Guest The Fox Posted October 29, 2006 Share Posted October 29, 2006 From .com: Magpies and the missing month Rather strangely the PLC figures given this time out were for only an 11 month period. A check of the PLC results for the previous year reveals that they covered the period to 31.07.2005 - and reported a profit. Given that we played only one competitive home game in July 2006 (against Lillestrøm) and acquired the services of Damien Duff from Chelsea is the £12m loss not actually greater over the twelve month period? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colos Short and Curlies Posted October 29, 2006 Share Posted October 29, 2006 From .com: Magpies and the missing month Rather strangely the PLC figures given this time out were for only an 11 month period. A check of the PLC results for the previous year reveals that they covered the period to 31.07.2005 - and reported a profit. Given that we played only one competitive home game in July 2006 (against Lillestrøm) and acquired the services of Damien Duff from Chelsea is the £12m loss not actually greater over the twelve month period? The only impact the Duff signing will have is one months wages Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Fox Posted October 29, 2006 Share Posted October 29, 2006 What about the transfer Fee? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colos Short and Curlies Posted October 29, 2006 Share Posted October 29, 2006 What about the transfer Fee? It goes through profit over the length of his contract. Say he's on a five year contract £1million goes through each year as player ammortisation - thats £83k a month. Peanuts really for the loss. If you take player trading out of the equation we made a loss of £6m this year and last. We just managed to make a big profit on players last year (mainly Jenas) and a a loss this year (no significant sales). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted October 29, 2006 Share Posted October 29, 2006 Far from it for me to defend them, but NUFC had to report 11 months this year, it was due to a change in finiancial regulations that everyone had to comply with. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted October 29, 2006 Share Posted October 29, 2006 From .com: Magpies and the missing month Rather strangely the PLC figures given this time out were for only an 11 month period. A check of the PLC results for the previous year reveals that they covered the period to 31.07.2005 - and reported a profit. Given that we played only one competitive home game in July 2006 (against Lillestrøm) and acquired the services of Damien Duff from Chelsea is the £12m loss not actually greater over the twelve month period? Dave beat me to it with his post above. Anything you can grasp at, eh John? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shaun11177 Posted October 29, 2006 Share Posted October 29, 2006 The accounts are easy to understand. The income was 83m-we spent 83m on wages etc. We spent 25m on players financed by reducing the cash in the bank from 17m to 3m and borrowing another 11m. It really is as simple as that. The club isnt generating any money for transfers because the wages at 50m are too high.The wages need to be 40m. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted October 29, 2006 Share Posted October 29, 2006 The accounts are easy to understand. The income was 83m-we spent 83m on wages etc. We spent 25m on players financed by reducing the cash in the bank from 17m to 3m and borrowing another 11m. It really is as simple as that. The club isnt generating any money for transfers because the wages at 50m are too high.The wages need to be 40m. And some will be moaning when we don't bring in new players in January. It really does all come back to Souness's destruction of the team and the signing of players we didn't need in order to clear out the 'cancers', a task supported by most of the people on here who are moaning now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted October 29, 2006 Share Posted October 29, 2006 And some will be moaning when we don't bring in new players in January. It really does all come back to Souness's destruction of the team and the signing of players we didn't need in order to clear out the 'cancers', a task supported by most of the people on here who are moaning now. And that brings us back to the moron who appointed Souness, not the fans who backed him for whatever reason. I don't know of a single person who wanted Souness appointed, other than Shepherd. People may have backed him once appointed, none wanted him appointed in the first place, understand? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted October 29, 2006 Share Posted October 29, 2006 And some will be moaning when we don't bring in new players in January. It really does all come back to Souness's destruction of the team and the signing of players we didn't need in order to clear out the 'cancers', a task supported by most of the people on here who are moaning now. And that brings us back to the moron who appointed Souness, not the fans who backed him for whatever reason. Mick. I'm frankly tired of you spouting off the bit about the "moron who appointed Souness". The fact is, supporters do count, otherwise why are you and others now trying to get up some kind of momentum to get Fred out? You should have been doing it to get Souness out. Many people supported Souness's efforts to get rid of the likes of Bellamy and Robert, they fully supported the funding of Souness to build his own team before judging him. Had there been even the ripple of the shite people like you are trying to kick off right now Souness may have gone earlier. We all know the ultimate responsibility lies with the Board, but don't try to tell me that they are immune to the noises of the supporters. You're a couple of years too late and the sooner you and your ilk accept that you've got what you wished for the better you'll feel. People swallowed the propaganda and tripe (people like me were slated for calling it that) from Souness and his entourage so the Board was under little or no pressure to get rid of Souness until it was obvious to most. It's never been obvious to omarse and some others. It was said then that people should be careful what they wish for, they are now seeing the result. It could be the same wishing for Fred to go, I don't expect you to understand though. You're incapable of learning any lessons of time. I don't know of a single person who wanted Souness appointed, other than Shepherd. People may have backed him once appointed, none wanted him appointed in the first place, understand? That's a ridiculously juvenile statement. Do you really believe Fred on his own selected and appointed Souness? What is the significance of someone being on a dream list of supporters on a forum? Souness was never mentioned as a candidate by supporters on here but then why would he be? They scoff at the idea of Dave Jones or Paul Jewell, good solid managers who are realistic targets and who would both be better than Souness and Roeder. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted October 29, 2006 Share Posted October 29, 2006 And some will be moaning when we don't bring in new players in January. It really does all come back to Souness's destruction of the team and the signing of players we didn't need in order to clear out the 'cancers', a task supported by most of the people on here who are moaning now. And that brings us back to the moron who appointed Souness, not the fans who backed him for whatever reason. Mick. I'm frankly tired of you spouting off the bit about the "moron who appointed Souness". The fact is, supporters do count, otherwise why are you and others now trying to get up some kind of momentum to get Fred out? You should have been doing it to get Souness out. Many people supported Souness's efforts to get rid of the likes of Bellamy and Robert, they fully supported the funding of Souness to build his own team before judging him. Had there been even the ripple of the shite people like you are trying to kick off right now Souness may have gone earlier. We all know the ultimate responsibility lies with the Board, but don't try to tell me that they are immune to the noises of the supporters. You're a couple of years too late and the sooner you and your ilk accept that you've got what you wished for the better you'll feel. People swallowed the propaganda and tripe (people like me were slated for calling it that) from Souness and his entourage so the Board was under little or no pressure to get rid of Souness until it was obvious to most. It's never been obvious to omarse and some others. It was said then that people should be careful what they wish for, they are now seeing the result. It could be the same wishing for Fred to go, I don't expect you to understand though. You're incapable of learning any lessons of time. I don't know of a single person who wanted Souness appointed, other than Shepherd. People may have backed him once appointed, none wanted him appointed in the first place, understand? That's a ridiculously juvenile statement. Do you really believe Fred on his own selected and appointed Souness? What is the significance of someone being on a dream list of supporters on a forum? Souness was never mentioned as a candidate by supporters on here but then why would he be? They scoff at the idea of Dave Jones or Paul Jewell, good solid managers who are realistic targets and who would both be better than Souness and Roeder. You talk a load of crap at times, I've never supported Souness being at our club at any time and did all I could to get rid of him in the limited way I could. I have not got what I wished for, where do you get that from? I can only guess that it fits your argument so it must be true, even if you have nothing to back it up, I was as much against Souness as I am now against Shepherd and if you had any kind of memory then you wouldn't be clutching at straws like that to defend Shepherd, you're laughable. Regarding "You're incapable of learning any lessons of time," maybe you should practice that one yourself and learn from history, the club is going backwards and showing no signs of changing direction, you should learn from history that clubs in free fall usually get relegated, by the time you wake up it'll be far too late. Shepherd did appoint Souness, look at the people on our board and tell me that Shepherd doesn't hold the power, I've tried to enlighten you before but you seem incapable of taking things in, Shepherd and his family have more boardroom votes than the Halls so could have easily scuppered any motion to appoint Souness if that is what he wanted to do, assuming as you do that it wasn't his choice, something which once again you have nothing to back it up. Like it or not, Shepherd is the person who appointed Souness and that was a moronic decision, I'll take that back when you prove otherwise. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted October 29, 2006 Share Posted October 29, 2006 And some will be moaning when we don't bring in new players in January. It really does all come back to Souness's destruction of the team and the signing of players we didn't need in order to clear out the 'cancers', a task supported by most of the people on here who are moaning now. And that brings us back to the moron who appointed Souness, not the fans who backed him for whatever reason. Mick. I'm frankly tired of you spouting off the bit about the "moron who appointed Souness". The fact is, supporters do count, otherwise why are you and others now trying to get up some kind of momentum to get Fred out? You should have been doing it to get Souness out. Many people supported Souness's efforts to get rid of the likes of Bellamy and Robert, they fully supported the funding of Souness to build his own team before judging him. Had there been even the ripple of the shite people like you are trying to kick off right now Souness may have gone earlier. We all know the ultimate responsibility lies with the Board, but don't try to tell me that they are immune to the noises of the supporters. You're a couple of years too late and the sooner you and your ilk accept that you've got what you wished for the better you'll feel. People swallowed the propaganda and tripe (people like me were slated for calling it that) from Souness and his entourage so the Board was under little or no pressure to get rid of Souness until it was obvious to most. It's never been obvious to omarse and some others. It was said then that people should be careful what they wish for, they are now seeing the result. It could be the same wishing for Fred to go, I don't expect you to understand though. You're incapable of learning any lessons of time. I don't know of a single person who wanted Souness appointed, other than Shepherd. People may have backed him once appointed, none wanted him appointed in the first place, understand? That's a ridiculously juvenile