£60 million transfer profit in Ashleys' time in charge ?

[BottledDog]

I'd be shocked if any of recouped transfer fees went back into the "running costs". I don't need to be an accountant to know where i think it has gone.

 

 

No, you don't need to be an accountant, just have enough nous to be able to read (the accounts), and understand that it is bloody difficult to have chunks of money simply disappear into someones back pockets..

[jdckelly]

Why would DL keep banging on about ashley putting 25 mil in (i know we aint seen the books yet)  If the club pulled in 60 and he trousered it?

 

So he aint putting any in really, its the clubs money anyway

 

Cashflow.  The club gets its TV money and season ticket money mostly over the summer. Wages are every month. 

 

But he isn't trousering it anyway.

tv money comes over season not all up front

[Broadsword]

Why would DL keep banging on about ashley putting 25 mil in (i know we aint seen the books yet)  If the club pulled in 60 and he trousered it?

 

So he aint putting any in really, its the clubs money anyway

 

Cashflow.  The club gets its TV money and season ticket money mostly over the summer. Wages are every month. 

 

But he isn't trousering it anyway.

 

So you are saying we get all of our income upfront but our outgoings are staggered?

 

Not upfront but I am sure a lot of the cash is received over the summer, either TV money, Prize money, season ticket renewals etc.  Ideally this should see us through added to the matchday revenue etc and staggered payments from the FA etc but I doubt it was ever really working like that. 

 

Plus add the drop in revenue this season and it is easy to see why £20m could be swallowed up quite quickly.

[Broadsword]

Why would DL keep banging on about ashley putting 25 mil in (i know we aint seen the books yet)  If the club pulled in 60 and he trousered it?

 

So he aint putting any in really, its the clubs money anyway

 

Cashflow.  The club gets its TV money and season ticket money mostly over the summer. Wages are every month. 

 

But he isn't trousering it anyway.

tv money comes over season not all up front

 

Yes it is staggered but the largest chunk will be over the summer.

[quayside]

I think it is possible that £60m could be right, for example we made a clear £12m profit on Milner, £6m on Given, £7m on Dyer etc etc etc.

 

To make a transfer profit you take the selling price and take off the net book value of the player.  The net book value of the player is the original purchase price less the amortisation charge. The amortisation charge is the original purchase price divided by the length of the players original contract times the number of years at the club.

 

So Given, Milner and Dyer etc all would have a net book value of nil and hence a profit of around £30m.

 

Add Bassong, who had no cost and that's another £8m.  Martins has a profit of around £5m too, Duff £2m etc etc etc...... Was Parker sold in the Ashley era?

 

Soon adds up.

 

Parker was sold in the Ashley era so you can stick him on to the list. Emre was also sold (probably not much profit) and there may have also been small fees received for people like Edgar, Huntington, Ramage and Pattison maybe even Nobby - but there was a loss on Luque, and Babayaro was paid to leave. My reading of the opening post was that he was not referring to an accounting profit but the commonly used "money spent versus money received" measure.

[Broadsword]

I think it is possible that £60m could be right, for example we made a clear £12m profit on Milner, £6m on Given, £7m on Dyer etc etc etc.

 

To make a transfer profit you take the selling price and take off the net book value of the player.  The net book value of the player is the original purchase price less the amortisation charge. The amortisation charge is the original purchase price divided by the length of the players original contract times the number of years at the club.

 

So Given, Milner and Dyer etc all would have a net book value of nil and hence a profit of around £30m.

 

Add Bassong, who had no cost and that's another £8m.  Martins has a profit of around £5m too, Duff £2m etc etc etc...... Was Parker sold in the Ashley era?

 

Soon adds up.

 

Parker was sold in the Ashley era so you can stick him on to the list. Emre was also sold (probably not much profit) and there may have also been small fees received for people like Edgar, Huntington, Ramage and Pattison maybe even Nobby - but there was a loss on Luque, and Babayaro was paid to leave. My reading of the opening post was that he was not referring to an accounting profit but the commonly used "money spent versus money received" measure.

 

I took it the other way as there's no way Ashley has received £60m more on players sold than he has paid on signing them. None what so ever. Not even close.  Accounting profit is the only way it could be anywhere near £60m.

 

How long was Luque at the club?  The loss on him might have been less than you think.  Babayaro won't have made a loss either due to his length of time at the club.

 

[STM]

So not one penny of the transfer fees we have taken in have gone to Ashley's pocket? OK then.

[quayside]

I think it is possible that £60m could be right, for example we made a clear £12m profit on Milner, £6m on Given, £7m on Dyer etc etc etc.

 

To make a transfer profit you take the selling price and take off the net book value of the player.  The net book value of the player is the original purchase price less the amortisation charge. The amortisation charge is the original purchase price divided by the length of the players original contract times the number of years at the club.

 

So Given, Milner and Dyer etc all would have a net book value of nil and hence a profit of around £30m.

 

Add Bassong, who had no cost and that's another £8m.  Martins has a profit of around £5m too, Duff £2m etc etc etc...... Was Parker sold in the Ashley era?

 

Soon adds up.

