Twitter nonsense

[Baggio]

He's better than Simpson. He'll still be massively exposed once he comes out of the bubble of being a Manchester United utility man though.

 

Precisely my point.

 

Phil Neville wasn't and he was every bit the utility man that O'Shea is.

 

Eh? Phil Neville was better than O'Shea, and he instigated the move to Everton because he wanted a new challenge.

 

O'Shea will be getting dumped onto a new team with very little motivation to play for them other than his hefty wage which distorts his actual ability level due to playing for Man United for the last decade. I do find it quite surprising that people continue to endorse the signing of Manure squad cast offs after experiencing some of the utter shite we've had thrown our way.

 

It's just purchasing at best mediocrity and reliability rather than what clubs like ourselves should be doing and speculating to accumulate with younger, up and coming players with room for imporvement.

 

I don't think he was better going off their Man Utd days, he's better now as he's gone to another club and established himself as a good player but at the time he was held in the same regard as O'Shea is now, a Man Utd squad player that wasn't good enough for them. He may well of instigated the move but that doesn't make much difference apart from he wanted a new challenge, it's not as if O'Shea isn't getting any game time at Man Utd is it? (32 this season, 104 in the last 3 seasons)

 

I find it stupid that people lump in with the likes of Smith and Butt too, If O'Shea was to come here he would be first choice right back, possibly first choice partner for Coloccini as well as adequate cover for Enrique and Tiote, it's alright people saying we should be buying young up and coming players but we're in a position where we need cover in the 4 areas that he can play as well as a striker and winger, is it the same people that will complain about too much change to the squad in one window?

[ponsaelius]

I grouped him in with Smith and Butt because that's exactly the kind of signing he would be. You're citing Phil Neville as an example of these kind of signing being successful ffs Neville is reliable and a good captain for Everton but he's hardly a good or great player.

 

If we need a versatile player, then great. Buy one. It doesn't have to be expensive mediocrity on the downward spiral like John O'Shea.

[Rebellious]

When you buy goods irl who pays the tax? the buyer. Not saying its the same for football, but it's 50-50 that it could be

what is capital gains tax then ?

 

Has this really becoming a discussion on tax in football?

 

Player trading does not trigger any capital gain, it is a revenue transaction. The selling club would pay corporation tax on any profit on a sale (based on the players accounting/ammortised value). A loss could also be made, reducing the tax liability.

 

Not sure on whether player sales are outside of VAT scope or not, but if not then the ultimate purchaser would pay the VAT. Clubs will be VAT registered so would claim back any VAT paid so it is only a cashflow implication, ultimately any VAT flowing from football tansactions is picked up by the fans on ticket sales etc.

 

VAT is charged on UK sales ie Carroll to Liverpool. Its different with sales and purchases outside the Uk. So where you could claim the VAT you paid on the profit/sale of Carroll against purchases of other players they have to come from the UK. Otherwise you can`t claim it against.

 

 

Ever filed a VAT return?

 

Yes why, I have a business turning over 500k plus a year ? Why not follow up your question with some information if your an accountant and I have worded my post incorrectly ?

[Colos Short and Curlies]

When you buy goods irl who pays the tax? the buyer. Not saying its the same for football, but it's 50-50 that it could be

what is capital gains tax then ?

 

Has this really becoming a discussion on tax in football?

 

Player trading does not trigger any capital gain, it is a revenue transaction. The selling club would pay corporation tax on any profit on a sale (based on the players accounting/ammortised value). A loss could also be made, reducing the tax liability.

 

Not sure on whether player sales are outside of VAT scope or not, but if not then the ultimate purchaser would pay the VAT. Clubs will be VAT registered so would claim back any VAT paid so it is only a cashflow implication, ultimately any VAT flowing from football tansactions is picked up by the fans on ticket sales etc.

 

VAT is charged on UK sales ie Carroll to Liverpool. Its different with sales and purchases outside the Uk. So where you could claim the VAT you paid on the profit/sale of Carroll against purchases of other players they have to come from the UK. Otherwise you can`t claim it against.

 

 

Ever filed a VAT return?

 

Yes why, I have a business turning over 500k plus a year ? Why not follow up your question with some information if your an accountant and I have worded my post incorrectly ?

 

Well if we have sold Carroll for £35m, we will have also charged Liverpool 20% VAT which we hand over to HMRC and Liverpool claim back (assuming VAT registered etc etc)

 

There's no question of 'charging' this against purchases etc, we would be a vessel for getting the VAT to HMRC in this transaction and nothing else

[Guest Chubby Jason]

Wow, this is some boring shit.

[steve_69]

Wow, this is some boring s***.

 

What he said....

