Jump to content
Newcastle-Online

NUFC 2009 Accounts

Mick

by Mick
in Football

 Share

Recommended Posts

Mick

Mick

Posted
Posted

Where you getting these figures from Mick?

 

Somebody who works at the club but didn't give me permission to quote him so he's nameless.  And the income was about £47 million, not £48 million.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest malandro

Guest malandro

Posted
Posted

Where you getting these figures from Mick?

 

Somebody who works at the club but didn't give me permission to quote him so he's nameless.  And the income was about £47 million, not £48 million.

Derek Llambias explained: 'Basically, from £100million revenue, we have dropped to £50m. A good chunk of that is TV money from the Premier League, so from the Premier League, it's around £40m... We get a parachute payment of £12.5m and then in the Championship itself, you get £2.4m of income.

 

http://www.metro.co.uk/sport/football/763137-newcastle-hit-back-as-fans-revolt-over-naming-fiasco

 

Does your source now what the extra £25m Ashley lent the club was used for? I can’t see non playing costs being £35m, or nearer £50m if you factor in the profit made on transfers.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest fraser

Guest fraser

Posted
Posted

Just ordered a set, just to save me some time, what page is the proof of him making £7m a month on?

 

It's not in there at all  :kasper:

But you shouldn't believe what Ernst and Young say like, they're part of the great deception together with Ashley and all that.....

 

Well they did manage to hide all that extra debt for Shepherd that Mike only found after he bought the club. ???

 

 

Have we always included manager's pay in the wage bill or is that new? Is the directors pay included in the £73m?

 

That's a pretty big drop in revenue, a lot lower than Llambias was saying only 4 months before the end of that accounting period when he was saying turnover was £100m. I guess some of it could be put down to the boycott, but pretty worrying nonetheless. Ashley's probably lost us more in revenue than he's "put in".

 

What Ashley found to his surprise was that most of the debt in the 2006 balance sheet was payable on demand if there was a change of owner. When he bought the club the latest accounts (2006) showed that the club was still solvent. Ashley didn't know, because he rather stupidly didn't do due diligence, that in May 2007 the club was in the process of losing £30 million for the year, and he had to fund it probably because no one else would. With the year end being in June the audited accounts were some months away from being prepared....

 

All employees pay including directors and management is included in the wage figure disclosed in the accounts. The highest paid director (presumably Llambias) is on £155k with £16k going into his pension, small fry compared to previous board excesses.

 

With hindsight the boycott and Ashley's unpopularity definitely had an effect on revenue. The recession probably paid a part, football clubs aren't immune from economic downturns.

 

Isn't that the director's pay for the holding company? It's over £1m for the football part of the business isn't it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mick

Mick

Posted
Posted

 

http://www.metro.co.uk/sport/football/763137-newcastle-hit-back-as-fans-revolt-over-naming-fiasco

 

Does your source now what the extra £25m Ashley lent the club was used for? I cant see non playing costs being £35m, or nearer £50m if you factor in the profit made on transfers.

 

 

He will know what it has been used for but I haven't asked him, at a guess it will be the running costs as we pay up front for players but don't get paid up front when we sell.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Happy Face

Happy Face

Posted
Posted

much the same as us. we're both ok providing the bloke at the top will keep taking the losses.

 

I don't think so.  Like at Chelsea and Man City they've flipped the debt into equity so there are no loans outstanding. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mick

Mick

Posted
Posted

 

I don't think so.  Like at Chelsea and Man City they've flipped the debt into equity so there are no loans outstanding. 

 

And that makes how much of a difference?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Matt

Matt

Posted
Posted

much the same as us. we're both ok providing the bloke at the top will keep taking the losses.

 

I don't think so.  Like at Chelsea and Man City they've flipped the debt into equity so there are no loans outstanding. 

 

When you own the company 100%, it's all as good as equity- each have their own advantages and disadvantages but ultimately Ashley has put his own capital at risk in a business he controls.

