ToonTastic Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 Are you saying we need to pay back £67m this year !!!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Canny_Fettle Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 Are you saying we need to pay back £67m this year !!!! Not quite - some of that is deferred income from the likes of Northern Rock and Adidas - which i think was about £24m over the next 12 months. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitman Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 Are you saying we need to pay back £67m this year !!!! I'm not an accountant so I'm sure someone will correct me if this is wrong. Your current liabilities are made up of everything the company is liable to pay in the short term, generally less than one year. This includes trade creditors (ie trade purchases), tax, short term finance such as hire purchase/finance leases and the amounts owed to staff and external parties like accountants. It will also include the proportion of bank debt that it is repayable within one year. It's up to the company when it repays its current liabilities and how it finances this. The company has its debtors and cash to pay its liabilities out of, so before you panic too much you need to look at the other side of the balance sheet to see the assets available out of which it can pay its creditors. Trade debtors will generally all be less than one year, so as long as they are good debts they should be collectable in the short tem and available to finance current creditors, plus any available cash. Generally companies will juggle their cash and borrow against debtors if there's a shortfall. Obviously if creditors exceed debtors the company is technically insolvent, but in the case of NUFC there is a massive share capital to offset the deficit of liabilities over assets. The problem comes if all the cash has been burned through meaning that any further net liabilities have to be financed out of further borrowings. This is the position I think we're in now. Hope that makes sense! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToonTastic Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 Assests come in about £163m so they are more than the loans. We apparently have £3m in cash so that's not good I take it ? It was £17m at the end of the last period. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Canny_Fettle Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 Assests come in about £163m so they are more than the loans. We apparently have £3m in cash so that's not good I take it ? It was £17m at the end of the last period. Our cash flow situation is very worrying - this is the hard cash required to run the business - this years cash flow statement states there is more cash going out then coming in. We forked out £36m in cash for transfers this year compared to £19m last year. (Note that this may not have been for this years transfers as a lot of transfers are certain % upfront followed by payment of cash over a period). We received £10m in player sales this year compared to £19m last year. This to me is the most worrying aspect of the accounts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 That article says it covers the likes of the Owen deal. In which case, a loss of £12m is a lot better than what could have been expected. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Canny_Fettle Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 £800,000 spent acquiring Souness from Blackburn. Ouch. Also interesting to note that these results are only based on 11 months, rather than 12. This means some figures look better and some worse than usual. The easiest £800k that Blackburn have ever made - thay must have laughed themselves shitless given that they were probably having sleepness nights wondering how they were going to pay for Souness's inpending compensation package. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToonTastic Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 That article says it covers the likes of the Owen deal. In which case, a loss of £12m is a lot better than what could have been expected. Only because it is added as a new loan though surely ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 Assests come in about £163m so they are more than the loans. We apparently have £3m in cash so that's not good I take it ? It was £17m at the end of the last period. Does it take into account how much Shepherd has been dipping into the petty cash for his pies? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitman Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 Assests come in about £163m so they are more than the loans. We apparently have £3m in cash so that's not good I take it ? It was £17m at the end of the last period. The balance sheet is a snapshot of the club's position on a certain date, so it's the trends you look for really. I haven't looked at the figures but based on what you say the trend on cash is not good. Having said that, many businesses borrow to fund their working capital so it's not a disaster in itself, but it's worrying if in conjunction with heavy and continued losses. At flotation we raised a great deal of cash and my impression is that we have steadily worked our way through it since then to the point where it's now nearly gone. I'd guess that the biggest drain on our resources has been large transfer losses and players wages which have not been offset by income generated from success on the pitch (CL revenue, Sky coverage, merchandising etc). If we're making losses, those losses need to be financed by someone, usually either external banks or investors/shareholders. You can't criticise the Board for lacking ambition, whether the money's been spent wisely is another debate. And of course there's the old chestnut about whether money should have been taken out in dividends. That's already been done to death by Macbeth/NE5 etc. The question is how long we can keep stumping up for big name transfers but that depends to a certain extent on the true state of the club's finances and its realistic prospects. The results are of course historic so the club will have known about this position at the time from their own internal accounts. It's likely there's already been significant belt tightening on wages etc, which is why we have a relatively thin squad, with further transfers in Jan probably to be financed