quayside

Just to pick up on your point about 1000 staff losing their jobs - in 2008 the club only had 425 employees so if there were 1000 people who weren't retained then the vast majority of them weren't employees and their payment would not have been included in any wages figure. Just as an aside Chris Mort was never an employee either, the club was billed by Freshfields for his services.

Wages includes every employee of the club - so players, training staff, admin staff etc

I've tried to ignore everything after 'Also consider'. For some reason my post above didn't quote the text of the email received by Icke - here it is.

I've tried to ignore everything after 'Also consider'. Thanks for that. As the first explanation for the £7 million figure was so different from this one, you can understand why I'm a bit sceptical about those figures. Firstly, they look like annual figures, not those for 7 months. Did the club really estimate that we were not going to make anything at all on the transfer market? And then ended up with an unexpected bonanza of £19 million? As for the wage bill, according to that table, the club actually managed to lop £11 million off the wage bill ON TOP of the amount that they needed to lop off. Hummm..... Yeah i love the way they project it out to the full season then use that projected profit back over 7 months instead, this actually gets more amateurish by the email tbh OK Like the previous email this latest one contains a lot of garbled thinking about whether these are annual amounts or for 7 months, and whether we are talking about a P&L or a cash flow. However this is what is going on here IMO: These are clearly annual amounts and are based on a 2010 projection. I don’t know whose projection – was it the clubs own work or someone external? This projection showed income of £64m, costs of £62.5m leading to a small profit of £1.5m. The income in this projection included £22m from matchday revenue and £5m from TV. As for the rest of it I think the parachute payment is about £11m – so that leaves a balance of £26m, which must be commercial revenues. Commercial revenues are defined as sponsorship, merchandising, conference and banquet. So in summary the income in this 2010 projection of unknown origin was £22m matchday, £16m media and £26m commercial – total £64m. In 2008 when we were in the Premiership our revenue was £32m matchday, £41m media and £26m commercial – total £99m. The costs in the 2010 projection are very simply £53m wages and £9.5m other costs (including amortisation, running costs of SJP etc) – total £62.5m. In 2008 our wage bill was £70m and other costs were £50m – total £120m. So working forward from this mystery projection and bringing in the revised estimates in the latest email (and whose revised estimates are these?) the assumption is now that the accounts for the year end 30th June 2010 will look something like this: INCOME: TV £8m Parachute £11m Matchday £27m Commercial £29 TOTAL INCOME = £75m PROFIT ON PLAYER TRADING = £19M COSTS Wages £38m Other Costs £10m TOTAL COSTS = £48M Therefore Profit for the year will be £75m + £19m - £48m = £46m You could question almost every number in that scenario but a few points that occur to me: - Have we actually taken £32m out of our wage bill since 2008? - Is it possible that we have cut other costs by £40m since 2008? - Is our commercial income in the Championship really more than it was when we were in the Premiership in 2008? Sorry this is so long and hope it can be followed by those interested!

Surely Jose will only go where there is money to be spent?

Surely now Parky wins this one.........

Got to admit i am struggling to see how we could make a profit though. i cant see any way we're making profit this year reduced income wages while lower still are a huge percentage of our current income We arent talking this year, the accounts would end on 30 June 2009 even then i cant see a profit for last season our wage bill was 60-70m last year by estimates in papers and our income usually lies around the 80-100m mark in the prem and there are other bills that need to be paid There will be a fairly hefty profit on sale of players in the 2009 accounts. Milner, Given, Zoggy all went out in that period. So you would expect a profit of about £25m going through the P&L in 2009 on player sales. So if the rest of the club business lost less than that then there's an accounting profit on the way. But as has been said a few times on here the cash position is the real barometer and not the P&L.

Compared to £28m (including £6m of exceptional items) in 2007 and £20m (including £3m of exceptional items) in 2006. That's the cost of sorting out the club's finances from the mess they were in I guess. Not sure where you are coming from here. I haven't got the 2006 accounts to hand but in 2007 turnover was £87m, wages were £60m and the other costs were £61m which is why we lost £34m that year. From Note 3 in the accounts - operating expenses before player amortisation & trading The main expenses (I'm missing out some smaller values to save typing) are: staff costs - £62,475,000 deprecation on fixed assets - £3,228,000 + £208,000 owen compo (£6,725,000) operating lease payments - £1,115,000 other operating charges - £26,940,000 total = £87,411,000 ergo the "running costs" people are talking about = £1,115,000 + £26,940,000 = £28m (Around £6m of which is later detailed as manager and board payoffs and costs for the aborted refinancing package). The £61m you are talking about I guess must include player amortisation & trading which was specifically being left out. Ok - using your definition the comparable figure in 2008 was £28m. But my reference to £50m in the post above was simply all cost except wages so yes it does include amortisation etc. The point of my post came from the earlier discussion on WBA accounts and I wouldn't recommend revisiting that particular topic

