Slugsy Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 To be fair we only had an operating loss of £300k - the £33m loss was a mix of paper depreciation of players (c£16m), an exceptional impairment charge of £7m for Luque, losses on disposal of players and interest charges. Additionally, they have changed their year end which means that these accounts incorporate 2 summer transfer windows instead of 1, which given our trading and buying of players recently doesn't make these numbers a surprise. Interesting that the net outlay on players was £5.4m compared to the previous year of £25.2m! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 So 23m is amortisation and write off of Luque and the net liabilities position includes the stadium loan. Not as bad as originally painted then. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shaun11177 Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 In layman terms for all you non accountants: Turnover 87m Wages 55m Operating costs 20m Interest charges 6m net transfers 6m Refinancing costs-before the takeover FS was trying to er rearrange the debt-2m Roeder compensation-1.1m Cash loss was about 5m I have read the accs but dont have them in front of me but these are roughly the figures. Without doubt the wages had got out of hand and still are way too high and would have been higher if we hadnt received 7m for Owen. The interest charges on the debt were getting higher. The debt was about 70m on the stadium+we owed about 13m on players. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 Thanks to quayside for his objective and professionally sound descrpition of the accounts then... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
quayside Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 To be fair we only had an operating loss of £300k - the £33m loss was a mix of paper depreciation of players (c£16m), an exceptional impairment charge of £7m for Luque, losses on disposal of players and interest charges. Additionally, they have changed their year end which means that these accounts incorporate 2 summer transfer windows instead of 1, which given our trading and buying of players recently doesn't make these numbers a surprise. Interesting that the net outlay on players was £5.4m compared to the previous year of £25.2m! The Luque thing was a one off. But the amortisation of players and the finance costs are charges that occur every year and just about every football club has them though. Accumulated trading losses of £93 million at 30/06/07. Not healthy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mouldy_uk Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 As we have no debt now, does that make us technically better of than Liverpool & Manure who have huge debts against their names. Or does it all depend on how you look at it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 To be fair we only had an operating loss of £300k - the £33m loss was a mix of paper depreciation of players (c£16m), an exceptional impairment charge of £7m for Luque, losses on disposal of players and interest charges. Additionally, they have changed their year end which means that these accounts incorporate 2 summer transfer windows instead of 1, which given our trading and buying of players recently doesn't make these numbers a surprise. Interesting that the net outlay on players was £5.4m compared to the previous year of £25.2m! The Luque thing was a one off. But the amortisation of players and the finance costs are charges that occur every year and just about every football club has them though. Accumulated losses of £93 million at 30/06/07. Not healthy. Amortisation is just a way of valuing your assets and is not a real cost though. We all know that spending 16m on Owen doesnt mean we still have a 16m asset. Noone comes along and takes that depreciated value off us. I thought you said you had qualified? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
quayside Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 To be fair we only had an operating loss of £300k - the £33m loss was a mix of paper depreciation of players (c£16m), an exceptional impairment charge of £7m for Luque, losses on disposal of players and interest charges. Additionally, they have changed their year end which means that these accounts incorporate 2 summer transfer windows instead of 1, which given our trading and buying of players recently doesn't make these numbers a surprise. Interesting that the net outlay on players was £5.4m compared to the previous year of £25.2m! The Luque thing was a one off. But the amortisation of players and the finance costs are charges that occur every year and just about every football club has them though. Accumulated losses of £93 million at 30/06/07. Not healthy. Amortisation is just a way of valuing your assets and is not a real cost though. We all know that spending 16m on Owen doesnt mean we still have a 16m asset. Noone comes along and takes that depreciated value off us. I thought you said you had qualified? Of course its a cost. If you don't amortise the costs of purchasing, for example, Michael Owen then you would take the hit of £16 million in your profit and loss account in one go. All amortisation does is spread that cost .i.e. £4 million over 4 years. So you think we didn't shell out that money on Owen then? Its not a fictional cost ffs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 it's like watching one of those nature shows where suddenly a rival male shows up to challenge the established patriarch Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mouldy_uk Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 Accountant FIGHT!!!!!.... :shepherd: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colos Short and Curlies Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 Don't make me come in there with my bitch stick boys! The silver back accountant is in the building! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NG32 Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyhhFzE5O5U Battle of the accountants. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 To be fair we only had an operating loss of £300k - the £33m loss was a mix of paper depreciation of players (c£16m), an exceptional impairment charge of £7m for Luque, losses on disposal of players and interest charges. Additionally, they have changed their year end which means that these accounts incorporate 2 summer transfer windows instead of 1, which given our trading and buying of players recently doesn't make these numbers a surprise. Interesting that the net outlay on players was £5.4m compared to the previous year of £25.2m! The Luque thing was a one off. But the amortisation of players and the finance costs are charges that occur every year and just about every football club has them though. Accumulated losses of £93 million at 30/06/07. Not healthy. Amortisation is just a way of valuing your assets and is not a real cost though. We all know that spending 16m on Owen doesnt mean we still have a 16m asset. Noone comes along and takes that depreciated value off us. I thought you said you had qualified? Of course its a cost. If you don't amortise the costs of purchasing, for example, Michael Owen then you would take the hit of £16 million in your profit and loss account in one go. All amortisation does is spread that cost .i.e. £4 million over 4 years. So you think we didn't shell out that money on Owen then? Its not a fictional cost ffs. It doesnt affect the cash flow is what i meant, you seemed to inisinuate we were paying money. Its just deprecation in the value of assets, nothing more. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dogmatix Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 To be fair we only had an operating loss of £300k - the £33m loss was a mix of paper depreciation of players (c£16m), an exceptional impairment charge of £7m for Luque, losses on disposal of players and interest charges. Additionally, they have changed their year end which means that these accounts incorporate 2 summer transfer windows instead of 1, which given our trading and buying of players recently doesn't make these numbers a surprise. Interesting that the net outlay on players was £5.4m compared to the previous year of £25.2m! The Luque thing was a one off. But the amortisation of players and the finance costs are charges that occur every year and just about every football club has them though. Accumulated losses of £93 million at 30/06/07. Not healthy. Amortisation is just a way of valuing your assets and is not a real cost though. We all know that spending 16m on Owen doesnt mean we still have a 16m asset. Noone comes along and takes that depreciated value off us. I thought you said you had qualified? Of course its a cost. If you don't amortise the costs of purchasing, for example, Michael Owen then you would take the hit of £16 million in your profit and loss account in one go. All amortisation does is spread that cost .i.e. £4 million over 4 years. So you think we didn't shell out that money on Owen then? Its not a fictional cost ffs. It doesnt affect the cash flow is what i meant, you seemed to inisinuate we were paying money. Its just deprecation in the value of assets, nothing more. Thank God for that Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TooonDoom Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 Freddy Shepherd got nothing. I wonder why Shepherd would agree to that Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 Freddy Shepherd got nothing. I wonder why Shepherd would agree to that Chairing Newcastle to the average 5th best league finish over the last 10 years was reward enough I suppose. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
quayside Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 To be fair we only had an operating loss of £300k - the £33m loss was a mix of paper depreciation of players (c£16m), an exceptional impairment charge of £7m for Luque, losses on disposal of players and interest charges. Additionally, they have changed their year end which means that these accounts incorporate 2 summer transfer windows instead of 1, which given our trading and buying of players recently doesn't make these numbers a surprise. Interesting that the net outlay on players was £5.4m compared to the previous year of £25.2m! The Luque thing was a one off. But the amortisation of players and the finance costs are charges that occur every year and just about every football club has them though. Accumulated losses of £93 million at 30/06/07. Not healthy. Amortisation is just a way of valuing your assets and is not a real cost though. We all know that spending 16m on Owen doesnt mean we still have a 16m asset. Noone comes along and takes that depreciated value off us. I thought you said you had qualified? Of course its a cost. If you don't amortise the costs of purchasing, for example, Michael Owen then you would take the hit of £16 million in your profit and loss account in one go. All amortisation does is spread that cost .i.e. £4 million over 4 years. So you think we didn't shell out that money on Owen