ponsaelius Posted December 22, 2014 Share Posted December 22, 2014 Reckon i'd take just about any despotic oil nation with an abysmal human rights record at this point tbh, possibly only ISIS i'd draw the line at Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UV Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 I have previously written about the large drops in Commercial and Matchday revenue at Newcastle United under Mike Ashley. Clubs around the world are compared by the likes of Deloitte and the measure they use to gauge the size of a club is revenue, not profit. A club that wants to be considered amongst the biggest is always looking to maximise revenue, but this is not something that concerns Mike Ashley. Ashley follows the maxim from the business world that "Turnover is vanity, profit is sanity". Though it's rarely one used in top class sports where clubs almost always look to re-invest any profits to maintain a challenge at the highest level. Many times I have been taken to task for highlighting the dwindling non-TV revenues at the club because Mike Ashley has purposely outsourced some of the costliest enterprises in order to cut expenses. It makes sense to sell off an area of the club that is either not profitable, or offers low margins, if another company can make it more profitable and will pay the club a higher amount for the contract than the club were able to generate for themselves. However, this defense of Ashley's approach only deserves credence if it improves the overall profitability of the club. Newcastle have sacrificed profitable streams of business to other companies, and the unanswered question is to what extent that has helped or harmed the clubs finances? Are those deals more beneficial to the outsourcer or the outsourcee? I don't think it's possible to determine this accurately from the figures reported in the accounts, but I want to get an idea. http://i57.tinypic.com/6xtd2e.png Non-TV revenue streams and non-wage related expenses all peaked around 2007/2008. After staff wages the club has reduced outgoing expenses by £8.9m from the peak. Whether by selling off catering departments, selling (giving?) the retail wing to Sports Direct or refusing Steve Stone any free tickets for his cousin. In similar timescales the combined reduction in matchday and Commercial income has been £16.3m (£5.8m and £10.5m respectively). Notably the biggest drop of those two has not been from ticket sales, somewhat debunking the argument that people have made about cheaper tickets impacting the bottom line, the drop in commercial income is almost twice as much. That's the area that free advertising and outsourcing retail would have impacted. The "profitability" column is the one that’s my attempt to get an idea of the cost of Ashley's business model for the club. It's the only column not taken directly from the accounts, but is instead a calculation from the other values (Matchday and Commercial Income minus Other Expenses). This figure reduced every year under Mike Ashley from a peak of £38.7m when he took over to a low of £12.6m after relegation, a 67% reduction. It's most recently recovered to a current value of £25.6m, which is only 34% down, on the peak value. There’s a big caveat to remember when looking at this figure. The biggest expense in any outsourced department will likely have been the staff and not accounting for that leads to inaccuracy. The wage figure includes players and non-players across the club. In my view the catering and retail staff would be only a small fraction of the total, but it does mean that the profitability figure quoted for 2006 has a higher margin of error than the figure for 2013, player wages becoming a higher proportion of the overall figure as business units are outsourced. If anyone has any idea of the figures for off-field wages I’d love to get the extra accuracy. However I think the amounts are indicative of not only reduced revenue but also of reduced profitability at the club outside of TV income. I don’t believe catering and retail staff earned enough to make up the £13m difference from 2006, a quarter of the overall wage bill at the club at that time (£52m). In my view this, confirms that profitable areas of the club have been handed to Sports Direct (among others) at a cost to Newcastle United. Can people pick holes in this? Good work. Not checked all the numbers, but I'd point out the following: Starting from the 2008 accounts, temporary matchday staff (stewards, catering, etc) were not counted in the staff numbers, prior to that they were. In the 2008 accounts the payroll costs were restated for 2007 (down £2.7m to £59.8m). It's not explicitly said, but I'm guessing the restated figure is without those part time staff whose costs were moved into other operating expenses. This ties in with the restated op ex figure in the 2008 accounts (it is reduced by £3.5m, but £6.2m of exceptional items are not included in it). So if this is the case, and you use the restated 2007 amounts, then only the 2006 wage figure would include the staff which were later outsourced. It also gives you cost of those staff at that time. Also, it looks like you're adding up everything except wages & amortisation in operating costs in section 3 of the accounts to get your other costs figure. This ignores exceptional items (mostly sacked manager payouts which we never have to worry about again) in post-Ashley accounts, but these were included in the 2006 & 2007 wage & op-ex figures you are using. For consistency you should either add them in the 08 & 09 numbers or remove them from 06 & 07. The 2006 numbers are also only for 11 months as the accounting period was changed & the other costs figure doesn’t look right? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 UV is back Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paully Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 Apologies if already posted; http://www.themag.co.uk/the-mag-articles/walking-away-nufc-nightmare-staying-away-easy/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 Wish the fans would decide who is to blame !! Frank Pingels hairdresser about 6 hours ago Ashley isnt the problem, he's supplying good players, Sissoko, Anita, Colback, Perez, Janmaat, Anita, De Jong and Cabella are all very good footballers, its the inept manager who is unable to get them all playing to their great potential Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 It's pretty evident that there is more than one person to blame for what's become of this club like. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
magpie1892 Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 It's pretty evident that there is more than one person to blame for what's become of this club like. Aye, there's two. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