 

Parker was sold in the Ashley era so you can stick him on to the list. Emre was also sold (probably not much profit) and there may have also been small fees received for people like Edgar, Huntington, Ramage and Pattison maybe even Nobby - but there was a loss on Luque, and Babayaro was paid to leave. My reading of the opening post was that he was not referring to an accounting profit but the commonly used "money spent versus money received" measure.

 

I took it the other way.

 

How long was Luque at the club?  The loss on him might have been less than you think.  Babayaro won't have made a loss either due to his length of time at the club.

 

I think that there was a specific impairment provision made against Luque in the 2007 accounts. This was done to reflect the substance of his subsequent sale. I've got the figure of £7m in my head but wouldn't swear to it, definitely a loss though. And Baba would have to be a loss because the club actually gave him money to go away, which was a sort of negative transfer fee!

[Broadsword]

I think it is possible that £60m could be right, for example we made a clear £12m profit on Milner, £6m on Given, £7m on Dyer etc etc etc.

 

To make a transfer profit you take the selling price and take off the net book value of the player.  The net book value of the player is the original purchase price less the amortisation charge. The amortisation charge is the original purchase price divided by the length of the players original contract times the number of years at the club.

 

So Given, Milner and Dyer etc all would have a net book value of nil and hence a profit of around £30m.

 

Add Bassong, who had no cost and that's another £8m.  Martins has a profit of around £5m too, Duff £2m etc etc etc...... Was Parker sold in the Ashley era?

 

Soon adds up.

 

Parker was sold in the Ashley era so you can stick him on to the list. Emre was also sold (probably not much profit) and there may have also been small fees received for people like Edgar, Huntington, Ramage and Pattison maybe even Nobby - but there was a loss on Luque, and Babayaro was paid to leave. My reading of the opening post was that he was not referring to an accounting profit but the commonly used "money spent versus money received" measure.

 

I took it the other way.

 

How long was Luque at the club?  The loss on him might have been less than you think.  Babayaro won't have made a loss either due to his length of time at the club.

 

I think that there was a specific impairment provision made against Luque in the 2007 accounts. This was done to reflect the substance of his subsequent sale. I've got the figure of £7m in my head but wouldn't swear to it, definitely a loss though. And Baba would have to be a loss because the club actually gave him money to go away, which was a sort of negative transfer fee!

 

You are right about luque actually, I do remember that.  But not sure if an impairement provision would technically go into the profit/loss on player sales in the accounts and neither would a contract payoff either.  The whole luque thing was really pre Ashely though, I doubt we can blame that one on him.

[quayside]

I think it is possible that £60m could be right, for example we made a clear £12m profit on Milner, £6m on Given, £7m on Dyer etc etc etc.

 

To make a transfer profit you take the selling price and take off the net book value of the player.  The net book value of the player is the original purchase price less the amortisation charge. The amortisation charge is the original purchase price divided by the length of the players original contract times the number of years at the club.

 

So Given, Milner and Dyer etc all would have a net book value of nil and hence a profit of around £30m.

 

Add Bassong, who had no cost and that's another £8m.  Martins has a profit of around £5m too, Duff £2m etc etc etc...... Was Parker sold in the Ashley era?

 

Soon adds up.

 

Parker was sold in the Ashley era so you can stick him on to the list. Emre was also sold (probably not much profit) and there may have also been small fees received for people like Edgar, Huntington, Ramage and Pattison maybe even Nobby - but there was a loss on Luque, and Babayaro was paid to leave. My reading of the opening post was that he was not referring to an accounting profit but the commonly used "money spent versus money received" measure.

 

I took it the other way.

 

How long was Luque at the club?  The loss on him might have been less than you think.  Babayaro won't have made a loss either due to his length of time at the club.

 

I think that there was a specific impairment provision made against Luque in the 2007 accounts. This was done to reflect the substance of his subsequent sale. I've got the figure of £7m in my head but wouldn't swear to it, definitely a loss though. And Baba would have to be a loss because the club actually gave him money to go away, which was a sort of negative transfer fee!

 

You are right about luque actually, I do remember that.  But not sure if an impairement provision would technically go into the profit/loss on player sales in the accounts and neither would a contract payoff either.  The whole luque thing was really pre Ashely though, I doubt we can blame that one on him.

 

The whole thing is pretty academic. The decision to sell Luque was made by Allardyce under Ashley's ownership, and if profits on the sale of Parker and Dyer are to be included in this random calculation then why not the loss on Luque?

[Broadsword]

So not one penny of the transfer fees we have taken in have gone to Ashley's pocket? OK then.

 

If any money has then it will be shown in the accounts. Even if it has, its his club he can damn well take as much or as little as he likes to be honest.

[quayside]

So not one penny of the transfer fees we have taken in have gone to Ashley's pocket? OK then.

 

Prove that it has gone to his pocket by reference to audited accounting information and you may have an audience.

[STM]

So not one penny of the transfer fees we have taken in have gone to Ashley's pocket? OK then.

 

If any money has then it will be shown in the accounts. Even if it has, its his club he can damn well take as much or as little as he likes to be honest.

