses in the earlier days are larger than the current profits. Yet they invested millions into the company, and it paid off. They're steadily picking up profit. In my opinion that's what NUFC are trying to do. They aren't perfect but they're spending money in the hope that it'll pay off in the future. If Newcastle was in such dire straights, with no optimism, there would not have been investors interested in a take over, of course I know they decided otherwise but if you could tell so much from the public accounts then why would they even bother investigating? Don't some of the board also run Shepherd Offshore successufully? The 'success' with Keegan came pre Shearer surely?

when they published their accunts for the first 6 months of the 2005-2006 season the loss was £6m. When they published them for the full year to last June (only 11 months as they chanegd accoutnign dates), the loss for the whole period was over £12m. but as you well know that is different to losing £1mill per month.(ie,they could make a profit of £1mill per month for 11months then buy torres(knowing us fred torres from stevenage borough) for £23 mill which would show a loss of £12mill but isn't a loss of £1mill per month. it may seem pedantic but the way you make it sound and it may be that way,that we are losing £1mill per month on the day-to-day running of the club not the one off hits for transfers. if we didn't buy anyone for a year would we still be "losing" £1mill per month ? Player purchases don't affect your profit on date of purchase, the cost is capitalised and amortised against the length of the players contract. So if you signed Torres for £20m on a 5 year contract, the costs would hit your books at £4m p.a. over the 5 years. So basically, you're wrong. but it would still be a once a year hit . snoops isn't on line so theres no need to try and show off. Nice jibe. Doesn't deflect from the fact that you were talking s*** though. mmmmmm not really.the asset amortisation(players) still mean it is a very grey area as i've already pointed out. for example how much is martins worth,according to the balance sheet a lot less than in reality. don't make yourself look a knob by saying people are talking s*** when they are in a civil discussion,theres few enough going on on here as it is. You're the one who made the "don't show off" comment, because I'd explained how player amortisation worked. As for Martins true worth versus his balance sheet value - I'm not sure how player revaluations work, as I've never had a football club as a client, or if they're permitted at all. Not allowed Gemms. ammortised over the length of the original contract with no revisions of life or value. One of accountancy's stupid rules I'm afraid, makes football clubs balance sheet somewhat meaningless What happens in the event of injury? Do they permit impairment reviews or anything like that if it's clear that the value of the player has fallen considerably? If I remeber correctly you don't mark down for injury - the only example I had was Ole Gunnar, but he was worth next to nothing anyway. The argument against would be a Shearer or a RvN - serious injury but argubly it didn't lessen their value

when they published their accunts for the first 6 months of the 2005-2006 season the loss was £6m. When they published them for the full year to last June (only 11 months as they chanegd accoutnign dates), the loss for the whole period was over £12m. but as you well know that is different to losing £1mill per month.(ie,they could make a profit of £1mill per month for 11months then buy torres(knowing us fred torres from stevenage borough) for £23 mill which would show a loss of £12mill but isn't a loss of £1mill per month. it may seem pedantic but the way you make it sound and it may be that way,that we are losing £1mill per month on the day-to-day running of the club not the one off hits for transfers. if we didn't buy anyone for a year would we still be "losing" £1mill per month ? Player purchases don't affect your profit on date of purchase, the cost is capitalised and amortised against the length of the players contract. So if you signed Torres for £20m on a 5 year contract, the costs would hit your books at £4m p.a. over the 5 years. So basically, you're wrong. but it would still be a once a year hit . snoops isn't on line so theres no need to try and show off. Nice jibe. Doesn't deflect from the fact that you were talking s*** though. mmmmmm not really.the asset amortisation(players) still mean it is a very grey area as i've already pointed out. for example how much is martins worth,according to the balance sheet a lot less than in reality. don't make yourself look a knob by saying people are talking s*** when they are in a civil discussion,theres few enough going on on here as it is. You're the one who made the "don't show off" comment, because I'd explained how player amortisation worked. As for Martins true worth versus his balance sheet value - I'm not sure how player revaluations work, as I've never had a football club as a client, or if they're permitted at all. Not allowed Gemms. ammortised over the length of the original contract with no revisions of life or value. One of accountancy's stupid rules I'm afraid, makes football clubs balance sheet somewhat meaningless

