Liam Liam Liam O Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 So is amortisation a bit like depreciation on your car? And if you get more than you feel the depreciation was at that point in time, you could say you have made a profit? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnypd Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 so he's not paid the debt off he's just made us indebted to him instead. 'great bloke' 2.2m loss, so basically breaking even, take into account not paying debt repayments and we're looking at a tidy profit. I'm sorry but that is possibly the worst post I think you have ever posted on here. Of course he was expecting payback for his loan, we all knew that from day one that if he was a sensible businessman, the money was only going to be given in an assumption that the £100m was going to be given back to him via an increased valuation of the club. And quaysides OP makes it clear that he has underwritten a £20m loss in the past year, hence giving that £20m a year he promised. With that in mind, it is clear that it is unrealistic to expect anyone coming in to do much difference unless they are genuine multi-billionaires who want some personal glory. All Ashley's faults must therefore by with regards to his handling of management affairs, as opposed lack of investment. Sorry mate, but how many times have we heard people praise ashley for putting his hand in his pocket to clear our debts? a thousand times? ten thousand times? this is just a big YOURE WRONG to all those ashley arse lickers. funny how great financial brains like LLLO missed that one, yet i suggested it over a year ago. clearing debt can be great if the club is up for sale as it means the new owners dont have to address that and inherit a club with a good balance sheet. this doesnt apply in our case as ashley wants this money paid to him. it can be good for a second reason - avoiding interest and loan repayments means money can be put back into the club for the manager to spend - once again, this doesnt apply to us. for us fans, you know, people who watch football being played on a football pitch, it can be good if having a reduced debt consequently improves our on field performance. i dont need to tell you that this has not happened. the £20m loss is primarily player amortisation, a paper loss. if owen moves into the last year of his contract the club would lose, say, £4m from the value of a year of his tenure at the club, something restricted to the balance sheets rather than cash flowing out of the club. in fact, £17.8m of that £20m is player amortisation. as with previous accounts which saw us make something like a £30m loss, this was reduced to £300,000 once amortisation and trading was taken out of the equation. the club is making a small loss, nothing substantial, which is no suprise considering how poorly the club has been ran on the field in shepherd's final years and the entirety of ashley's reign. the way to improve this is to invest in the managerial & playing staff. any business that wants to move forward has to go into debt, you have to make expenditures in the short-term to reap the rewards in the medium to long term. if ashley is not prepared to do this he should bugger off. trying to run a premiership club on a shoestring is counter-productive - you end up in situations like the one we are in currently, and it could get worse. those who like to defend ashley any chance they get need to wake up and realise this. What kind of budget are Arsenal being run on? you seriously comparing us to arsenal? first difference - they have arsene wenger - a one off- and we have had allardyce, keegan and someone as palpably useless as kinnear. wenger is also a person who has control over his club and who has shaped it in his vision, we've had dennis wise and errors in communication or team-work. second difference, wenger has instituted a long-term plan which they have reaped the benefit from over the course of a decade. in that time theyve demonstrated that they can spend big sums and big wages, as they know it is counter-productive to think you can live on 15 year old signings straight away. thirdly they are an established club in the top four, for a lesser club to break up the ranks major investment must be made - think randy lerner. fourthly, a period of under-investment in arsenal's playing staff means they may well drop out of the top four for the first time in a while. if they want to start matching man utd and chelsea again they'll have to invest in players to get back up there. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest toonlass Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 So is amortisation a bit like depreciation on your car? And if you get more than you feel the depreciation was at that point in time, you could say you have made a profit? yay me! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnypd Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 so he's not paid the debt off he's just made us indebted to him instead. 'great bloke' 2.2m loss, so basically breaking even, take into account not paying debt repayments and we're looking at a tidy profit. I'm sorry but that is possibly the worst post I think you have ever posted on here. Of course he was expecting payback for his loan, we all knew that from day one that if he was a sensible businessman, the money was only going to be given in an assumption that the £100m was going to be given back to him via an increased valuation of the club. And quaysides OP makes it clear that he has underwritten a £20m loss in the past year, hence giving that £20m a year he promised. With that in mind, it is clear that it is unrealistic to expect anyone coming in to do much difference unless they are genuine multi-billionaires who want some personal glory. All Ashley's faults must therefore by with regards to his handling of management affairs, as opposed lack of investment. Sorry mate, but how many times have we heard