Guest Geordiekev Posted April 27, 2010 Share Posted April 27, 2010 That is a hell of a transfer profit in the time Ashley has had ownership of the club. During the same period the support has held up well, the wage bill has been slashed and from next season United will be back to recieving substantial TV payments. The amount made available for incoming transfers should be reasonably good, 25 million or so at a rough guess. Corporate Finance, brought to you in association with the Beano. £7m a week profit I heard? Nah Ashley's skimming around 15m on a weekly basis, moves it from NUFC to Llambias holdings then charges a holding fee before transfering it back, the tax man over looks this as he's currently sorting out April's end of year tax returns... But don't worry non as I heard the cash is being put away in a kitty to offer us all a free hotdog and a pint for the coming season Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdckelly Posted April 28, 2010 Share Posted April 28, 2010 That is a hell of a transfer profit in the time Ashley has had ownership of the club. During the same period the support has held up well, the wage bill has been slashed and from next season United will be back to recieving substantial TV payments. The amount made available for incoming transfers should be reasonably good, 25 million or so at a rough guess. Corporate Finance, brought to you in association with the Beano. £7m a week profit I heard? Nah Ashley's skimming around 15m on a weekly basis, moves it from NUFC to Llambias holdings then charges a holding fee before transfering it back, the tax man over looks this as he's currently sorting out April's end of year tax returns... But don't worry non as I heard the cash is being put away in a kitty to offer us all a free hotdog and a pint for the coming season sounds good to me just dont tell nolan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conjo Posted April 28, 2010 Share Posted April 28, 2010 Hey. Great thread this! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JCONA Posted April 28, 2010 Share Posted April 28, 2010 http://o.aolcdn.com/gd-media/galleries/531/Frog-Suit.jpg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
quayside Posted April 28, 2010 Share Posted April 28, 2010 Didn't realise he was talking about transfers since nowt is mentioned about that in the title. That's almost worse really since we can all see how much has been spent and brought in through transfers (within a few million either way anyway). We've brought in about £75m from transfers and spent about £56m. My error - you're right, the reference to transfers isn't in the thread title. It's actually in the opening post, not that it matters much as the £60m sounds like an invented statistic anyway. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thenorthumbrian Posted April 28, 2010 Share Posted April 28, 2010 TN, where did you get this from. The club has made substantial profit in the Ashley era in the transfer market. United are the 4th or 5th top supported team throughout the leagues, and costs have been cut right back in terms of players wages and staffing generally. In addition the TV money will be restored to the full amount next season and Newcastle only had one season with the reduced parachute payment. I fail to see how the club can still be in the dire financial position some near the current mob running the club are claiming. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol Posted April 28, 2010 Share Posted April 28, 2010 TN, where did you get this from. The club has made substantial profit in the Ashley era in the transfer market. United are the 4th or 5th top supported team throughout the leagues, and costs have been cut right back in terms of players wages and staffing generally. In addition the TV money will be restored to the full amount next season and Newcastle only had one season with the reduced parachute payment. I fail to see how the club can still be in the dire financial position some near the current mob running the club are claiming. So you've made the figure up then. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Roger Kint Posted April 28, 2010 Share Posted April 28, 2010 TN, where did you get this from. The club has made substantial profit in the Ashley era in the transfer market. United are the 4th or 5th top supported team throughout the leagues, and costs have been cut right back in terms of players wages and staffing generally. In addition the TV money will be restored to the full amount next season and Newcastle only had one season with the reduced parachute payment. I fail to see how the club can still be in the dire financial position some near the current mob running the club are claiming. Accountancy for dummies Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NG32 Posted April 28, 2010 Share Posted April 28, 2010 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BooBoo Posted April 28, 2010 Share Posted April 28, 2010 Mmm this threads needs just a pinch more NE5. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thenorthumbrian Posted April 28, 2010 Share Posted April 28, 2010 Sorry I misjudged your ability to have a serious debate. Something obviously way beyond some of the single cell life forms who frequent this board Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thenorthumbrian Posted April 28, 2010 Share Posted April 28, 2010 TN, where did you get this from. The club has made substantial profit in the Ashley era in the transfer market. United are the 4th or 5th top supported team throughout the leagues, and costs have been cut right back in terms of players wages and staffing generally. In addition the TV money will be restored to the full amount next season and Newcastle only had one season with the reduced parachute payment. I fail to see how the club can still be in the dire financial position some near the current mob running the club are claiming. Accountancy for dummies Witty and clever, just two of the qualities you lack.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NG32 Posted April 28, 2010 Share Posted April 28, 2010 Sorry I misjudged your ability to have a serious debate. Something obviously way beyond some of the single cell life forms who frequent this board Calm down. I can see the point your making but you've not considered our outgoings. We have nothing to reference that 60 mil against at the minute. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Roger Kint Posted April 28, 2010 Share Posted April 28, 2010 You expect serious responses to your vague ramblings? You havent even got any figures to back up your (wrong) predictions Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colos Short and Curlies Posted April 28, 2010 Share Posted April 28, 2010 Very simply, the amount of time it takes to climb out of your shit depends on the volume of shit you are facing to begin with Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest secteur2010 Posted April 28, 2010 Share Posted April 28, 2010 you can sort of see where he's coming from but as pointed out, he's not included outgoings, etc. mind, if he's right, I'll bum cliffy ahmed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BooBoo Posted April 28, 2010 Share Posted April 28, 2010 The whole "Fat Ash's raking the silver in" is simply one dull tribute to the tedious ramblings of the prize dullard, HTL. Sadly seldomly seen round these parts these days. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broadsword Posted April 28, 2010 Share Posted April 28, 2010 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NG32 Posted April 28, 2010 Share Posted April 28, 2010 Say we did recoup that 60 mil in one season (and not season by season payments from other teams) We are still pretty unsure of what our outgoings were/are. So that 60 mil could have been swallowed by whatever our outgoings were. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
STM Posted April 28, 2010 Share Posted April 28, 2010 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broadsword Posted April 28, 2010 Share Posted April 28, 2010 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. Of course it has, there's no way Ashley is pocketing any of it. If he is then the accounts will show that up. It's more likely that it has gone on player signing on fees, agents, sell on clauses, loan interest and payoffs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NG32 Posted April 28, 2010 Share Posted April 28, 2010 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 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broadsword Posted April 28, 2010 Share Posted April 28, 2010 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NG32 Posted April 28, 2010 Share Posted April 28, 2010 60 mil should have covered this season add to that the better then expected crowds. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colos Short and Curlies Posted April 28, 2010 Share Posted April 28, 2010 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? 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