quayside Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Those finances didn't have a 35M one off asset boost as well. Unsurprising given that 'asset boost'(whatever the hell that means) occurred the previous year........ I'm comparing them to the year which had them. Which means our finances actually improved significantly without that one off asset boost. You are talking rubbish as those figures for the previous year do not include player sales In our official accounts they do. Not so. Any money received from player sales is not included in annual revenues in the accounts, and that applies to any football club. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Those finances didn't have a 35M one off asset boost as well. Unsurprising given that 'asset boost'(whatever the hell that means) occurred the previous year........ I'm comparing them to the year which had them. Which means our finances actually improved significantly without that one off asset boost. You are talking rubbish as those figures for the previous year do not include player sales In our official accounts they do. That has nothing to do with your claim that the figures in the deloite list dont include the Carroll sale ffs What I'm saying is our turnover has passed what we made the previous year despite the Carroll sale. Which shows how much more the club made due to it's successful season. I'll admit the 1st post was misleading though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Roger Kint Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Those finances didn't have a 35M one off asset boost as well. Unsurprising given that 'asset boost'(whatever the hell that means) occurred the previous year........ I'm comparing them to the year which had them. Which means our finances actually improved significantly without that one off asset boost. You are talking rubbish as those figures for the previous year do not include player sales In our official accounts they do. That has nothing to do with your claim that the figures in the deloite list dont include the Carroll sale ffs What I'm saying is our turnover has passed what we made the previous year despite the Carroll sale. Which shows how much more the club made due to it's successful season. I'll admit the 1st post was misleading though. Well it makes sense now Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
quayside Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Those finances didn't have a 35M one off asset boost as well. Unsurprising given that 'asset boost'(whatever the hell that means) occurred the previous year........ I'm comparing them to the year which had them. Which means our finances actually improved significantly without that one off asset boost. You are talking rubbish as those figures for the previous year do not include player sales In our official accounts they do. That has nothing to do with your claim that the figures in the deloite list dont include the Carroll sale ffs What I'm saying is our turnover has passed what we made the previous year despite the Carroll sale. Which shows how much more the club made due to it's successful season. I'll admit the 1st post was misleading though. The Carrol sale has absolutely nothing to do with it, it would never be included in club turnover. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Roger Kint Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 He means we increased it due to our on field efforts(ie selling him and getting better as a team and finishing 5th) rather than anything financial........i think Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 He means we increased it due to our on field efforts(ie selling him and getting better as a team and finishing 5th) rather than anything financial........i think Yes. Which is good news. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Those finances didn't have a 35M one off asset boost as well. Unsurprising given that 'asset boost'(whatever the hell that means) occurred the previous year........ I'm comparing them to the year which had them. Which means our finances actually improved significantly without that one off asset boost. You are talking rubbish as those figures for the previous year do not include player sales In our official accounts they do. That has nothing to do with your claim that the figures in the deloite list dont include the Carroll sale ffs What I'm saying is our turnover has passed what we made the previous year despite the Carroll sale. Which shows how much more the club made due to it's successful season. I'll admit the 1st post was misleading though. The Carrol sale has absolutely nothing to do with it, it would never be included in club turnover. You know much more about football finance than me obviously, but why would income from player sales be excluded from the revenue reported for that period? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
quayside Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 He means we increased it due to our on field efforts(ie selling him and getting better as a team and finishing 5th) rather than anything financial........i think Thanks - stupid of me, how could anyone not see that from what he posted? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Roger Kint Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Those finances didn't have a 35M one off asset boost as well. Unsurprising given that 'asset boost'(whatever the hell that means) occurred the previous year........ I'm comparing them to the year which had them. Which means our finances actually improved significantly without that one off asset boost. You are talking rubbish as those figures for the previous year do not include player sales In our official accounts they do. That has nothing to do with your claim that the figures in the deloite list dont include the Carroll sale ffs What I'm saying is our turnover has passed what we made the previous year despite the Carroll sale. Which shows how much more the club made due to it's successful season. I'll admit the 1st post was misleading though. The Carrol sale has absolutely nothing to do with it, it would never be included in club turnover. You know much more about football finance than me obviously, but why would income from player sales be excluded from the revenue reported for that period? Its extraordinary income, ie not normal day to day income iirc Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 I think player sales go down as assets being sold which isn't operational revenue Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 He means we increased it due to our on field efforts(ie selling him and getting better as a team and finishing 5th) rather than anything financial........i think Thanks - stupid of me, how could anyone not see that from what he posted? I'm confused. Sorry. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Roger Kint Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 He means we increased it due to our on field efforts(ie selling him and getting better as a team and finishing 5th) rather than anything financial........i think Thanks - stupid of me, how could anyone not see that from what he posted? Took me a while too Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Those finances didn't have a 35M one off asset boost as well. Unsurprising given that 'asset boost'(whatever the hell that means) occurred the previous year........ I'm comparing them to the year which had them. Which means our finances actually improved significantly without that one off asset boost. You are talking rubbish as those figures for the previous year do not include player sales In our official accounts they do. That has nothing to do with your claim that the figures in the deloite list dont include the Carroll sale ffs What I'm saying is our turnover has passed what we made the previous year despite the Carroll sale. Which shows how much more the club made due to it's successful season. I'll admit the 1st post was misleading though. The Carrol sale has absolutely nothing to do with it, it would never be included in club turnover. You know much more about football finance than me obviously, but why would income from player sales be excluded from the revenue reported for that period? Its extraordinary income, ie not normal day to day income iirc That I understand, but in my business extraordinary income (i.e. selling an asset) stills shows on my accounts as revenue, unless I'm horribly mistaken? Does it not work the same in football? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
quayside Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Those finances didn't have a 35M one off asset boost as well. Unsurprising given that 'asset boost'(whatever the hell that means) occurred the previous year........ I'm comparing them to the year which had them. Which means our finances actually improved significantly without that one off asset boost. You are talking rubbish as those figures for the previous year do not include player sales In our official accounts they do. That has nothing to do with your claim that the figures in the deloite list dont include the Carroll sale ffs What I'm saying is our turnover has passed what we made the previous year despite the Carroll sale. Which shows how much more the club made due to it's successful season. I'll admit the 1st post was misleading though. The Carrol sale has absolutely nothing to do with it, it would never be included in club turnover. You know much more about football finance than me obviously, but why would income from player sales be excluded from the revenue reported for that period? All clubs exclude revenue from player sales in their turnover figures. It gets shown in the annual accounts under the category of "profit or loss on disposal of player registrations". So in 2011 the NUFC accounts showed a profit in this category of about £37 million most of which is due to Carroll. The reason it is treated this way is so that when you are comparing a club's revenue year on year it is free of distorting factors such as the one off sale of a player and you can genuinely compare how the club has grown (or shrunk) in its day to day business activities, broadly these are analysed as matchday, media and commercial. There is also an accounting reason for this treatment (to do with players being treated as fixed assets) but I won't go into that! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
quayside Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 He means we increased it due to our on field efforts(ie selling him and getting better as a team and finishing 5th) rather than anything financial........i think Thanks - stupid of me, how could anyone not see that from what he posted? I'm confused. Sorry. So was I. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Thanks for the clarification quayside! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Sports direct china will change us forever. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
loki679 Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 Sports direct china will change us forever. I don't think China could get any cheaper. Mike would have to pay people to take his socks if he wanted to undercut the locals. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 Anyone any idea where we were in the list the season before Ashley arrived. I'm sure we were about 14th at one point. Don't think we maximize our potential anyway. The club has lost so much commercial revenue since Ashley it's ridiculous. Another reason why Llambias should be nowhere near the club. Can you explain how you got to the second sentence from the first? I would to anyone but you asking the question. You can't? Stop doing a Dekka and answer the question. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colinmk Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 Don't know if this has been posted already? http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/the-fa-needs-to-reform-or-we-will-take-action-warn-mps-8470831.html Government genuinely wanting to sort it out or just wanting a bigger cut? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 Don't know if this has been posted already? http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/the-fa-needs-to-reform-or-we-will-take-action-warn-mps-8470831.html Government genuinely wanting to sort it out or just wanting a bigger cut? I would guess they just want their fair cut, the way many football clubs overspend go "pop" owing the Revenue Millions and then just reappear is a disgrace. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/arsenal/9904640/Arsenal-poised-to-be-subjected-to-1.5bn-takeover-bid-from-Middle-East-consortium-within-the-next-few-weeks.html http://i.imgur.com/CR7LnEp.jpg http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/football/4821553/Arsenal-takeover-Arab-investors-table-15BILLION-bid.html Just what we need. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdckelly Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 getting really tedious this foreign sugar daddy shit Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smal Posted March 3, 2013 Share Posted March 3, 2013 Fucking money, man. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stifler Posted March 3, 2013 Share Posted March 3, 2013 An unnamed consortium with unnamed members pledging to buy a club for 2-3 times it's stock market value despite loads of other similar clubs being available for much less that would require less/similar levels of investment. Yeah right. 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