people praise ashley for putting his hand in his pocket to clear our debts? a thousand times? ten thousand times? this is just a big YOURE WRONG to all those ashley arse lickers. funny how great financial brains like LLLO missed that one, yet i suggested it over a year ago. clearing debt can be great if the club is up for sale as it means the new owners dont have to address that and inherit a club with a good balance sheet. this doesnt apply in our case as ashley wants this money paid to him. it can be good for a second reason - avoiding interest and loan repayments means money can be put back into the club for the manager to spend - once again, this doesnt apply to us. for us fans, you know, people who watch football being played on a football pitch, it can be good if having a reduced debt consequently improves our on field performance. i dont need to tell you that this has not happened. the £20m loss is primarily player amortisation, a paper loss. if owen moves into the last year of his contract the club would lose, say, £4m from the value of a year of his tenure at the club, something restricted to the balance sheets rather than cash flowing out of the club. in fact, £17.8m of that £20m is player amortisation. as with previous accounts which saw us make something like a £30m loss, this was reduced to £300,000 once amortisation and trading was taken out of the equation. the club is making a small loss, nothing substantial, which is no suprise considering how poorly the club has been ran on the field in shepherd's final years and the entirety of ashley's reign. the way to improve this is to invest in the managerial & playing staff. any business that wants to move forward has to go into debt, you have to make expenditures in the short-term to reap the rewards in the medium to long term. if ashley is not prepared to do this he should bugger off. trying to run a premiership club on a shoestring is counter-productive - you end up in situations like the one we are in currently, and it could get worse. those who like to defend ashley any chance they get need to wake up and realise this. All the money will be paid to him from the sale either directly via the loan or via the holding company he set up to purchase the shares though. You're in so far above your head it's frightening & you're making yourself look stupid. two points. i said that a couple of posts up - and you misunderstood what i was saying in the first place. once again the gigantic brain of LLLO strikes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
quayside Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 There will inevitably be some discussion on here at some point about amortisation of players’ contracts and whether it should really count as a cost. In my opinion it should because if you ignore it you don’t reflect the money paid out for players. In other words if you ignore it you are basically saying we got Owen, Duff, Martins, Collo etc for nothing. Would not any money spent/received on player transfers be included in the operating expenses (whether it be for transfers in the current year or for delayed payments for transfers in previous years) ? No - money spent on players isn't charged against profit in operating expenses in the year it is incurred. That money physically (okay, electronically) moves from one place to another in a particular year though doesn't it. Surely it must be accounted for somehow in that financial year? It gets shown as an asset in the balance sheet. It is then, as discussed, amortised through the annual results over the life of the contract. Eg If a player cost £10 million we record a £10 million asset in our balance sheet. Say its a 4 year contract so £2.5 million gets written off every year against the overall profit/loss for the year. If he's sold in year 4 his value has been written down to £2.5 million by then, if we get £8.5 million the profit is recorded as £6 million in the result for the year. FWIW Given will be on the books at zero so if he's sold its all profit. I (believe I) understand how the player valuation as an intangible asset on the books works via amortisation, but how you describe it the accounts would look the same whether we paid all the money up front for a player or if we paid the money in stages over a number of years. Is there no difference to the accounts in the two significantly different scenarios? Yes a bit. You still show the player as an asset at full value on day 1, but the amount unpaid for him is shown as a liability of the company (creditor). So £10 million player, 4 year contract, payment terms £5 million up front and £2.5 over each of next two years. £10 million goes in as an asset, £5 million disappears from cash, and £5 million goes into creditors. The £10 million still gets amortised in exactly the same way as if the whole £10 million had been paid up front. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzieMandias Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 A bit more info in response to some of the questins on here: 1) Income (last year in brackets) Matchday £32 million (£34 million) Media £41 million (£26 million) Commercial £26 million (£27 million) 2) Players wages £70 million (£65 million) bringing the ratio of wages/turnover down to 70% from 74%. 3) Cash flow in basic terms: Operating cash flow - £5 million Finance servicing costs - £8 million Net capital spend - £21 million Loan repayment - £70 million Total out = £104 million This was financed by : Ashley £100 million Overdraft £4 million Total £104 million Thanks, man. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fredbob Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 so he's not paid the debt off he's just made us indebted to him instead. 