summerof69 Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 http://www.journallive.co.uk/nufc/newcastle-united-news/2010/02/25/newcastle-united-are-losing-500-000-per-week-61634-25910076/ Powered by Google Site Web Home NUFC NUFC News Motors Showroom Find your new car in our Motor Dealers showroom Newcastle United are losing £500,000 per week Feb 25 2010 by Luke Edwards, The Journal Comments (6)Recommend (1) 12next Ashley had already cleared debts of £110m when he took control of the club back in June 2008, although it was claimed he did not want to be repaid that money as long as someone came up with the £100m asking price last year. It is not yet clear whether he will take his £20m back this season, particularly as the squad will need significant investment if it is realistically going to compete back in the top flight. The scale of United’s losses came on the day a report by Uefa, European football’s governing body, estimated that the 18 Premier League clubs in 2007-8 owed more money than all of the clubs in the rest of Europe’s top divisions put together. The combined debts of these clubs stood at just under €4bn euros (£3.5bn), around four times the figure for the next most indebted top division, Spain’s La Liga. Given Portsmouth’s demise – the club may still go out of business even if it goes into administration tomorrow – English football is heading for a prolonged period of belt tightening after the boom of the Noughties, and Newcastle are no exception. THE need for Newcastle United to make an instant return to the top flight has been underlined by the revelation the club is losing around £500,000 a week in the Championship. United made drastic cutbacks in the summer following relegation, but have still needed to be bankrolled by owner Mike Ashley after he failed to find a buyer. The size of United’s losses makes it imperative that promotion is achieved this season or even bigger cuts will be made in order to ensure the club’s survival in May. The Journal revealed before Christmas that Ashley had loaned the club £20m to cover everyday running costs. It is understood the retail entrepreneur may put even more of his own money in before the end of the campaign because of the extent of the losses, although the books have been boosted by crowds of more than 40,000 in recent weeks. A senior United source said: “Newcastle United couldn’t survive at the moment without Mike’s money, it’s as simple as that. If Mike and the banks weren’t willing to cover the cost of relegation Newcastle may well be in a Portsmouth situation. It is costing Mike £500,000-a-week this season to keep Newcastle running without making further cutbacks, yet some people are saying the club should be able to wipe its own mouth, that it should be able to run by itself with the income coming in. “You can not lose £50m in revenue and expect not to have to take a hit, particularly when you have the overheads Newcastle have. “The wage bill was reduced, but it’s still way too big for the Championship.” Although Ashley’s mistakes at St James’ Park certainly contributed to the club’s demise, he has tried to rectify them by allowing Chris Hughton to retain a wage bill in excess of £40m in the second tier. That has enabled United’s former caretaker manager to maintain a squad which, in his opinion, has the best possible chance of returning to the top flight at the first attempt. Ashley, though, is unlikely to allow the business to haemorrhage money in this way long term and it remains to be seen whether he looks to find a buyer again in the summer, regardless of what division the club are in Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
summerof69 Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 £500,000 a week works out at 24 mil a yea( i think)r, which is pretty bad but it should get better. Next year we will recieve about 30 mil (minimum) and with the parachute payments this year of 12 mil that means we will be 18 mil better off, which means that we will still be losing out on 6 mil a year however attendances will be much higher by about 7,000 plus higher ticket prices. How much more that means i'm not sure. Any one have any ideas? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dinho lad Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 “Newcastle United couldn’t survive at the moment without Mike’s money, it’s as simple as that. If Mike and the banks weren’t willing to cover the cost of relegation Newcastle may well be in a Portsmouth situation. It is costing Mike £500,000-a-week this season to keep Newcastle running without making further cutbacks, yet some people are saying the club should be able to wipe its own mouth, that it should be able to run by itself with the income coming in. It's mostly his fault that we're in this situation, you cunts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Vigge Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 This would on the other hand mean that we would make a profit if we returned to the premiership, right? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 No no no, everyone knows he's making a profit from the club. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Icke - Son of God Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 We had the wage bill of a Champions League club when we were relegated so it's hardly surprising we're still paying way more than the norm in the Championship. If we go back up we'll be hunky dory. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
summerof69 Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 “Newcastle United couldn’t survive at the moment without Mike’s money, it’s as simple as that. If Mike and the banks weren’t willing to cover the cost of relegation Newcastle may well be in a Portsmouth situation. It is costing Mike £500,000-a-week this season to keep Newcastle running without making further cutbacks, yet some people are saying the club should be able to wipe its own mouth, that it should be able to run by itself with the income coming in. It's mostly his fault that we're in this situation, you c***s. Don't get me wrong, i blame Mike Ashley for us being in the CCC but i'm not sure the financial side i his fault. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
summerof69 Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 This would on the other hand mean that we would make a profit if we returned to the premeiership, right? No. £500,000 a week works out at 24 mil a yea( i think)r, which is pretty bad but it should get better. Next year we will recieve about 30 mil (minimum) and with the parachute payments this year of 12 mil that means we will be 18 mil better off, which means that we will still be losing out on 6 mil a year however attendances will be much higher by about 7,000 plus higher ticket prices. How much more that means i'm not sure. Any one have any ideas Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dinotheprehistoricgeordie Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 If we do get promoted wages will go up as the players probably have a claus in their contracts to that effect. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lagerstedt Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 This would on the other hand mean that we would make a profit if we returned to the premeiership, right? No. £500,000 a week works out at 24 mil a yea( i think)r, which is pretty bad but it should get better. Next year we will recieve about 30 mil (minimum) and with the parachute payments this year of 12 mil that means we will be 18 mil better off, which means that we will still be losing out on 6 mil a year however attendances will be much higher by about 7,000 plus higher ticket prices. How much more that means i'm not sure. Any one have any ideas I would also think that they will renegotiate sponsor prices etc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
