Unbelievable

Yes and no. Whilst the TV money distribution is fairly evenly balanced, there are still huge differences in absolute terms (in the order of tens of millions) between finishing lower midtable and higher midtable. Ashley has turned us from an upper midtable team to a lower midtable team by neglecting the development of other important revenue streams for his own benefit. That 90 million for example of "lost revenue" compared to West Ham would probably have seen us in a much better position than them if reinvested wisely, but as of right now they are probably in a better position than us. The same goes for a number of other clubs, including Southampton, Swansea and Stoke. The growing influence of TV revenue doesn't exonerate the failure to develop other revenue streams, for which we will continue to pay the price in years to come, particularly in terms of lost TV revenue ironically.

"Only" 11 million per year; so let's say 90 million over that 8 year period, and another 11 million per year from now on. Hardly an amount I would qualify as insignificant. A few more years and the value of free advertising (lost to us, not the significantly higher value it represents to him as SD majority shareholder) will have surpassed the amount he paid for the entire club.

Well exactly As for the other things you say, how has he allowed the club to spend the money it generates except for on two occasions? We'll be posting our fourth profit in a row, with the total profit over that period likely to exceed 100 million. You know as well as I do that the TV deals, although terrific in absolute terms, only serve to make us weaker than other clubs in relative terms, as other club owners are far more inclined to actually reinvest that money. I don't think your valuation of the value of the free advertising comes even close to reality either. Comparing our loss of commercial revenue during his time here to how others have developed theirs, it's probably closer to 30 or 40 times that.

I've said it before, but the interest free nature of the loan is being used by the club as a justification for SD's free sponsorship. For that reason repaying the loan in part should only be acceptable if it meant SD starts to pay for the privilege of soiling SJP.

Any news on his injury?

So lucky not to concede

Lightbulb shat himself when he saw all that space in front of him

FFS

3 fit defenders

Should have been off for elbowing

Piece of papiss

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. Agreed. I was just commenting on the actual posted profits from the official accounts, but if you include things like free SD advertising at the expense of commercial revenue growth the benefit for Mike Ashley of owning Newcastle United becomes even greater.

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.

It makes to them since they are desperate to give Carver the job full time.

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?

Lightbulb

If it wasn't for that bloody miraculous run of 6 wins we would already be as good as down and out.

What the fuck Raylor and Krul

Wahahaha

Gouff

Such desire by Willo

Willo loves playing him, so nah

Good effort

Surely it must register with the two fat lards that John Carver may not actually be up to the job they are prepared to hand him?