Colos Short and Curlies Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 West Bromwich Albion Accounts for the year to 30 June 2008 Turnover: £27.2m Wage bill £21.8m Profit before tax £11.3m Debts £8.9m Player sales? Yup they made an £18m profit on selling players. Koumas, Kamara, Ellington and Kuszczak left them that year for decent fees. They also spent £16m on players that year. http://www.soccerbase.com/transfers_by_team.sd?teamid=2744 We've spent zero. Buying players makes little difference on the profit/loss though. The cost is spread over the length of the contract, so £16m purhcases over (for example) an average of 4 years contract period would only put £4m into the accounts Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cronky Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 I don't see the point of all this guesswork about how we compare with West Brom when NUST have already made it clear how they've arrived at the £7 million figure. (See Belios post above) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 West Bromwich Albion Accounts for the year to 30 June 2008 Turnover: £27.2m Wage bill £21.8m Profit before tax £11.3m Debts £8.9m Player sales? Yup they made an £18m profit on selling players. Koumas, Kamara, Ellington and Kuszczak left them that year for decent fees. They also spent £16m on players that year. http://www.soccerbase.com/transfers_by_team.sd?teamid=2744 We've spent zero. Buying players makes little difference on the profit/loss though. The cost is spread over the length of the contract, so £16m purhcases over (for example) an average of 4 years contract period would only put £4m into the accounts HF - it's things like this that make me wonder why you devote so much time in trying to analyse the club's accounts in some vain attempt to 'prove' that Ashley is making money from the club Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 I don't see the point of all this guesswork about how we compare with West Brom when NUST have already made it clear how they've arrived at the £7 million figure. (See Belios post above) Irrespective of what figure the NUST are quoting and how they arrived at it, people seem to thingk there is no way that NUFC is a profitable enterprise. I'm only trying to show those people that the figures we know suggest it is at the moment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 West Bromwich Albion Accounts for the year to 30 June 2008 Turnover: £27.2m Wage bill £21.8m Profit before tax £11.3m Debts £8.9m Player sales? Yup they made an £18m profit on selling players. Koumas, Kamara, Ellington and Kuszczak left them that year for decent fees. They also spent £16m on players that year. http://www.soccerbase.com/transfers_by_team.sd?teamid=2744 We've spent zero. Buying players makes little difference on the profit/loss though. The cost is spread over the length of the contract, so £16m purhcases over (for example) an average of 4 years contract period would only put £4m into the accounts HF - it's things like this that make me wonder why you devote so much time in trying to analyse the club's accounts in some vain attempt to 'prove' that Ashley is making money from the club If buying players makes no difference on profit or loss it's rather quite annoying that Ashley won't buy any players. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 West Bromwich Albion Accounts for the year to 30 June 2008 Turnover: £27.2m Wage bill £21.8m Profit before tax £11.3m Debts £8.9m Player sales? Yup they made an £18m profit on selling players. Koumas, Kamara, Ellington and Kuszczak left them that year for decent fees. They also spent £16m on players that year. http://www.soccerbase.com/transfers_by_team.sd?teamid=2744 We've spent zero. Buying players makes little difference on the profit/loss though. The cost is spread over the length of the contract, so £16m purhcases over (for example) an average of 4 years contract period would only put £4m into the accounts HF - it's things like this that make me wonder why you devote so much time in trying to analyse the club's accounts in some vain attempt to 'prove' that Ashley is making money from the club If buying players makes no difference on profit or loss it's rather quite annoying that Ashley won't buy any players. Er, you still need to have the finance in place to afford the transfer (whether it be cash, player exchange or credit). Your investigations into the club's finances will no doubt have illuminated the path to ruin that the good shepherd was leading us down before MA's intervention. Trying to make the club self-sufficient (for whatever intention), is that a crime? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