midds Posted December 24, 2014 Share Posted December 24, 2014 Scottish FA have knocked back Rangers' request to take Ashley's shareholding up to 29.9% Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fenham Mag Posted December 24, 2014 Share Posted December 24, 2014 Please sell us Mike. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cp40 Posted December 24, 2014 Share Posted December 24, 2014 It's pretty evident that there is more than one person to blame for what's become of this club like. 49000 ish tbh. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted December 24, 2014 Share Posted December 24, 2014 Scottish FA have knocked back Rangers' request to take Ashley's shareholding up to 29.9% Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
r0cafella Posted December 24, 2014 Share Posted December 24, 2014 He'd be nuts to sell us and buy Rangers tbh. They can only be as profitable as us if they are allowed in the premier league even then it's up for debate. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The College Dropout Posted December 24, 2014 Share Posted December 24, 2014 It's pretty evident that there is more than one person to blame for what's become of this club like. No there isn't. We have a single owner and it's entirely his fault as he has the ability to change everything. He is the root of everything wrong with the club. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted December 24, 2014 Share Posted December 24, 2014 According to the BBC, the Scottish FA have rejected a request from Ashley to buy more shares in Rangers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeletor Posted December 24, 2014 Share Posted December 24, 2014 According to the BBC, the Scottish FA have rejected a request from Ashley to buy more shares in Rangers. Don't know how trust worthy it is since their source is Ryan Giggs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Geordie Posted December 24, 2014 Share Posted December 24, 2014 Ashley will still get his way with Rangers - by hook or by crook. Money talks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted December 24, 2014 Share Posted December 24, 2014 Don't know how trust worthy it is since their source is Ryan Giggs. I didn't see that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeletor Posted December 24, 2014 Share Posted December 24, 2014 Ashley will still get his way with Rangers - by hook or by crook. Money talks. He'll just wait for the Scottish FA to have a financial crisis and then buy them for like £30 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
geordiesteve710 Posted December 24, 2014 Share Posted December 24, 2014 According to the BBC, the Scottish FA have rejected a request from Ashley to buy more shares in Rangers. Don't know how trust worthy it is since their source is Ryan Giggs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stifler Posted December 24, 2014 Share Posted December 24, 2014 He'd be nuts to sell us and buy Rangers tbh. They can only be as profitable as us if they are allowed in the premier league even then it's up for debate. It depends on where he wants to make his profit. One one hand he is guaranteed £100m a year from us so long as we stay up, however the players required would cost more in fee's and wages. On the other hand he can sell more shirts and merchandise with Rangers and so long as they are in the CL then they would still make a fairly good whack of money and the players required to do that would cost less to buy and pay wages too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyn davies Posted December 25, 2014 Share Posted December 25, 2014 Ashley thinks he can do as he likes but as in all dictatorships and empires eventually they all fall down. quote below from BBC Website "It also seems that Somers was prepared to threaten to cancel Rangers' retail agreement with Sports Direct to prompt Ashley to provide an alternative that would protect the positions of himself and the Easdales. "Ashley owns less than 10% of the shares, but now seems to control the club. I'm sure he is now attempting to persuade the SFA to allow him to achieve outright control." http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30598877 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cronky Posted December 25, 2014 Share Posted December 25, 2014 If it was easy to make a profit out of owning Rangers, you can bet there would be other investors eager to get involved. For Ashley it seems to be about product placement, and also following that instinct to snap up a high-profile brand that finds itself in trouble. But ultimately, regardless of whether he somehow achieves overall control, I can't see it working well long-term. The Premiership is the place to be. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
geordiesteve710 Posted December 25, 2014 Share Posted December 25, 2014 If it was easy to make a profit out of owning Rangers, you can bet there would be other investors eager to get involved. For Ashley it seems to be about product placement, and also following that instinct to snap up a high-profile brand that finds itself in trouble. But ultimately, regardless of whether he somehow achieves overall control, I can't see it working well long-term. The Premiership is the place to be. Part of the problem they've had is all sorts of shady sorts and their hangers sticking around for just that reason and sucking the club dry. Making a profit out of Rangers, with "out" being the relevant word!! It takes something when Ashley really is the best of a bad bunch. Agree with your main point on product placement though. That and 'retail/catering agreements' for his other companies will be the motivation rather than taking a direct profit. I'd imagine he has a "level" in mind for them just like he does for us. Maybe CL qualification more often than not, paying just enough out in wages to achieve this and turn a small profit but without ever having a real desire as a club to kick on and get through the group stages. The bonus being that due to the set-up in Scotland as long as they better Celtic more often than not there will be league titles and therefore no unrest from pesky supporters to worry about. Knowing our luck he'll probably end up developing a deep affinity for them and bankroll them to global stardom, champions league glory etc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedro111 Posted December 29, 2014 Share Posted December 29, 2014 One down, one to go lads. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NG32 Posted December 29, 2014 Share Posted December 29, 2014 One down, one to go lads. I am wondering if Ashley is almost ready to sell and Pardew jumping ship a bit premature has scuttled his plans a little bit. Ashley now has the hassle of hiring another knacker for a season or 2. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts