Colos Short and Curlies Posted September 19, 2008 Share Posted September 19, 2008 Scott Parker's 60s Haircut is clearly the most experienced and qualified accountant on this forum. Both have us have doubts about the claims on non-qualified agenda-holding posters. It speaks volumes. The value of any business is based on its future revenue streams, not its past expenditure. If you dont understand that then i'm not sure you should be commenting. thats the value though,not the viability. plenty of firms have gone under with future profit in the pipeline and full order books etc due to f***ed up cash flow. That is true, but the point I was trying to get across last night was that the club may have high liabilities at the end of June but they get a huge cash injection during July and August due to season ticket money coming in. It's a bit like looking at your bank account the day before pay day (for a lot of people they will be touching an overdraft) and a day after (nice and healthy). The one thing that most clubs (and I'd say all Premier League clubs) have are 'lumpy' cashflows, those who deal with this (banks etc) recognise this and therefore won't necessarly take the balance sheet into account. I'll also repeat that if Fred had continued to operate the club as a going concern when we were about to go into administration then he would be on criminal charges right now The club has generally banked the season ticket money by the end of June, and has it set aside when the accounts are published each year. This was why 2007 was so desperate, there was no cash around and the season ticket money was alread included. The season ticket figure was £19m. They release the money as the games are played. So there was no future revenue likely to help things along. The general total for crowd related revenue completely depends on home Cup matches, and that is so up to luck. As you have the accounts to hand, when you get a minute could you please post the following: The year which the accounting date finished. The net assets on the year prior to this and for the year of the change The cash position for the same. Just out of curiosity.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
macbeth Posted September 19, 2008 Share Posted September 19, 2008 As you have the accounts to hand, when you get a minute could you please post the following: The year which the accounting date finished. The accounts are up top June 30th 2007, so the last season before Ashley. The net assets on the year prior to this and for the year of the change June 2006 £17m net assets June 2007 £16m net liabilities The cash position for the same. sorry, see below, dont' have figure in my head, will post on Sunday Just out of curiosity.... sorry I'm not at home till Sunday. The stuff above is what I have on my site. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
themanupstairs Posted September 19, 2008 Share Posted September 19, 2008 It was just a gamble the old board took, pay the big wages, get the better players, and hope they took you into the CL places where you could recoup that. Its exactly what Liverpool did, and look what they have achieved - albeit that they now have similar financial problems as NUFC had. The problem with the gamble was that they didn't forsee the arrival of Abramovich. This meant one less CL space available (Chelsea were definitely falling away before he arrived). We instead fell away due to the appointment of Souness, just at the wrong time i.e. just before the TV deal changed and the same top 4 became established. The TV deal also mean that more owners wanted a piece of the income - which lead to teams like Portsmouth, West Ham, Man City etc having spending power to match NUFC. I don't think Shepherd wanted anything else other than to have made NUFC successful, it just that for partly reasons beyond his control (Ambramovich), and one shocking series of decisions (the timing of replacing Sir Bobby and the chosen successor), it didn't work out. right on the money. Shepherd is still a twat, but I've no doubt he wanted the club to succeed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colos Short and Curlies Posted September 19, 2008 Share Posted September 19, 2008 As you have the accounts to hand, when you get a minute could you please post the following: The year which the accounting date finished. The accounts are up top June 30th 2007, so the last season before Ashley. The net assets on the year prior to this and for the year of the change June 2006 £17m net assets June 2007 £16m net liabilities The cash position for the same. sorry, see below, dont' have figure in my head, will post on Sunday Just out of curiosity.... sorry I'm not at home till Sunday. The stuff above is what I have on my site. Sorry, where I said the accounting date finished, I should have said changed. Oops! It would just be interesting to see the impact (if any) that this had on the numbers Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fraser Posted September 19, 2008 Share Posted September 19, 2008 Scott Parker's 60s Haircut is clearly the most experienced and qualified accountant on this forum. Both have us have doubts about the claims on non-qualified agenda-holding posters. It speaks volumes. The value of any business is based on its future revenue streams, not its past