quayside Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 Reading the posts in this thread from those close to NUST, the £7m claim has nothing to do with turnover, wages, player sales or gate receipts - it is based upon an estimate of the market value of the club now, and an estimate that if we returned to the Premier League there would be an £84m increase in the value of the club, so in 12 months it would have increased by £7m a month on average. This is being put to investors to justify a return on their investement. This is an estimated increase in value of the club, and not the profit that anyone is making every month, which is something different. The message seems to be that if Ashley holds on to the club until the summer and then sells, he will have made £7m per month profit. What that ignores though is the massive losses per month he has made in the 12 months before last August. What the statement should say really is that Ashley had lost close to £150m on the club as of August 2009, and if he holds on to it until the end of the season he will only have lost £65m. I'm all for sensible debate on both sides, but you can only have that if both sides accept certain obvious facts - and the fact that Ashley will in any way make money from his association with NUFC is not one of them. The problem, of course, is that the NUST email implies something entirely different - but I think your interpretation of how that garbled mess came to be there is spot on. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 West Bromwich Albion Accounts for the year to 30 June 2008 Turnover: £27.2m Wage bill £21.8m Profit before tax £11.3m Debts £8.9m Player sales? Yup they made an £18m profit on selling players. Koumas, Kamara, Ellington and Kuszczak left them that year for decent fees. They also spent £16m on players that year. http://www.soccerbase.com/transfers_by_team.sd?teamid=2744 We've spent zero. Buying players makes little difference on the profit/loss though. The cost is spread over the length of the contract, so £16m purhcases over (for example) an average of 4 years contract period would only put £4m into the accounts HF - it's things like this that make me wonder why you devote so much time in trying to analyse the club's accounts in some vain attempt to 'prove' that Ashley is making money from the club If buying players makes no difference on profit or loss it's rather quite annoying that Ashley won't buy any players. Er, you still need to have the finance in place to afford the transfer (whether it be cash, player exchange or credit). Your investigations into the club's finances will no doubt have illuminated the path to ruin that the good shepherd was leading us down before MA's intervention. Trying to make the club self-sufficient (for whatever intention), is that a crime? Not at all. People don't seem to think he has though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colos Short and Curlies Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 West Bromwich Albion Accounts for the year to 30 June 2008 Turnover: £27.2m Wage bill £21.8m Profit before tax £11.3m Debts £8.9m Player sales? Yup they made an £18m profit on selling players. Koumas, Kamara, Ellington and Kuszczak left them that year for decent fees. They also spent £16m on players that year. http://www.soccerbase.com/transfers_by_team.sd?teamid=2744 We've spent zero. Buying players makes little difference on the profit/loss though. The cost is spread over the length of the contract, so £16m purhcases over (for example) an average of 4 years contract period would only put £4m into the accounts HF - it's things like this that make me wonder why you devote so much time in trying to analyse the club's accounts in some vain attempt to 'prove' that Ashley is making money from the club If buying players makes no difference on profit or loss it's rather quite annoying that Ashley won't buy any players. Er, you still need to have the finance in place to afford the transfer (whether it be cash, player exchange or credit). Your investigations into the club's finances will no doubt have illuminated the path to ruin that the good shepherd was leading us down before MA's intervention. Trying to make the club self-sufficient (for whatever intention), is that a crime? Not at all. People don't seem to think he has though. Sorry, buying players will impact the P&L over time, just not in one hit. They will however impact cash flow and creidt availability, which is much more important on a day to day basis Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Roger Kint Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 It amazes me that someone can try and make a comparison between WBA & NUFC when all he has shown are Turnover/Wages and a profit figure clearly showing that even without running costs any theory of them running at a profit looks dubious. The only reason their accounts show a profit is via transfers which makes the whole thing a complete pile of dogshit as an argument Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 It amazes me that someone can try and make a comparison between WBA & NUFC when all he has shown are Turnover/Wages and a profit figure clearly showing that even without running costs any theory of them running at a profit looks dubious. The only reason their accounts show a profit is via transfers which makes the whole thing a complete pile of dogshit as an argument If buying players only affects the P&L over time (ie spend over the period of the contract), surely the same is the case for selling players? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Roger Kint Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 It amazes me that someone can try and make a comparison between WBA & NUFC when all he has shown are Turnover/Wages and a profit figure clearly showing that even without running costs any theory of them running at a profit looks dubious. The only reason their accounts show a profit is via transfers which makes the whole thing a complete pile of dogshit as an argument If buying players only affects the P&L over time (ie spend over the period of the contract), surely the same is the case for selling players? HF shows figures of £27m turnover and £21m wages, then a £11m profit. Unless they got the mother of all Npower refunds during that year i would guess that its fairly obvious that all running costs of a football club dont amount to -£5m wouldnt you say? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colos Short and Curlies Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 It amazes me that someone can try and make a comparison between WBA & NUFC when all he has shown are Turnover/Wages and a profit figure clearly showing that even without running costs any theory of them running at a profit looks dubious. The only reason their accounts show a profit is via transfers which makes the whole thing a complete pile of dogshit as an argument If buying players only affects the P&L over time (ie spend over the period of the contract), surely the same is the case for selling players? No. Lets say you buy a player for 12 million on a four year contract. Every year you take 3 million into the profit/loss account (so after 1 year the player is worth £9million, after two £6 million, after 3 £3million and after 4, nothing) - you never add value to a player even if you give them a new contract, and players who you don't buy (inlcuding players brought through the youth system) are always worthless!) Now lets say we sell this player after 3 years for £12 million. He is worth £3million so we make a £9 million profit which goes into the accounts in one go. (Its just an accounting thing, in reality we haven't made any profit) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Roger Kint Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 It amazes me that someone can try and make a comparison between WBA & NUFC when all he has shown are Turnover/Wages and a profit figure clearly showing that even without running costs any theory of them running at a profit looks dubious. The only reason their accounts show a profit is via transfers which makes the whole thing a complete pile of dogshit as an argument If buying players only affects the P&L over time (ie spend over the period of the contract), surely the same is the case for selling players? Shouldnt you be posting something in there? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
quayside Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 It amazes me that someone can try and make a comparison between WBA & NUFC when all he has shown are Turnover/Wages and a profit figure clearly showing that even without running costs any theory of them running at a profit looks dubious. The only reason their accounts show a profit is via transfers which makes the whole thing a complete pile of dogshit as an argument If buying players only affects the P&L over time (ie spend over the period of the contract), surely the same is the case for selling players? Profits/losses on player sales are shown in the year the player is sold. Example: Player is bought for £8 million on a 4 year contract. The P&L is charged (amortisation) £2 million every year of the contract. If however the player is sold after 2 years for £6 million then the P&L will show a profit that year of £2 million - being £6 million less the written down value of the player of £4 million(8-4). Edit: Just for clarification - once the player has been sold no further charges are made to the P&L and the player disappears from the club accounts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colos Short and Curlies Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 It amazes me that someone can try and make a comparison between WBA & NUFC when all he has shown are Turnover/Wages and a profit figure clearly showing that even without running costs any theory of them running at a profit looks dubious. The only reason their accounts show a profit is via transfers which makes the whole thing a complete pile of dogshit as an argument If buying players only affects the P&L over time (ie spend over the period of the contract), surely the same is the case for selling players? Shouldnt you be posting something in there? The quote button always fucks up when I'm on my work laptop?!?!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Roger Kint Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 It amazes me that someone can try and make a comparison between WBA & NUFC when all he has shown are Turnover/Wages and a profit figure clearly showing that even without running costs any theory of them running at a profit looks dubious. The only reason their accounts show a profit is via transfers which makes the whole thing a complete pile of dogshit as an argument If buying players only affects the P&L over time (ie spend over the period of the contract), surely the same is the case for selling players? Shouldnt you be posting something in there? The quote button always f***s up when I'm on my work laptop?!?!! No probs mate, wasnt sure if you were being arsey til i saw your edit Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 Thanks for the explanations chaps. I was just thinking about the fact that obviously the buying club would also pay us across the period of the contract they gave the player rather than in one hit. That would affect cashflow rather than