out of sales. Unless we're totally in the shit of course, in which case we may need to borrow more to buy our way out of trouble. Who knows? I do think we're a million miles away from a Leeds type scenario though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitman Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 Assests come in about £163m so they are more than the loans. We apparently have £3m in cash so that's not good I take it ? It was £17m at the end of the last period. Does it take into account how much Shepherd has been dipping into the petty cash for his pies? More like lard stotties bluebiggrin.gif Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitman Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 Just had a quick read of the Chairman's statement. The chat on finances shouldn't be allowed to cloud a period of achievement, including holding a Bryan Adams concert, opening a museum and the club's chef getting second place in the North East chef of the year award. I feel very proud bluebiggrin.gif Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 The liabilities isn't so worrying as some might think if my facts are right. A liability is something that we have signed a contract to pay up, so future wages will all have to count as part of our liabilities. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colos Short and Curlies Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 The liabilities isn't so worrying as some might think if my facts are right. A liability is something that we have signed a contract to pay up, so future wages will all have to count as part of our liabilities. Not quite, only wages relating to the year just gone which have not been paid go into the liabilities pot. There is no obligation to pay future wages until the relaive time period has passed Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gemmill Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 The liabilities isn't so worrying as some might think if my facts are right. A liability is something that we have signed a contract to pay up, so future wages will all have to count as part of our liabilities. Write an article on the finances please. I want to hear some more of these "facts" of yours. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitman Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 The liabilities isn't so worrying as some might think if my facts are right. A liability is something that we have signed a contract to pay up, so future wages will all have to count as part of our liabilities. Write an article on the finances please. I want to hear some more of these "facts" of yours. It's like shooting fish in a barrel for Mr Gemmill bluebiggrin.gif Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 The liabilities isn't so worrying as some might think if my facts are right. A liability is something that we have signed a contract to pay up, so future wages will all have to count as part of our liabilities. Write an article on the finances please. I want to hear some more of these "facts" of yours. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 Hmm. I always thought that if you turn a light on, you are held liable to pay the future electricity bill. I would have thought that player contracts are different to standard employment contracts in that we agree a contract with a player, it is binding, and the contract is very difficult to cancel, and therefore, we are liable to pay out the contract in it's entirety in the future. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gemmill Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 Hmm. I always thought that if you turn a light on, you are held liable to pay the future electricity bill. I would have thought that player contracts are different to standard employment contracts in that we agree a contract with a player, it is binding, and the contract is very difficult to cancel, and therefore, we are liable to pay out the contract in it's entirety in the future. Yeah, basically you've got that completely wrong. I would fall silent now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colos Short and Curlies Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 Hmm. I always thought that if you turn a light on, you are held liable to pay the future electricity bill. I would have thought that player contracts are different to standard employment contracts in that we agree a contract with a player, it is binding, and the contract is very difficult to cancel, and therefore, we are liable to pay out the contract in it's entirety in the future. What if we sell him then? A players contract is no more difficult to cancel than yours or mine (Gemmil is an exception as it is acknowledged that he does no work and is unsackable). The only difference in contracts is that it is for a defined period of time, but then again there are plenty of fixed term contracts flying around the typical workforce Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 Just stop, T27. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 Just stop, T27. OK. Can I make it clear that I do Economics, not Financial accounting, and therefore there is no actual reason for me to know this stuff. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 Can't Economic students even use Google? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitman Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 Just stop, T27. OK. Can I make it clear that I do Economics, not Financial accounting, and therefore there is no actual reason for me to know this stuff. 10/10 for effort bluebiggrin.gif Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thompers Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 The high wage bill comes down to what I posted before about signing rejects from the bigger clubs, instead of more suitable players from smaller clubs. Babayaro, for example, fucking shit player, but he's from the CHAMPIONS OF DA LEAGUE, so will be on 40k+. Butt, Owen, Martins (who, for a player that is far from the finished article will be on huge wages), and Duff also fall into this category, as well as previous aquisitions such as Kluivert and Emre. Sign big club's rejects and pay big wages. Simple. The majority of the players mentioned (barring a couple) could easily be replaced by an equally effective youngster on tiny wages. 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