expenditure. If you dont understand that then i'm not sure you should be commenting. Whilst taking your point about experts here all some of us do is seek further clarification of the position. What is clear is that the club was approved as a going concern on the basis of cash injections undertaken to be made in the forthcoming twelve months (from the date of the accounts). That sounds pretty near the knuckle i.e. would the club have been signed off as a going concern in the absence of such undertaking and, if it had been, would the auditors have issued an exception. If the discussion of this very important issue sheds further light on Ashley's role (I am a wavering anti by the way) in ensuring the club being able to continue without admin and the inevitable penalties that follow, my position and that of others may change. The debate about the rightness or wrongness of the current situation depends entirely upon us all having the most accurate information available to us. If MacBeth and, to a lesser extent, I had not begun discussing this then the experts here, to whose opinion I will bow, might not have examined the accounts under discussion so forensically. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
macbeth Posted September 19, 2008 Share Posted September 19, 2008 Scott Parker's 60s Haircut is clearly the most experienced and qualified accountant on this forum. Both have us have doubts about the claims on non-qualified agenda-holding posters. It speaks volumes. The value of any business is based on its future revenue streams, not its past expenditure. If you dont understand that then i'm not sure you should be commenting. Whilst taking your point about experts here all some of us do is seek further clarification of the position. What is clear is that the club was approved as a going concern on the basis of cash injections undertaken to be made in the forthcoming twelve months (from the date of the accounts). That sounds pretty near the knuckle i.e. would the club have been signed off as a going concern in the absence of such undertaking and, if it had been, would the auditors have issued an exception. If the discussion of this very important issue sheds further light on Ashley's role (I am a wavering anti by the way) in ensuring the club being able to continue without admin and the inevitable penalties that follow, my position and that of others may change. The debate about the rightness or wrongness of the current situation depends entirely upon us all having the most accurate information available to us. If MacBeth and, to a lesser extent, I had not begun discussing this then the experts here, to whose opinion I will bow, might not have examined the accounts under discussion so forensically. fpr two years the Hearst auditors ahve expressed concern at the "going cocern" status of the club. They keep spending. They must currently be petrified as they have been only surviving due to the bank backing them Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
afar Posted September 19, 2008 Share Posted September 19, 2008 I move to change the name of this thread to "I am super itelligent accountant, look what I can do with numbers". That way we can let the likes ChezGiven, Macbeth and Scott Parker's haircut, stroke their collective egos without having to hide behind the mask of a "Shepherd was shit" thread. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted September 19, 2008 Share Posted September 19, 2008 They could do with brushing up on their English first. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colos Short and Curlies Posted September 20, 2008 Share Posted September 20, 2008 I move to change the name of this thread to "I am super itelligent accountant, look what I can do with numbers". That way we can let the likes ChezGiven, Macbeth and Scott Parker's haircut, stroke their collective egos without having to hide behind the mask of a "Shepherd was shit" thread. Do you honestly think that I am stroking my ego here? Trust me, being an accountant is not top of any egotistical stucture! All I'm doing is trying to dampen down the flames of 'administration' etc through pointing out what I've experienced - for the record I worked for the worlds top accountancy firm for 4 years have a chartered qualification and have worked on the audit of Manchester United - I have a fair idea how football accounts work (ok that bit was ego massaging). If anyone took a premier league football club into administration they need shooting, it should be virtually impossible - Leeds were a Championship club when they went in btw. As I said I haven't seen the auditors report in the accounts but it would be VERY unusual to issue a 'clean' audit report with the provision that x amount of cash is injected, either the cash is guaranteed and the report is clean or it is not guaranteed and the report modified to show the club not being in a going concern basis. I'll repeat a point I made earlier, Companies can recover from havng an audit report showing them not to be in a going concern position, of course just a smany don't but its not simply a case of 'not a going concern' = 'administration'. Conversly many companies who go into administration had a perfectly healthy balance sheet at the previous year end. As for the Shepherd is shit argument, I've tried