Newcastle United Finances - 2008 Accounts Recently Filed

[UV]

Do any of the accountants have any comments on macbeth's latest update?

 

http://www.football-finances.org.uk/newcastle/2008/assetsdebts3.htm

 

All these debts needed to be paid off when Ashley bought the club. The graph below looks different from the one from the 2007 results (shown lower down). The difference comes from that change in the view of what Ashley did when he bought the club. What seems to have not been clear was that when he bought the club he would immediately have to pay off the mortgage on the stadium, as it wasn't listed in the previous accounts as being anything more than a long term loan.

 

This meant that in 2007 it looked as the the debt was £71m. When they realised that they had to pay off the mortgage they needed to add that extra amount in. It was also necessary to put money in to cover the £34m loss for that year.

 

The further leap in debt in 2008 comes from the financial loss for the year having to be paid for from somewhere, and this has been from Ashley pumping more money in as a loan.

 

Of the £149m debt roughly£100m is owed to Mike Ashley. He has said that this is a loan that isn't expected to have to be paid back before July 2009 at the earliest, unless the club is bought from him.

 

The last bit is all news to me.

 

Who is the other £49m owed to and how has Ashley managed to double the debt in a year and a half?

 

Comforting to know that we're not expected to pay off the £100m before July like.

[ToonTastic]

Well we know so much of the extra debt is down to player values changing. i've not idea what it means about the rest though but then I'm not accounted like some of them on here.

[ToonTastic]

Actually reading that again it seems to make sense. We owed £71m as a long term loan on the stadium and the club made a loss of 34m add the two together and you have a debt of £105m. We then have the £20m loss the club made from last season, plus the change in player values I assume gives you the extra debt.

[madras]

Do any of the accountants have any comments on macbeth's latest update?

 

http://www.football-finances.org.uk/newcastle/2008/assetsdebts3.htm

 

All these debts needed to be paid off when Ashley bought the club. The graph below looks different from the one from the 2007 results (shown lower down). The difference comes from that change in the view of what Ashley did when he bought the club. What seems to have not been clear was that when he bought the club he would immediately have to pay off the mortgage on the stadium, as it wasn't listed in the previous accounts as being anything more than a long term loan.

 

This meant that in 2007 it looked as the the debt was £71m. When they realised that they had to pay off the mortgage they needed to add that extra amount in. It was also necessary to put money in to cover the £34m loss for that year.

 

The further leap in debt in 2008 comes from the financial loss for the year having to be paid for from somewhere, and this has been from Ashley pumping more money in as a loan.

 

Of the £149m debt roughly£100m is owed to Mike Ashley. He has said that this is a loan that isn't expected to have to be paid back before July 2009 at the earliest, unless the club is bought from him.

 

The last bit is all news to me.

 

Who is the other £49m owed to and how has Ashley managed to double the debt in a year and a half?

 

Comforting to know that we're not expected to pay off the £100m before July like.

the july bit i'd assume is so the auditors will sign it off. basically he is guarnteeing the debts through the financial trading year. (i think)

[quayside]

Do any of the accountants have any comments on macbeth's latest update?

 

http://www.football-finances.org.uk/newcastle/2008/assetsdebts3.htm

 

All these debts needed to be paid off when Ashley bought the club. The graph below looks different from the one from the 2007 results (shown lower down). The difference comes from that change in the view of what Ashley did when he bought the club. What seems to have not been clear was that when he bought the club he would immediately have to pay off the mortgage on the stadium, as it wasn't listed in the previous accounts as being anything more than a long term loan.

 

This meant that in 2007 it looked as the the debt was £71m. When they realised that they had to pay off the mortgage they needed to add that extra amount in. It was also necessary to put money in to cover the £34m loss for that year.

 

The further leap in debt in 2008 comes from the financial loss for the year having to be paid for from somewhere, and this has been from Ashley pumping more money in as a loan.

 

Of the £149m debt roughly£100m is owed to Mike Ashley. He has said that this is a loan that isn't expected to have to be paid back before July 2009 at the earliest, unless the club is bought from him.

 

The last bit is all news to me.

 

Who is the other £49m owed to and how has Ashley managed to double the debt in a year and a half?