[gdm]

Lee Ryder blog

http://bit.ly/mR36fz

 

 

 

Ever since Andy Carroll became a Liverpool player the question has been on the lips of Newcastle United fans: Just where will the £35million be spent?

 

Well, we've listened to your feedback, heard what you have to say and asked the club that very question so watch this space.

 

In the meantime, it's worth also asking another question, is it fair to ask the question with two months of trading left in the summer transfer window?

 

In February, Derek Llambias said: "We will spend in the summer. Every penny of the £35m will stay in the club."

 

At no stage did anybody - rightly or wrongly - say ALL of the £35million will be spent on actual transfer fees.

 

Alan Pardew said during the winter months, he would be asking Mike Ashley to spend the money on players.

 

But surely there are wider issues than just buying players - especially at a club that has squandered millions before.

 

Both after Ashley and during the Freddy Shepherd era when the tap seemed to run dry at key times - such as the summer of 2003 with the club in the Champions League and needing to stay there.

 

Without, and unlikely to be able to, seeing the raw accounts at St James' Park - and without being a financial expert, is it fair to say that some of the Carroll money has ALREADY been spent?

 

Shortly after Carroll's departure, Cheick Tiote signed a five year contract - and my understanding is that some of the AC cash went towards that.

 

Retaining, Tiote and keeping him happy is surely a positive thing - so is keeping Jose Enrique, or would you prefer an unproven player coming in on big bucks?

 

But while looking on the positive side, Tiote could be sold in a heartbeat if the right bid came in.

 

There again, EVERY player at EVERY club has a price and if you were in the shoes of the Newcastle owner and somebody offered you silly money which could be re-invested again, what would you do?

 

Yohan Cabaye has also joined the club, reportedly at £4.8million, and he certainly won't be playing for free, accounting for more of the Carroll money.

 

The same can be said for Sylvain Marveaux and Demba Ba, both arrived on frees but wages, signing on fees and agent fees may also have come out of it - that, and the Tiote wages which will be spread over the next five years, could easily account for over 50% of the cash.

 

Pardew has also indicated that two more players will arrive but in football and with two months left of the window surely anything can happen.

 

Another argument is, why should Newcastle spend the money?

 

Is it burning a hole in their pocket? And with agents and clubs knowing that Newcastle have money to spend, they are hardly likely to be reasonable in the cut and thrust of football.

 

For example, Charles N'Zogbia wants to join Newcastle and isn't demanding silly wages on the grand scale of things.

 

However, Dave Whelan will not budge below his asking price of £9million.

 

In that instance, why pay £9million for a player that is available for free in less than a year and can start talking to clubs in January about the prospect of a free transfer?

 

Haven't we been here before in similar circumstances?

 

Didn't we once pay Rangers £8million for Jean-Alain Boumsoung just months after he'd joined the Ibrox club for sweet FA.

 

Do we really want our club to be in the business of lining the pockets of other chairmen at less passionate clubs than our own that can't even fill their stadium?

 

Just to add to mess, we assume that £4million is in the bank for Kevin Nolan.

 

Maybe or maybe not - it could be in instalments over a couple of years yet.

 

And just because we have got rid of Sol Campbell and a bigger earner is off the wage bill, do we really need to bring in another risky unfit football fat cat to suck the club dry of vital funds?

 

That same money could be ploughed into a youngster with potenial such as Mehdi Abeid - somebody who could benefit us in the future?

 

I'd take four Abeids ahead of one Sol Campbell, especially if you told me last August he'd sit on the bench and pick and choose when he wanted to play like he did last season.

 

Having followed the club through dire financial circumstances in the late 1980s and early 1990s, there have certainly been worse times, much worse, for us older fans.

 

Playing at a crap stadium and watching us go through the motions with other team's rejects to boot - even though the last few years have been far from milk and honey.

 

Relegation to the Championship was shocking but the team bounced back straight away, unlike the the late 1980s when we were roughed up in our own backyard against the likes of Brighton, Charlton and worse.

 

Other than Sir John Hall though, in a totally different financial climate, has anybody really ploughed money into the club in our modern history?

 

Freddy Shepherd loved a Hollywood signing but while there was vision to sign stars like Michael Owen, was that not short-sighted vision?

 

The club ended up paying millions for a player that was hardly ever fit and clearly didn't have the passion for the club, and cost the club a sponsor for years.

 

Can we afford to down that road again in the current financial climate?

 

Make no doubts, 10 years ago, Shepherd invested in the team bringing in Robert and Bellamy and having made it to the Champions League the garden looked rosier again for the first time since the Keegan days.

 

But then when, financial problems gripped the club again, he didn't invest anywhere near enough in 2002 and 2003 meaning we were living on borrowed time, ultimately culminating in Sir Bobby Robson's departure and arguably contributing to relegation years later.

