Broadsword

No capital outlay means exactly what people on here don't want it to mean. No money (or debt) will leave the club to purchase capital assets, i.e players. A player that has no capital value, i.e a loan player, academy graduate or free signing is not a capital asset. And that's it. It really could not be more clear and is one of the more transparent quotes Ashley has made.

Next you'll be telling me that we were in for him but have turned our attentions elsewhere According the The Mirror we were ... Whoosh!!!!

Don't forget that those accounts are consolidated in the NUFC accounts, which means the holding company is insolvent in itself, but NUFC Ltd is not. There is no guarantee from Ashley in the NUFC accounts and the auditors are perfectly happy to sign them off without anything to say. Ive not seen the holdings accounts so take your word that is not the case in those and that a guarantee is in place. You've lost me there - can you explain? The NUFC balance sheet shows an insolvent position of £58 million as at 30th June 2009, and Ashley's commitment is specifically referred to on page 11 (under the heading Fundamental Accounting concept). Because of that commitment the NUFC accounts were prepared on a going concern basis and the auditors signed off on that. That note on page 11 is just an explanation of how the directors have come to the conclusion that it is a going concern, it is not a guarantee. The auditors are not concerned either otherwise they would have highlighted it in the audit report.

Don't forget that those accounts are consolidated in the NUFC accounts, which means the holding company is insolvent in itself, but NUFC Ltd is not. There is no guarantee from Ashley in the NUFC accounts and the auditors are perfectly happy to sign them off without anything to say. Ive not seen the holdings accounts so take your word that is not the case in those and that a guarantee is in place.

Come on guys its obviosuly M ASHley Holdings.

What am I supposed to find funny exactly?

It isn't but it is disclosed in a note that it happened after the year end. You can look at them here http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/ab8031355966ec489a8e7faf83deaa87/compdetails but it costs £1 to download them. Wrong - the Keegan payment (including costs) is included as an exceptional item - see note 3 on page 14. It has to be included since it relates to something that happened during the year ended 30th June 2009. Thats what you get skim reading, yes note 24 says provided in full.

It isn't but it is disclosed in a note that it happened after the year end. You can look at them here http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/ab8031355966ec489a8e7faf83deaa87/compdetails but it costs £1 to download them. There's also a note that says our net spend on players after 30 June 2009 was just £3.2m. So Simpson, Routledge, Williamson, Best and the other transfer window signings cost that much in total. And we still have contingent add on payments to other clubs based on appearances etc for signings of around £3.6m. So that's why Xisco doesn't get a game I guess. Oh and as far as I can see Mike hasn't actually given a formal guarantee just an indication that he will give ongoing support. The audit report is clean and they do not have a problem with going concern.

He has changed the £111m he has lent the club from payable after more than one year to payable within 12 months though on the basis that it was only payable on demand in the event of a change in owner. Seems like he is still wanting to sell up on that basis. Edit - reading again it looks like he has changed the terms to remove the repayable upon demand if he sells the club to just repayable upon demand.

The numbers never lie.

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.