 

Comforting to know that we're not expected to pay off the £100m before July like.

 

The £49 million is owed to normal club creditors and is not fixed debt as such.

 

£70 million debt was due to Ashley at 30th June 2007 after he paid off the clubs fixed debt and put some extra working capital in. The club then had another bad year incurring heavy losses, so he had to stick in a further £30 million to keep it going and resulting a total debt due to him of £100 million at 30th June 2008.

[Zero]

And that's the reason why we badly need to breakeven, and we cannot afford Owen's contract anymore.

[themanupstairs]

And that's the reason why we badly need to breakeven, and we cannot afford Owen's contract anymore.

 

If there's any truth to this, then Owen is fucking us over by staying with us through to the end of his contract. Maybe it would have been best to let him go for 6 or 7m, get him off the wage bill, and use that money towards buying a young up and coming striker.

[Zero]

Or another view is, the ticket price should raise by 20-30% next season.

[Rich]

Ideally you'd want Viduka, Geremi, Smith and Cacapa all off the wage bill too as I'd imagine they're all on a pretty penny (some more than others) while barely offering anything to the club at the present time. As a partially-educated guess I'd imagine these four alone are eating up around £200k per week, so over £10M a season... nowt we can blame Shepherd for there like, directly at least.

 

Given and Owen are two more high-earners (the highest?) who look set to go as well, which is obviously a different kettle of fish as these are both automatic choices when fit. If they go they'll need replacing by players of similar quality (hopefully Harper and Krul will both step up as far as Given goes and you'd like to think we'll find someone quality to come in to partner Martins up top, if he wants to stay)... £8m a season here or so for these two sound fair enough as a guess?

 

Then there's Butt, who you'd hope would be getting a reduction in his latest deal due to his age - amongst other things...

 

Obviously it's all well and good from a purely fiscal perspective but replacements will be needed - however, being incredibly optimistic, if they were in the same vein as Bassong, Coloccini and Jonas then I'd be happy enough.

 

The whole thing has an aura of grim inevitability about it, but as long as we stay up it doesn't need to be entirely doom and gloom - this season may end up being looked back upon as a necessary evil more than anything... I hope.

[Colos Short and Curlies]

Do any of the accountants have any comments on macbeth's latest update?

 

http://www.football-finances.org.uk/newcastle/2008/assetsdebts3.htm

 

All these debts needed to be paid off when Ashley bought the club. The graph below looks different from the one from the 2007 results (shown lower down). The difference comes from that change in the view of what Ashley did when he bought the club. What seems to have not been clear was that when he bought the club he would immediately have to pay off the mortgage on the stadium, as it wasn't listed in the previous accounts as being anything more than a long term loan.

 

This meant that in 2007 it looked as the the debt was £71m. When they realised that they had to pay off the mortgage they needed to add that extra amount in. It was also necessary to put money in to cover the £34m loss for that year.

 

The further leap in debt in 2008 comes from the financial loss for the year having to be paid for from somewhere, and this has been from Ashley pumping more money in as a loan.

 

Of the £149m debt roughly£100m is owed to Mike Ashley. He has said that this is a loan that isn't expected to have to be paid back before July 2009 at the earliest, unless the club is bought from him.

 

The last bit is all news to me.

 

Who is the other £49m owed to and how has Ashley managed to double the debt in a year and a half?

 

Comforting to know that we're not expected to pay off the £100m before July like.

the july bit i'd assume is so the auditors will sign it off. basically he is guarnteeing the debts through the financial trading year. (i think)

 

Correct

[Colos Short and Curlies]

Do any of the accountants have any comments on macbeth's latest update?

 

http://www.football-finances.org.uk/newcastle/2008/assetsdebts3.htm

 

All these debts needed to be paid off when Ashley bought the club. The graph below looks different from the one from the 2007 results (shown lower down). The difference comes from that change in the view of what Ashley did when he bought the club. What seems to have not been clear was that when he bought the club he would immediately have to pay off the mortgage on the stadium, as it wasn't listed in the previous accounts as being anything more than a long term loan.

 

This meant that in 2007 it looked as the the debt was £71m. When they realised that they had to pay off the mortgage they needed to add that extra amount in. It was also necessary to put money in to cover the £34m loss for that year.

