Happy Face Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 Confirmed 2009 £111m debt and relegated http://i61.tinypic.com/2vmvwqe.png 2010 £140m debt following promotion http://i61.tinypic.com/ne9wm0.png 2011 £140m debt remains http://i60.tinypic.com/2mor053.png 2012 £129m debt left - £11m repaid http://i60.tinypic.com/2wqsi7r.png 2013 £129m debt remains http://i57.tinypic.com/t83h1l.png so £18m left to repay from the relegation loans. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 And here's where the 2013 accounts said that £18m was repayable, unlike the other £111m... http://i61.tinypic.com/2vxlpva.png Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 Even if he sold NUFC, he could uyse the debt as leverage in retaining his existing retail/advertising deals. If he sells the club, that would include repaying / cancelling the shareholder loans. No-one would be mental enough to buy a club then allow Ashley to control it by proxy- as he does at Rangers. The terms of shareholder loans are largely irrelevant- they can be amended as and when Ashley sees fit to be repayable on certain dates, or for interest to be paid, increased or waived. So it could have been in the 2011 accounts or Monday's accounts- he still could have completely altered them yesterday. Ignore them- they are not debt, but equity. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor Swift Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 Yup. Shareholder loans are the same as equity. Don't pay any attention to it, especially since he's not collecting interest. Our focus should be on commercial income. It would be good if someone could put a valuation on the SD branding in the stadium on a yearly basis. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor Swift Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 The aggregate operating losses over the past 7 years is going to be wiped out by the profits from last year and this year, IMO. We're going to come very close to breaking even in operating income over the past 7 years, which is crazy considering that includes a relegation. It just shows how flushed the Premier League is at the moment. This of course doesn't include player trading, which now produces a yearly surplus for us. Ashley is minting it, IMO. He won't be gone for a long time. He'd be stupid to take £300m. Anything less than £500m for the club is daft considering how much a club could make by finishing 10th every year (around £40m by a back of the envelope calculations using our revenue and expenditures). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 Even if he sold NUFC, he could uyse the debt as leverage in retaining his existing retail/advertising deals. If he sells the club, that would include repaying / cancelling the shareholder loans. No-one would be mental enough to buy a club then allow Ashley to control it by proxy- as he does at Rangers. The terms of shareholder loans are largely irrelevant- they can be amended as and when Ashley sees fit to be repayable on certain dates, or for interest to be paid, increased or waived. So it could have been in the 2011 accounts or Monday's accounts- he still could have completely altered them yesterday. Ignore them- they are not debt, but equity. What about if he sold a stake in the club, like he's always said he wants to? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor Swift Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 Even a club like Everton, who have spent money on transfers and don't have huge revenues from tickets, is going to be able to post consistent profits for the next few years and still sustain spending during transfer windows. Competition will push up wages for players being signed into the league, but it won't be like before where clubs were competing with other clubs in Europe for players too. The competition will only be between 10-15 clubs for vast majority of players. The other 5 clubs in the league will be flirting with relegation and I assume won't be willing to pay the highest wages. Even a yo-yo club run right could make consistent profits. The elite players will have 7-8 clubs that compete for them, so their wages will continue to rise, but the tier 2 and tier 3 players will all be coming over to England in the next few years. Italian clubs can't compete, the French clubs, same with the Spanish and German clubs. It's going to be the elite few - the teams left in the CL - and every team in the Premier League that will be able to pay the highest wages. Bet West Ham could pay some tit higher wages than Milan can in 2 years. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anderson Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 Wasnt it something daft like Starbucks don't actually own anything, they make there money basically like a franchise and each shop is an individual franchise. So despite all the profits the shops bring Starbucks as an entity didn't make anything. Just had a quick google, looks like they were paying royalties to a Sister Company, also selling coffee beans to themselves at a higher price so made it look as though no profit was made. A couple of other sneaky tricks too. Common with a lot of big multinational corporations I think, all the profit is 'moved' from countries with high tax rates to places where it's much more favourable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor Swift Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 Even if he sold NUFC, he could uyse the debt as leverage in retaining his