Llambias - Gone?

[Tooj]

I see them turning it around on the financial side by improving on the clubs losses from £32 million down to £20 million with a forecast for a £7 million loss the year after, I've got no reason to disbelieve them with that prediction so that suggests to me that they are turning it around.

 

While you're correct that the wage bill did increase between the accounts released in 2006 and 2007 it's not really telling the full story of who is to blame for what, an example of that is I read somewhere that Martins and Duff's wages were included in the following years set of accounts, add to that the increase for Allardyce and all of his backroom staff he insisted on bringing with him etc and as I've said it doesn't tell the whole story.

 

Bringing the wage bill down will take time there's no doubt about that but when you read about us paying out 55% more in wages than Everton then I think there's definitely room for improvement and as far as I'm concerned £10 million off the wage bill is £10 million that can be reinvested in the players.

 

 

The only thing that worries me is they are basing that assumption on us staying in the Premiership.

 

Which part? The £7 million?

 

For next season aye. As I believe we're around £20 million in debt now?

 

I could be wrong but I thought the predicted £7 million loss was for this season now, with the £20 million loss being in the last set of accounts which were up to the Summer of 2008.

 

I could be wrong on that one though.

 

Or I could have completely read the situation wrong and will admit that, and that would have been that. But you got your point scoring in there so well done.

[Baggio]

I see them turning it around on the financial side by improving on the clubs losses from £32 million down to £20 million with a forecast for a £7 million loss the year after, I've got no reason to disbelieve them with that prediction so that suggests to me that they are turning it around.

 

While you're correct that the wage bill did increase between the accounts released in 2006 and 2007 it's not really telling the full story of who is to blame for what, an example of that is I read somewhere that Martins and Duff's wages were included in the following years set of accounts, add to that the increase for Allardyce and all of his backroom staff he insisted on bringing with him etc and as I've said it doesn't tell the whole story.

 

Bringing the wage bill down will take time there's no doubt about that but when you read about us paying out 55% more in wages than Everton then I think there's definitely room for improvement and as far as I'm concerned £10 million off the wage bill is £10 million that can be reinvested in the players.

 

 

The only thing that worries me is they are basing that assumption on us staying in the Premiership.

 

Which part? The £7 million?

 

For next season aye. As I believe we're around £20 million in debt now?

 

I could be wrong but I thought the predicted £7 million loss was for this season now, with the £20 million loss being in the last set of accounts which were up to the Summer of 2008.

 

I could be wrong on that one though.

 

Or I could have completely read the situation wrong and will admit that, and that would have been that. But you got your point scoring in there so well done.

 

How is that point scoring?

 

 

[Tooj]

I see them turning it around on the financial side by improving on the clubs losses from £32 million down to £20 million with a forecast for a £7 million loss the year after, I've got no reason to disbelieve them with that prediction so that suggests to me that they are turning it around.

 

While you're correct that the wage bill did increase between the accounts released in 2006 and 2007 it's not really telling the full story of who is to blame for what, an example of that is I read somewhere that Martins and Duff's wages were included in the following years set of accounts, add to that the increase for Allardyce and all of his backroom staff he insisted on bringing with him etc and as I've said it doesn't tell the whole story.

 

Bringing the wage bill down will take time there's no doubt about that but when you read about us paying out 55% more in wages than Everton then I think there's definitely room for improvement and as far as I'm concerned £10 million off the wage bill is £10 million that can be reinvested in the players.

 

 

The only thing that worries me is they are basing that assumption on us staying in the Premiership.

 

Which part? The £7 million?

 

For next season aye. As I believe we're around £20 million in debt now?

 

I could be wrong but I thought the predicted £7 million loss was for this season now, with the £20 million loss being in the last set of accounts which were up to the Summer of 2008.

 

I could be wrong on that one though.

 

Or I could have completely read the situation wrong and will admit that, and that would have been that. But you got your point scoring in there so well done.

 

How is that point scoring?

 

 

 

With your I could be wrong on that point though remark.

[Baggio]

I see them turning it around on the financial side by improving on the clubs losses from £32 million down to £20 million with a forecast for a £7 million loss the year after, I've got no reason to disbelieve them with that prediction so that suggests to me that they are turning it around.