Compared to £28m (including £6m of exceptional items) in 2007 and £20m (including £3m of exceptional items) in 2006. That's the cost of sorting out the club's finances from the mess they were in I guess. Not sure where you are coming from here. I haven't got the 2006 accounts to hand but in 2007 turnover was £87m, wages were £60m and the other costs were £61m which is why we lost £34m that year. Edit - have now checked out 2006 - Turnover £83m, wages £52m and other costs £43m = loss of £12m. 2006 was only an 11 month accounting period so that puts the other costs at about £47m on an annual basis.

Are you on drugs? Turnover - £27m less wages - £21m is £6m Do you lie in a world where football clubs dont pay any other costs? WBA would have made a P&L loss without the profit on player transfers. For some reason their accounts don't include a cash flow but it looks like their cash usage was close to neutral over the 12 months. But as you said in an earlier post comparisons with us and WBA aren't too relevant. I was more interested in the kind of money we can expect in the Championship when mentioning them. It was more of a contrast than a compare. They got £14m tv money, it's safe to say we'll be getting more than that this year. They got £2.2m in merchandise, it's safe to say we'll be getting more than that this year. They got £4m other commercial income, it's safe to say we'll be getting more than that this year. They got £7m gate + matchday, 43,000 paying £20 each over 23 games is £19.8m before pies or pints. So where they earned £27.2m in the championship, it's unclear what we've earned but it's safe to say it's clearly in excess of £40m. Llambias said it was £50m. They spent £22m on wages (80%), we're spending £35m on wages (70%) Not saying you are wrong but that's an interesting statement on our wages - you got a source for that? That would mean we have taken £35m out of our wage bill since 2008.

In 2008 our other (non wages) costs were £50m - god knows how much of that is still there now, but the running costs of the training ground and SJP won't come cheap.

I've got the WBA accounts in front of me and they show: Income 28m Less: Wages 22m Less: Other costs 13m So Loss before player trading = (7m) Profit on player trading = 18m So accounting profit for the year = 11m Can we call it a day on WBA now and wait for our results to hit

Are you on drugs? Turnover - £27m less wages - £21m is £6m Do you lie in a world where football clubs dont pay any other costs? WBA would have made a P&L loss without the profit on player transfers. For some reason their accounts don't include a cash flow but it looks like their cash usage was close to neutral over the 12 months. But as you said in an earlier post comparisons with us and WBA aren't too relevant.

If buying players only affects the P&L over time (ie spend over the period of the contract), surely the same is the case for selling players? Profits/losses on player sales are shown in the year the player is sold. Example: Player is bought for £8 million on a 4 year contract. The P&L is charged (amortisation) £2 million every year of the contract. If however the player is sold after 2 years for £6 million then the P&L will show a profit that year of £2 million - being £6 million less the written down value of the player of £4 million(8-4). Edit: Just for clarification - once the player has been sold no further charges are made to the P&L and the player disappears from the club accounts. So given what we paid for the players sold in the last 5 months, shouldn't the profit on players in the last 5 months be hefty? Genuine question.... Bassong is bought for £0 on a 4 year contract. The P&L is charged (amortisation) £0 million every year of the contract. However the player is sold after 1 year for £8 million then the P&L will show a profit that year of £8 million - being £8 million more the marked up value of the player of £8 million(8-0). and the other players were Martins Beye and Duff who's combined profit/loss is dwarfed by the size of the bassong deal. Similarly large profits would have been realised on Given, Nzogbia and Milner recently too if I understand you right. No? I've got a feeling that you're thinking along the lines of highlighting this "profit" as reasons against Ashley when the accounts are released, non? Not particularly. The only thing I slag Ashley off for is lying. I'm only posting in here because people are saying it's ridiculous to think for a moment that the club could currently be making money and I still can't see how it isn't (at least before profit is used to satisfy the debt to Ashley). That's not to say Ashley has taken out more than he's put in or that if he were to sell at the moment he would walk off with a profit. You have got to remember that its only an accounting profit anyway. I'm sure we have in reality lost money on Martins in terms of fees paid and received, but the accounts will show a profit Yup - cash flow is the only real tool of running a business. You can show a profit in the P&L but if a good chunk of your income is in stage payments (for example) then you can still have negative cash flows and need to stick money in for working capital in order to survive.