P&L though by the sounds of it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colos Short and Curlies Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 Thanks for the explanations chaps. I was just thinking about the fact that obviously the buying club would also pay us across the period of the contract they gave the player rather than in one hit. That would affect cashflow rather than P&L though by the sounds of it. Correct Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colos Short and Curlies Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 It amazes me that someone can try and make a comparison between WBA & NUFC when all he has shown are Turnover/Wages and a profit figure clearly showing that even without running costs any theory of them running at a profit looks dubious. The only reason their accounts show a profit is via transfers which makes the whole thing a complete pile of dogshit as an argument If buying players only affects the P&L over time (ie spend over the period of the contract), surely the same is the case for selling players? Shouldnt you be posting something in there? The quote button always f***s up when I'm on my work laptop?!?!! No probs mate, wasnt sure if you were being arsey til i saw your edit I'm never Arsey! :colo: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 It amazes me that someone can try and make a comparison between WBA & NUFC when all he has shown are Turnover/Wages and a profit figure clearly showing that even without running costs any theory of them running at a profit looks dubious. The only reason their accounts show a profit is via transfers which makes the whole thing a complete pile of dogshit as an argument If buying players only affects the P&L over time (ie spend over the period of the contract), surely the same is the case for selling players? Profits/losses on player sales are shown in the year the player is sold. Example: Player is bought for £8 million on a 4 year contract. The P&L is charged (amortisation) £2 million every year of the contract. If however the player is sold after 2 years for £6 million then the P&L will show a profit that year of £2 million - being £6 million less the written down value of the player of £4 million(8-4). Edit: Just for clarification - once the player has been sold no further charges are made to the P&L and the player disappears from the club accounts. So given what we paid for the players sold in the last 5 months, shouldn't the profit on players in the last 5 months be hefty? Genuine question.... Bassong is bought for £0 on a 4 year contract. The P&L is charged (amortisation) £0 million every year of the contract. However the player is sold after 1 year for £8 million then the P&L will show a profit that year of £8 million - being £8 million more the marked up value of the player of £8 million(8-0). and the other players were Martins Beye and Duff who's combined profit/loss is dwarfed by the size of the bassong deal. Similarly large profits would have been realised on Given, Nzogbia and Milner recently too if I understand you right. No? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Roger Kint Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 It amazes me that someone can try and make a comparison between WBA & NUFC when all he has shown are Turnover/Wages and a profit figure clearly showing that even without running costs any theory of them running at a profit looks dubious. The only reason their accounts show a profit is via transfers which makes the whole thing a complete pile of dogshit as an argument If buying players only affects the P&L over time (ie spend over the period of the contract), surely the same is the case for selling players? Shouldnt you be posting something in there? The quote button always f***s up when I'm on my work laptop?!?!! No probs mate, wasnt sure if you were being arsey til i saw your edit I'm never Arsey! :colo: My memory is shite Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colos Short and Curlies Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 It amazes me that someone can try and make a comparison between WBA & NUFC when all he has shown are Turnover/Wages and a profit figure clearly showing that even without running costs any theory of them running at a profit looks dubious. The only reason their accounts show a profit is via transfers which makes the whole thing a complete pile of dogshit as an argument If buying players only affects the P&L over time (ie spend over the period of the contract), surely the same is the case for selling players? Profits/losses on player sales are shown in the year the player is sold. Example: Player is bought for £8 million on a 4 year contract. The P&L is charged (amortisation) £2 million every year of the contract. If however the player is sold after 2 years for £6 million then the P&L will show a profit that year of £2 million - being £6 million less the written down value of the player of £4 million(8-4). Edit: Just for clarification - once the player has been sold no further charges are made to the P&L and the player disappears from the club accounts. So given what we paid for the players sold in the last 5 months, shouldn't the profit on players in the last 5 months be hefty? Genuine question.... Bassong is bought for £0 on a 4 year contract. The P&L is charged (amortisation) £0 million every