statement. Do you really believe Fred on his own selected and appointed Souness? What is the significance of someone being on a dream list of supporters on a forum? Souness was never mentioned as a candidate by supporters on here but then why would he be? They scoff at the idea of Dave Jones or Paul Jewell, good solid managers who are realistic targets and who would both be better than Souness and Roeder. You talk a load of crap at times, I've never supported Souness being at our club at any time and did all I could to get rid of him in the limited way I could. I have not got what I wished for, where do you get that from? I can only guess that it fits your argument so it must be true, even if you have nothing to back it up, I was as much against Souness as I am now against Shepherd and if you had any kind of memory then you wouldn't be clutching at straws like that to defend Shepherd, you're laughable. Regarding "You're incapable of learning any lessons of time," maybe you should practice that one yourself and learn from history, the club is going backwards and showing no signs of changing direction, you should learn from history that clubs in free fall usually get relegated, by the time you wake up it'll be far too late. Shepherd did appoint Souness, look at the people on our board and tell me that Shepherd doesn't hold the power, I've tried to enlighten you before but you seem incapable of taking things in, Shepherd and his family have more boardroom votes than the Halls so could have easily scuppered any motion to appoint Souness if that is what he wanted to do, assuming as you do that it wasn't his choice, something which once again you have nothing to back it up. Like it or not, Shepherd is the person who appointed Souness and that was a moronic decision, I'll take that back when you prove otherwise. Jesus, you're thick. Do you take EVERYTHING in a post as being aimed DIRECTLY at you? I said "people", I'm talking about supporters in general. I know you didn't rate Souness ffs. BTW There is no way at all that Fred would have been the only person the Board who wanted Souness. None. If you believe otherwise then you have a problem. As for the idea that you could enlighten me? ho ho ho Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted October 29, 2006 Share Posted October 29, 2006 Jesus, you're thick. Do you take EVERYTHING in a post as being aimed DIRECTLY at you? I said "people", I'm talking about supporters in general. I know you didn't rate Souness ffs. BTW There is no way at all that Fred would have been the only person the Board who wanted Souness. None. If you believe otherwise then you have a problem. As for the idea that you could enlighten me? ho ho ho For a start, why bring Jesus into this, are you about to claim that he appointed Souness? Words like "the sooner you and your ilk accept that you've got what you wished for the better you'll feel" tend to point the comments towards me, I guess English isn't your strong point. Nobody has said that Shepherd was the only one who wanted Souness, he may or may not have been. What has been said is that Shepherd appointed him and he did, or are you about to tell us that he didn't. As for the enlighten bit, old dog and new tricks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Fox Posted October 29, 2006 Share Posted October 29, 2006 From .com: Magpies and the missing month Rather strangely the PLC figures given this time out were for only an 11 month period. A check of the PLC results for the previous year reveals that they covered the period to 31.07.2005 - and reported a profit. Given that we played only one competitive home game in July 2006 (against Lillestrøm) and acquired the services of Damien Duff from Chelsea is the £12m loss not actually greater over the twelve month period? Dave beat me to it with his post above. Anything you can grasp at, eh John? I was merely posting an article from .com. I made no comment myself on the authenticity or otherwise. Obviously you could not grasp that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted October 29, 2006 Share Posted October 29, 2006 Jesus, you're thick. Do you take EVERYTHING in a post as being aimed DIRECTLY at you? I said "people", I'm talking about supporters in general. I know you didn't rate Souness ffs. BTW There is no way at all that Fred would have been the only person the Board who wanted Souness. None. If you believe otherwise then you have a problem. As for the idea that you could enlighten me? ho ho ho For a start, why bring Jesus into this, are you about to claim that he appointed Souness? Words like "the sooner you and your ilk accept that you've got what you wished for the better you'll feel" tend to point the comments towards me, I guess English isn't your strong point. Nobody has said that Shepherd was the only one who wanted Souness, he may or may not have been. What has been said is that Shepherd appointed him and he did, or are you about to tell us that he didn't. As for the enlighten bit, old dog and new tricks. OMG Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
macbeth Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 The results contain this paragraph ... "The acquisition of players and their related payroll costs, are on eof the most significant and high preofile risks facing the Group. The approval of all player transfers isa matter specifically reserved for decision by the board" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 The results contain this paragraph ... "The acquisition of players and their related payroll costs, are on eof the most significant and high preofile risks facing the Group. The approval of all player transfers isa matter specifically reserved for decision by the board" Errr aye. The Board sanction the release of funds for all transfers. Do you think the cleaner does it, or something? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzieMandias Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 The results contain this paragraph ... "The acquisition of players and their related payroll costs, are on eof the most significant and high preofile risks facing the Group. The approval of all player transfers isa matter specifically reserved for decision by the board" Errr aye. The Board sanction the release of funds for all transfers. Do you think the cleaner does it, or something? Yep, as you so correctly point out, the board are to blame for leading the club into debt. 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