 

While you're correct that the wage bill did increase between the accounts released in 2006 and 2007 it's not really telling the full story of who is to blame for what, an example of that is I read somewhere that Martins and Duff's wages were included in the following years set of accounts, add to that the increase for Allardyce and all of his backroom staff he insisted on bringing with him etc and as I've said it doesn't tell the whole story.

 

Bringing the wage bill down will take time there's no doubt about that but when you read about us paying out 55% more in wages than Everton then I think there's definitely room for improvement and as far as I'm concerned £10 million off the wage bill is £10 million that can be reinvested in the players.

 

 

The only thing that worries me is they are basing that assumption on us staying in the Premiership.

 

Which part? The £7 million?

 

For next season aye. As I believe we're around £20 million in debt now?

 

I could be wrong but I thought the predicted £7 million loss was for this season now, with the £20 million loss being in the last set of accounts which were up to the Summer of 2008.

 

I could be wrong on that one though.

 

Or I could have completely read the situation wrong and will admit that, and that would have been that. But you got your point scoring in there so well done.

 

How is that point scoring?

 

 

 

With your I could be wrong on that point though remark.

 

I could be wrong because I'm not sure, that's just the way I interpreted it but I was hoping for someone like quayside to come along who knows what he's on about with the subject to say either way.

 

Take it easy.

[Shearergol]

I see them turning it around on the financial side by improving on the clubs losses from £32 million down to £20 million with a forecast for a £7 million loss the year after, I've got no reason to disbelieve them with that prediction so that suggests to me that they are turning it around.

 

While you're correct that the wage bill did increase between the accounts released in 2006 and 2007 it's not really telling the full story of who is to blame for what, an example of that is I read somewhere that Martins and Duff's wages were included in the following years set of accounts, add to that the increase for Allardyce and all of his backroom staff he insisted on bringing with him etc and as I've said it doesn't tell the whole story.

 

Bringing the wage bill down will take time there's no doubt about that but when you read about us paying out 55% more in wages than Everton then I think there's definitely room for improvement and as far as I'm concerned £10 million off the wage bill is £10 million that can be reinvested in the players.

 

 

The only thing that worries me is they are basing that assumption on us staying in the Premiership.

 

Which part? The £7 million?

 

For next season aye. As I believe we're around £20 million in debt now?

 

I could be wrong but I thought the predicted £7 million loss was for this season now, with the £20 million loss being in the last set of accounts which were up to the Summer of 2008.

 

I could be wrong on that one though.

 

Or I could have completely read the situation wrong and will admit that, and that would have been that. But you got your point scoring in there so well done.

 

How is that point scoring?

 

 

 

With your I could be wrong on that point though remark.

 

What actually happened to you? You've been overtaken with paranoia

[Tooj]

I see them turning it around on the financial side by improving on the clubs losses from £32 million down to £20 million with a forecast for a £7 million loss the year after, I've got no reason to disbelieve them with that prediction so that suggests to me that they are turning it around.

 

While you're correct that the wage bill did increase between the accounts released in 2006 and 2007 it's not really telling the full story of who is to blame for what, an example of that is I read somewhere that Martins and Duff's wages were included in the following years set of accounts, add to that the increase for Allardyce and all of his backroom staff he insisted on bringing with him etc and as I've said it doesn't tell the whole story.

 

Bringing the wage bill down will take time there's no doubt about that but when you read about us paying out 55% more in wages than Everton then I think there's definitely room for improvement and as far as I'm concerned £10 million off the wage bill is £10 million that can be reinvested in the players.

 

 

The only thing that worries me is they are basing that assumption on us staying in the Premiership.

 

Which part? The £7 million?

 

For next season aye. As I believe we're around £20 million in debt now?

 

I could be wrong but I thought the predicted £7 million loss was for this season now, with the £20 million loss being in the last set of accounts which were up to the Summer of 2008.

 

I could be wrong on that one though.

 

Or I could have completely read the situation wrong and will admit that, and that would have been that. But you got your point scoring in there so well done.

 

How is that point scoring?