to remain neutral in this thread, but fwiw: Shepherd - tried his best for the good of the club AND himself. He wanted a succesful club and he wanted the rewards for it. He bollocked up in the timing of sacking Bobby and the appointments after that were disasterous. But rightly or wrongly he gambled high stakes to get us back in the top 4, unfortunately his managerial appointments rendered the cash impotent in many ways. His time was up when Ashley came in. I also don't think that he and Doug should have returned to the club after the fake Sheik sting. Ashley - had/has a vision and it is a longer term approach. Again he bollocked up in his appointments of both Wise and Keegan. I (like many) was caught up in the emotion of Keegan coming back, but looking back it was never going to last. Given time I do believe that Ashleys vision could bear fruit, but it would take a season or 2 to rebuild. A large enough percentage of fans are not prepared to wait for this. I fully understand NE5's viewpoint, I'm sure then manner in a lot of what he says is for effect though. Conversley though, I was a big supporter of Ashley, and was prepared to see where he was going to go post Keegan. Unfortunately though I think it has reached the point where anything he does will be ridiculed by fans and again his time has come and gone. A final point, I have no axe to grind with MacBeth or anyone else who comments on the finances of the club, however puttnig together http://www.football-finances.org.uk/ suggests a financial expert has compiled the website - I wouldn't attempt to do something like this without knowing what is behind the numbers as you only have one viewpoint on the website. Its a good website, but it is flawed. I have simply tried to explain why I think some of his statements are exaggerated. Oh and Dave, I know my English is crap - thats why i went into numbers (and use spell checker on my professional work!) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted September 20, 2008 Share Posted September 20, 2008 Do you honestly think that I am stroking my ego here? Trust me, being an accountant is not top of any egotistical stucture! All I'm doing is trying to dampen down the flames of 'administration' etc through pointing out what I've experienced - for the record I worked for the worlds top accountancy firm for 4 years have a chartered qualification and have worked on the audit of Manchester United - I have a fair idea how football accounts work (ok that bit was ego massaging). If anyone took a premier league football club into administration they need shooting, it should be virtually impossible - Leeds were a Championship club when they went in btw. As I said I haven't seen the auditors report in the accounts but it would be VERY unusual to issue a 'clean' audit report with the provision that x amount of cash is injected, either the cash is guaranteed and the report is clean or it is not guaranteed and the report modified to show the club not being in a going concern basis. I'll repeat a point I made earlier, Companies can recover from havng an audit report showing them not to be in a going concern position, of course just a smany don't but its not simply a case of 'not a going concern' = 'administration'. Conversly many companies who go into administration had a perfectly healthy balance sheet at the previous year end. As for the Shepherd is s*** argument, I've tried to remain neutral in this thread, but fwiw: Shepherd - tried his best for the good of the club AND himself. He wanted a succesful club and he wanted the rewards for it. He bollocked up in the timing of sacking Bobby and the appointments after that were disasterous. But rightly or wrongly he gambled high stakes to get us back in the top 4, unfortunately his managerial appointments rendered the cash impotent in many ways. His time was up when Ashley came in. I also don't think that he and Doug should have returned to the club after the fake Sheik sting. Ashley - had/has a vision and it is a longer term approach. Again he bollocked up in his appointments of both Wise and Keegan. I (like many) was caught up in the emotion of Keegan coming back, but looking back it was never going to last. Given time I do believe that Ashleys vision could bear fruit, but it would take a season or 2 to rebuild. A large enough percentage of fans are not prepared to wait for this. I fully understand NE5's viewpoint, I'm sure then manner in a lot of what he says is for effect though. Conversley though, I was a big supporter of Ashley, and was prepared to see where he was going to go post Keegan. Unfortunately though I think it has reached the point where anything he does will be ridiculed by fans and again his time has come and gone. A final point, I have no axe to grind with MacBeth or anyone else who comments on the finances of the club, however puttnig together http://www.football-finances.org.uk/ suggests a financial expert has compiled the website - I wouldn't attempt to do something like this without knowing what is behind the numbers as you only have one viewpoint on the website. Its a good website, but it is flawed. I have simply tried to explain why I think some of his statements are exaggerated. Oh and Dave, I know my English is crap - thats why i went into numbers (and use spell checker on my professional work!) I don't think you have any axe to grind so wouldn't mind if you got those accounts off macbeth and gave an honest opinion. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fraser Posted September 20, 2008 Share Posted September 20, 2008 I move to change the name of this thread to "I am super itelligent accountant, look what I can do with numbers". That way we can let the likes ChezGiven, Macbeth and Scott Parker's haircut, stroke their collective egos without having to hide behind the mask of a "Shepherd was s***" thread. Do you honestly think that I am stroking my ego here? Trust me, being an accountant is not top of any egotistical stucture! All I'm doing is trying to dampen down the flames of 'administration' etc through pointing out what I've experienced - for the record I worked for the worlds top accountancy firm for 4 years have a chartered qualification and have worked on the audit of Manchester United - I have a fair idea how football accounts work (ok that bit was ego massaging). If anyone took a premier league football club into administration they need shooting, it should be virtually impossible - Leeds were a Championship club when they went in btw. As I said I haven't seen the auditors report in the accounts but it would be VERY unusual to issue a 'clean' audit report with the provision that x amount of cash is injected, either the cash is guaranteed and the report is clean or it is not guaranteed and the report modified to show the club not being in a going concern basis. I'll repeat a point I made earlier, Companies can recover from havng an audit report showing them not to be in a going concern position, of course just a smany don't but its not simply a case of 'not a going concern' = 'administration'. Conversly many companies who go into administration had a perfectly healthy balance sheet at the previous year end. As for the Shepherd is s*** argument, I've tried to remain neutral in this thread, but fwiw: Shepherd - tried his best for the good of the club AND himself. He wanted a succesful club and he wanted the rewards for it. He bollocked up in the timing of sacking Bobby and the appointments after that were disasterous. But rightly or wrongly he gambled high stakes to get us back in the top 4, unfortunately his managerial appointments rendered the cash impotent in many ways. His time was up when Ashley came in. I also don't think that he and Doug should have returned to the club after the fake Sheik sting. Ashley - had/has a vision and it is a longer term approach. Again he bollocked up in his appointments of both Wise and Keegan. I (like many) was caught up in the emotion of Keegan coming back, but looking back it was never going to last. Given time I do believe that Ashleys vision could bear fruit, but it would take a season or 2 to rebuild. A large enough percentage of fans are not prepared to wait for this. I fully understand NE5's viewpoint, I'm sure then manner in a lot of what he says is for effect though. Conversley though, I was a big supporter of Ashley, and was prepared to see where he was going to go post Keegan. Unfortunately though I think it has reached the point where anything he does will be ridiculed by fans and again his time has come and gone. A final point, I have no axe to grind with MacBeth or anyone else who comments on the finances of the club, however puttnig together http://www.football-finances.org.uk/ suggests a financial expert has compiled the website - I wouldn't attempt to do something like this without knowing what is behind the numbers as you only have one viewpoint on the website. Its a good website, but it is flawed. I have simply tried to explain why I think some of his statements are exaggerated. Oh and Dave, I know my English is crap - thats why i went into numbers (and use spell checker on my professional work!) Couldn't agree more. I am not a financial professional. Ashley's remarks about the club possibly not surviving really struck me; was he telling the truth? A professional who has viewed the statement says yes, the club possibly would not have survived. If the experts on here give an opinion then I will know more about important matters of fact; Ashley's truthfulness, his financial commitement to the club (explaining the lack of transfer money perhaps). I'm not bothered about Shepherd to be honest; I though he tried hard as Chairman to elevate the club to the highest levels and he achieved it for a period and deserves more recognitiion, but he's the past. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted September 20, 2008 Share Posted September 20, 2008 Oh and Dave, I know my English is crap - thats why i went into numbers (and use spell checker on my professional work!) Only referring to this mate: I move to change the name of this thread to "I am super itelligent accountant, look what I can do with numbers". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
