quayside

It's not in there at all But you shouldn't believe what Ernst and Young say like, they're part of the great deception together with Ashley and all that.....

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.

Do those figures include the early season ticket renewals for next season? those are accounts for 2009 aren't they ? Yes - the year ended 30th June 2009.

Do those figures include the early season ticket renewals for next season? No - only income that relates to the year to 30th June 2009 is included in the accounts. So advance season ticket revenue for the 2009/2010 season isn't included.

Well the accounts are available now. I've had a quick look. The highlights: Turnover was only £86 million (all 3 areas of revenue matchday, media and commercial were down on the previous year) Wages (including Keegan's £2.2m payoff) £73m Profit on transfers £23m Other costs £51m Therefore the Loss = £15m so it was an improvement on 2008 but, due to the fall in turnover, not a massive one. As at 30th June Ashley had loaned £111m making his investment a total of £247m. He took no money out in interest. At one point in the year his loan was up to £112m. Not surprisingly, as the club is technically insolvent by £51m, he was required to give a personal guarantee to satisfy the going concern status.

Prove that it has gone to his pocket by reference to audited accounting information and you may have an audience.

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. The whole thing is pretty academic. The decision to sell Luque was made by Allardyce under Ashley's ownership, and if profits on the sale of Parker and Dyer are to be included in this random calculation then why not the loss on Luque?

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!

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.

That sounds reasonable, the profits on selling the likes of Milner, Given and N'Zog will go some way to cutting the annual operating losses, and might even wipe them out. So I expect a much improved result over 2008. So I pretty much agree with you and on financial matters that may be a first....

especially the Duncan Ferguson reference.

My error - you're right, the reference to transfers isn't in the thread title. It's actually in the opening post, not that it matters much as the £60m sounds like an invented statistic anyway.

To be fair the thread title only refers to transfer profits - not the losses the club as a whole has made. Even so I'm struggling to see where a figure like £60 million comes from. Anyone know how that has been calculated?

Walk out when we didn't sign Victor Moses.

I always wondered how things would pan out if Lerner's spending didn't ultimatgely lead to CL football. While Villa are doing ok, they don't look like getting there just yet and it's a hell of a lot of money to sink in without being in the premier UEFA competition. Are they headed for a similar period we went through in Shepherd's time? the question to ask is the money he put in like abramovichs cash turned into equitity or into a loan to the club Lerner spent about £65 million buying the club and since then has stuck about £180 million in. And that has been roughly 50% equity and 50% loan - he's been paid interest on his loan.

Nolan played well tonight man. He did, and he played in a lot deeper role than he usually plays. Nolan blocked a lot of their play tonight - respect.

You know, I'd agree with that 100%. Can't help but wonder. I said on the other thread that Taylor would need to think carefully about pressing charges because if he did the full details of the incident would come out, including whatever it was that provoked Carroll. If, for example, it's true that it was because of some smutty text messages then it might not do Taylor much good in the long run to have them read out in a public court of law as part of the evidence. He could be made to look a bit of a tit and the press would just love it....

Wonder how people's opinions of the two players will change if Taylor opts not to take this any further. If the rumours are true about what happened then Taylor would look a right tit in a public court of law. The press will be all over it. You can just see it - first piece of evidence for the defence, a text from Mr S Taylor: "Alreet lass? As Andy is doon in Wales if ya feel a bit lonely ah'd be happy to come roond and part ya curtains like. Just like the old times eh pet." I think he might be wise to let it be tbh..... As i'm sure you know, you cant go around breaking peoples jaws no matter how many texts your girlfriend receives. Not lawfully anyway. Agree but if Taylor is going to pursue it he needs to think carefully about what might come out in the trial. Especially so given that it would be sure to attract a lot of media attention. He's got his career to think about and if the content of whatever provoked Carroll were revealed it might not do Taylor (and Carroll) any favours.

That's all true enough, but let's just say some have become a bit entrenched in their loyalties.