then? Its not a fictional cost ffs. It doesnt affect the cash flow is what i meant, you seemed to inisinuate we were paying money. Its just deprecation in the value of assets, nothing more. The cash on the players has gone, its spent. The amortisation through the profit and loss allows the club to spread that cash spend over the years of the players' contracts. Its a very real cost, relates to real money and you can't just brush it off. It really does not relate to something mythical that never happened. And by the way I have no agenda. I was curious about what happened and had a look. I read all the stuff about Ashley paying off the debt and the club being in a worse state than he'd thought etc and thought that Mort might be portraying it as being more heroic than it actually was. Not especially you but if anyone can look at the clubs balance sheet as at 30/06/07 and think that its ok lets hear why. Accumulated trading losses of £92 million And net liabilities of £16 million Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UV Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 Can one of you accountants please tell me what qualifications I need to get to "earn" £2.9 million by giving some advice on refinancing a loan. :fictionaltheologicalcharacterwept: I thought people like Willie McKay were leeches, but that takes some beating. Question: If player amortisation costs are included in the losses does that mean that player transfer fees are not included? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 Can one of you accountants please tell me what qualifications I need to get to "earn" £2.9 million by giving some advice on refinancing a loan. 'Yes, I got your letter. Don't do it. Yes, I take Paypal.' Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
quayside Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 Can one of you accountants please tell me what qualifications I need to get to "earn" £2.9 million by giving some advice on refinancing a loan. :fictionaltheologicalcharacterwept: I thought people like Willie McKay were leeches, but that takes some beating. Question: If player amortisation costs are included in the losses does that mean that player transfer fees are not included? You need to be a qualified accountant to earn that sort of money for a bit of aborted advice Transfer fees go into the prfit or loss on disposal of players registrations - in our case that showed a loss of £2 million for the year. I should think that Boumsong may have contributed to that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 To be fair we only had an operating loss of £300k - the £33m loss was a mix of paper depreciation of players (c£16m), an exceptional impairment charge of £7m for Luque, losses on disposal of players and interest charges. Additionally, they have changed their year end which means that these accounts incorporate 2 summer transfer windows instead of 1, which given our trading and buying of players recently doesn't make these numbers a surprise. Interesting that the net outlay on players was £5.4m compared to the previous year of £25.2m! The Luque thing was a one off. But the amortisation of players and the finance costs are charges that occur every year and just about every football club has them though. Accumulated losses of £93 million at 30/06/07. Not healthy. Amortisation is just a way of valuing your assets and is not a real cost though. We all know that spending 16m on Owen doesnt mean we still have a 16m asset. Noone comes along and takes that depreciated value off us. I thought you said you had qualified? Of course its a cost. If you don't amortise the costs of purchasing, for example, Michael Owen then you would take the hit of £16 million in your profit and loss account in one go. All amortisation does is spread that cost .i.e. £4 million over 4 years. So you think we didn't shell out that money on Owen then? Its not a fictional cost ffs. It doesnt affect the cash flow is what i meant, you seemed to inisinuate we were paying money. Its just deprecation in the value of assets, nothing more. The cash on the players has gone, its spent. The amortisation through the profit and loss allows the club to spread that cash spend over the years of the players' contracts. Its a very real cost, relates to real money and you can't just brush it off. It really does not relate to something mythical that never happened. And by the way I have no agenda. I was curious about what happened and had a look. I read all the stuff about Ashley paying off the debt and the club being in a worse state than he'd thought etc and thought that Mort might be portraying it as being more heroic than it actually was. Not especially you but if anyone can look at the clubs balance sheet as at 30/06/07 and think that its ok lets hear why. Accumulated trading losses of £92 million And net liabilities of £16 million No agenda and yet you've put words in my mouth twice now. 'Fictional cost', never said that 'something mythical that never happened', never said that either. The key issue is that revenues and costs were balanced, the club makes a loss due to the acccounting practice but that loss doesnt mean the club is anymore in debt. It may increase its debt position elsewhere (for other reasons) but the 'recorded losses' dont mean that our real costs are greater than our revenues hence pushing the club towards bankruptcy. Its not like we had spent all 87m and then had to borrow money to pay the amortisation costs is it? They just get written down in the accounts and affect the tax position (in this case in a positive way). You can run a business like that forever as long as all operating costs are met. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
quayside Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 To be fair we only had an operating loss of £300k - the £33m loss was a mix of paper depreciation of players (c£16m), an exceptional impairment charge of £7m for Luque, losses on disposal of players and interest charges. Additionally, they have changed their year end which means that these accounts incorporate 2 summer transfer windows instead of 1, which given our trading and buying of players recently doesn't make these numbers a surprise. Interesting that the net outlay on players was £5.4m compared to the previous year of £25.2m! The Luque thing was a one off. But the amortisation of players and the finance costs are charges that occur every year and just about every football club has them though. Accumulated losses of £93 million at 30/06/07. Not healthy. Amortisation is just a way of valuing your assets and is not a real cost though. We all know that spending 16m on Owen doesnt mean we still have a 16m asset. Noone comes along and takes that depreciated value off us. I thought you said you had qualified? Of course its a cost. If you don't amortise the costs of purchasing, for example, Michael Owen then you would take the hit of £16 million in your profit and loss account in one go. All amortisation does is spread that cost .i.e. £4 million over 4 years. So you think we didn't shell out that money on Owen then? Its not a fictional cost ffs. It doesnt affect the cash flow is what i meant, you seemed to inisinuate we were paying money. Its just deprecation in the value of assets, nothing more. The cash on the players has gone, its spent. The amortisation through the profit and loss allows the club to spread that cash spend over the years of the players' contracts. Its a very real cost, relates to real money and you can't just brush it off. It really does not relate to something mythical that never happened. And by the way I have no agenda. I was curious about what happened and had a look. I read all the stuff about Ashley paying off the debt and the club being in a worse state than he'd thought etc and thought that Mort might be portraying it as being more heroic than it actually was. Not especially you but if anyone can look at the clubs balance sheet as at 30/06/07 and think that its ok lets hear why. Accumulated trading losses of £92 million And net liabilities of £16 million No agenda and yet you've put words in my mouth twice now. 'Fictional cost', never said that 'something mythical that never happened', never said that either. The key issue is that revenues and costs were balanced, the club makes a loss due to the acccounting practice but that loss doesnt mean the club is anymore in debt. It may increase its debt position elsewhere (for other reasons) but the 'recorded losses' dont mean that our real costs are greater than our revenues hence pushing the club towards bankruptcy. Its not like we had spent all 87m and then had to borrow money to pay the amortisation costs is it? They just get written down in the accounts and affect the tax position (in this case in a positive way). You can run a business like that forever as long as all operating costs are met. I had assumed that when you said that amortisation was not a real cost (just checked and you did say that) that you were implying that it was in some way "fictional" or "mythical". Both of those words, I believe, mean not real. As I said - the club had accumulated trading losses of £92 million at 30/06/07. There is no accounting practice that the club adopts that has contributed to that being anything other than not very good. All losses have to be funded with real money eventually. The club was in a mess in my opinion. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 Can one of you accountants please tell me what qualifications I need to get to "earn" £2.9 million by giving some advice on refinancing a loan. :fictionaltheologicalcharacterwept: I thought people like Willie McKay were leeches, but that takes some beating. Question: If player amortisation costs are included in the losses does that mean that player transfer fees are not included? You need to be a qualified accountant to earn that sort of money for a bit of aborted advice You don't have to be an accountant (thankfully!) We'll just put you onto Ocean Finance anyway! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 So if we have a squad worth 50m and the clubs costs = revenues each year, as the squad value depreciates over time (representing a loss) who do we have to pay back? As slugsy said, its paper depreciation, not a cost that has to be paid to someone. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnypd Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 To be fair we only had an operating loss of £300k - the £33m loss was a mix of paper depreciation of players (c£16m), an exceptional impairment charge of £7m for Luque, losses on disposal of players and interest charges. Additionally, they have changed their year end which means that these accounts incorporate 2 summer transfer windows instead of 1, which given our trading and buying of players recently doesn't make these numbers a surprise. Interesting that the net outlay on players was £5.4m compared to the previous year of £25.2m! there was also an exceptional payment in for the Owen injury tho, also around £7m, which cancels out the Luque fee. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now