macbeth Posted September 20, 2008 Share Posted September 20, 2008 should be able to get the 2007 accounts from http://www.football-finances.org.uk/newcastle/nufc2007.pdf just for you - a pound cheaper than from Companies House Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fredbob Posted September 20, 2008 Share Posted September 20, 2008 I move to change the name of this thread to "I am super itelligent accountant, look what I can do with numbers". That way we can let the likes ChezGiven, Macbeth and Scott Parker's haircut, stroke their collective egos without having to hide behind the mask of a "Shepherd was s***" thread. Do you honestly think that I am stroking my ego here? Trust me, being an accountant is not top of any egotistical stucture! All I'm doing is trying to dampen down the flames of 'administration' etc through pointing out what I've experienced - for the record I worked for the worlds top accountancy firm for 4 years have a chartered qualification and have worked on the audit of Manchester United - I have a fair idea how football accounts work (ok that bit was ego massaging). If anyone took a premier league football club into administration they need shooting, it should be virtually impossible - Leeds were a Championship club when they went in btw. As I said I haven't seen the auditors report in the accounts but it would be VERY unusual to issue a 'clean' audit report with the provision that x amount of cash is injected, either the cash is guaranteed and the report is clean or it is not guaranteed and the report modified to show the club not being in a going concern basis. I'll repeat a point I made earlier, Companies can recover from havng an audit report showing them not to be in a going concern position, of course just a smany don't but its not simply a case of 'not a going concern' = 'administration'. Conversly many companies who go into administration had a perfectly healthy balance sheet at the previous year end. As for the Shepherd is s*** argument, I've tried to remain neutral in this thread, but fwiw: Shepherd - tried his best for the good of the club AND himself. He wanted a succesful club and he wanted the rewards for it. He bollocked up in the timing of sacking Bobby and the appointments after that were disasterous. But rightly or wrongly he gambled high stakes to get us back in the top 4, unfortunately his managerial appointments rendered the cash impotent in many ways. His time was up when Ashley came in. I also don't think that he and Doug should have returned to the club after the fake Sheik sting. Ashley - had/has a vision and it is a longer term approach. Again he bollocked up in his appointments of both Wise and Keegan. I (like many) was caught up in the emotion of Keegan coming back, but looking back it was never going to last. Given time I do believe that Ashleys vision could bear fruit, but it would take a season or 2 to rebuild. A large enough percentage of fans are not prepared to wait for this. I fully understand NE5's viewpoint, I'm sure then manner in a lot of what he says is for effect though. Conversley though, I was a big supporter of Ashley, and was prepared to see where he was going to go post Keegan. Unfortunately though I think it has reached the point where anything he does will be ridiculed by fans and again his time has come and gone. A final point, I have no axe to grind with MacBeth or anyone else who comments on the finances of the club, however puttnig together http://www.football-finances.org.uk/ suggests a financial expert has compiled the website - I wouldn't attempt to do something like this without knowing what is behind the numbers as you only have one viewpoint on the website. Its a good website, but it is flawed. I have simply tried to explain why I think some of his statements are exaggerated. Oh and Dave, I know my English is crap - thats why i went into numbers (and use spell checker on my professional work!) Great post. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven Posted September 20, 2008 Share Posted September 20, 2008 I move to change the name of this thread to "I am super itelligent accountant, look what I can do with numbers". That way we can let the likes ChezGiven, Macbeth and Scott Parker's haircut, stroke their collective egos without having to hide behind the mask of a "Shepherd was shit" thread. To be fair, i'm not an accountant I am a senior manager in a business 100 times the size of Sports Direct though so if someone makes a claim on this forum regarding the viability of the club as a business and i disagree, i'm not going to stay quiet on the matter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted September 20, 2008 Share Posted September 20, 2008 To be fair, i'm not an accountant I am a senior manager in a business 100 times the size of Sports Direct though so if someone makes a claim on this forum regarding the viability of the club as a business and i disagree, i'm not going to stay quiet on the matter. Go on then Chez, download the pdf file and give us your opinion on it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