You mean the Gaydamak way to administration (and near winding up) is better than the Ridsdale way? Personally as a supporter with no control of how the owner runs the club I would feel more secure with an owner who was stuck within the financial restraints of what the banks would lend them than one who could rack up the club's wage bill to well over what it could support in future years without their input and then run into financial problems themselves or just f*** off when they get bored or daddy pulls the plug. Owners putting in external money is also what's f***ed the game up so much financially as clubs without that artificial aid risk more just to try to keep up. Everyone is just waiting for Abramovich to get bored and leave Chelsea in the s***. If Lerner ran into external financial trouble now Villa would be in the s*** as they are running at a big loss year on year. Neither of these clubs could sustain where they are now without their owners. Liverpool and Man U have a different problem in that they can sustain where they are now without their owners (who are taking out rather than putting in) they just can't sustain it if they drop down the league. There are risks either way, one is dependant on football results, the other is dependant on external forces. Personally I'd rather the club's fortunes were dictated by the football than live with the chance that no matter how well you might be doing on the pitch the rug could suddenly be pulled from beneath your feet. That's not to say I'd turn my nose up at a rich benefactor, just that I'd feel it was a more solid foundation if it were self-sustaining as long as the footballing side of things didn't go tits up. Obviously having an owner with their own money has the advantage that they can put money into the club that a bank just would not risk. This is however promoting a far higher risk strategy to running the club than the one the old board were able to take, so I'm not sure why some who are post-fact dismayed with the risk level set by the last owners are happy with being completely dependant on the whims and finances of one man, especially when that man has shown nothing so far but an abject inability to run the club successfully or hire competent people to do so and a desire to offload any responsibility and sell at any opportunity when the club is in the s***. Having a rich incompetent owner of the club is of course better than having a poor incompetent owner of the club, however some seem to have extended that to meaning having a rich incompetent owner of the club is better than having a poor competent owner. It's not. People exaggerate how bad things had got footballing wise here prior to Ashley, we'd had a bad season due to having more injuries than I can ever remember having before, but we still pretty comfortably avoided relegation in the end and certainly had a massively better squad when Ashley took over to the "relegation enhanced" one we have now. If people judged the squad then with the expectations we have for the squad next year they'd be over the moon with it. Without all the injuries we'd have been competing for Europe again, if we were to have the same injury problems next year I think there'd be absolutely no question of us going back down again. People also exaggerate how bad things had got financially with regard to the debt. To put this in context for us prior to Ashley, the majority of the debt was the stadium expansion loan (around £45m) which couldn't just be called in on a whim. The last set of accounts before the stadium debt was shifted to be a current liability (due to the sale of the club) in 2006 had current liabilities from debts of £5.5m overdraft + £10.9m loans. This was with £9.3m cash in the bank as security against capital and interest repayments on the stadium loan. There would have been around an extra £5m overdraft and £5m in loans in 2007, ie a total of around £25m. I'd suggest this is a lower current debt liability than most premiership clubs other than those recently promoted or owned by a sugar daddy, and certainly within the means of a club with our turnover as was. Contrast this with the £40m overdraft facility Ashley was running the club with on top of his £150m loan. Is Ashley steering the club in the right direction or is he overcompensating after causing a skid? So yet again we have the argument put forward that a football club that had, over a period of 3 years, gone into a steady decline financially to the point that it was technically insolvent was, in fact, in pretty good shape to meet the challenges ahead . Never mind that it needed a personal guarantee from a billionaire to ensure going concern status. Never mind that it had already borrowed against every possible asset and income source at high ticket interest rates. We'd have been just fine..... Just out of curiosity could you explain the bit in your post that is in bold?

Wonder how people's opinions of the two players will change if Taylor opts not to take this any further. If the rumours are true about what happened then Taylor would look a right tit in a public court of law. The press will be all over it. You can just see it - first piece of evidence for the defence, a text from Mr S Taylor: "Alreet lass? As Andy is doon in Wales if ya feel a bit lonely ah'd be happy to come roond and part ya curtains like. Just like the old times eh pet." I think he might be wise to let it be tbh.....

...because Coloccini has done more this season, is the simple answer. Did or didn't Taylor play very well this season up until his knee injury? Not particularly. I remember him as being decidedly average this season. Ah well I remember him being better than that for this division. Maybe a statto fiend can come up with average goals conceded with Taylor playing compared to goals conceded without. not that that would prove anything. No but it could er take the whole debate onto an entirely different level.....

...because Coloccini has done more this season, is the simple answer. Did or didn't Taylor play very well this season up until his knee injury? Not particularly. I remember him as being decidedly average this season. Ah well I remember him being better than that for this division. Maybe a statto fiend can come up with average goals conceded with Taylor playing compared to goals conceded without.

knee jerk reaction. Contrast with the support for someone who isn't bothered about the club at all ie Ashley and Llambias. stupid comment it's a knee jerk reaction. Taylor and Carroll will be Newcastle supporters long after Ashley and his friends have gone. The support they get is a joke. Of course they will. But your follow on about Ashley and Llambias is ridiculous. How many posters on here can you name who are Llambias supporters? As for Ashley I think the most supportive attitude he gets is that people are of the opinion that he bought something that was in a financial mess and which he didn't understand and, through his own fault, screwed it up further. But at least he had the funds to pay for his mistakes, and the recent transfer window suggests a slight improvement in his decision making. If anyone wants to come out with something more pro Ashley than that please feel free.

I would hope that it was over more than a few texts to a lass or Taylor bragging about his wages. But I wouldn't bet too much on it being about any more than that tbh.