 

The further leap in debt in 2008 comes from the financial loss for the year having to be paid for from somewhere, and this has been from Ashley pumping more money in as a loan.

 

Of the £149m debt roughly£100m is owed to Mike Ashley. He has said that this is a loan that isn't expected to have to be paid back before July 2009 at the earliest, unless the club is bought from him.

 

The last bit is all news to me.

 

Who is the other £49m owed to and how has Ashley managed to double the debt in a year and a half?

 

Comforting to know that we're not expected to pay off the £100m before July like.

 

This meant that in 2007 it looked as the the debt was £71m. When they realised that they had to pay off the mortgage they needed to add that extra amount in

 

Rubbish, the debt value stayed the same, it was just the payment profile which changed.

 

It may just be the way MB has written it, but it reads like 'I thought it was £71m but it was actually more', when actually it should be 'I thought I had 3 years to pay £71m but I had half an hour'

[Colos Short and Curlies]

Or another view is, the ticket price should raise by 20-30% next season.

 

And watch  match day revenues fall buy the same amount as demand dries up?

[Zero]

Or another view is, the ticket price should raise by 20-30% next season.

 

And watch  match day revenues fall buy the same amount as demand dries up?

 

That's the problem.  We cannot afford those high-earners and at the same time we cannot raise the ticket price.  The cost needs to be cut, the revenue has reached the upper limit, and at the same time we, at least, has to stay in EPL.  A tough task imo.

 

Probably that means we has become kinda selling club now.  Sell the established stars like Given and N'Zogbia and bring in some young talents like Bassong and Guthrie.

[Rich]

It's more selling the dead wood than anything. While it appears Given and Owen are lost causes, the former should be replaced by staff we already have on the books and the latter will obviously need to be replaced externally.

 

The squad is small but is still infested with fairly useless and massively overpaid players, who are also getting on in years.

 

Viduka and Cacapa can easily be cut out by not renewing their deals, but Geremi and Smith will be another matter entirely. It's fair enough paying top wedge to first-team players, but not people who spend their lives on treatment tables/benches.

[Liam Liam Liam O]

Or another view is, the ticket price should raise by 20-30% next season.

 

Unless you signed up to the three year deal 

[Teasy]

We don't need to sell all our established stars and buy youngsters, we just need to stop giving numerous players silly money, especially players who are useless to us.  Some people seem to have gotten the idea we're just poor or something "we can't afford big players, we have to be a selling club bringing through cheap youngsters".  Have people forgotten we've got the fourth highest wage bill in the league?  Its twice what the majority of Premiership clubs pay out.  We're still a financially very strong club as far as the money we bring in, with a massive revenue in comparison to most Premiership clubs.  All we need to do is get rid of the wasters like Smith, Duff, Geremi ect and other players on silly wages like Owen and try to stick within about £45-50 million total for wages (still far more then 70% of Premiership clubs could afford).

 

Probably that means we has become kinda selling club now.  Sell the established stars like Given and N'Zogbia and bring in some young talents like Bassong and Guthrie.

 

Why would we need to become a selling club when we have probably the 5 or 6th highest revenue in the league?  Also how is the likes of N'Zogbia and Given a problem for our wage bill?  N'Zogbia's on a moderate wage compared to most and Given's wage is both appropriate and affordable (around £45 to £50,000 isn't it?).

 

Cacapa

Owen

Duff

Smith

Geremi

Viduka

 

Six players that cost us in the region of £20 million a season, that's almost as much as a lot of Premiership clubs spend on there entire squad!  Yet how many of them are even useful to us in any way, about four of them, and even then only one of them would actually be difficult to replace.  The rest could be replaced by average players on low wages and still be a improvement (not that I'm advocating that of course).

[Zero]

We don't need to sell all our established stars and buy youngsters, we just need to stop giving numerous players silly money, especially players who are useless to us.  Some people seem to have gotten the idea we're just poor or something "we can't afford big players, we have to be a selling club bringing through cheap youngsters".  Have people forgotten we've got the fourth highest wage bill in the league?  Its twice what the majority of Premiership clubs pay out.  We're still a financially very strong club as far as the money we bring in, with a massive revenue in comparison to most Premiership clubs.  All we need to do is get rid of the wasters like Smith, Duff, Geremi ect and other players on silly wages like Owen and try to stick within about £45-50 million total for wages (still far more then 75% of Premiership clubs could afford).