year of the contract. However the player is sold after 1 year for £8 million then the P&L will show a profit that year of £8 million - being £8 million more the marked up value of the player of £8 million(8-0). and the other players were Martins Beye and Duff who's combined profit/loss is dwarfed by the size of the bassong deal. Similarly large profits would have been realised on Given, Nzogbia and Milner recently too if I understand you right. No? Yes - Martins will have a decent profit on him btw as we had owned him for a while so his value will have been relatively small. We should see the proft for Given, N Zog and Milner in these accounts, Bassong et al next year. You will see two numbers in the accounts. Profit/Loss before player trading (which will exclude these sales) Profit/Loss (which includes them) You want the profit in the first one to be a high proportion of the second one, otherwise it shows that on a day to day basis we are in the shit! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 It amazes me that someone can try and make a comparison between WBA & NUFC when all he has shown are Turnover/Wages and a profit figure clearly showing that even without running costs any theory of them running at a profit looks dubious. The only reason their accounts show a profit is via transfers which makes the whole thing a complete pile of dogshit as an argument If buying players only affects the P&L over time (ie spend over the period of the contract), surely the same is the case for selling players? Profits/losses on player sales are shown in the year the player is sold. Example: Player is bought for £8 million on a 4 year contract. The P&L is charged (amortisation) £2 million every year of the contract. If however the player is sold after 2 years for £6 million then the P&L will show a profit that year of £2 million - being £6 million less the written down value of the player of £4 million(8-4). Edit: Just for clarification - once the player has been sold no further charges are made to the P&L and the player disappears from the club accounts. So given what we paid for the players sold in the last 5 months, shouldn't the profit on players in the last 5 months be hefty? Genuine question.... Bassong is bought for £0 on a 4 year contract. The P&L is charged (amortisation) £0 million every year of the contract. However the player is sold after 1 year for £8 million then the P&L will show a profit that year of £8 million - being £8 million more the marked up value of the player of £8 million(8-0). and the other players were Martins Beye and Duff who's combined profit/loss is dwarfed by the size of the bassong deal. Similarly large profits would have been realised on Given, Nzogbia and Milner recently too if I understand you right. No? I've got a feeling that you're thinking along the lines of highlighting this "profit" as reasons against Ashley when the accounts are released, non? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 It amazes me that someone can try and make a comparison between WBA & NUFC when all he has shown are Turnover/Wages and a profit figure clearly showing that even without running costs any theory of them running at a profit looks dubious. The only reason their accounts show a profit is via transfers which makes the whole thing a complete pile of dogshit as an argument If buying players only affects the P&L over time (ie spend over the period of the contract), surely the same is the case for selling players? Profits/losses on player sales are shown in the year the player is sold. Example: Player is bought for £8 million on a 4 year contract. The P&L is charged (amortisation) £2 million every year of the contract. If however the player is sold after 2 years for £6 million then the P&L will show a profit that year of £2 million - being £6 million less the written down value of the player of £4 million(8-4). Edit: Just for clarification - once the player has been sold no further charges are made to the P&L and the player disappears from the club accounts. So given what we paid for the players sold in the last 5 months, shouldn't the profit on players in the last 5 months be hefty? Genuine question.... Bassong is bought for £0 on a 4 year contract. The P&L is charged (amortisation) £0 million every year of the contract. However the player is sold after 1 year for £8 million then the P&L will show a profit that year of £8 million - being £8 million more the marked up value of the player of £8 million(8-0). and the other players were Martins Beye and Duff who's combined profit/loss is dwarfed by the size of the bassong deal. Similarly large profits would have been realised on Given, Nzogbia and Milner recently too if I understand you right. No? I've got a feeling that you're thinking along the lines of highlighting this "profit" as reasons against Ashley when the accounts are released, non? Not particularly. The only thing I slag Ashley off for is lying. I'm only posting in here because people are saying it's ridiculous to think for a moment that the club could currently be making money and I still can't see how it isn't (at least before profit is used to satisfy the debt to Ashley). That's not to say Ashley has taken out more than he's put in or that if he were to sell at the moment he would walk off with a profit. 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