peasepud Posted September 20, 2008 Share Posted September 20, 2008 I move to change the name of this thread to "I am super itelligent accountant, look what I can do with numbers". That way we can let the likes ChezGiven, Macbeth and Scott Parker's haircut, stroke their collective egos without having to hide behind the mask of a "Shepherd was s***" thread. To be fair, i'm not an accountant I am a senior manager in a business 100 times the size of Sports Direct though so if someone makes a claim on this forum regarding the viability of the club as a business and i disagree, i'm not going to stay quiet on the matter. Aye theres a McDonalds on every corner these days Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syrette Posted September 20, 2008 Share Posted September 20, 2008 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven Posted September 20, 2008 Share Posted September 20, 2008 I move to change the name of this thread to "I am super itelligent accountant, look what I can do with numbers". That way we can let the likes ChezGiven, Macbeth and Scott Parker's haircut, stroke their collective egos without having to hide behind the mask of a "Shepherd was s***" thread. To be fair, i'm not an accountant I am a senior manager in a business 100 times the size of Sports Direct though so if someone makes a claim on this forum regarding the viability of the club as a business and i disagree, i'm not going to stay quiet on the matter. Aye theres a McDonalds on every corner these days Just cos you're too ugly for a customer facing role. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GM Posted September 20, 2008 Share Posted September 20, 2008 I move to change the name of this thread to "I am super itelligent accountant, look what I can do with numbers". That way we can let the likes ChezGiven, Macbeth and Scott Parker's haircut, stroke their collective egos without having to hide behind the mask of a "Shepherd was s***" thread. Do you honestly think that I am stroking my ego here? Trust me, being an accountant is not top of any egotistical stucture! All I'm doing is trying to dampen down the flames of 'administration' etc through pointing out what I've experienced - for the record I worked for the worlds top accountancy firm for 4 years have a chartered qualification and have worked on the audit of Manchester United - I have a fair idea how football accounts work (ok that bit was ego massaging). If anyone took a premier league football club into administration they need shooting, it should be virtually impossible - Leeds were a Championship club when they went in btw. As I said I haven't seen the auditors report in the accounts but it would be VERY unusual to issue a 'clean' audit report with the provision that x amount of cash is injected, either the cash is guaranteed and the report is clean or it is not guaranteed and the report modified to show the club not being in a going concern basis. I'll repeat a point I made earlier, Companies can recover from havng an audit report showing them not to be in a going concern position, of course just a smany don't but its not simply a case of 'not a going concern' = 'administration'. Conversly many companies who go into administration had a perfectly healthy balance sheet at the previous year end. As for the Shepherd is s*** argument, I've tried to remain neutral in this thread, but fwiw: Shepherd - tried his best for the good of the club AND himself. He wanted a succesful club and he wanted the rewards for it. He bollocked up in the timing of sacking Bobby and the appointments after that were disasterous. But rightly or wrongly he gambled high stakes to get us back in the top 4, unfortunately his managerial appointments rendered the cash impotent in many ways. His time was up when Ashley came in. I also don't think that he and Doug should have returned to the club after the fake Sheik sting. Ashley - had/has a vision and it is a longer term approach. Again he bollocked up in his appointments of both Wise and Keegan. I (like many) was caught up in the emotion of Keegan coming back, but looking back it was never going to last. Given time I do believe that Ashleys vision could bear fruit, but it would take a season or 2 to rebuild. A large enough percentage of fans are not prepared to wait for this. I fully understand NE5's viewpoint, I'm sure then manner in a lot of what he says is for effect though. Conversley though, I was a big supporter of Ashley, and was prepared to see where he was going to go post Keegan. Unfortunately though I think it has reached the point where anything he does will be ridiculed by fans and again his time has come and gone. A final point, I have no axe to grind with MacBeth or anyone else who comments on the finances of the club, however puttnig together http://www.football-finances.org.uk/ suggests a financial expert has compiled the website - I wouldn't attempt to do something like this without knowing what is behind the numbers as you only have one viewpoint on the website. Its a good website, but it is flawed. I have simply tried to explain why I think some of his statements are exaggerated. Oh and Dave, I know my English is crap - thats why i went into numbers (and use spell checker on my professional work!) Great post. I'm impressed. I actually understood what SP60'sHaircut was saying there. Thanks mate, made perfect sense and as such made for a very convincing argument. Shall certainly pay heed to your posts more often in future. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted September 21, 2008 Share Posted September 21, 2008 should be able to get the 2007 accounts from http://www.football-finances.org.uk/newcastle/nufc2007.pdf just for you - a pound cheaper than from Companies House well, after all the scaremongering you've done about us becoming another Leeds through overspending etc it will be interesting [or not in my case anyway] to see you and those who have made links etc to your site, explain how we are heading the way of Leeds because of underinvestment in the team Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