 

Explain to me why we need to become a selling club?  Also how is the likes of N'Zogbia and Given a problem for our wage bill?  N'Zogbia's on a moderate wage compared to most and Given's wage is both appropriate and affordable (around £45 to £50,000 isn't it?).

 

If you want to recover the financial position shortly, sell the players with highest market value.

If you are patient enough to wait for a few seasons, certainly get rid of the waster's contract --- if we are able to find a buyer.

 

I am all for the 2nd option but

1.  Many fans aren't patient enough to wait for a few seasons

2.  It is very hard to find a club that are willing to buy those wasters

3.  Those wasters didn't want to lower their wages and refuse to move

 

A matter of choice only.  2nd is more ideal but I know 1st is more probable.

[Zero]

To be more direct I am referring to Duff and Smith.  Fortunately Viduka and Owen will not be here soon but we probably need to incur another costly contract to pursuade Martins to stay.

[Jayson]

Well apparently Butt's been offered another contract ....................so there goes saving wages on our useless players..

 

To be fair i used to rate him a bit, but he's seriously lost his legs this season

[UV]

Do any of the accountants have any comments on macbeth's latest update?

 

http://www.football-finances.org.uk/newcastle/2008/assetsdebts3.htm

 

All these debts needed to be paid off when Ashley bought the club. The graph below looks different from the one from the 2007 results (shown lower down). The difference comes from that change in the view of what Ashley did when he bought the club. What seems to have not been clear was that when he bought the club he would immediately have to pay off the mortgage on the stadium, as it wasn't listed in the previous accounts as being anything more than a long term loan.

 

This meant that in 2007 it looked as the the debt was £71m. When they realised that they had to pay off the mortgage they needed to add that extra amount in. It was also necessary to put money in to cover the £34m loss for that year.

 

The further leap in debt in 2008 comes from the financial loss for the year having to be paid for from somewhere, and this has been from Ashley pumping more money in as a loan.

 

Of the £149m debt roughly£100m is owed to Mike Ashley. He has said that this is a loan that isn't expected to have to be paid back before July 2009 at the earliest, unless the club is bought from him.

 

The last bit is all news to me.

 

Who is the other £49m owed to and how has Ashley managed to double the debt in a year and a half?

 

Comforting to know that we're not expected to pay off the £100m before July like.

 

The £49 million is owed to normal club creditors and is not fixed debt as such.

 

£70 million debt was due to Ashley at 30th June 2007 after he paid off the clubs fixed debt and put some extra working capital in. The club then had another bad year incurring heavy losses, so he had to stick in a further £30 million to keep it going and resulting a total debt due to him of £100 million at 30th June 2008.

 

So in your opinion is macbeth's intimation correct that the net debt in the 2007 accounts is wrong and should be £124m rather than £71m, and that the net debt grew from £61m in june 2006 to £149m in june 2008?

[Teasy]

I think even just letting Owen, Viduka, Cacapa and Geremi go would go a long way to recovering our financial position.  Saves us about £15 million a year, of course they need to be replaced.  But I see no reason why that can't be achieved on half those wages.

 

I think we might even be able to sell Smith if we're willing to let him go for a small fee.

[quayside]

Do any of the accountants have any comments on macbeth's latest update?

 

http://www.football-finances.org.uk/newcastle/2008/assetsdebts3.htm

 

All these debts needed to be paid off when Ashley bought the club. The graph below looks different from the one from the 2007 results (shown lower down). The difference comes from that change in the view of what Ashley did when he bought the club. What seems to have not been clear was that when he bought the club he would immediately have to pay off the mortgage on the stadium, as it wasn't listed in the previous accounts as being anything more than a long term loan.

 

This meant that in 2007 it looked as the the debt was £71m. When they realised that they had to pay off the mortgage they needed to add that extra amount in. It was also necessary to put money in to cover the £34m loss for that year.