 

Chelsea were wary of the UEFA Licensing regs, not sure what Short's motivation is. And the quote in the article about the money 'being there forever and cannot be withdrawn' is just a massive lie.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Happy Face

Happy Face

Posted
Posted

much the same as us. we're both ok providing the bloke at the top will keep taking the losses.

 

I don't think so.  Like at Chelsea and Man City they've flipped the debt into equity so there are no loans outstanding. 

 

When you own the company 100%, it's all as good as equity- each have their own advantages and disadvantages but ultimately Ashley has put his own capital at risk in a business he controls.

 

Chelsea were wary of the UEFA Licensing regs, not sure what Short's motivation is. And the quote in the article about the money 'being there forever and cannot be withdrawn' is just a massive lie.

 

There are small differences I think.  Interest can't be charged if there are no loans outstanding....I'm not saying Ashley does plan to start charging interest, but he has the option.  The club can be sold with outstanding loans too allowing him to walk away but keep us indebted.  The debt can then also be called in if the club goes under too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mick

Mick

Posted
Posted

There are small differences I think.  Interest can't be charged if there are no loans outstanding....I'm not saying Ashley does plan to start charging interest, but he has the option.  The club can be sold with outstanding loans too allowing him to walk away but keep us indebted.  The debt can then also be called in if the club goes under too.

 

None of what you've said makes any difference to anything, converting debt to equity doesn't stop the others taking money out of the clubs if that’s what they want to do. 

 

All they need do is pay a dividend if they wanted to take money out of the clubs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest neesy111

Guest neesy111

Posted
Posted

the one thing that has hit us badly, was shepherd spending our sponsership money upfront on owen and luque!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Matt

Matt

Posted
Posted

There are small differences I think.  Interest can't be charged if there are no loans outstanding....I'm not saying Ashley does plan to start charging interest, but he has the option.  The club can be sold with outstanding loans too allowing him to walk away but keep us indebted.  The debt can then also be called in if the club goes under too.

 

Yeah he could use interest charges to offset an operating profit for tax purposes (on the off chance we ever generate one), but it's a side issue.

 

The club won't be sold with on-demand loans outstanding to Ashley unless the purchaser is the world's biggest numpty.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Taylor Swift

Taylor Swift

Posted
Posted

There are small differences I think.  Interest can't be charged if there are no loans outstanding....I'm not saying Ashley does plan to start charging interest, but he has the option.  The club can be sold with outstanding loans too allowing him to walk away but keep us indebted.  The debt can then also be called in if the club goes under too.

 

Yeah he could use interest charges to offset an operating profit for tax purposes (on the off chance we ever generate one), but it's a side issue.

 

The club won't be sold with on-demand loans outstanding to Ashley unless the purchaser is the world's biggest numpty.

 

But then he'd have to pay the profit for that interest, no? That's my understanding of it.

 

The main point: there's absolutely no difference in us owing Ashley money or him converting that debt into equity. It's all the same, except for accounting purposes, because he owns 100% of the club. The club is his. If the club owe money to him, he owes himself, which just negates things.

 

If he sells the club with debt, then the asking price of the club will be x - debt. If he has converted that debt into equity, the asking price would simply b x. It's not rocket science, man.

 

And if Ashley does plan on charging interest, then again, it makes no difference. When you pay yourself money, nothin really changes hands. He's still supporting the club, he's still forking over money to fund day-to-day activities. If the club ever makes a profit, he may charge interest because that's the best way to get money out of the club legally but it's all the same since he already owns the club. It's just changing the pocket that his money is in, but trying to do it with the government skimming the least amount off it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Doctor Zaius

Doctor Zaius

Posted
Posted

Am I the only one that doesn't have a clue what anyone's talking about in this thread?  :lol:

 

Would anyone care to sum up what all of this means for those of us who don't have a clue about converting debt into equity and who owes who what etc etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest malandro

Guest malandro

Posted
Posted

Am I the only one that doesn't have a clue what anyone's talking about in this thread?   :lol:

 

Would anyone care to sum up what all of this means for those of us who don't have a clue about converting debt into equity and who owes who what etc etc.