macbeth Posted September 21, 2008 Share Posted September 21, 2008 should be able to get the 2007 accounts from http://www.football-finances.org.uk/newcastle/nufc2007.pdf just for you - a pound cheaper than from Companies House well, after all the scaremongering you've done about us becoming another Leeds through overspending etc it will be interesting [or not in my case anyway] to see you and those who have made links etc to your site, explain how we are heading the way of Leeds because of underinvestment in the team I thought they taught grammar in the 60s ?? I need help with your question/statement. Do you think we are looking bad cos we ran out of money ? Are you trying to say we looked really good under Shepherd cos he spent £114m more thn he took in, in just 11 years. Shepherd was in control up June 2007 I'm just trying to clarify Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted September 21, 2008 Share Posted September 21, 2008 should be able to get the 2007 accounts from http://www.football-finances.org.uk/newcastle/nufc2007.pdf just for you - a pound cheaper than from Companies House well, after all the scaremongering you've done about us becoming another Leeds through overspending etc it will be interesting [or not in my case anyway] to see you and those who have made links etc to your site, explain how we are heading the way of Leeds because of underinvestment in the team I thought they taught grammar in the 60s ?? I need help with your question/statement. Do you think we are looking bad cos we ran out of money ? Are you trying to say we looked really good under Shepherd cos he spent £114m more thn he took in, in just 11 years. Shepherd was in control up June 2007 I'm just trying to clarify I didn't realise this was under examination conditions. Your own piece is a master of literacy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colos Short and Curlies Posted September 22, 2008 Share Posted September 22, 2008 Ok, I’ve had a quick look at the accounts…. Re the season ticket money being received pre or post the accounts date – I think it’s a bit of both! The deferred income (excluding capital grants – government cash) (cash received in advance in effect) is £25 million, of which £10 million is sponsorship money (2 years of £5m each) if we believe that 100% of the money was received up front – this would also account for the £5m fall from 2006. There is also a little bit of bond and corporate money in there – probably only a million or so, therefore we will ignore it, leaving c. £15 million season ticket money. Lets assume an average season ticket price of £400, with 48,000 tickets sold = £19 million. So either some of the season ticket money had been received by the end of June or the club had not received any money for the final 2 years of the Northern Rock deal. Based on the dot cock numbers I think the average ticket price used may be a bit low, as it assumes an even number of child and adult tickets. It would be fair to assume that half of the season ticket money had not been received – There would also be another £3 million ticket money to be received during the year for general sale tickets and away fans (4,000 tickets at £35 each for 19 games). I have taken no cup games into account here. Re the going concern, I was correct in my assumption that the auditors make no comment on this – although it is implied that they agree with Chris Mort’s comments in the director’s report by stating in their opinion that the report is accurate. Basically the club does have net liabilities – and did so in the previous year as well. Eventually the club would have become insolvent if they continued to make losses, but this was not necessarily imminent! Chris Mort makes reference on the cash injection (£75 million) from SJP Holdings making the club a ‘going concern’ (basically the club will be solvent for a period of more than 12 months). However from this only £45m (!) was only needed to ensure this as the change in ownership resulted in £45 million of loans originally due over a period of 11 years becoming due in 60 days. So if Ashley hadn’t bought the club this would not have occurred and the cash injection would not have been needed. The remainder of the injection was at Mikes discretion - he did not need to do this to keep the club afloat. So, in summary the club was not about to go into administration last summer if we had not been bought out! On the other hand there is no doubting that the accounts will look a lot better this year. The other interesting thing was the £3 million spent on refinancing projects which were aborted due to the takeover. This is a lot of money to be spent on this type of thing unless it was pretty much secured (imo of course). I would guess that it was to do with the casino and hotels which were mooted by Fred – and maybe he did have the outside finance in place which he claimed. I know it’s a bit of a ramble, but if anyone wants me to clarify any specific point please shout Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted September 22, 2008 Share Posted September 22, 2008 Thanks. 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