Jump to content

Finances web-site


macbeth
 Share

Recommended Posts

This has been updated to include the results published last Friday.

 

I'm more than happy if anyone had some further insight to add to what is there. The only bit which is missing that I'd like to include is the cash position on t he club, and probably a graph of net assets.

 

www.nufc-finances.org.uk

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good site Macbeth. Never had a look at it before. But for a business with a virtual monopoly and a core following, on the business side the performance of the club is v poor.

 

Although it has to be said many clubs in Europe are having huge financial challenges.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What I'd be interested to see added is a valuation of the club's fixed assets.

 

is that really what you mean ? The fixed assets are the ground and the training facilities and their worth changes little year on year except when there is new stand opened or something like that.

 

The 'intangible assets " which are the values of the players would be do-able. The figure only shows the value of players bought in, and the amount of their transferdfee still viewed as an asset. This is shown on the 'amortisation' page. This goes up as we sign new players, and decays as they play out (or sit out, in some cases) their contracts. This year the figure is quoted as £48.2m (pre Duff and Martin), the previous year it was quoted as £35.6m (pre Luque and Owen).

 

The actual worth of the playing squad is different from the one in the financial results as players like Taylor, Ramage, Zog, have never had money spent on them so are in as nil. Similarly Shay who has been here for ever has no current value in the books.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Strange how only Macbeth was bothered about the finances pre-Souness. Did omarse for example give a toss about the value of the club's fixed assets before he supported the Souness destruction of the team.

 

This was all predicted by some, but by supporting Souness to the hilt as he built his own team, was supported by those now moaning about it. It's ironic that the people moaning about the clubs finances are also generally those who DEMAND expensive players be bought every transfer window, otherwise the Board is shit.

 

To save the broken record reply, I know the Board sign the cheques. What I also know is the manager selects the players to join and the players to leave the club. As said before, many of you supported Souness's every move in ridding the club of the 'cancer's. Obviously people who supported this spending spree at the time has good motives, believing Souness would get it right. However, that's a hope and we all hope for that, the reality is that it's unpredictable, he may just as easily get it wrong which we all know he did. Improvement was never automatic.

 

The same principle applies to your desire to remove the Board. This has your ideal dream for a replacement but the outcome is also unpredictable, it could just as easily go wrong.

 

The downturn in finances at the club started with the terrible appointment of Souness. The Board does not run the club badly per se, they made a very poor managerial appointment and we are seeing the (predicted) result now.

 

Be careful what you wish for, as ever.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What I'd be interested to see added is a valuation of the club's fixed assets.

 

is that really what you mean ? The fixed assets are the ground and the training facilities and their worth changes little year on year except when there is new stand opened or something like that.

 

 

Yes, that's really what I mean. There's a lot of hysterical talk about "asset-strippers", so it would be useful to see what assets actually exist to strip.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fixed assets are 90.2m, down from 93.1m the previous year. The drop is due to the deprecitaion on the ground.

 

The net assets of the club, so all the assets, less all the money owed on them has been as follows

 

1998 56.1m

1999 54.5m

2000 36.4m

2001 23.0m

2002 36.5m

2003 36.6m

2004 32.3m

2005 28.3m (restated as 30.4m in the latest results)

2006 16.8m

 

The amount given away to oshareholders in the same period is £35m.

 

The net assets is a good measure as buying Owen for £16m adds £16m into the assets, and £16m into the amount owed so makes no difference to the net figure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The net assets of the club, so all the assets, less all the money owed on them has been as follows

 

1998 56.1m

1999 54.5m

2000 36.4m

2001 23.0m

2002 36.5m

2003 36.6m

2004 32.3m

2005 28.3m (restated as 30.4m in the latest results)

2006 16.8m

 

The amount given away to shareholders in the same period is £35m.

 

 

Thanks, Macbeth.

 

So, given that the cost of taking over ownership of the club would be around £120 million, it's clear that there would be less than nothing in the deal for any "asset-stripper".

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Gemmill

We're not really eligible for asset-stripping anyway tbh.  We don't own the land that the ground is built on so they can't flog off the stadium and the training facilities aren't much use to anyone other than the football club.  Then there's the players - we've got a handful that are saleable, the rest are pretty shit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What I also know is the manager selects the players to join and the players to leave the club.

 

Like Bobby Robson deciding to sell Gary Speed, for example?

 

The downturn in finances at the club started with the terrible appointment of Souness.

 

Just looking at the steady decline in the value of the club's assets, posted upthread, it's clear that this is nonsense.

 

Although you are correct that Fat Fred's decision to appoint Souness was a characteristically terrible one, as was Fat Fred's decision to try and redeem that mistake by splashing out too much money on the wrong players.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

What I also know is the manager selects the players to join and the players to leave the club.

 

Like Bobby Robson deciding to sell Gary Speed, for example?

 

The downturn in finances at the club started with the terrible appointment of Souness.

 

Just looking at the steady decline in the value of the club's assets, posted upthread, it's clear that this is nonsense.

 

Although you are correct that Fat Fred's decision to appoint Souness was a characteristically terrible one, as was Fat Fred's decision to try and redeem that mistake by splashing out too much money on the wrong players.

 

 

 

The main reason for the fall in net assets is the dividends being taken by the directors the depreciation on the stadium and the wages paid. Excessive transfer fees may make the cash position look bad, but as MB said above, doesn't really affect net assets

Link to post
Share on other sites

What I also know is the manager selects the players to join and the players to leave the club.

 

Like Bobby Robson deciding to sell Gary Speed, for example?

 

The downturn in finances at the club started with the terrible appointment of Souness.

 

Just looking at the steady decline in the value of the club's assets, posted upthread, it's clear that this is nonsense.

 

Although you are correct that Fat Fred's decision to appoint Souness was a characteristically terrible one, as was Fat Fred's decision to try and redeem that mistake by splashing out too much money on the wrong players.

 

 

 

The damning things for me are

1. Giving away £35m to shareholders when the business couldn't afford it

2. Pushing wages up to a level that is £8m per year higher than when we were paying big bonuses to players from  competing in the CL. At the current levels of wages we need to have an income of about £104m, which we did not even come close to achieving even  when finishing 3rd in the PL and ocmpeting in the second group stage of the CL.

3. Having no plan in place regarding transfer budgets. Some years it is nil, some years it is £20m.

4. Not seeming to have any solid selection criteria for choosing team managers

Link to post
Share on other sites

What I also know is the manager selects the players to join and the players to leave the club.

 

Like Bobby Robson deciding to sell Gary Speed, for example?

 

The downturn in finances at the club started with the terrible appointment of Souness.

 

Just looking at the steady decline in the value of the club's assets, posted upthread, it's clear that this is nonsense.

 

Although you are correct that Fat Fred's decision to appoint Souness was a characteristically terrible one, as was Fat Fred's decision to try and redeem that mistake by splashing out too much money on the wrong players.

 

 

 

The main reason for the fall in net assets is the dividends being taken by the directors the depreciation on the stadium and the wages paid. Excessive transfer fees may make the cash position look bad, but as MB said above, doesn't really affect net assets

 

Yes, the financial position was clearly worsening even without the money spent on transfer fees paid during the Souness period. The wage/turnover ratio is of course something else.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What I also know is the manager selects the players to join and the players to leave the club.

 

Like Bobby Robson deciding to sell Gary Speed, for example?

 

The downturn in finances at the club started with the terrible appointment of Souness.

 

Just looking at the steady decline in the value of the club's assets, posted upthread, it's clear that this is nonsense.

 

Although you are correct that Fat Fred's decision to appoint Souness was a characteristically terrible one, as was Fat Fred's decision to try and redeem that mistake by splashing out too much money on the wrong players.

 

 

supported by you, as was his spending spree - and as is also pointed out, the players to offload and bring in are selected by the manager, again, something you supported. Do you still think we are better off without Bellamy, despite spending 20m quid on Martins and Luque since letting him go ....

 

Somehow I don't expect a reply addressing the point here.

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

What I also know is the manager selects the players to join and the players to leave the club.