 

Glenn Roeder endured a tough time as boss after overperforming in 2006 and getting the team to Europe again - the last time we played on the continent - but then finding there wasn't that much to spend.

 

True, United paid £10million for Obafemi Martins and stumped up instalments for Damien Duff but was that really, really going to be enough to get back in the mix with the big boys?

 

No, if we did believe, we were kidding ourselves.

 

Shepherd loved the club and enjoyed good times, but would we be better off with him at the helm now? Nobody will ever know.

 

Ashley has made mistakes - big ones too, relegation being the ultimate.

 

But he has ironed out the club's finances, it does have a future and is a workable model once again that could break even next year.

 

Players like Hatem Ben Arfa, Fabricio Coloccini, Jose Enrique, Yohan Cabaye and Cheick Tiote have all came in under his watch.

 

And the club's Academy has been scrutinised in that time too, churning out Shane Ferguson, James Tavernier and Sammy Ameobi in recent times and all have a bright future ahead it would seem.

 

The youngsters have also been doing well in the last two years of the FA Youth Cup - a reasonable measuring stick and only going out to a strong Villa team in 2010 as a Championship club and Man U last year by a narrow margin.

 

True at first team level, for every Coloccini and Enrique there is a Perch or a Geremi - but what club has a 100% record in the transfer market?

 

The situation is far from perfect for Newcastle fans but few teams have the spending power of Man City, Chelsea, Liverpool and Man United these days.

 

Even Spurs for all their millions could not buy success last season and other than the teams that come up from the Championship, the division is certainly competitive, hence the close nature of last season's Premier League.

 

And Birmingham City are evidence that even winning a trophy these days brings you happiness if it comes at such a cost of relegation a few weeks later.

 

There are few billionaires out there that want to buy a football club, let alone our football club and given the amount of times it has been on the market, the fact nobody snapped it up at £150million shows that Newcastle and Ashley are stuck with each other.

 

On August 31st and only on August 31st, will we have a clear picture of the situation and the Premier League table will not lie.

 

Until then, everybody is playing a guessing game...

 

So what have you said so far on Twitter, Mick Hedley said: "If they looked like spending something on a striker nobody would be whinging about it"

 

Mark Nordstrom said: "Problem is true to form with the Ashley regime the fans are kept in the dark-lots of unsubstantiated here say begs the question."

 

Dave Spours said:"I'd be very, very surprised if we spend half the amount to be honest."

 

Rob G Thai: "It depends on incoming transfers. If we can add quality to the squad then Im not complaining. Free or 20m, doesnt matter."

 

And Adam Beckett says: "The debate about the transfer budget is silly.

"Never going to spend that kind of money. And still 2 mths of the window left!"

 

Richard Mitchell said: "No we judge now because he now says only two more players you think they will be 15 mil plus players???"

 

When asked about when the £35m question should be asked, Capability Brown argued the point: "Common sense finally! Some of our fans make us sound stupid at times."

 

Louis Kellet added: "Why does the full 35mill have 2 be spent now?

"If its paying off loans it then makes #nufc an attractive buy 2 a new investor"

 

IBatman TDK said: " I would be happier with 1-2 more if we didnt release anyone! With a couple more we have strength in depth"

 

Mark Attias says: "You should definitely ask the question as the fans want to know before we go out buying merchandise and tickets etc"

 

WHAT'S YOUR VIEW ON THE DEBATE.

 

Feel free to add to the conversation in the box provided below.

 

Follow me on Twitter at @lee_ryder

 

[Guest Chubby Jason]

I wonder what we would be looking to spend had Carroll not been sold in January? I'd imagine we'd be looking to make a profit as is the standard Fat Cunt transfer policy. "Why should be spend the Carroll money?"

 

Pathetic.

[Guest Heneage]

Struggle to see how Ameobi has a bright future based on a  5 minute cameo.

[TRon]

Lee Ryder blog

http://bit.ly/mR36fz

 

He'll be getting slated over that piece but I agree with it for the most part. A lot depends on what happens in the next month or two though.

[Numbers]

Why is it always said "for players and wages" surely we arent paying the whole lot upfront ?

 

With AC, Sol Campbell, Nolan etc all leaving doesnt that then free up the money for salaries for the players we are bringing in?

 

This never seems to get mentioned, am i missing something or is the net result of our spending so far next to nothing.

[Guest Antec]

Lee Ryder blog

http://bit.ly/mR36fz

 

He'll be getting slated over that piece but I agree with it for the most part. A lot depends on what happens in the next month or two though.