 

 

 

With your I could be wrong on that point though remark.

 

What actually happened to you? You've been overtaken with paranoia

 

This club has ruined us all.

[Shearergol]

I see them turning it around on the financial side by improving on the clubs losses from £32 million down to £20 million with a forecast for a £7 million loss the year after, I've got no reason to disbelieve them with that prediction so that suggests to me that they are turning it around.

 

While you're correct that the wage bill did increase between the accounts released in 2006 and 2007 it's not really telling the full story of who is to blame for what, an example of that is I read somewhere that Martins and Duff's wages were included in the following years set of accounts, add to that the increase for Allardyce and all of his backroom staff he insisted on bringing with him etc and as I've said it doesn't tell the whole story.

 

Bringing the wage bill down will take time there's no doubt about that but when you read about us paying out 55% more in wages than Everton then I think there's definitely room for improvement and as far as I'm concerned £10 million off the wage bill is £10 million that can be reinvested in the players.

 

 

The only thing that worries me is they are basing that assumption on us staying in the Premiership.

 

Which part? The £7 million?

 

For next season aye. As I believe we're around £20 million in debt now?

 

I could be wrong but I thought the predicted £7 million loss was for this season now, with the £20 million loss being in the last set of accounts which were up to the Summer of 2008.

 

I could be wrong on that one though.

 

Or I could have completely read the situation wrong and will admit that, and that would have been that. But you got your point scoring in there so well done.

 

How is that point scoring?

 

 

 

With your I could be wrong on that point though remark.

 

What actually happened to you? You've been overtaken with paranoia

 

This club has ruined us all.

 

It's certainly ruined you. From one of the best posters on here to one who I tend to skip over now. Very sad I used to love reading your posts.

 

I'm not saying I disagree with you now, but you've become very negative and paranoid. Have a pint

[Tooj]

I see them turning it around on the financial side by improving on the clubs losses from £32 million down to £20 million with a forecast for a £7 million loss the year after, I've got no reason to disbelieve them with that prediction so that suggests to me that they are turning it around.

 

While you're correct that the wage bill did increase between the accounts released in 2006 and 2007 it's not really telling the full story of who is to blame for what, an example of that is I read somewhere that Martins and Duff's wages were included in the following years set of accounts, add to that the increase for Allardyce and all of his backroom staff he insisted on bringing with him etc and as I've said it doesn't tell the whole story.

 

Bringing the wage bill down will take time there's no doubt about that but when you read about us paying out 55% more in wages than Everton then I think there's definitely room for improvement and as far as I'm concerned £10 million off the wage bill is £10 million that can be reinvested in the players.

 

 

The only thing that worries me is they are basing that assumption on us staying in the Premiership.

 

Which part? The £7 million?

 

For next season aye. As I believe we're around £20 million in debt now?

 

I could be wrong but I thought the predicted £7 million loss was for this season now, with the £20 million loss being in the last set of accounts which were up to the Summer of 2008.

 

I could be wrong on that one though.

 

Or I could have completely read the situation wrong and will admit that, and that would have been that. But you got your point scoring in there so well done.

 

How is that point scoring?

 

 

 

With your I could be wrong on that point though remark.

 

What actually happened to you? You've been overtaken with paranoia

 

This club has ruined us all.

 

It's certainly ruined you. From one of the best posters on here to one who I tend to skip over now. Very sad I used to love reading your posts.

 

I'm not saying I disagree with you now, but you've become very negative and paranoid. Have a pint

 

Tbh I think it's all been done to death now and I much prefer actually analysing and talking about the footballing side of things. Ie what's happening on the pitch. But due to the turmoil those events have taken a backseat all season with regards to board topics. Such a shame mind as I don't want to go bring up an old argument but I'm sure after that draw at Old Trafford nobody could have imagined us being in the mess we are in now.

[UV]

I see them turning it around on the financial side by improving on the clubs losses from £32 million down to £20 million with a forecast for a £7 million loss the year after, I've got no reason to disbelieve them with that prediction so that suggests to me that they are turning it around.