 

Like Bobby Robson deciding to sell Gary Speed, for example?

 

The downturn in finances at the club started with the terrible appointment of Souness.

 

Just looking at the steady decline in the value of the club's assets, posted upthread, it's clear that this is nonsense.

 

Although you are correct that Fat Fred's decision to appoint Souness was a characteristically terrible one, as was Fat Fred's decision to try and redeem that mistake by splashing out too much money on the wrong players.

 

 

 

The damning things for me are

1. Giving away £35m to shareholders when the business couldn't afford it

2. Pushing wages up to a level that is £8m per year higher than when we were paying big bonuses to players from  competing in the CL. At the current levels of wages we need to have an income of about £104m, which we did not even come close to achieving even  when finishing 3rd in the PL and ocmpeting in the second group stage of the CL.

3. Having no plan in place regarding transfer budgets. Some years it is nil, some years it is £20m.

4. Not seeming to have any solid selection criteria for choosing team managers

 

35m quid over how many years equates to how much per season ? And how much impact would approx 3-4m quid a season have on our title challenge  :lol:

 

Also transfer "budgets" can be governed by the needs of the team, unless you think the club should spend x amount a year whether the players most needed are available or not.

 

Also - if you don't consider a winning track record a solid criteria for selecting managers, what would you ? [...or would you rather your man from the Post Office pay someone 4m quid a year ....... ]

 

:lol:

 

As usual, you start this thread and are attracted to finance like flies to dog shit, more than the football it would appear

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

35m quid over how many years equates to how much per season ? And how much impact would approx 3-4m quid a season have on our title challenge  :lol:

 

Or relegation battle ?

 

I don't expect you to look at the site so I'll cut and paste for you

 

 

The amount given to shareholders could have been spent in a number of ways. It could have been spent on replacing Alan Shearer, it could have been spent on bringing in top class defensive coaches, iit could have reduced the annual season ticket price by roughly £80, or it could have been spent in helping to pay off the mortgage on the ground.

 

If it had been used to reduce season ticket prices then a supporter who had had a season ticket for the last 9 years would be around £700 better off.

 

If it had been used to pay off the ground then the club would now owe nothing at all on the  ground, rather than having to continue pay for it over the next ten years.

 

The board of NUFC looked at all the possible options and decided that their top priority was to give the money away to shareholders.

 

Also transfer "budgets" can be governed by the needs of the team, unless you think the club should spend x amount a year whether the players most needed are available or not.

 

I'd hope if the money was not spent, so in 2004 and 2005 when presuambbly we did not need to strengthen at all, that it was being put away to replace say a retiring player. Clearly it was not. Instead £8m was given away in dividends, so that the club then had to go and borrow money when they did have to spend. Madness.

 

Also - if you don't consider a winning track record a solid criteria for selecting managers, what would you ? [...or would you rather your man from the Post Office pay someone 4m quid a year ....... ]

 

As we've agreed your man picked Souness, and Crozier picked Sven. If you think Shepherd's decision is better then there is little hope for you.

 

:lol:

 

As usual, you start this thread and are attracted to finance like flies to dog shit, more than the football it would appear

 

 

 

You had a go at some point that I wasn't applauding the cost-cutting at the club. Having had a good read of the financial results could you highlight those cost-cuttings you were so proud of, and explain how they helped so much.

Having actively supported the chairman's wages policy, with its long term consequences how do you see the club getting its income up to a level that will allow us to pay the players ?

Do you think the board are correct to have no dividend this time around ? I think it is great, just what I have been after since I started my site, you have always said that it was the right thing to give money away. Are you going to critcise them for stopping doing something you have so vehemnetly defended ?

The assets of the business are now down to £16m from the £56m when we became a PLC. At the current rate of decline the club will have no assets this time next year. Will you still be blaming Souness, or Bellamy or the tea-lady, or will you see what others see.

 

At least Shepherd recognises something that you don't. In their accounts he includes the following paragraph

"The acquisition of players and their related payroll costs, are one of the most significant and high profile risks facing the club. The approval of all player transfers is a matter specifically reserved for decision by the Board "

 

Looks like the team manager can ask but the board have to judge whether the finances are in place before any action takes place. The borrowings, the huge wage bill, all are solely the board's decision.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest The Fox

What I also know is the manager selects the players to join and the players to leave the club.

 

Like Bobby Robson deciding to sell Gary Speed, for example?

 

The downturn in finances at the club started with the terrible appointment of Souness.

 

Just looking at the steady decline in the value of the club's assets, posted upthread, it's clear that this is nonsense.

 

Although you are correct that Fat Fred's decision to appoint Souness was a characteristically terrible one, as was Fat Fred's decision to try and redeem that mistake by splashing out too much money on the wrong players.

 

 

supported by you, as was his spending spree - and as is also pointed out, the players to offload and bring in are selected by the manager, again, something you supported. Do you still think we are better off without Bellamy, despite spending 20m quid on Martins and Luque since letting him go ....

 

Somehow I don't expect a reply addressing the point here.

 

 

 

 

 

You cant blame him, he would only be copying your lead :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good post.

 

Bears repeating, as this basic and obvious fact is often overlooked by those having difficulty with the big picture:

 

Looks like the team manager can ask but the board have to judge whether the finances are in place before any action takes place. The borrowings, the huge wage bill, all are solely the board's decision.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What I also know is the manager selects the players to join and the players to leave the club.

 

Like Bobby Robson deciding to sell Gary Speed, for example?

 

The downturn in finances at the club started with the terrible appointment of Souness.

 

Just looking at the steady decline in the value of the club's assets, posted upthread, it's clear that this is nonsense.

 

Although you are correct that Fat Fred's decision to appoint Souness was a characteristically terrible one, as was Fat Fred's decision to try and redeem that mistake by splashing out too much money on the wrong players.

 

 

supported by you, as was his spending spree - and as is also pointed out, the players to offload and bring in are selected by the manager, again, something you supported. Do you still think we are better off without Bellamy, despite spending 20m quid on Martins and Luque since letting him go ....

 

Somehow I don't expect a reply addressing the point here.

 

 

 

 

 

You cant blame him, he would only be copying your lead :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: 

 

I see you have replied to my question about Dalglish  bluesleep.gif

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

35m quid over how many years equates to how much per season ? And how much impact would approx 3-4m quid a season have on our title challenge  :lol:

 

Or relegation battle ?

 

I don't expect you to look at the site so I'll cut and paste for you

 

 

The amount given to shareholders could have been spent in a number of ways. It could have been spent on replacing Alan Shearer, it could have been spent on bringing in top class defensive coaches, iit could have reduced the annual season ticket price by roughly £80, or it could have been spent in helping to pay off the mortgage on the ground.

 

If it had been used to reduce season ticket prices then a supporter who had had a season ticket for the last 9 years would be around £700 better off.

 

If it had been used to pay off the ground then the club would now owe nothing at all on the  ground, rather than having to continue pay for it over the next ten years.

 

The board of NUFC looked at all the possible options and decided that their top priority was to give the money away to shareholders.

 

Also transfer "budgets" can be governed by the needs of the team, unless you think the club should spend x amount a year whether the players most needed are available or not.

 

I'd hope if the money was not spent, so in 2004 and 2005 when presuambbly we did not need to strengthen at all, that it was being put away to replace say a retiring player. Clearly it was not. Instead £8m was given away in dividends, so that the club then had to go and borrow money when they did have to spend. Madness.

 

Also - if you don't consider a winning track record a solid criteria for selecting managers, what would you ? [...or would you rather your man from the Post Office pay someone 4m quid a year ....... ]

 

As we've agreed your man picked Souness, and Crozier picked Sven. If you think Shepherd's decision is better then there is little hope for you.

 

:lol:

 

As usual, you start this thread and are attracted to finance like flies to dog shit, more than the football it would appear

 

 

 

You had a go at some point that I wasn't applauding the cost-cutting at the club. Having had a good read of the financial results could you highlight those cost-cuttings you were so proud of, and explain how they helped so much.

Having actively supported the chairman's wages policy, with its long term consequences how do you see the club getting its income up to a level that will allow us to pay the players ?

Do you think the board are correct to have no dividend this time around ? I think it is great, just what I have been after since I started my site, you have always said that it was the right thing to give money away. Are you going to critcise them for stopping doing something you have so vehemnetly defended ?

The assets of the business are now down to £16m from the £56m when we became a PLC. At the current rate of decline the club will have no assets this time next year. Will you still be blaming Souness, or Bellamy or the tea-lady, or will you see what others see.

 

At least Shepherd recognises something that you don't. In their accounts he includes the following paragraph

"The acquisition of players and their related payroll costs, are one of the most significant and high profile risks facing the club. The approval of all player transfers is a matter specifically reserved for decision by the Board "

 

Looks like the team manager can ask but the board have to judge whether the finances are in place before any action takes place. The borrowings, the huge wage bill, all are solely the board's decision.

 

the relegation battle that we would have had last season unless we bought Owen, that you said was a bad move financially ?

 

You would prefer us to go down or hover above the relegation places, so long as the books are OK. McKeag and his buddies would have given you a job.

 

As I have said before, I am quite aware of the financial situation, but you should direct your comments towards people such as Ozzie who openly supported Souness spending a fortune and letting better players go for peanuts.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest The Fox

What I also know is the manager selects the players to join and the players to leave the club.

 

Like Bobby Robson deciding to sell Gary Speed, for example?

 

The downturn in finances at the club started with the terrible appointment of Souness.

 

Just looking at the steady decline in the value of the club's assets, posted upthread, it's clear that this is nonsense.

 

Although you are correct that Fat Fred's decision to appoint Souness was a characteristically terrible one, as was Fat Fred's decision to try and redeem that mistake by splashing out too much money on the wrong players.

 

 

supported by you, as was his spending spree - and as is also pointed out, the players to offload and bring in are selected by the manager, again, something you supported. Do you still think we are better off without Bellamy, despite spending 20m quid on Martins and Luque since letting him go ....

 

Somehow I don't expect a reply addressing the point here.

 

 

 

 

 

You cant blame him, he would only be copying your lead :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: 

 

I see you have replied to my question about Dalglish bluesleep.gif

 

 

Thanks, Yes I have several times but unfortunately you are too asleep to have noticed.

But never mind I'm not repeating it over and over again, I'll leave you to fill up the pages.

bluecool.gif bluecool.gif bluecool.gif bluecool.gif bluecool.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

What I also know is the manager selects the players to join and the players to leave the club.

 

Like Bobby Robson deciding to sell Gary Speed, for example?

 

The downturn in finances at the club started with the terrible appointment of Souness.

 

Just looking at the steady decline in the value of the club's assets, posted upthread, it's clear that this is nonsense.

 

Although you are correct that Fat Fred's decision to appoint Souness was a characteristically terrible one, as was Fat Fred's decision to try and redeem that mistake by splashing out too much money on the wrong players.

 

 

supported by you, as was his spending spree - and as is also pointed out, the players to offload and bring in are selected by the manager, again, something you supported. Do you still think we are better off without Bellamy, despite spending 20m quid on Martins and Luque since letting him go ....

 

Somehow I don't expect a reply addressing the point here.

 

 

 

 

 

You cant blame him, he would only be copying your lead :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: 

 

I see you have replied to my question about Dalglish bluesleep.gif

 

 

Thanks, Yes I have several times but unfortunately you are too asleep to have noticed.

But never mind I'm not repeating it over and over again, I'll leave you to fill up the pages.

bluecool.gif bluecool.gif bluecool.gif bluecool.gif bluecool.gif

 

I don't see it.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

A thread dedicated to the performance of the NUFC board, talking about the financial results they published, and within the first page NE5 is having a go at another person regarding a manager who left 8 years ago.

 

You can try and distract people away from the issues they were discussing but they can see you support the wealth of the Hall and Shepherd families before you support the well-being of NUFC.

 

Our financial position, as the NUFC board states so explicitly, is purely under their control. Not Souness, not Dalglish, not McKeag, not Westwood, but them. They are responsible.

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...