 

If the people at the top could be trusted it wouldn't be an issue but the problem with that is obvious to most people

[Cunning_Linguist]

O'Shea's s****. He's not what we need at all. He's old, slow and wouldn't be able to cope in a team that's under pressure for long periods throughout a match. His best attributes are probably his positioning and anticipation, but that only gets you so far when you're playing for a team like ours.

 

I know that everyone is entitled to an opinion so my opinion based on your comment is 'You are a Prat'.

 

How do you know that we would be "Under Pressure for long periods of the match"?

 

[garth]

Lee Ryder blog

http://bit.ly/mR36fz

 

He'll be getting slated over that piece but I agree with it for the most part. A lot depends on what happens in the next month or two though.

 

Same here a lot it makes sense and have to agree with it, in most part.

[Guest BooBoo]

I think we need to stop giving this moron the attention he so craves by constantly mentioning his bullshit, even in the Twitter bullshit thread.

[Sifu]

O'Shea would be a good signing especially when he's versatile. Considering that Perch is supposedly our "utility player" (as coined by my Forest mate), O'Shea would be a massive improvement.

[Guest BlacknWhiteArmy]

O'Shea would be a very decent addition.

[Jayson]

Why is it always said "for players and wages" surely we arent paying the whole lot upfront ?

 

With AC, Sol Campbell, Nolan etc all leaving doesnt that then free up the money for salaries for the players we are bringing in?

 

This never seems to get mentioned, am i missing something or is the net result of our spending so far next to nothing.

 

It does get mentioned. Theyre obviously taking into account the money for the full length of the contracts for some reason, which given that theyre signing near everyone on 5 years is much more to put aside than the cost & length of the ones that have gone. For some reason our gate receipts/tv money etc over the next 5 years isnt being taken into account as covering the new players wages. The only decent reason for that would be if theyre barely covering our current running costs as it is. I dont know if that is true.

[Lowndsy]

just got in from work so apologies if this has already been said ... but . according to our favourite "itk" on twitter... defoe has been looking at houses in newcastle area.... so to me that means hes on holiday somewhere abroad

[Dave]

Why is it always said "for players and wages" surely we arent paying the whole lot upfront ?

 

With AC, Sol Campbell, Nolan etc all leaving doesnt that then free up the money for salaries for the players we are bringing in?

 

This never seems to get mentioned, am i missing something or is the net result of our spending so far next to nothing.

 

It does get mentioned. Theyre obviously taking into account the money for the full length of the contracts for some reason, which given that theyre signing near everyone on 5 years is much more to put aside than the cost & length of the ones that have gone. For some reason our gate receipts/tv money etc over the next 5 years isnt being taken into account as covering the new players wages. The only decent reason for that would be if theyre barely covering our current running costs as it is. I dont know if that is true.

 

The entire club turnover in 2010 was £52m and the wagebill was £47m.

 

We made £47m this season from the TV money alone.

[Guest Chubby Jason]

Yes but "Mike" puts in £20million of his OWN MONEY into the club every season, without that we'd be staring into the abyss!!

[Numbers]

Why is it always said "for players and wages" surely we arent paying the whole lot upfront ?

 

With AC, Sol Campbell, Nolan etc all leaving doesnt that then free up the money for salaries for the players we are bringing in?

 

This never seems to get mentioned, am i missing something or is the net result of our spending so far next to nothing.

 

It does get mentioned. Theyre obviously taking into account the money for the full length of the contracts for some reason, which given that theyre signing near everyone on 5 years is much more to put aside than the cost & length of the ones that have gone. For some reason our gate receipts/tv money etc over the next 5 years isnt being taken into account as covering the new players wages. The only decent reason for that would be if theyre barely covering our current running costs as it is. I dont know if that is true.

 

But surely we would have been still paying Nolan/AC or their replacements wages in 5 years time, its just different personel.

 

Its still costing the same in the long run, except maybe a small variation in wages, so i cant see how the people we have signed thus far have cost us anything we wouldnt have been already laying out. Will we actually spend any of the money we received for AC on additional players?

[Dave]

[Guest Antec]

  lee_ryder  Lee Ryder

#nufc Zog source: No further movement on CNZ for any team. Wigan refusing to budge on £9million demand meaning deadlock.

 

[Jayson]

We're supposed to have been running at a loss havent we.

47m was wages, but our overall expenses in 2010 was 74m. Compared to our turnover of 52m.

 

Take into account that figure for extra tv money this year & then whatever the fee's were for Ben Arfa/Tiote etc and we'd probably be quite close to breaking even this year.

 

Then you have 35m from the Carroll sale, which theyre now using to fully cover signings/wages in advance so that our future expenses wont outweigh the turnover if that stays the same. Right?