 

I agree that he can take as much money as he wants out. Call me ignorant if you like but i WILL NEVER believe he has anything other than his own interests at heart, regardless of what the "numbers" show.

 

If he hasn't milked the club dry this year, then he will when he sells it.

[STM]

So not one penny of the transfer fees we have taken in have gone to Ashley's pocket? OK then.

 

Prove that it has gone to his pocket by reference to audited accounting information and you may have an audience.

 

You don't have to rely on facts to get an audience on this forum.

[TRon]

So not one penny of the transfer fees we have taken in have gone to Ashley's pocket? OK then.

 

If any money has then it will be shown in the accounts. Even if it has, its his club he can damn well take as much or as little as he likes to be honest.

 

I agree that he can take as much money as he wants out. Call me ignorant if you like but i WILL NEVER believe he has anything other than his own interests at heart, regardless of what the "numbers" show.

 

If he hasn't milked the club dry this year, then he will when he sells it.

 

What difference does it make if he's got his own interests at heart? No one else wants to buy the club and run it any better so it's redundant in any case.

[Guest Roger Kint]

So where is this wonderful £60m transfer profit that TN speaks of?

 

I make it £59m(give or take from £55m) out and £75m in. Throw it the fact we know there was a sizable outstanding balance we owed when Ashley took over, coupled with the fact other clubs dont pay up front and the baulk of last summers £25m would not have been seen yet where do we get a big profit based on just transfers?

 

Also we released Owen, Viduka, Cacapa, Geremi, Carr, Ramage, Babayaro etc with their 'loyalty bonus' as we found out last summer.

 

Quite why i bothered adding to the conjecture is beyond me tbh, we will soon know the facts anyway but just addressing the half arsed attempts from the OP.

 

I dont envy quayside or broadsword having to explain the actual accounts in the next week or so

[Guest secteur2010]

Call me ignorant if you like but i WILL NEVER believe he has anything other than his own interests at heart, regardless of what the "numbers" show.

 

You idiot! Of course he only has his interests at heart - he's a businessman who is out to make money one way or another.

 

NUFC is just a tool for him to make more money (at some point).

[Broadsword]

So where is this wonderful £60m transfer profit that TN speaks of?

 

I make it £59m(give or take from £55m) out and £75m in. Throw it the fact we know there was a sizable outstanding balance we owed when Ashley took over, coupled with the fact other clubs dont pay up front and the baulk of last summers £25m would not have been seen yet where do we get a big profit based on just transfers?

 

Also we released Owen, Viduka, Cacapa, Geremi, Carr, Ramage, Babayaro etc with their 'loyalty bonus' as we found out last summer.

 

Quite why i bothered adding to the conjecture is beyond me tbh, we will soon know the facts anyway but just addressing the half arsed attempts from the OP.

 

I dont envy quayside or broadsword having to explain the actual accounts in the next week or so

 

I did try to explain where the £60m could come from.  I don't think it is that far off really.

[Teasy]

So where is this wonderful £60m transfer profit that TN speaks of?

 

I make it £59m(give or take from £55m) out and £75m in. Throw it the fact we know there was a sizable outstanding balance we owed when Ashley took over, coupled with the fact other clubs dont pay up front and the baulk of last summers £25m would not have been seen yet where do we get a big profit based on just transfers?

 

Also we released Owen, Viduka, Cacapa, Geremi, Carr, Ramage, Babayaro etc with their 'loyalty bonus' as we found out last summer.

 

Quite why i bothered adding to the conjecture is beyond me tbh, we will soon know the facts anyway but just addressing the half arsed attempts from the OP.

 

I dont envy quayside or broadsword having to explain the actual accounts in the next week or so

 

I did try to explain where the £60m could come from.  I don't think it is that far off really.

 

At best its correct but being used in a very misleading way, possibly due to simply being misunderstood.  After all when Football fans talk about transfer profit they don't mean accounting profit, they mean transfer money in vs transfer money out.

[BottledDog]

So not one penny of the transfer fees we have taken in have gone to Ashley's pocket? OK then.

 

If any money has then it will be shown in the accounts. Even if it has, its his club he can damn well take as much or as little as he likes to be honest.

 

I agree that he can take as much money as he wants out. Call me ignorant if you like but i WILL NEVER believe he has anything other than his own interests at heart, regardless of what the "numbers" show.

 

If he hasn't milked the club dry this year, then he will when he sells it.

 

If Ashley makes a profit when he sells I'll be over the fucking moon.

 

 

/The only way he will possibly make a profit is if we make significant progress and start winning or a least challenging again.

 

//as it stands he will still lose a large chunk of money imho if he managed to sell up.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

This thread is bollocks.

 

Just saying.

[Broadsword]

This thread is bollocks.

 

Just saying.

 

The numbers never lie. 

[Happy Face]

Just to clarify the answer...

 

2008

Note 26 to the accounts informs us that in last Summer's transfer window the club spent £13,615,000 on new players and sold players for £13,610,000. This represents a net spend of £5,000

 

2009

Profit on transfers £23m

 

net spend on players after 30 June 2009 -  £3.2m

 

Leaving £20m profit.

 

Right?

[Stu]

[jdckelly]

only out by 40m or so..............