 

While you're correct that the wage bill did increase between the accounts released in 2006 and 2007 it's not really telling the full story of who is to blame for what, an example of that is I read somewhere that Martins and Duff's wages were included in the following years set of accounts, add to that the increase for Allardyce and all of his backroom staff he insisted on bringing with him etc and as I've said it doesn't tell the whole story.

 

Bringing the wage bill down will take time there's no doubt about that but when you read about us paying out 55% more in wages than Everton then I think there's definitely room for improvement and as far as I'm concerned £10 million off the wage bill is £10 million that can be reinvested in the players.

 

 

The £32m was for the most part an accounting loss due to the reduction in the book value of the players due to amortisation, impairment & disposal. If you look at the net debt of the club it went from £61m in 2006 to £70m in 2007, that gives a clearer indication of the money the club lost in real terms in that year, ie about £10m.

 

In Ashley's first year the debt went from £70m to £100m+, this is in spite of getting the £18m TV bonus over the previous year. I couldn't understand at the time how the club could have suddenly started making such "real" losses, but this is obviously due in no small part to Ashley's decision to pay for players up front. The massive losses last year are therefore less to do with the position the previous owner's left the club in and more to do with how Ashley has chosen to restructure player purchases. As I see it there are advantages and disadvantages to either way of doing it, but to change from structuring transfer payments over a number of years to paying up front for any new purchases is obviously going to incur a large financial hit for several years. This is crippling the club in the short term, and is the main reason Ashley is having to loan the club more money.

 

Each year we carry on purchasing players up front the club's losses for the same transfer outlay will inevitably fall compared to the first few years under Ashley as the payments for players from previous years are paid up. So the losses under Ashley will reduce merely as a consequence of that, not necessarily because of any improved management of the club's finances.

 

When finance is hard to come by it seems a strange time to consciously decide to turn down credit, and I'm honestly not sure what Ashley thinks he's gaining by doing this, unless he thinks that he's going to look like the hero in the short term pouring money into the club to save it from financial ruin, and then the business genius in the medium term when the losses are turned into profits. You're already arguing in his favour from the projections, so he may be right in how people will view it.

[ikri]

I see them turning it around on the financial side by improving on the clubs losses from £32 million down to £20 million with a forecast for a £7 million loss the year after, I've got no reason to disbelieve them with that prediction so that suggests to me that they are turning it around.

 

While you're correct that the wage bill did increase between the accounts released in 2006 and 2007 it's not really telling the full story of who is to blame for what, an example of that is I read somewhere that Martins and Duff's wages were included in the following years set of accounts, add to that the increase for Allardyce and all of his backroom staff he insisted on bringing with him etc and as I've said it doesn't tell the whole story.

 

Bringing the wage bill down will take time there's no doubt about that but when you read about us paying out 55% more in wages than Everton then I think there's definitely room for improvement and as far as I'm concerned £10 million off the wage bill is £10 million that can be reinvested in the players.

 

 

The £32m was for the most part an accounting loss due to the reduction in the book value of the players due to amortisation, impairment & disposal. If you look at the net debt of the club it went from £61m in 2006 to £70m in 2007, that gives a clearer indication of the money the club lost in real terms in that year, ie about £10m.

 

In Ashley's first year the debt went from £70m to £100m+, this is in spite of getting the £18m TV bonus over the previous year. I couldn't understand at the time how the club could have suddenly started making such "real" losses, but this is obviously due in no small part to Ashley's decision to pay for players up front. The massive losses last year are therefore less to do with the position the previous owner's left the club in and more to do with how Ashley has chosen to restructure player purchases. As I see it there are advantages and disadvantages to either way of doing it, but to change from structuring transfer payments over a number of years to paying up front for any new purchases is obviously going to incur a large financial hit for several years. This is crippling the club in the short term, and is the main reason Ashley is having to loan the club more money.

 

Each year we carry on purchasing players up front the club's losses for the same transfer outlay will inevitably fall compared to the first few years under Ashley as the payments for players from previous years are paid up. So the losses under Ashley will reduce merely as a consequence of that, not necessarily because of any improved management of the club's finances.