 

The further leap in debt in 2008 comes from the financial loss for the year having to be paid for from somewhere, and this has been from Ashley pumping more money in as a loan.

 

Of the £149m debt roughly£100m is owed to Mike Ashley. He has said that this is a loan that isn't expected to have to be paid back before July 2009 at the earliest, unless the club is bought from him.

 

The last bit is all news to me.

 

Who is the other £49m owed to and how has Ashley managed to double the debt in a year and a half?

 

Comforting to know that we're not expected to pay off the £100m before July like.

 

The £49 million is owed to normal club creditors and is not fixed debt as such.

 

£70 million debt was due to Ashley at 30th June 2007 after he paid off the clubs fixed debt and put some extra working capital in. The club then had another bad year incurring heavy losses, so he had to stick in a further £30 million to keep it going and resulting a total debt due to him of £100 million at 30th June 2008.

 

So in your opinion is macbeth's intimation correct that the net debt in the 2007 accounts is wrong and should be £124m rather than £71m, and that the net debt grew from £61m in june 2006 to £149m in june 2008?

 

Well I certainly don't think the accounts were wrong. Also I would disagree with him if he is classifying normal trade creditors as debt. They are not classified as fixed debt simply because they fluctuate and are not generally subject to a loan agreement.

 

The piece you quote "This meant that in 2007 it looked as the the debt was £71m. When they realised that they had to pay off the mortgage they needed to add that extra amount in." seems to be saying that there was some hidden debt that wasn't disclosed. And that is not the case. The amount of the debt was disclosed but what was not disclosed is that it was repayable immediately if the club changed ownership.

 

 

But there again I could easily be misinterpreting what he is saying tbh.

[Colos Short and Curlies]

Or another view is, the ticket price should raise by 20-30% next season.

 

And watch  match day revenues fall buy the same amount as demand dries up?

 

That's the problem.  We cannot afford those high-earners and at the same time we cannot raise the ticket price.  The cost needs to be cut, the revenue has reached the upper limit, and at the same time we, at least, has to stay in EPL.  A tough task imo.

 

Probably that means we has become kinda selling club now.  Sell the established stars like Given and N'Zogbia and bring in some young talents like Bassong and Guthrie.

 

Someone said yesterday that you claim to be an accountant.

 

If you are then I'm 100% certain that you will be familiar with price elasticity?

 

There is no way on earth that any club could raise ticket prices by 20% and maintain demand. With the way the economy is at the minute and the way casual fans are falling out of love with football a raise of 20% would easily see a fall in numbers sold by 20-30% minimum.

 

Now I know you say in the quoted post that we can't raise prices, but in the first quote you claim that they should rise.

 

Which is it?

[Colos Short and Curlies]

Do any of the accountants have any comments on macbeth's latest update?

 

http://www.football-finances.org.uk/newcastle/2008/assetsdebts3.htm

 

All these debts needed to be paid off when Ashley bought the club. The graph below looks different from the one from the 2007 results (shown lower down). The difference comes from that change in the view of what Ashley did when he bought the club. What seems to have not been clear was that when he bought the club he would immediately have to pay off the mortgage on the stadium, as it wasn't listed in the previous accounts as being anything more than a long term loan.

 

This meant that in 2007 it looked as the the debt was £71m. When they realised that they had to pay off the mortgage they needed to add that extra amount in. It was also necessary to put money in to cover the £34m loss for that year.

 

The further leap in debt in 2008 comes from the financial loss for the year having to be paid for from somewhere, and this has been from Ashley pumping more money in as a loan.

 

Of the £149m debt roughly£100m is owed to Mike Ashley. He has said that this is a loan that isn't expected to have to be paid back before July 2009 at the earliest, unless the club is bought from him.

 

The last bit is all news to me.

 

Who is the other £49m owed to and how has Ashley managed to double the debt in a year and a half?

 

Comforting to know that we're not expected to pay off the £100m before July like.

 

The £49 million is owed to normal club creditors and is not fixed debt as such.

 

£70 million debt was due to Ashley at 30th June 2007 after he paid off the clubs fixed debt and put some extra working capital in. The club then had another bad year incurring heavy losses, so he had to stick in a further £30 million to keep it going and resulting a total debt due to him of £100 million at 30th June 2008.