J7 Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 We brought in quite a bit in the summer from player sales, and reduced the wagebill massively. No to mention making transfer window profits over and over I don't believe anything that comes out of the club reguarding this unfortunatly. They just seem to be trying to hammer home the 'Mikes a good guy' bollocks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spider Jerusalem Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 We should also be clearing over 1/10th of that off the outgoings when Nicky Fucking Butt's contract expires (as long as it's not renewed for him being a fantastic payer and great professional) if he really is on over 50,000 a week. So that's going to be 2.4m + off the outgoings over the year in theory. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 The high wage bill is partly due to having a number of players who we couldn't shift, and a lot of players without relegation wage reduction clauses in their contracts. Neither of these is really Ashley's fault, all the fact of relegation probably was. We just need to get promoted... how much we'll have to keep us in the premiership remains to be seen. Sounds like we might need to get rid of some big earners even if we go up, could mean Colo, Jonas etc going out to be replaced by lower earners. I hope not, obviously. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Liam Liam O Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 Is this the story NUST were talking about a few weeks back? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NG32 Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 Nicky Butt will be retiring so thats the best prt of 70k a week off the books. If we can shift Nolan or smith as well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 More arselicking of the fat bastard from Thompson House. He's the stupid cunt who didn't click last January that getting relegated might cost us a quid or two. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NG32 Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 The high wage bill is partly due to having a number of players who we couldn't shift, and a lot of players without relegation wage reduction clauses in their contracts. Neither of these is really Ashley's fault, all the fact of relegation probably was. We just need to get promoted... how much we'll have to keep us in the premiership remains to be seen. Sounds like we might need to get rid of some big earners even if we go up, could mean Colo, Jonas etc going out to be replaced by lower earners. I hope not, obviously. Barton, Smith, Collicini, jonas, enrique were all signed under his ownership. As well as bloody Geremi, so who authorised their pay deals and contracts? The big earners like Viduka, Owen and Martins all left once were were relegated, and they were the ones who were here before Ashley. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad Mongo Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 The club would lose less money if Sports Direct paid properly for their advertising on St. James' Park. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 i find this totally bollocks, this from the famous club insider, hard to believe when our wage bill is around 40M and turnover this season expected to be 50M, the 20M ashley put in earlier in the season will cover all of the losses though i agree that the big earners still need to go, colocini is simply not worth it in this league Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gray Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 Lately I'm glad he's here. We weren't exactly going places with FFS and BFS in charge. Just think we could do a lot worse. /tinhat Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
summerof69 Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 This would on the other hand mean that we would make a profit if we returned to the premeiership, right? No. £500,000 a week works out at 24 mil a yea( i think)r, which is pretty bad but it should get better. Next year we will recieve about 30 mil (minimum) and with the parachute payments this year of 12 mil that means we will be 18 mil better off, which means that we will still be losing out on 6 mil a year however attendances will be much higher by about 7,000 plus higher ticket prices. How much more that means i'm not sure. Any one have any ideas I would also think that they will renegotiate sponsor prices etc. Good point but wont they have been negotiated before we were in the championship. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 This would on the other hand mean that we would make a profit if we returned to the premeiership, right? No. £500,000 a week works out at 24 mil a yea( i think)r, which is pretty bad but it should get better. Next year we will recieve about 30 mil (minimum) and with the parachute payments this year of 12 mil that means we will be 18 mil better off, which means that we will still be losing out on 6 mil a year however attendances will be much higher by about 7,000 plus higher ticket prices. How much more that means i'm not sure. Any one have any ideas I would also think that they will renegotiate sponsor prices etc. Good point but wont they have been negotiated before we were in the championship. we are not losing 24M, the figure's simply don't add up from the famous insider Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
timnufc22 Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 5.2 The Club admitted to the Tribunal that it repeatedly and intentionally misled the press, public and the fans of Newcastle United "We'd be like Portsmouth if he didnt pay the bills after getting relegated" ... WE GOT RELEGATED BECAUSE OF HIM, I'd fully expect him to pay the bills, he owns the damn bloody club, and completely took the piss and the cost was relegation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
summerof69 Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 Tbh, there have been that many reports on our finances, i don't know what is right and what is wrong Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
timnufc22 Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 “Newcastle United couldn’t survive at the moment without Mike’s money, it’s as simple as that. If Mike and the banks weren’t willing to cover the cost of relegation Newcastle may well be in a Portsmouth situation. It is costing Mike £500,000-a-week this season to keep Newcastle running without making further cutbacks, yet some people are saying the club should be able to wipe its own mouth, that it should be able to run by itself with the income coming in. It's mostly his fault that we're in this situation, you c***s. Don't get me wrong, i blame Mike Ashley for us being in the CCC but i'm not sure the financial side i his fault. He's the one that didnt have relegation clauses in the contracts of players we signed under him. 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