 

When finance is hard to come by it seems a strange time to consciously decide to turn down credit, and I'm honestly not sure what Ashley thinks he's gaining by doing this, unless he thinks that he's going to look like the hero in the short term pouring money into the club to save it from financial ruin, and then the business genius in the medium term when the losses are turned into profits. You're already arguing in his favour from the projections, so he may be right in how people will view it.

 

Didn't Mort say that Shepherd had already borrowed against the extra TV income?

[Mick]

 

The £32m was for the most part an accounting loss due to the reduction in the book value of the players due to amortisation, impairment & disposal. If you look at the net debt of the club it went from £61m in 2006 to £70m in 2007, that gives a clearer indication of the money the club lost in real terms in that year, ie about £10m.

 

In Ashley's first year the debt went from £70m to £100m+, this is in spite of getting the £18m TV bonus over the previous year. I couldn't understand at the time how the club could have suddenly started making such "real" losses, but this is obviously due in no small part to Ashley's decision to pay for players up front. The massive losses last year are therefore less to do with the position the previous owner's left the club in and more to do with how Ashley has chosen to restructure player purchases. As I see it there are advantages and disadvantages to either way of doing it, but to change from structuring transfer payments over a number of years to paying up front for any new purchases is obviously going to incur a large financial hit for several years. This is crippling the club in the short term, and is the main reason Ashley is having to loan the club more money.

 

Each year we carry on purchasing players up front the club's losses for the same transfer outlay will inevitably fall compared to the first few years under Ashley as the payments for players from previous years are paid up. So the losses under Ashley will reduce merely as a consequence of that, not necessarily because of any improved management of the club's finances.

 

When finance is hard to come by it seems a strange time to consciously decide to turn down credit, and I'm honestly not sure what Ashley thinks he's gaining by doing this, unless he thinks that he's going to look like the hero in the short term pouring money into the club to save it from financial ruin, and then the business genius in the medium term when the losses are turned into profits. You're already arguing in his favour from the projections, so he may be right in how people will view it.

 

The loss made in the last set of accounts was £14 million less than the season before.  The last set of accounts didn't include any insurance for Owen either, unlike the accounts the year before.

 

Ashley put in £20 million during the year covered by the accounts and he'd put in another £10 million between the end of our financial year and the accounts getting sent to Companies house.  The £20 million put in by Ashley was to cover the loss, he made up the difference between money in and money out.

 

As for paying for players up front, maybe we paid interset after year 1 when doing that.  I'm not saying that we do but I wouldn't be surprised if it was the case.

[Mick]

 

Didn't Mort say that Shepherd had already borrowed against the extra TV income?

 

No, Mort said that we'd spent future income from Adidas and Northern Rock.

[Robster]

Tbh I think it's all been done to death now

[Liam Liam Liam O]

 

But I'm older than you kidda. 

 

I can't agree that spending within your means is the route to success.

 

You borrow, spend big and use the rewards you reap to keep paying off the cost of getting there and staying there.

 

It's what Villa have done and succeeded (so far).  It's what Spurs have done and failed (so far).

 

It's been repeatedly stated, but in the top 10....

 

• Man U £453 million in debt from bank borrowings - over half of the entire Premier League's total borrowings from banks - and £152 million in debt from other loans.
   
  
• Liverpool had a debt of £43 million in bank borrowings, and £13 million in other loans
   
  
• Chelsea have the biggest debt. At the end of the 2006/07 season Chelsea had a net borrowing of £620 million
   
  
• Villa recorded £63 million of debt in the summer of 2007.
   
  
• Arsenal have the third highest debt. At the end of 2006/07 their net borrowings stood at £268 million, with the second highest loans balances in the country
   
  
• Everton failed to raise enough revenue to cancel out their wage bill during 2006/07, and in fact were left with a deficit of £8.1 million
   
  
• Wigan sustained a £14 million deficit in 2007 as their revenue did not match their wages even closely. They are squarely in the "danger level" of cost management.
   
  
• Fulham are £182 million in debt.
   
  
• West Ham have £142 million of debt
   
  
• Man City are £103 million debt.
  

 

 

 

How does any of that explain who would have paid our bills if it wasn't Ashey?  What if you borrow and speand big and drop 9 league places?

 

No one has taken on these two questions.  Strange that.

[Mick]

 

No one has taken on these two questions.  Strange that.

 

I'm yet to see anybody come up with a credible answer to the first question, it's easier to just give Ashley shit for asset stripping. 

[TRon]

I see them turning it around on the financial side by improving on the clubs losses from £32 million down to £20 million with a forecast for a £7 million loss the year after, I've got no reason to disbelieve them with that prediction so that suggests to me that they are turning it around.

 

While you're correct that the wage bill did increase between the accounts released in 2006 and 2007 it's not really telling the full story of who is to blame for what, an example of that is I read somewhere that Martins and Duff's wages were included in the following years set of accounts, add to that the increase for Allardyce and all of his backroom staff he insisted on bringing with him etc and as I've said it doesn't tell the whole story.

 

Bringing the wage bill down will take time there's no doubt about that but when you read about us paying out 55% more in wages than Everton then I think there's definitely room for improvement and as far as I'm concerned £10 million off the wage bill is £10 million that can be reinvested in the players.

 

 

The £32m was for the most part an accounting loss due to the reduction in the book value of the players due to amortisation, impairment & disposal. If you look at the net debt of the club it went from £61m in 2006 to £70m in 2007, that gives a clearer indication of the money the club lost in real terms in that year, ie about £10m.

 

In Ashley's first year the debt went from £70m to £100m+, this is in spite of getting the £18m TV bonus over the previous year. I couldn't understand at the time how the club could have suddenly started making such "real" losses, but this is obviously due in no small part to Ashley's decision to pay for players up front. The massive losses last year are therefore less to do with the position the previous owner's left the club in and more to do with how Ashley has chosen to restructure player purchases. As I see it there are advantages and disadvantages to either way of doing it, but to change from structuring transfer payments over a number of years to paying up front for any new purchases is obviously going to incur a large financial hit for several years. This is crippling the club in the short term, and is the main reason Ashley is having to loan the club more money.

 

Each year we carry on purchasing players up front the club's losses for the same transfer outlay will inevitably fall compared to the first few years under Ashley as the payments for players from previous years are paid up. So the losses under Ashley will reduce merely as a consequence of that, not necessarily because of any improved management of the club's finances.

 

When finance is hard to come by it seems a strange time to consciously decide to turn down credit, and I'm honestly not sure what Ashley thinks he's gaining by doing this, unless he thinks that he's going to look like the hero in the short term pouring money into the club to save it from financial ruin, and then the business genius in the medium term when the losses are turned into profits. You're already arguing in his favour from the projections, so he may be right in how people will view it.

 

Don't we save over £6m a year in interest charges paid to the banks as a result of Ashley taking over the debt? That's not a small amount tbh.

[Liam Liam Liam O]

I see them turning it around on the financial side by improving on the clubs losses from £32 million down to £20 million with a forecast for a £7 million loss the year after, I've got no reason to disbelieve them with that prediction so that suggests to me that they are turning it around.

 

While you're correct that the wage bill did increase between the accounts released in 2006 and 2007 it's not really telling the full story of who is to blame for what, an example of that is I read somewhere that Martins and Duff's wages were included in the following years set of accounts, add to that the increase for Allardyce and all of his backroom staff he insisted on bringing with him etc and as I've said it doesn't tell the whole story.

 

Bringing the wage bill down will take time there's no doubt about that but when you read about us paying out 55% more in wages than Everton then I think there's definitely room for improvement and as far as I'm concerned £10 million off the wage bill is £10 million that can be reinvested in the players.

 

 

The £32m was for the most part an accounting loss due to the reduction in the book value of the players due to amortisation, impairment & disposal. If you look at the net debt of the club it went from £61m in 2006 to £70m in 2007, that gives a clearer indication of the money the club lost in real terms in that year, ie about £10m.

 

In Ashley's first year the debt went from £70m to £100m+, this is in spite of getting the £18m TV bonus over the previous year. I couldn't understand at the time how the club could have suddenly started making such "real" losses, but this is obviously due in no small part to Ashley's decision to pay for players up front. The massive losses last year are therefore less to do with the position the previous owner's left the club in and more to do with how Ashley has chosen to restructure player purchases. As I see it there are advantages and disadvantages to either way of doing it, but to change from structuring transfer payments over a number of years to paying up front for any new purchases is obviously going to incur a large financial hit for several years. This is crippling the club in the short term, and is the main reason Ashley is having to loan the club more money.

 

Each year we carry on purchasing players up front the club's losses for the same transfer outlay will inevitably fall compared to the first few years under Ashley as the payments for players from previous years are paid up. So the losses under Ashley will reduce merely as a consequence of that, not necessarily because of any improved management of the club's finances.

 

When finance is hard to come by it seems a strange time to consciously decide to turn down credit, and I'm honestly not sure what Ashley thinks he's gaining by doing this, unless he thinks that he's going to look like the hero in the short term pouring money into the club to save it from financial ruin, and then the business genius in the medium term when the losses are turned into profits. You're already arguing in his favour from the projections, so he may be right in how people will view it.

 

Don't we save over £6m a year in interest charges paid to the banks as a result of Ashley taking over the debt? That's not a small amount tbh.

 

I still love that phrase, including the cost of transfers shouldn't count?

[TRon]

I see them turning it around on the financial side by improving on the clubs losses from £32 million down to £20 million with a forecast for a £7 million loss the year after, I've got no reason to disbelieve them with that prediction so that suggests to me that they are turning it around.

 

While you're correct that the wage bill did increase between the accounts released in 2006 and 2007 it's not really telling the full story of who is to blame for what, an example of that is I read somewhere that Martins and Duff's wages were included in the following years set of accounts, add to that the increase for Allardyce and all of his backroom staff he insisted on bringing with him etc and as I've said it doesn't tell the whole story.

 

Bringing the wage bill down will take time there's no doubt about that but when you read about us paying out 55% more in wages than Everton then I think there's definitely room for improvement and as far as I'm concerned £10 million off the wage bill is £10 million that can be reinvested in the players.

 

 

The £32m was for the most part an accounting loss due to the reduction in the book value of the players due to amortisation, impairment & disposal. If you look at the net debt of the club it went from £61m in 2006 to £70m in 2007, that gives a clearer indication of the money the club lost in real terms in that year, ie about £10m.

 

In Ashley's first year the debt went from £70m to £100m+, this is in spite of getting the £18m TV bonus over the previous year. I couldn't understand at the time how the club could have suddenly started making such "real" losses, but this is obviously due in no small part to Ashley's decision to pay for players up front. The massive losses last year are therefore less to do with the position the previous owner's left the club in and more to do with how Ashley has chosen to restructure player purchases. As I see it there are advantages and disadvantages to either way of doing it, but to change from structuring transfer payments over a number of years to paying up front for any new purchases is obviously going to incur a large financial hit for several years. This is crippling the club in the short term, and is the main reason Ashley is having to loan the club more money.

 

Each year we carry on purchasing players up front the club's losses for the same transfer outlay will inevitably fall compared to the first few years under Ashley as the payments for players from previous years are paid up. So the losses under Ashley will reduce merely as a consequence of that, not necessarily because of any improved management of the club's finances.

 

When finance is hard to come by it seems a strange time to consciously decide to turn down credit, and I'm honestly not sure what Ashley thinks he's gaining by doing this, unless he thinks that he's going to look like the hero in the short term pouring money into the club to save it from financial ruin, and then the business genius in the medium term when the losses are turned into profits. You're already arguing in his favour from the projections, so he may be right in how people will view it.

 

Don't we save over £6m a year in interest charges paid to the banks as a result of Ashley taking over the debt? That's not a small amount tbh.

 

I still love that phrase, including the cost of transfers shouldn't count?

 

While the financial restrictions are hard to live with for everyone, I don't really see what the point is of talking up the previous owners to hold up as an example. SJH himself has said that the big spending couldn't go on and new money was required. Mike Ashley couldn't have bought the club if Hall and Shepherd didn't want to sell.

[UV]

Don't we save over £6m a year in interest charges paid to the banks as a result of Ashley taking over the debt? That's not a small amount tbh.

 

I'm talking here about credit in the form of not paying the full fee for players up front. Credit such as that which we are giving to the richest club in the world to enable them to buy Given. Possibly we got the players for a smaller total fee than if the payments had been staged, but not necessarily.

 

I still love that phrase, including the cost of transfers shouldn't count?

 

So considering there was a £32m loss, did the debt go from £61m to £93m then? Where did the extra £23m come from? Was Ashley already altruistically donating money to the club before he bought it?

[Liam Liam Liam O]

I still love that phrase, including the cost of transfers shouldn't count?

 

So considering there was a £32m loss, did the debt go from £61m to £93m then? Where did the extra £23m come from? Was Ashley already altruistically donating money to the club before he bought it?

 

What?

 

Seeing as you can't distinguish between cashflows & profit & loss we'll talk in cash so you can ignore amortisation

 

The cash deficit from normal operating activities was around £5m

 

The net interest payable was around £8m

 

The payments to acquire assets (ie players etc) was £21m.

 

Total £34m.

[Happy Face]

How does any of that explain who would have paid our bills if it wasn't Ashey?  What if you borrow and speand big and drop 9 league places?

 

No one has taken on these two questions.  Strange that.

 

I see it as the sort of question a spousal abuser asks his cowering wife after he's kicked the shit out of her.

 

"Who's going to take care of you if I don't?"

 

Isn't it TV, Gates and commercial that pay the bills, not Mike Ashley?

 

Ashley paid off the debt.

[Mick]

 

I see it as the sort of question a spousal abuser asks his cowering wife after he's kicked the s*** out of her.

 

"Who's going to take care of you if I don't?"

 

Isn't it TV, Gates and commercial that pay the bills, not Mike Ashley?

 

Ashley paid off the debt.

 

Get your head out of sand, he paid off the debt and put in £20 million to pay the bills, that £20 million was money which the club wasn't/isn't generating.  He's also put in £20 million since that time to carry on paying the bills.

[Happy Face]

 

I see it as the sort of question a spousal abuser asks his cowering wife after he's kicked the s*** out of her.

 

"Who's going to take care of you if I don't?"

 

Isn't it TV, Gates and commercial that pay the bills, not Mike Ashley?

 

Ashley paid off the debt.

 

Get your head out of sand, he paid off the debt and put in £20 million to pay the bills, that £20 million was money which the club wasn't/isn't generating.  He's also put in £20 million since that time to carry on paying the bills.

 

Source?

 

Genuinely.

 

I know there was £10M  that he put in on the accounts.  But then he's apparently selling players on installments (wasn't the story that we've received nothing for Given yet?) while insisting on paying up front for anyone we buy.  Which paints a lob-sided picture.

[Mick]

 

Source?

 

Genuinely.

 

I know there was £10M  that he put in on the accounts.  But then he's apparently selling players on installments (wasn't the story that we've received nothing for Given yet?) while insisting on paying up front for anyone we buy.  Which paints a lob-sided picture.

 

£30 million is recorded in the club accounts and another £10 million has been reported this week.

[Happy Face]

 

Source?

 

Genuinely.

 

I know there was £10M  that he put in on the accounts.  But then he's apparently selling players on installments (wasn't the story that we've received nothing for Given yet?) while insisting on paying up front for anyone we buy.  Which paints a lob-sided picture.

 

£30 million is recorded in the club accounts and another £10 million has been reported this week.

 

I know Quayside reported it n his finances thread.  But has it ever been confirmed?

 

this link

 

http://www.journallive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-news/2009/01/23/newcastle-united-club-accounts-reveal-state-of-play-61634-22758691/

 

only mentions

 

They show the sports retail tycoon has kept the Magpies afloat with a £100m loan, which would have to be paid back to him by any future new owner.

 

The Journal understands Ashley is not charging any interest on the loan and has also recently pumped £10m of his own money into the clubs’ coffers to help with running costs.

 

A note to the accounts, prepared by Ernst & Young and signed by managing director Derek Llambias reveals Ashley’s fresh £10m investment and states: “This funding, together with newly-agreed bank facilities has been incorporated into the directors’ cash flow forecast for the group.

 

Key points

 

Billionaire's £10m cash-injection