when they published their accunts for the first 6 months of the 2005-2006 season the loss was £6m. When they published them for the full year to last June (only 11 months as they chanegd accoutnign dates), the loss for the whole period was over £12m. but as you well know that is different to losing £1mill per month.(ie,they could make a profit of £1mill per month for 11months then buy torres(knowing us fred torres from stevenage borough) for £23 mill which would show a loss of £12mill but isn't a loss of £1mill per month. it may seem pedantic but the way you make it sound and it may be that way,that we are losing £1mill per month on the day-to-day running of the club not the one off hits for transfers. if we didn't buy anyone for a year would we still be "losing" £1mill per month ? The first half of the seaosn included all the summer signings, so Luque, Owen and Solano. The second half os last season had no transfer activity in it. The club do their accounts by dividing the cost of the transfer fee by the length of the contract and saying that's the monthly cost to the businhess.o So Luque for £10m, on a 5 year contract means the club accounts shows a cost of £2m per year, or £160k per month. Obviously things like wages and ground maintenance costs are the same every month. The income and expenditure for games happens as the games happen. So there is neither game-related income nor expenditure in June as there are no games. The club spread the season ticket money they receive in the summer across the football season. So say they get £25m in season ticket sales, then at half way through the season the accounts would say they had used up £12.5m of it, but it would also say that they knew they were going to have to use the other half in the second half of the season. The other steady outgoing is the interest payments on the ground redevelopment, and on the loans they have taken out. The steady incomes are from things like sponsorship, and from catering and merchandising. The sponsorship one is a slight concern. The club were given £8m of future year's sponsorship money (I guess from Nortern Rock) early, to allow them to buy Luque, Owen and Solano. This means that over the next few seasons there will be a drop of that amount from what woudl have been expected. This probably won't matter inthelong run as the extra Sky will swamp the drop. So, basically, "yes" we'd still be losing £1m per month even if we didn't sign anyone. The number will reduce but it will be hard work to get it back to the level where we at least break even. Don't forget we've been borrowing against future season ticket sales. I thought we'd used the future ticket sales as security to raise the loan, i.e look mr bank manger I'm going to be earning £25m a year - bit like you do for your mortgage. The income from the sales doesn't directly go against the loan as it were, the payments dont move in line with season ticket sales

I reckon around 250 of that full time staff figure of 307 would probably account for only £7.5m or so of the £50m wage bill. Average wage £30k. That might even be a bit high. They might but if we take Owen's and Dyer's wages at what we think they are, then you can effectively take another £8.5 million off the total, since these 2 will skew the average. Why would you want to do that? They are playing staff (alledgedly) and therefore their wage forms part of the average, doesn't matter if they skew it or not. Its all well and good saying that if we weren't paying Owen this and Dyer that we wouldn't have a problem. We are paying them it, and we do have a problem

I can also tell you as a fact that the ManU wages were no where near that high as a basic. I could also tell you how much Giggs etc were on the seaosn they signed Rooney, but that would be confidential! Ballack's on £121,000 a week and Schev is on £130,000....Terry is negotiating for £130,000 which would make him the highest paid English player in the league above Gerrard reported to be on £95,000 and ickle Mickey on £105,000. Fat Lamps is reportedly on £121,000 only recently as he wanted parity with Ballack. Ferdinand was the highest paid def (soon to be Terry) no idea what he's on though. Figures from the papers, I got to see the Man U players wages through work, wouldn't be right to disclose details. You tease. I'll accept a PM. Put it this way, they can afford to go large at McDonalds once in a while.

I can also tell you as a fact that the ManU wages were no where near that high as a basic. I could also tell you how much Giggs etc were on the seaosn they signed Rooney, but that would be confidential! Ballack's on £121,000 a week and Schev is on £130,000....Terry is negotiating for £130,000 which would make him the highest paid English player in the league above Gerrard reported to be on £95,000 and ickle Mickey on £105,000. Fat Lamps is reportedly on £121,000 only recently as he wanted parity with Ballack. Ferdinand was the highest paid def (soon to be Terry) no idea what he's on though. Figures from the papers, I got to see the Man U players wages through work, wouldn't be right to disclose details.

I can also tell you as a fact that the ManU wages were no where near that high as a basic. I could also tell you how much Giggs etc were on the seaosn they signed Rooney, but that would be confidential!

Same with the National team to be honest. Play the way you are used to, change is bad!

Nah, hes just lazy to bother trying tbh

Woodgate and Carragher here too. I remember when we signed Woody a comparrison was done on some website or another woth him and Rio. Woodgate = steady for 90 minutes, does nothing flash but never makes horrendous errors. Rio = Steady for 89 minutes, but is flash in everything he does and is therefore prone to make one rik a game due to playing on the edge. Therefore Woody the better defender. Rio has improved since his drug ban, but is just shaded by the other 2 at present

Tell you what its a tough call to make. Liverpool to win the Champions league and the Toon the UEFA. Or neither win a cup. As much as I cant wait for the Toon to win a pot, it was unbearable the last itme they won the CL