existing retail/advertising deals. If he sells the club, that would include repaying / cancelling the shareholder loans. No-one would be mental enough to buy a club then allow Ashley to control it by proxy- as he does at Rangers. The terms of shareholder loans are largely irrelevant- they can be amended as and when Ashley sees fit to be repayable on certain dates, or for interest to be paid, increased or waived. So it could have been in the 2011 accounts or Monday's accounts- he still could have completely altered them yesterday. Ignore them- they are not debt, but equity. What about if he sold a stake in the club, like he's always said he wants to? It would be equity. If he sold the club for £500m, he would get the full amount in cash and the 'loan' would be wiped off the books. Of course, it's almost a certainty that the new owners would have loans of their own that financed the deal, much like the Glazers did when they bought Man Utd. It's like moving money from your left pocket to your right pocket. If someone bought your jeans, they would pay you for the money in both pockets too. No owner would buy the club from him and allow the loan to be in place and able to be recalled at any time. That would be financial suicide. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 don't expect him to spend all his cash but surely encouraging a Cup run would be worthwhile - he gets the extra gate money and we might even win sommat (and I'm old enough to remember the last time we did win a trophy) We might even like him them - as it is he just tells the manger to make sure we're safe - totally pointless TBH - and is thought to be total s*** by thousands of people Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeordieT Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 I've said it before on here and will do so again. A significant proportion of recent profits will be put towards this new training ground development. Guarantee that's all we will be hearing about during the summer as we sit idly in the transfer market. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
loki679 Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 I've said it before on here and will do so again. A significant proportion of recent profits will be put towards this new training ground development. Guarantee that's all we will be hearing about during the summer as we sit idly in the transfer market. No, no, they've had a transfer summit. A summit, man. Gives you a tingle in the balls does that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest chopey Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 Ashley is going nowhere soon and his next investment has to be a decent manager with the ability to win every game he goes into, I'll be very interested to see what Ashley does with us if his board get voted out at rangers Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NG32 Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 Ashley is going nowhere soon and his next investment has to be a decent manager with the ability to win every game he goes into, I'll be very interested to see what Ashley does with us if his board get voted out at rangers Well if history with him is anything to go by, if his board get voted out he will have a massive hissy fit and probs do something that will srew rangers for ever, he may then take it out on NUFC as well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UV Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 We're making £50m profit a year at the moment. Investing £50m a year into the first team would make a massive difference and that's without sending the club into debt, without borrowing, without stupid installments. Simply investing our profits would see us competing at the right end of the table (including a proper salary for a real manager). We haven't reported a profit before player trading yet. Operating profit for the last 7 years has been... -29.0m -24.7m -37.7m -33.5m -3.9m -5.1m -0.6m I'd expect us to spend in Summer. That's a very misleading set of numbers IYAM. Those numbers are £(turnover - op ex - player amortisation), but ignoring transfers. You're including the downside of player trading (amortisation) but not the upside (sale profit/loss). The important thing to point out if you use that as a base is that when you include transfers it's pretty much all profit. Correct me if I'm wrong, but players brought in for however much don't affect the profit at all in that year except for any amortisation which you have included (they are assets at the value of the transfer fee). However players sold will add £(sale price - book value) to the final profit margin. For example Cabaye - Bought for £4.3m on a 5 year contract. Sold half way through contract so book value=£2.15m. Sale price=£19m. Profit=£16.8m to be added onto whatever that value is for 13-14 When transfers are included, the final profit/loss numbers are: 07-08: -£20.3m 08-09: -£15.2m 09-10: -£17.1m 10-11: £32.6m 11-12: £1.4m 12-13: £9.9m In that context it seems a very strange conclusion to draw that the amount we have available to spend on player purchases is related to profit before trading. Would you not be better just looking at the cashflow? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The College Dropout Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 Profit is opinion. Cash is fact. I'm certain we have the potential to easily have loads cash. I'm certain Ashley has made lots of cash from our club. His ROI on SJP advertising must be through the roof. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 We're making £50m profit a year at the moment. Investing £50m a year into the first team would make a massive difference and that's without sending the club into debt, without borrowing, without stupid installments. Simply investing our profits would see us competing at the right end of the table (including a proper salary for a real manager). We haven't reported a profit before player trading yet. Operating profit for the last 7 years has been... -29.0m -24.7m -37.7m -33.5m -3.9m -5.1m -0.6m I'd expect us to spend in Summer. That's a very misleading set of numbers IYAM. Those numbers are £(turnover - op ex - player amortisation), but ignoring transfers. You're including the downside of player trading (amortisation) but not the upside (sale profit/loss). The important thing to point out if you use that as a base is that when you include transfers it's pretty much all profit. Correct me if I'm wrong, but players brought in for however much don't affect the profit at all in that year except for any amortisation which you have included (they are assets at the value of the transfer fee). However players sold will add £(sale price - book value) to the final profit margin. For example Cabaye - Bought for £4.3m on a 5 year contract. Sold half way through contract so book value=£2.15m. Sale price=£19m. Profit=£16.8m to be added onto whatever that value is for 13-14 When transfers are included, the final profit/loss numbers are: 07-08: -£20.3m 08-09: -£15.2m 09-10: -£17.1m 10-11: £32.6m 11-12: £1.4m 12-13: £9.9m In that context it seems a very strange conclusion to draw that the amount we have available to spend on player purchases is related to profit before trading. Would you not be better just looking at the cashflow? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 Even including transfers that's only one significant profit in probably 10 years or more, if you include pre-Ashley as well. Obviously the new TV deal should give it a big boost. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 Even including transfers that's only one significant profit in probably 10 years or more, if you include pre-Ashley as well. Obviously the new TV deal should give it a big boost. Assuming we are about to post a profit of at least £40m imminently, that would make the average profit over the past 4 financial periods £20m. Hardly insignificant. He would be "up" something like £30m as well since taking over the club. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The College Dropout Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 Even including transfers that's only one significant profit in probably 10 years or more, if you include pre-Ashley as well. Obviously the new TV deal should give it a big boost. Assuming we are about to post a profit of at least £40m imminently, that would make the average profit over the past 4 financial periods £20m. Hardly insignificant. He would be "up" something like £30m as well since taking over the club. Don't let accounting jargon fool you. The club is swimming in cash. That's the most important thing. Amazon never makes any "profit" but it has loads of cash. He's way up on £30m in terms of real cash. The sponsorship of SD and its assets must run into the 10's of millions since he's been here, that he would've otherwise had to pay for. That's a pure cash saving. The way we pay for transfers, rarely renew contracts for first team players and sell before it runs out means we've got loads of cash floating around. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 Even including transfers that's only one significant profit in probably 10 years or more, if you include pre-Ashley as well. Obviously the new TV deal should give it a big boost. Assuming we are about to post a profit of at least £40m imminently, that would make the average profit over the past 4 financial periods £20m. Hardly insignificant. He would be "up" something like £30m as well since taking over the club. Don't let accounting jargon fool you. The club is swimming in cash. That's the most important thing. Amazon never makes any "profit" but it has loads of cash. He's way up on £30m in terms of real cash. The sponsorship of SD and its assets must run into the 10's of millions since he's been here, that he would've otherwise had to pay for. That's a pure cash saving. The way we pay for transfers, rarely renew contracts for first team players and sell before it runs out means we've got loads of cash floating around. Agreed. I was just commenting on the actual posted profits from the official accounts, but if you include things like free SD advertising at the expense of commercial revenue growth the benefit for Mike Ashley of owning Newcastle United becomes even greater. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heake Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 Even including transfers that's only one significant profit in probably 10 years or more, if you include pre-Ashley as well. Obviously the new TV deal should give it a big boost. Assuming we are about to post a profit of at least £40m imminently, that would make the average profit over the past 4 financial periods £20m. Hardly insignificant. He would be "up" something like £30m as well since taking over the club. Are you taking into account the money he pumped in to "keep the club afloat" in the form of a loan (£130m there or thereabouts)? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colos Short and Curlies Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 Even including transfers that's only one significant profit in probably 10 years or more, if you include pre-Ashley as well. Obviously the new TV deal should give it a big boost. Assuming we are about to post a profit of at least £40m imminently, that would make the average profit over the past 4 financial periods £20m. Hardly insignificant. He would be "up" something like £30m as well since taking over the club. Don't let accounting jargon fool you. The club is swimming in cash. That's the most important thing. Amazon never makes any "profit" but it has loads of cash. He's way up on £30m in terms of real cash. The sponsorship of SD and its assets must run into the 10's of millions since he's been here, that he would've otherwise had to pay for. That's a pure cash saving. The way we pay for transfers, rarely renew contracts for first team players and sell before it runs out means we've got loads of cash floating around. But the SD sponsorship is actually a cash loss to the club, benefits him and SD yes, not the club. Then going on UVs cash results, assuming we are up £40m in cash this year then its an average loss of £4m cash over the 7 years. But the overall point is that from this year onwards we should have plenty of cash or profit to play with, which ever way you want to look at it. Will it go on players etc? Probably not but we have cross a watershed in the results Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor Swift Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 We're making £50m profit a year at the moment. Investing £50m a year into the first team would make a massive difference and that's without sending the club into debt, without borrowing, without stupid installments. Simply investing our profits would see us competing at the right end of the table (including a proper salary for a real manager). We haven't reported a profit before player trading yet. Operating profit for the last 7 years has been... -29.0m -24.7m -37.7m -33.5m -3.9m -5.1m -0.6m I'd expect us to spend in Summer. That's a very misleading set of numbers IYAM. Those numbers are £(turnover - op ex - player amortisation), but ignoring transfers. You're including the downside of player trading (amortisation) but not the upside (sale profit/loss). The important thing to point out if you use that as a base is that when you include transfers it's pretty much all profit. Correct me if I'm wrong, but players brought in for however much don't affect the profit at all in that year except for any amortisation which you have included (they are assets at the value of the transfer fee). However players sold will add £(sale price - book value) to the final profit margin. For example Cabaye - Bought for £4.3m on a 5 year contract. Sold half way through contract so book value=£2.15m. Sale price=£19m. Profit=£16.8m to be added onto whatever that value is for 13-14 When transfers are included, the final profit/loss numbers are: 07-08: -£20.3m 08-09: -£15.2m 09-10: -£17.1m 10-11: £32.6m 11-12: £1.4m 12-13: £9.9m In that context it seems a very strange conclusion to draw that the amount we have available to spend on player purchases is related to profit before trading. Would you not be better just looking at the cashflow? That's not right. Players being brought in affect the profits of that year because they are an expenditure. Let's say we spent £12m on Cabella. It's an expenditure in this year. Our profits will decrease by £12m. At the same time, he also becomes an 'asset' valued at £12m. This asset depreciates according to the number of years on his contract. You're wrong in saying that when you buy a player, it doesn't affect the accounts in that year because it's an acquisition of an asset. It has a cost and it also depreciates. The best way of looking at clubs is to look at whether they can make an operating profit or not because those are the underlying financial data that will predictable from year to year. Your fixed costs of wages and salary to non-playing staff and employees are included in this, as is sponsorship income. So operating profit/loss is a good way of saying whether the model of the club is sustainable or not, or whether it depends on sales. Players trading (buying or selling) is extremely unpredictable, that's why looking at operating profit (loss) is better. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor Swift Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 Operating profit affects our ability to buy without selling. If we are making operating profits of £20m a year, we can spend that much per year without selling a single player. So it's important for us to make operating profits because they are predictable and you can plan your transfers around that. We will be making comfortable large amounts of operating profit in the next couple of years. Everyone just hopes that we actually spend what we can easily afford to spend, but it's doubtful that it'll happen. The reason looking at total profits isn't a good way of planning is that transfers are unpredictable. You can't plan to sell £20m worth of players because then it puts you in a situation where you don't have leverage. If you're operating the club well and it's sustainable on its own without needing cashflow from transfers, you can be tougher when negotiating and pick the time that you sell your players. Of course, we're nothing like that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts