Mick Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 The only problem with that theory is that in 2006 we were showing £16,950,000 and in 2007 we were showing £17,833,000 for player amortisation so if we are now paying up front then we weren't during the last financial year. Strange that LLLO didn't pick you up on this, but... He wants to pay upfront to keep the books straight and so as the players appear as full assets (intangible) for a sale if one appears on the horizon. FWIW I think MA will be gone in the next 2 years. Er........ they will either way, whether he pays in full or by installments. I'm not sure why he would need to pick up on it, the figures are from the accounts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Liam Liam O Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 The only problem with that theory is that in 2006 we were showing £16,950,000 and in 2007 we were showing £17,833,000 for player amortisation so if we are now paying up front then we weren't during the last financial year. Strange that LLLO didn't pick you up on this, but... He wants to pay upfront to keep the books straight and so as the players appear as full assets (intangible) for a sale if one appears on the horizon. FWIW I think MA will be gone in the next 2 years. Er........ they will either way, whether he pays in full or by installments. I'm not sure why he would need to pick up on it, the figures are from the accounts. The accounts are made up man, has no one told you? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 The accounts are made up man, has no one told you? I'm sure I've actually seen as much being suggested somewhere. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Liam Liam O Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 The accounts are made up man, has no one told you? I'm sure I've actually seen as much being suggested somewhere. That means you're entitled to quote it as fact then. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 That means you're entitled to quote it as fact then. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UV Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 The only problem with that theory is that in 2006 we were showing £16,950,000 and in 2007 we were showing £17,833,000 for player amortisation so if we are now paying up front then we weren't during the last financial year. Strange that LLLO didn't pick you up on this, but... He wants to pay upfront to keep the books straight and so as the players appear as full assets (intangible) for a sale if one appears on the horizon. FWIW I think MA will be gone in the next 2 years. Er........ they will either way, whether he pays in full or by installments. I'm not sure why he would need to pick up on it, the figures are from the accounts. The accounts are made up man, has no one told you? So Mick's interpretation is correct? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 So Mick's interpretation is correct? It's impossible to tell but the figures don't match those you mentioned for us to have paid up front last year. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Liam Liam O Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 The only problem with that theory is that in 2006 we were showing £16,950,000 and in 2007 we were showing £17,833,000 for player amortisation so if we are now paying up front then we weren't during the last financial year. Strange that LLLO didn't pick you up on this, but... He wants to pay upfront to keep the books straight and so as the players appear as full assets (intangible) for a sale if one appears on the horizon. FWIW I think MA will be gone in the next 2 years. Er........ they will either way, whether he pays in full or by installments. I'm not sure why he would need to pick up on it, the figures are from the accounts. The accounts are made up man, has no one told you? So Mick's interpretation is correct? Mick's figures are correct, I'm not sure what his interpretation is tbh, but if it's the same as Happy Face's then it's incorrect. I'm sure he won't mind. Is it a big deal to you like? I put you right with the sums last night, I don't mind doing it tonight if you want. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Liam Liam O Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 So Mick's interpretation is correct? It's impossible to tell but the figures don't match those you mentioned for us to have paid up front last year. UV is going to knock up a couple of "adds" and "take aways" to prove it watch. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 Mick's figures are correct, I'm not sure what his interpretation is tbh, but if it's the same as Happy Face's then it's incorrect. I'm sure he won't mind. Is it a big deal to you like? I put you right with the sums last night, I don't mind doing it tonight if you want. What was Happy Face's interpretation? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Liam Liam O Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 Mick's figures are correct, I'm not sure what his interpretation is tbh, but if it's the same as Happy Face's then it's incorrect. I'm sure he won't mind. Is it a big deal to you like? I put you right with the sums last night, I don't mind doing it tonight if you want. What was Happy Face's interpretation? Apologies to Happy Face, it was Parky. It is uncanny how they seem to arrive & leave together though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UV Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 The only problem with that theory is that in 2006 we were showing £16,950,000 and in 2007 we were showing £17,833,000 for player amortisation so if we are now paying up front then we weren't during the last financial year. Strange that LLLO didn't pick you up on this, but... He wants to pay upfront to keep the books straight and so as the players appear as full assets (intangible) for a sale if one appears on the horizon. FWIW I think MA will be gone in the next 2 years. Er........ they will either way, whether he pays in full or by installments. I'm not sure why he would need to pick up on it, the figures are from the accounts. The accounts are made up man, has no one told you? So Mick's interpretation is correct? Mick's figures are correct, I'm not sure what his interpretation is tbh, but if it's the same as Happy Face's then it's incorrect. I'm sure he won't mind. Is it a big deal to you like? I put you right with the sums last night, I don't mind doing it tonight if you want. His interpretation is what I quoted. It was only 1 sentence I'm surprised you find it so hard to pick out. He's saying you can tell whether or not players were paid for upfront by the amortisation figures in the accounts. Here it is again in case you still can't find it: The only problem with that theory is that in 2006 we were showing £16,950,000 and in 2007 we were showing £17,833,000 for player amortisation so if we are now paying up front then we weren't during the last financial year. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Liam Liam O Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 The only problem with that theory is that in 2006 we were showing £16,950,000 and in 2007 we were showing £17,833,000 for player amortisation so if we are now paying up front then we weren't during the last financial year. Strange that LLLO didn't pick you up on this, but... He wants to pay upfront to keep the books straight and so as the players appear as full assets (intangible) for a sale if one appears on the horizon. FWIW I think MA will be gone in the next 2 years. Er........ they will either way, whether he pays in full or by installments. I'm not sure why he would need to pick up on it, the figures are from the accounts. The accounts are made up man, has no one told you? So Mick's interpretation is correct? Mick's figures are correct, I'm not sure what his interpretation is tbh, but if it's the same as Happy Face's then it's incorrect. I'm sure he won't mind. Is it a big deal to you like? I put you right with the sums last night, I don't mind doing it tonight if you want. His interpretation is what I quoted. It was only 1 sentence I'm surprised you find it so hard to pick out. He's saying you can tell whether or not players were paid for upfront by the amortisation figures in the accounts. Here it is again in case you still can't find it: The only problem with that theory is that in 2006 we were showing £16,950,000 and in 2007 we were showing £17,833,000 for player amortisation so if we are now paying up front then we weren't during the last financial year. I'm not saying I couldn't find it, I'm saying I didn't quite understand what he was getting at. I've also said if he means the same, then he's wrong. He won't have a problem with that Clearly it is more important than you not really understanding something you're trying to argue about with people who do though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 The only problem with that theory is that in 2006 we were showing £16,950,000 and in 2007 we were showing £17,833,000 for player amortisation so if we are now paying up front then we weren't during the last financial year. Strange that LLLO didn't pick you up on this, but... He wants to pay upfront to keep the books straight and so as the players appear as full assets (intangible) for a sale if one appears on the horizon. FWIW I think MA will be gone in the next 2 years. Er........ they will either way, whether he pays in full or by installments. I'm not sure why he would need to pick up on it, the figures are from the accounts. The accounts are made up man, has no one told you? So Mick's interpretation is correct? Mick's figures are correct, I'm not sure what his interpretation is tbh, but if it's the same as Happy Face's then it's incorrect. I'm sure he won't mind. Is it a big deal to you like? I put you right with the sums last night, I don't mind doing it tonight if you want. His interpretation is what I quoted. It was only 1 sentence I'm surprised you find it so hard to pick out. He's saying you can tell whether or not players were paid for upfront by the amortisation figures in the accounts. Here it is again in case you still can't find it: The only problem with that theory is that in 2006 we were showing £16,950,000 and in 2007 we were showing £17,833,000 for player amortisation so if we are now paying up front then we weren't during the last financial year. I've actually said that you can't tell as the accounts only show totals for the full year and the figures don't add up if the ones you mentioned are correct. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karjala Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/podcasts/nufc/ Llambias interview on Radio Newcastle is available on Podcast. We are in the shite again next season IF we stay up, and we aint gonna sell many season tickets neither! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/podcasts/nufc/ Llambias interview on Radio Newcastle is available on Podcast. We are in the shite again next season IF we stay up, and we aint gonna sell many season tickets neither! http://www.newcastle-online.org/nufcforum/index.php/topic,60436.0.html Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robster Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 At least we will see the back of this useless cunt Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JH Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 At least we will see the back of this useless c*** Aye. Shame we won't have an owner, a manager or a club like... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Heneage Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 At least we will see the back of this useless c*** How dare you talk about Dave like that, and plus his Wedding isn't for ages yet. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 .com reckons the cock has gone. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 What does this even mean? If Ashley left, wouldn't he have gone as well? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 Apparently his undeserved company car has been repossessed, and he didn't attend board meetings this week. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 What does this even mean? If Ashley left, wouldn't he have gone as well? Nah Llambias is a club employee. New owners would have to fire him and pay him off if he didn't decide that it was time to go. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 I wish he was fucking gone Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decky Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 Must be significant progress in the takeover if the managing director is gone? 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