If buying players only affects the P&L over time (ie spend over the period of the contract), surely the same is the case for selling players? Profits/losses on player sales are shown in the year the player is sold. Example: Player is bought for £8 million on a 4 year contract. The P&L is charged (amortisation) £2 million every year of the contract. If however the player is sold after 2 years for £6 million then the P&L will show a profit that year of £2 million - being £6 million less the written down value of the player of £4 million(8-4). Edit: Just for clarification - once the player has been sold no further charges are made to the P&L and the player disappears from the club accounts.

The problem, of course, is that the NUST email implies something entirely different - but I think your interpretation of how that garbled mess came to be there is spot on.

Companies House released our accounts 10 days earlier than the year before, our last two set of accounts have been released on 26th January 2008 then 16th January 2009. We've got no say over when they will be released, we have a time scale to file them and then it's out of our hands. Companies House can't release the accounts until they have been submitted - and the club has until 31st March to submit them. If we submit them some time in January then they will be released a few days after that - if we submit them at the end of March it's the same story. Companies House can't release them until we file them. That's basically what I said in my last sentence. Rightly or wrongly I read your earlier post as saying that the fact that the results were released in January was nothing to do with the club. It so clearly was everything to do with the club. They could have waited another 2 months to file the accounts and they would have been released when the transfer window was well done. And apologies if I've misunderstood the point behind your post.

Regardless of whether that's true or not - right now I can't think of many more cynical, mercenary c*nts than Lucas Neill.

Companies House released our accounts 10 days earlier than the year before, our last two set of accounts have been released on 26th January 2008 then 16th January 2009. We've got no say over when they will be released, we have a time scale to file them and then it's out of our hands. Companies House can't release the accounts until they have been submitted - and the club has until 31st March to submit them. If we submit them some time in January then they will be released a few days after that - if we submit them at the end of March it's the same story. Companies House can't release them until we file them. And we choose when to file them.

One of the few things they've done so far which has been proven is that when they say they put money in, they put money in and we should see a new set of accounts any day now. That seems to be true. It's almost like there's an unwritten code on what they can lie about and what they can't lie about. So the rules allow them to say there are a number of punters offering £100m for the club and it's fair game - a bit like "closing down sale" or "75% off". It's a marketing tactic and who cares about any of that shyte? But so far, as you say "Mike has stuck £20m in" seems to be in different territory. Let's see.

So considering they were still in debt after this its hardly a good set of figures as an example(not that the whole size/background differences ever made it a fair one) Yes, totally different economics involved tbh - for example the running costs of the Hawthorns wouldn't be close to those of SJP.

Player sales? Yup they made an £18m profit on selling players. Koumas, Kamara, Ellington and Kuszczak left them that year for decent fees.

Link? The thing is he can't do exactly what he wants. The only ways he personally can take money out is by salary or dividends. As far as anyone is aware he isn't an employee so can't take a salary. And he can only receive a dividend if the club has positive reserves and in June 2008 the reserves were negative by £113m. The only other way money could go his way is if Sports Direct are receiving anything for services provided - but that would need to be disclosed in the accounts so cannot be hidden. That was kind of how i thought it worked, cheers Had another thought on this. I had a quick look back through the 2008 accounts and was reminded that Ashley's loan agreement allows him to charge interest. He didn't charge any interest in 2008, but I suppose he could start to do so if he wished, and get his hands on some money that way. The rate is LIBOR + 0.5%, which at current rates tots up to about 1.15%, so its not big potatoes as such - certainly nothing like £7m a month.......

Well that begs the question as to whether Ashley receiving a loan repayment, in whatever form, is taking money out of the club - it isn't for me.

Link? The thing is he can't do exactly what he wants. The only ways he personally can take money out is by salary or dividends. As far as anyone is aware he isn't an employee so can't take a salary. And he can only receive a dividend if the club has positive reserves and in June 2008 the reserves were negative by £113m. The only other way money could go his way is if Sports Direct are receiving anything for services provided - but that would need to be disclosed in the accounts so cannot be hidden.