The club are about £200m in debt, of which about £150m is owed to Mike Ashley. If he wants his money back Newcastle will be run like Happy Shopper for the foreseeable future. He could wipe the debt by using it's value to purchase new shares in the club, but hasn't.

Link to post
Share on other sites
OzzieMandias

OzzieMandias

Posted
Posted

Am I the only one that doesn't have a clue what anyone's talking about in this thread?   :lol:

 

Would anyone care to sum up what all of this means for those of us who don't have a clue about converting debt into equity and who owes who what etc etc.

 

Well, at least you can admit you don't understand it... unlike, say, malandro.

Link to post
Share on other sites
BottledDog

BottledDog

Posted
Posted

Am I the only one that doesn't have a clue what anyone's talking about in this thread?   :lol:

 

Would anyone care to sum up what all of this means for those of us who don't have a clue about converting debt into equity and who owes who what etc etc.

The club are about £200m in debt, of which about £150m is owed to Mike Ashley. If he wants his money back Newcastle will be run like Happy Shopper for the foreseeable future. He could wipe the debt by using it's value to purchase new shares in the club, but hasn't.

 

http://i599.photobucket.com/albums/tt79/englishmuse/ScarJo_popcorn.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mick

Mick

Posted
Posted

Am I the only one that doesn't have a clue what anyone's talking about in this thread?   :lol:

 

Would anyone care to sum up what all of this means for those of us who don't have a clue about converting debt into equity and who owes who what etc etc.

 

It's probably been said but here goes, remember this covers our last season in the Premiership and includes some information for this season:

 

Turnover was down from £99.4 million to £86.1 million.  Media revenue fell from £41.1 million to £37.6 million, mainly due to our league position and the reduced payments tied to that.  Match day revenue was down from £32.352 million to £29.025 million.  Commercial revenue was down from £25.890 million to £16.415 million mainly due to our catering being outsourced during the season.

 

League attendances fell from 51,321 to 48,750.

 

Our wage bill had gone up from £70 million to £71.1 million which was partially to blame for our wage to turnover ratio going up from 70.4% to 82.6%.  The main cause of the increase was due to the fall in turnover.

 

Keegan walking out cost us £5.3 million, this was to cover his pay-off and all of the costs which the club had to pay.  We've now paid out something like £10 million for Allardyce and Keegan leaving the club.

 

We employed 395 permanent staff during the season, down from 425 the season before and part way through the season the number of match day staff of 1,380 was wiped out.  Most, if not all will have transferred to the company who took over the catering.

 

Our operating loss after player amortisation was £37.6 million, up from £24.7 the year before.  Net debt was just over £105 million at the beginning of that year and over £150 million at the end.

 

We sold players for just over £21 million after the year end and spent just over £3 million.

 

Ashley loaned the club £11 million during the year, we had £111 million owed to him in total up to the end of that financial year.  He's since put in another £25.5 million so we owe him £136.5 million unless he's put anything else in during the last few weeks or taken anything out.  Our bank overdraft had gone up from less than £1 million to almost £36 million; add that to the £11 million Ashley put in and you can see we have a major problem.  The money we owe Ashley is now to be paid on demand which means nothing as he's put more in since.  The loan from Ashley isn't interest bearing or secured, we also have a bank loan which is secured against future sponsorship.  I’m guessing that Ashley has taken money out of the club as our loans to him were up to £112 million at one point during that year but ended at the £111 million mentioned earlier, unless he’s written £1 million off.

 

We had deferred income which includes season ticket money and sponsorship, the total value is just over £18 million and most of that was due in during the first 2 years and £10.3 million will have already come in to the club as it was due within 1 year.

 

I may have got a few things wrong, especially the use of tense as the accounts are out of date by almost a year.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest malandro

Guest malandro

Posted
Posted

Am I the only one that doesn't have a clue what anyone's talking about in this thread?   :lol:

 

Would anyone care to sum up what all of this means for those of us who don't have a clue about converting debt into equity and who owes who what etc etc.

 

Well, at least you can admit you don't understand it... unlike, say, malandro.

yawn

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...