ToonTastic Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 See I understand where HF is coming from. Despite all the sales the club was still not make a profit each season until very recently. Therefore without spreading costs of seasons and paying for everything upfront we have spent the maximum amount available. Why we don't spread the costs whilst allowing other clubs to spread the costs is beyond me though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colos Short and Curlies 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. Its also growing really rapidly, its easy to 'lose' profit in a rapidly gorwing company whilst maintaining a good cashflow. I see where HF is coming from and agree with him to an extent. I think we will spend in the Summer simply because we need too. I've little faith of the amount being significant or the quality being good enough though. I guess I'm trying to rally against the perceived wisdom that NUFC will always spend the minimum amount necessary to survive. The fact is that under Mike Ashley, NUFC has spent the maximum amount it can afford without having to borrow any more from Mike Ashley. That capacity takes a massive leap with every new TV deal. Those amounts are probably the same Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 I see where HF is coming from and agree with him to an extent. I think we will spend in the Summer simply because we need too. I've little faith of the amount being significant or the quality being good enough though. I guess I'm trying to rally against the perceived wisdom that NUFC will always spend the minimum amount necessary to survive. The fact is that under Mike Ashley, NUFC has spent the maximum amount it can afford without having to borrow any more from Mike Ashley. That capacity takes a massive leap with every new TV deal. Fucking hell what absolute guff Which unused money should the club have been spending more of? Has the clubs coffers been going up like Arsenal? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colos Short and Curlies Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 See I understand where HF is coming from. Despite all the sales the club was still not make a profit each season until very recently. Therefore without spreading costs of seasons and paying for everything upfront we have spent the maximum amount available. Why we don't spread the costs whilst allowing other clubs to spread the costs is beyond me though. We do spread costs, we don't spread cashflow. Paying upfront was a good bargaining tool early on, shame the conduct of our negotiators have blunted the willingness of sellers to engage with us Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 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. Its also growing really rapidly, its easy to 'lose' profit in a rapidly gorwing company whilst maintaining a good cashflow. I see where HF is coming from and agree with him to an extent. I think we will spend in the Summer simply because we need too. I've little faith of the amount being significant or the quality being good enough though. I guess I'm trying to rally against the perceived wisdom that NUFC will always spend the minimum amount necessary to survive. The fact is that under Mike Ashley, NUFC has spent the maximum amount it can afford without having to borrow any more from Mike Ashley. That capacity takes a massive leap with every new TV deal. Those amounts are probably the same Absolutley, but the perception of Ashley changes massively depending on how you frame it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToonTastic Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 He also seems to allocate a wedge from the first year of a new TV deal to repaying the loan. Given that £11m was repaid a few years ago and we assume he'll take £18m from the 13/14 accounts, after taking nowt for a couple of years. The original repayment was for the overdraft and small loan when we went down was it not ? Would this not be the first repayment from the original/big/his cock up debt ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 He also seems to allocate a wedge from the first year of a new TV deal to repaying the loan. Given that £11m was repaid a few years ago and we assume he'll take £18m from the 13/14 accounts, after taking nowt for a couple of years. The original repayment was for the overdraft and small loan when we went down was it not ? Would this not be the first repayment from the original/big/his cock up debt ? I don't think so. £140m debt when we came back up included £29m Ashley had put in after relegation to keep things ticking over. That's the last he put in. £11m was repaid in 2011 I think and £18m remains to be repaid. If he starts recouping the big wedge we have a more pain to come, but I think he wants that debt left in place. He runs SD with debt and he's incolved with 5 clubs all with a history of debt problems. Even if he sold NUFC, he could uyse the debt as leverage in retaining his existing retail/advertising deals. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
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...
Recommended Posts