Broadsword

I did try to explain where the £60m could come from. I don't think it is that far off really.

If any money has then it will be shown in the accounts. Even if it has, its his club he can damn well take as much or as little as he likes to be honest.

Parker was sold in the Ashley era so you can stick him on to the list. Emre was also sold (probably not much profit) and there may have also been small fees received for people like Edgar, Huntington, Ramage and Pattison maybe even Nobby - but there was a loss on Luque, and Babayaro was paid to leave. My reading of the opening post was that he was not referring to an accounting profit but the commonly used "money spent versus money received" measure. I took it the other way. How long was Luque at the club? The loss on him might have been less than you think. Babayaro won't have made a loss either due to his length of time at the club. I think that there was a specific impairment provision made against Luque in the 2007 accounts. This was done to reflect the substance of his subsequent sale. I've got the figure of £7m in my head but wouldn't swear to it, definitely a loss though. And Baba would have to be a loss because the club actually gave him money to go away, which was a sort of negative transfer fee! You are right about luque actually, I do remember that. But not sure if an impairement provision would technically go into the profit/loss on player sales in the accounts and neither would a contract payoff either. The whole luque thing was really pre Ashely though, I doubt we can blame that one on him.

Parker was sold in the Ashley era so you can stick him on to the list. Emre was also sold (probably not much profit) and there may have also been small fees received for people like Edgar, Huntington, Ramage and Pattison maybe even Nobby - but there was a loss on Luque, and Babayaro was paid to leave. My reading of the opening post was that he was not referring to an accounting profit but the commonly used "money spent versus money received" measure. I took it the other way as there's no way Ashley has received £60m more on players sold than he has paid on signing them. None what so ever. Not even close. Accounting profit is the only way it could be anywhere near £60m. How long was Luque at the club? The loss on him might have been less than you think. Babayaro won't have made a loss either due to his length of time at the club.

Cashflow. The club gets its TV money and season ticket money mostly over the summer. Wages are every month. But he isn't trousering it anyway. tv money comes over season not all up front Yes it is staggered but the largest chunk will be over the summer.

Cashflow. The club gets its TV money and season ticket money mostly over the summer. Wages are every month. But he isn't trousering it anyway. So you are saying we get all of our income upfront but our outgoings are staggered? Not upfront but I am sure a lot of the cash is received over the summer, either TV money, Prize money, season ticket renewals etc. Ideally this should see us through added to the matchday revenue etc and staggered payments from the FA etc but I doubt it was ever really working like that. Plus add the drop in revenue this season and it is easy to see why £20m could be swallowed up quite quickly.

Cashflow. The club gets its TV money and season ticket money mostly over the summer. Wages are every month. But he isn't trousering it anyway.

Of course it has, there's no way Ashley is pocketing any of it. If he is then the accounts will show that up. It's more likely that it has gone on player signing on fees, agents, sell on clauses, loan interest and payoffs.

I think it is possible that £60m could be right, for example we made a clear £12m profit on Milner, £6m on Given, £7m on Dyer etc etc etc. To make a transfer profit you take the selling price and take off the net book value of the player. The net book value of the player is the original purchase price less the amortisation charge. The amortisation charge is the original purchase price divided by the length of the players original contract times the number of years at the club. So Given, Milner and Dyer etc all would have a net book value of nil and hence a profit of around £30m. Add Bassong, who had no cost and that's another £8m. Martins has a profit of around £5m too, Duff £2m etc etc etc...... Was Parker sold in the Ashley era? Soon adds up.

They have now been filed but not yet up on the site to download. So any time soon. I can't see it being a pretty picture tbh. http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/02ce943a9561e44887bdaa6e468771c1/compdetails

Next Accounts Due: 31/03/2010 OVERDUE So that's football in general all over Newcastle united then huh.

to be expected prem is their lord and saviour there everyone else can go suck eggs I remember last year when they wouldn't to be expected prem is their lord and saviour there everyone else can go suck eggs I remember last year when they would even show the current scores our even that the fixture existed if Setanta had the game last season, and only mentioned the game the day after it happend. Now it seems like ESPN is another Skysports channel, evening interviewing Keegan today who works for them. I still don't understand this post. even show the current scores our even that the fixture existed if Setanta had the game last season, and only mentioned the game the day after it happend. Now it seems like ESPN is another Skysports channel, evening interviewing Keegan today who works for them. I still don't understand this post. Sky didn't like Setanata and ignored their games last season. Sky now like ESPN and have pre game interviews etc.

Denied by the club.