 

So in your opinion is macbeth's intimation correct that the net debt in the 2007 accounts is wrong and should be £124m rather than £71m, and that the net debt grew from £61m in june 2006 to £149m in june 2008?

 

Well I certainly don't think the accounts were wrong. Also I would disagree with him if he is classifying normal trade creditors as debt. They are not classified as fixed debt simply because they fluctuate and are not generally subject to a loan agreement.

 

The piece you quote "This meant that in 2007 it looked as the the debt was £71m. When they realised that they had to pay off the mortgage they needed to add that extra amount in." seems to be saying that there was some hidden debt that wasn't disclosed. And that is not the case. The amount of the debt was disclosed but what was not disclosed is that it was repayable immediately if the club changed ownership.

 

 

But there again I could easily be misinterpreting what he is saying tbh.

 

You copying my posts? Made the exact same point earlier  :colo:

 

One thing about the creditors not being fixed debt.... Normally I would agree with that, but considering that a lot of the Toons creditors are transfer fee payments there is a strong case for including them as 'debt' despite the payments etc not being fixed.

[quayside]

Do any of the accountants have any comments on macbeth's latest update?

 

http://www.football-finances.org.uk/newcastle/2008/assetsdebts3.htm

 

All these debts needed to be paid off when Ashley bought the club. The graph below looks different from the one from the 2007 results (shown lower down). The difference comes from that change in the view of what Ashley did when he bought the club. What seems to have not been clear was that when he bought the club he would immediately have to pay off the mortgage on the stadium, as it wasn't listed in the previous accounts as being anything more than a long term loan.

 

This meant that in 2007 it looked as the the debt was £71m. When they realised that they had to pay off the mortgage they needed to add that extra amount in. It was also necessary to put money in to cover the £34m loss for that year.

 

The further leap in debt in 2008 comes from the financial loss for the year having to be paid for from somewhere, and this has been from Ashley pumping more money in as a loan.

 

Of the £149m debt roughly£100m is owed to Mike Ashley. He has said that this is a loan that isn't expected to have to be paid back before July 2009 at the earliest, unless the club is bought from him.

 

The last bit is all news to me.

 

Who is the other £49m owed to and how has Ashley managed to double the debt in a year and a half?

 

Comforting to know that we're not expected to pay off the £100m before July like.

 

The £49 million is owed to normal club creditors and is not fixed debt as such.

 

£70 million debt was due to Ashley at 30th June 2007 after he paid off the clubs fixed debt and put some extra working capital in. The club then had another bad year incurring heavy losses, so he had to stick in a further £30 million to keep it going and resulting a total debt due to him of £100 million at 30th June 2008.

 

So in your opinion is macbeth's intimation correct that the net debt in the 2007 accounts is wrong and should be £124m rather than £71m, and that the net debt grew from £61m in june 2006 to £149m in june 2008?

 

Well I certainly don't think the accounts were wrong. Also I would disagree with him if he is classifying normal trade creditors as debt. They are not classified as fixed debt simply because they fluctuate and are not generally subject to a loan agreement.

 

The piece you quote "This meant that in 2007 it looked as the the debt was £71m. When they realised that they had to pay off the mortgage they needed to add that extra amount in." seems to be saying that there was some hidden debt that wasn't disclosed. And that is not the case. The amount of the debt was disclosed but what was not disclosed is that it was repayable immediately if the club changed ownership.

 

 

But there again I could easily be misinterpreting what he is saying tbh.

 

You copying my posts? Made the exact same point earlier  :colo:

 

One thing about the creditors not being fixed debt.... Normally I would agree with that, but considering that a lot of the Toons creditors are transfer fee payments there is a strong case for including them as 'debt' despite the payments etc not being fixed.

 

Sorry dude, haven't followed recent posts on here so had no idea I was copying your post, just got back and saw UV asked me a question. Thought it only polite to try and answer it 

 

 

Take your point about some of the debt being transfer money - although to lump it in as and refer to it without also referring to the fact that some of the clubs debtors are also transfer funds is perhaps a bit misleading....