'great bloke' 2.2m loss, so basically breaking even, take into account not paying debt repayments and we're looking at a tidy profit. I'm sorry but that is possibly the worst post I think you have ever posted on here. Of course he was expecting payback for his loan, we all knew that from day one that if he was a sensible businessman, the money was only going to be given in an assumption that the £100m was going to be given back to him via an increased valuation of the club. And quaysides OP makes it clear that he has underwritten a £20m loss in the past year, hence giving that £20m a year he promised. With that in mind, it is clear that it is unrealistic to expect anyone coming in to do much difference unless they are genuine multi-billionaires who want some personal glory. All Ashley's faults must therefore by with regards to his handling of management affairs, as opposed lack of investment. Sorry mate, but how many times have we heard people praise ashley for putting his hand in his pocket to clear our debts? a thousand times? ten thousand times? this is just a big YOURE WRONG to all those ashley arse lickers. funny how great financial brains like LLLO missed that one, yet i suggested it over a year ago. clearing debt can be great if the club is up for sale as it means the new owners dont have to address that and inherit a club with a good balance sheet. this doesnt apply in our case as ashley wants this money paid to him. it can be good for a second reason - avoiding interest and loan repayments means money can be put back into the club for the manager to spend - once again, this doesnt apply to us. for us fans, you know, people who watch football being played on a football pitch, it can be good if having a reduced debt consequently improves our on field performance. i dont need to tell you that this has not happened. the £20m loss is primarily player amortisation, a paper loss. if owen moves into the last year of his contract the club would lose, say, £4m from the value of a year of his tenure at the club, something restricted to the balance sheets rather than cash flowing out of the club. in fact, £17.8m of that £20m is player amortisation. as with previous accounts which saw us make something like a £30m loss, this was reduced to £300,000 once amortisation and trading was taken out of the equation. the club is making a small loss, nothing substantial, which is no suprise considering how poorly the club has been ran on the field in shepherd's final years and the entirety of ashley's reign. the way to improve this is to invest in the managerial & playing staff. any business that wants to move forward has to go into debt, you have to make expenditures in the short-term to reap the rewards in the medium to long term. if ashley is not prepared to do this he should bugger off. trying to run a premiership club on a shoestring is counter-productive - you end up in situations like the one we are in currently, and it could get worse. those who like to defend ashley any chance they get need to wake up and realise this. Fucking hell, where do I start? Second entry for worst post of 2009. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Darth Toon Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 It's the wage bill that sticks out like a sore thumb - way, way too high for the level we've been performing the last few seasons. We're paying out double what most the teams in the relegation scrap with us are: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7424134.stm Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnypd Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 so he's not paid the debt off he's just made us indebted to him instead. 'great bloke' 2.2m loss, so basically breaking even, take into account not paying debt repayments and we're looking at a tidy profit. I'm sorry but that is possibly the worst post I think you have ever posted on here. Of course he was expecting payback for his loan, we all knew that from day one that if he was a sensible businessman, the money was only going to be given in an assumption that the £100m was going to be given back to him via an increased valuation of the club. And quaysides OP makes it clear that he has underwritten a £20m loss in the past year, hence giving that £20m a year he promised. With that in mind, it is clear that it is unrealistic to expect anyone coming in to do much difference unless they are genuine multi-billionaires who want some personal glory. All Ashley's faults must therefore by with regards to his handling of management affairs, as opposed lack of investment. Sorry mate, but how many times have we heard people praise ashley for putting his hand in his pocket to clear our debts? a thousand times? ten thousand times? this is just a big YOURE WRONG to all those ashley arse lickers. funny how great financial brains like LLLO missed that one, yet i suggested it over a year ago. clearing debt can be great if the club is up for sale as it means the new owners dont have to address that and inherit a club with a good balance sheet. this doesnt apply in our case as ashley wants this money paid to him. it can be good for a second reason - avoiding interest and loan repayments means money can be put back into the club for the manager to spend - once again, this doesnt apply to us. for us fans, you know, people who watch football being played on a football pitch, it can be good if having a reduced debt consequently improves our on field performance. i dont need to tell you that this has not happened. the £20m loss is primarily player amortisation, a paper loss. if owen moves into the last year of his contract the club would lose, say, £4m from the value of a year of his tenure at the club, something restricted to the balance sheets rather than cash flowing out of the club. in fact, £17.8m of that £20m is player amortisation. as with previous accounts which saw us make something like a £30m loss, this was reduced to £300,000 once amortisation and trading was taken out of the equation. the club is making a small loss, nothing substantial, which is no suprise considering how poorly the club has been ran on the field in shepherd's final years and the entirety of ashley's reign. the way to improve this is to invest in the managerial & playing staff. any business that wants to move forward has to go into debt, you have to make expenditures in the short-term to reap the rewards in the medium to long term. if ashley is not prepared to do this he should bugger off. trying to run a premiership club on a shoestring is counter-productive - you end up in situations like the one we are in currently, and it could get worse. those who like to defend ashley any chance they get need to wake up and realise this. Fucking hell, where do I start? Second entry for worst post of 2009. is "entry for worst post" something thick people say when theyve had their arse handed to them on a plate cos they cant think of a proper argument? aye, thought so. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 two points. i said that a couple of posts up - and you misunderstood what i was saying in the first place. once again the gigantic brain of LLLO strikes. LLO is a qualified accountant, I think he understands finances more than most on here. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colos Short and Curlies Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Quayside is doing a grand job swimming agaisnt the tide of questions, but can I state re ammortisation, it is quite simple. The cost of the player (transfer fee, agent costs, signing on fee) are recognised in the accounts (ammortisation) over the length of the ORIGINAL contract. Doesn't matter if we pay a fee when renewing, its the original contract which counts. You can devalue a player by more than that one amount, but it very rarely happens as you cannot get a reasonable estimate of their value until they are sold. The value of players can not go up once you have bought them. The rationale for this is to spread the money spent over the useful life of the player (no Smith jokes please). As it is all to do with what you have spent on players, those brought through the youth team or free transfers have no value in the accounts. Other point. The p&l is not a good indicator of a clubs year really, look at Operating cash inflow/outflow then take of capital spend (pretty much player acquisitions and improvements to the stadium. Op Cash outflow of £5m isn't good as you are borrowing as soon as you buy one player. (btw we must have spent a shitload on the training ground/stadium last year seeing as we just about broke even in transfers - £21million!) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fredbob Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 so he's not paid the debt off he's just made us indebted to him instead. 'great bloke' 2.2m loss, so basically breaking even, take into account not paying debt repayments and we're looking at a tidy profit. I'm sorry but that is possibly the worst post I think you have ever posted on here. Of course he was expecting payback for his loan, we all knew that from day one that if he was a sensible businessman, the money was only going to be given in an assumption that the £100m was going to be given back to him via an increased valuation of the club. And quaysides OP makes it clear that he has underwritten a £20m loss in the past year, hence giving that £20m a year he promised. With that in mind, it is clear that it is unrealistic to expect anyone coming in to do much difference unless they are genuine multi-billionaires who want some personal glory. All Ashley's faults must therefore by with regards to his handling of management affairs, as opposed lack of investment. Sorry mate, but how many times have we heard people praise ashley for putting his hand in his pocket to clear our debts? a thousand times? ten thousand times? this is just a big YOURE WRONG to all those ashley arse lickers. funny how great financial brains like LLLO missed that one, yet i suggested it over a year ago. clearing debt can be great if the club is up for sale as it means the new owners dont have to address that and inherit a club with a good balance sheet. this doesnt apply in our case as ashley wants this money paid to him. it can be good for a second reason - avoiding interest and loan repayments means money can be put back into the club for the manager to spend - once again, this doesnt apply to us. for us fans, you know, people who watch football being played on a football pitch, it can be good if having a reduced debt consequently improves our on field performance. i dont need to tell you that this has not happened. the £20m loss is primarily player amortisation, a paper loss. if owen moves into the last year of his contract the club would lose, say, £4m from the value of a year of his tenure at the club, something restricted to the balance sheets rather than cash flowing out of the club. in fact, £17.8m of that £20m is player amortisation. as with previous accounts which saw us make something like a £30m loss, this was reduced to £300,000 once amortisation and trading was taken out of the equation. the club is making a small loss, nothing substantial, which is no suprise considering how poorly the club has been ran on the field in shepherd's final years and the entirety of ashley's reign. the way to improve this is to invest in the managerial & playing staff. any business that wants to move forward has to go into debt, you have to make expenditures in the short-term to reap the rewards in the medium to long term. if ashley is not prepared to do this he should bugger off. trying to run a premiership club on a shoestring is counter-productive - you end up in situations like the one we are in currently, and it could get worse. those who like to defend ashley any chance they get need to wake up and realise this. Fucking hell, where do I start? Second entry for worst post of 2009. is "entry for worst post" something thick people say when theyve had their arse handed to them on a plate cos they cant think of a proper argument? aye, thought so. Look at you go, go one son, crush that grape. Its the way you're lashing out that highlights the inpetitude of your posts, a stark contrast from the normally articulated, calm and sobering johnnpd. How is what Ashley has done with this debt any different to what Abramovich has done with Chleseas debt when he took over? I dont understand how those who say the debt has been paid of are wrong if its acknowledged as being the case at a different club with the exact same form of repayment? Surely you arent going to go down the "Abramovich has invested heavily route" as a form of retort? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaKa Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 so he's not paid the debt off he's just made us indebted to him instead. 'great bloke' 2.2m loss, so basically breaking even, take into account not paying debt repayments and we're looking at a tidy profit. I'm sorry but that is possibly the worst post I think you have ever posted on here. Of course he was expecting payback for his loan, we all knew that from day one that if he was a sensible businessman, the money was only going to be given in an assumption that the £100m was going to be given back to him via an increased valuation of the club. And quaysides OP makes it clear that he has underwritten a £20m loss in the past year, hence giving that £20m a year he promised. With that in mind, it is clear that it is unrealistic to expect anyone coming in to do much difference unless they are genuine multi-billionaires who want some personal glory. All Ashley's faults must therefore by with regards to his handling of management affairs, as opposed lack of investment. Sorry mate, but how many times have we heard people praise ashley for putting his hand in his pocket to clear our debts? a thousand times? ten thousand times? this is just a big YOURE WRONG to all those ashley arse lickers. funny how great financial brains like LLLO missed that one, yet i suggested it over a year ago. clearing debt can be great if the club is up for sale as it means the new owners dont have to address that and inherit a club with a good balance sheet. this doesnt apply in our case as ashley wants this money paid to him. it can be good for a second reason - avoiding interest and loan repayments means money can be put back into the club for the manager to spend - once again, this doesnt apply to us. for us fans, you know, people who watch football being played on a football pitch, it can be good if having a reduced debt consequently improves our on field performance. i dont need to tell you that this has not happened. the £20m loss is primarily player amortisation, a paper loss. if owen moves into the last year of his contract the club would lose, say, £4m from the value of a year of his tenure at the club, something restricted to the balance sheets rather than cash flowing out of the club. in fact, £17.8m of that £20m is player amortisation. as with previous accounts which saw us make something like a £30m loss, this was reduced to £300,000 once amortisation and trading was taken out of the equation. the club is making a small loss, nothing substantial, which is no suprise considering how poorly the club has been ran on the field in shepherd's final years and the entirety of ashley's reign. the way to improve this is to invest in the managerial & playing staff. any business that wants to move forward has to go into debt, you have to make expenditures in the short-term to reap the rewards in the medium to long term. if ashley is not prepared to do this he should bugger off. trying to run a premiership club on a shoestring is counter-productive - you end up in situations like the one we are in currently, and it could get worse. those who like to defend ashley any chance they get need to wake up and realise this. What kind of budget are Arsenal being run on? you seriously comparing us to arsenal? first difference - they have arsene wenger - a one off- and we have had allardyce, keegan and someone as palpably useless as kinnear. wenger is also a person who has control over his club and who has shaped it in his vision, we've had dennis wise and errors in communication or team-work. second difference, wenger has instituted a long-term plan which they have reaped the benefit from over the course of a decade. in that time theyve demonstrated that they can spend big sums and big wages, as they know it is counter-productive to think you can live on 15 year old signings straight away. thirdly they are an established club in the top four, for a lesser club to break up the ranks major investment must be made - think randy lerner. fourthly, a period of under-investment in arsenal's playing staff means they may well drop out of the top four for the first time in a while. if they want to start matching man utd and chelsea again they'll have to invest in players to get back up there. Wenger a one off! I hate that argument. So no one else should even bother attempting to do the same thign ever?! Because only Wenger who came down from heaven as he is now is the only one capable. It all started form somewhere didn't it? Anyway I'll leave that alone. Now tell me. When Allardyce was finishing in the top 6 with Bolton what budget were they on? How many clubs being run on half our budget have been consistently finishing above us now for the last few years. Way too many. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Message to NE5 your theory that the club was healthy under shepherd is totally bollock's on those figures and we would have defo went into administration last season Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtype Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Message to NE5 your theory that the club was healthy under shepherd is totally bollock's on those figures and we would have defo went into administration last season NE5 needs a bit of time to figure out how he's going to bullshit himself out of this one. No worries, he'll probably get around to it soon enough. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 all of top earners have to be sold in the summer or released to get this club back on track owen, 6 million a year viduka, 3.5 million a year smith, 3.5 million geremi, 3.5 million butt, 2.5 million barton, 3.5 million 23.5 million a third of wage budget was spent on these wasters, a totally fucking disgrace the best ashley can do is try to sell these players asap in my book Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ikri Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Message to NE5 your theory that the club was healthy under shepherd is totally bollock's on those figures and we would have defo went into administration last season If that Hotel/Casino project that had been mentioned had gone ahead he might have been able to shore things up for another 12-18 months, but even that's unlikely considering the credit problems the developers would have come up against due to events since that project was mentioned. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaKa Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 all of top earners have to be sold in the summer or released to get this club back on track owen, 6 million a year viduka, 3.5 million a year smith, 3.5 million geremi, 3.5 million butt, 2.5 million barton, 3.5 million 23.5 million a third of wage budget was spent on these wasters, a totally f***ing disgrace the best ashley can do is try to sell these players asap in my book Agree completely. Those figures are just alarming. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Message to NE5 your theory that the club was healthy under shepherd is totally bollock's on those figures and we would have defo went into administration last season If that Hotel/Casino project that had been mentioned had gone ahead he might have been able to shore things up for another 12-18 months, but even that's unlikely considering the credit problems the developers would have come up against due to events since that project was mentioned. that was only going to bring in 10 million max and the super casino scheme has been cancelled anycase Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 If that Hotel/Casino project that had been mentioned had gone ahead he might have been able to shore things up for another 12-18 months, but even that's unlikely considering the credit problems the developers would have come up against due to events since that project was mentioned. The Casino was kicked into touch before Ashley bought the club, it's a non-starter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
quayside Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Quayside is doing a grand job swimming agaisnt the tide of questions, but can I state re ammortisation, it is quite simple. The cost of the player (transfer fee, agent costs, signing on fee) are recognised in the accounts (ammortisation) over the length of the ORIGINAL contract. Doesn't matter if we pay a fee when renewing, its the original contract which counts. You can devalue a player by more than that one amount, but it very rarely happens as you cannot get a reasonable estimate of their value until they are sold. The value of players can not go up once you have bought them. The rationale for this is to spread the money spent over the useful life of the player (no Smith jokes please). As it is all to do with what you have spent on players, those brought through the youth team or free transfers have no value in the accounts. Other point. The p&l is not a good indicator of a clubs year really, look at Operating cash inflow/outflow then take of capital spend (pretty much player acquisitions and improvements to the stadium. Op Cash outflow of £5m isn't good as you are borrowing as soon as you buy one player. (btw we must have spent a shitload on the training ground/stadium last year seeing as we just about broke even in transfers - £21million!) I'm not sure about the fee bit Colo, I would have thought the way to treat it would be to amortise it over the length of the extension of the new contract. But anyway its a moot point as it highly unlikely to amount to very much money. I remember last year the club put through a hefty impairment cost against Bert Luque's contract, so there was an example of what you describe (and done in hindsight with knowledge of his value!). Can only agree with what you say re cashflow - I did post a fairly simple version of the one from the accounts a few posts back. It just emphasises that the club isn't paying its way and Ashley is funding it, and he's taken nothing out by way of salary or dividend. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ikri Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 all of top earners have to be sold in the summer or released to get this club back on track owen, 6 million a year viduka, 3.5 million a year smith, 3.5 million geremi, 3.5 million butt, 2.5 million barton, 3.5 million 23.5 million a third of wage budget was spent on these wasters, a totally fucking disgrace the best ashley can do is try to sell these players asap in my book Sell them or simply take them on a "special training course" in the middle of the Otterburn ranges during a live fire exercise. Whichever is easier. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 i can see why ashley is reluctant to spend money a little now, no wonder it's sell before you buy, sell the big earners and you'll get the transfer fee and what we save on wages Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fading star Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 How do the wages paid to Mort, Wise, Jimenez, and Vetres fit into this? And what about Ashley, did he get some kind of dividend? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fredbob Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 How would the 3 year season ticket deal tie into all this? How will it affect the finances? 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