Sorry, you are wrong. I am an auditor by the way. Oh so your talking about next years accounts now? The discussion is about the accounts that are due to be filed in 3 days, I made that perfectly clear tbh. Yes what I'm saying is, if we set off on a path of not filing the accounts for this year, chances are the auditors won't be very keen to sign off next years. There also would seem to be little point in not filing them if we've managed to convice the auditors to sign them off in the first place, would there? Still missing the point. Never said they won't file them just they are under no obligation to file on time, the auditors won't give 2 hoots if they are filed on time or not, just as long as they are. Anyway there's no way you are an auditor though, coming out with stuff like that. Right-o Says you who thinks the only issue there'll be is writing out the fine cheque if they don't file them. I've never heard such a lack of commercial common sense. Given that we're talking about a company which was loss making with a turnover of c. £100m, coupled with the fact that that turnover post balance sheet has reduced to about half that figure, the minute they are late, their customer base, debtors, creditors and football in general will be all over them chasing money & reducing trading terms given to the club. Promotion means a massive amount to whoever is signing the accounts off in terms of going concern & the later they are signed off (if it hasn't been done already) the less risk there is to the auditors. It's basic stuff tbh, you'll probably come across it in the next chapter of your text book. Beat me to the punch, was going to ask how his exams were going. I'm 37 man been doing this all my career. They can send them to whoever they like, the major creditors and other important stakeholders probably already have a set of accounts, for example the European money league people already have numbers from this years accounts. You don't think the important creditors etc have wait and have to pay the £1 to get a set of accounts from CH do you? As its a private company now I don't think Ashely will really give two hoots about what the auditors think. They certainly don't dictate to the club when the audit work is completed because it is less risky for them. If mike wants the accounts early that's when they are done, if he wants them late that's when they are done. If the numbers are as bad as we expect then maybe he wants promotion before they are made public to prevent the inevitable backlash. According to you though on Thursday the whole of football will be all over Newcastle like a rash due to late filing of accounts. Hardly likely. There's no external shareholders to appease anymore. They were filed in early January last year, I am only summising why they are later this year. You were the one going on saying the auditors won't allow them to be late. Which is pure nonsense. And you still go on as if I am saying they don't have to file them at all. Anyway they have today and tomorrow to see if you are right.

Sorry, you are wrong. I am an auditor by the way. Oh so your talking about next years accounts now? The discussion is about the accounts that are due to be filed in 3 days, I made that perfectly clear tbh. Yes what I'm saying is, if we set off on a path of not filing the accounts for this year, chances are the auditors won't be very keen to sign off next years. There also would seem to be little point in not filing them if we've managed to convice the auditors to sign them off in the first place, would there? Still missing the point. Never said they won't file them just they are under no obligation to file on time, the auditors won't give 2 hoots if they are filed on time or not, just as long as they are. Anyway there's no way you are an auditor though, coming out with stuff like that.

Sorry, you are wrong. I am an auditor by the way. Oh so your talking about next years accounts now? The discussion is about the accounts that are due to be filed in 3 days, I made that perfectly clear tbh.

They are due to be filed by 31 March 2010. But as the fine for not doing so is only £150 I doubt Mike is that bothered when they go in. I have been checking every day for the past few weeks as I think there may be some interesting reading in there. Is it not a requirement of the football league that they are filed in time? Filed with the Football League maybe but the Football League won't make them public. No way would that be allowed, nor would the auditors sign them off on that sort of basis. Would what be allowed? It is up to Newcastle United as to when the accounts are filed at CH, nothing to do with the auditors. No way will any firm of auditors sign off accounts going forward if the company in question are using them but not filing them with Companies House. Sorry, you are wrong. I am an auditor by the way. As am I. How many sets of accounts have you signed off which then haven't been committed to public record in your career? Huh? Are you on crack? Did you read what I actually posted? Are you a mind reader or something and know before you sign them off when they will be submitted? They have to been signed off by the auditor before they can be filed so saying the auditor won't sign them of if they are not going to be filed on time means they are a clever firm of auditors. Do you also travel at 88mph on the way to work? I am certain they will be filed at some stage, just they have not yet and may not be by the dealine. The auditors have no say over when or if they are filed. That's up to the company. I very much doubt the FL have rules that state the accounts have to be filed with CH on time, more likely the rules are they must be sent to the FL on time. In either case the penalty for not filing on time would be a fine. We will find out in a few days if they file them before the deadline or not.

They are due to be filed by 31 March 2010. But as the fine for not doing so is only £150 I doubt Mike is that bothered when they go in. I have been checking every day for the past few weeks as I think there may be some interesting reading in there. Is it not a requirement of the football league that they are filed in time? Filed with the Football League maybe but the Football League won't make them public. No way would that be allowed, nor would the auditors sign them off on that sort of basis. Would what be allowed? It is up to Newcastle United as to when the accounts are filed at CH, nothing to do with the auditors. No way will any firm of auditors sign off accounts going forward if the company in question are using them but not filing them with Companies House. Sorry, you are wrong. I am an auditor by the way.

They are due to be filed by 31 March 2010. But as the fine for not doing so is only £150 I doubt Mike is that bothered when they go in. I have been checking every day for the past few weeks as I think there may be some interesting reading in there. Is it not a requirement of the football league that they are filed in time? Filed with the Football League maybe but the Football League won't make them public. No way would that be allowed, nor would the auditors sign them off on that sort of basis. Would what be allowed? It is up to Newcastle United as to when the accounts are filed at CH, nothing to do with the auditors. The accounts may well already be audited and signed off and filed with the FL. The club however have not yet filed them with CH, which is where they are made public. They can file them whenever they like, the only penalty for filing them late is a £150 fine which increases over time if they are more than 1 month late. The auditors have nothing to do with where the accounts go after they are signed off.

They are due to be filed by 31 March 2010. But as the fine for not doing so is only £150 I doubt Mike is that bothered when they go in. I have been checking every day for the past few weeks as I think there may be some interesting reading in there. Is it not a requirement of the football league that they are filed in time? Filed with the Football League maybe but the Football League won't make them public.

They are due to be filed by 31 March 2010. But as the fine for not doing so is only £150 I doubt Mike is that bothered when they go in. I have been checking every day for the past few weeks as I think there may be some interesting reading in there.

Blackpool at home will be promotion day.

If they score the penalty, no sending off. If they miss, send them off. That's how it should work.

I remember it being said the later signing had a relagation clause in their contracts, it was the older palyers that did not. Probably why the new signings weren't sold, Enrique, Jonas, Colo etc.

Channel 975 on Sky is BBC 1 NE & Cumbria. My sky box is showing "Would I lie to you?" Shame.