NG32 Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Yeah, what wormy says. 30 million cash in hand, then 5 million later and we'll block pave your drive way as well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fenham Mag Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 If you go off last years results (but using our results from today) we have the 5th lowest wages to turnover ratio in the Premier League. 1. Arsenal (29%) 2. Man United (46%) 3. Wolves (49%) 4. Spurs (56%) 5 . NUFC (60.6%) Especially with our position in the league and not being in Europe (with the extra turnover). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor Swift Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 The £5m we are owed for players is presumably from Liverpool for Carroll? Could be some from West Ham pending on Promotion. Some from Swansea for Routledge. Think we're still owed some Bassong money too. Pretty sure there was something about all the Carroll money being upfront as part of his deal. Conditional clauses like promotion won't be included in the accounts. It's probably just a few clubs which are paying us in installments. Might be a couple of million for Nolan, a couple more for Enrique etc. Eh, they specifically say they don't do this. Yet we're now owed 5m so they obviously do it Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Interesting this transfer money policy. Presumably it actually means players are a lot less likely to be sold at all? If the buyer has to find the money upfront. Also means we're in a very strong position to buy players, but explains why we're always willing to lose out on targets. Because presumably we expect to pay less. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 The £5m we are owed for players is presumably from Liverpool for Carroll? Could be some from West Ham pending on Promotion. Some from Swansea for Routledge. Think we're still owed some Bassong money too. Pretty sure there was something about all the Carroll money being upfront as part of his deal. Conditional clauses like promotion won't be included in the accounts. It's probably just a few clubs which are paying us in installments. Might be a couple of million for Nolan, a couple more for Enrique etc. Eh, they specifically say they don't do this. Yet we're now owed 5m so they obviously do it I would say the £35m Carroll transfer is one deal where they would bend their own rules. Might be wrong, but it seems more plausible to me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Village Idiot Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 If you go off last years results (but using our results from today) we have the 5th lowest wages to turnover ratio in the Premier League. 1. Arsenal (29%) 2. Man United (46%) 3. Wolves (49%) 4. Spurs (56%) 5 . NUFC (60.6%) Especially with our position in the league and not being in Europe (with the extra turnover). Wait, you're 5th best with a 60% wages to turnover (which is the recommended percentage), where does that leave the following 15? And I thought La Liga was fucked Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wormy Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 The £5m we are owed for players is presumably from Liverpool for Carroll? Could be some from West Ham pending on Promotion. Some from Swansea for Routledge. Think we're still owed some Bassong money too. Pretty sure there was something about all the Carroll money being upfront as part of his deal. Conditional clauses like promotion won't be included in the accounts. It's probably just a few clubs which are paying us in installments. Might be a couple of million for Nolan, a couple more for Enrique etc. Eh, they specifically say they don't do this. Yet we're now owed 5m so they obviously do it I would say the £35m Carroll transfer is one deal where they would bend their own rules. Would assume Liverpool attempted installments, at which point the board said 'give us this much up front and we'll accept a piddly amount of it later, will that shut you up?'. Can't see them accepting installments for transfer fees the size of Routledge/Nolan etc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 If you go off last years results (but using our results from today) we have the 5th lowest wages to turnover ratio in the Premier League. 1. Arsenal (29%) 2. Man United (46%) 3. Wolves (49%) 4. Spurs (56%) 5 . NUFC (60.6%) Especially with our position in the league and not being in Europe (with the extra turnover). Wait, you're 5th best with a 60% wages to turnover (which is the recommended percentage), where does that leave the following 15? And I thought La Liga was fucked Ticking timebomb. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 If you go off last years results (but using our results from today) we have the 5th lowest wages to turnover ratio in the Premier League. 1. Arsenal (29%) 2. Man United (46%) 3. Wolves (49%) 4. Spurs (56%) 5 . NUFC (60.6%) Especially with our position in the league and not being in Europe (with the extra turnover). Wait, you're 5th best with a 60% wages to turnover (which is the recommended percentage), where does that leave the following 15? And I thought La Liga was f***ed Ticking timebomb. We are where UEFA insist you must be, come 2014 so the other 15 have not long to sort it out and we've been through our slash and burn phase and are nicely placed. Be good to see the full accounts but looks good. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.S.R. Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Is the £17 mill loss of player value just depreciation? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 The ratio of wages:turnover for some football clubs is absolutely terrifying. It's incredible that football as a whole has allowed players to become so overpaid. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geordie Ahmed Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 The £5m we are owed for players is presumably from Liverpool for Carroll? Could be some from West Ham pending on Promotion. Some from Swansea for Routledge. Think we're still owed some Bassong money too. Pretty sure there was something about all the Carroll money being upfront as part of his deal. Conditional clauses like promotion won't be included in the accounts. It's probably just a few clubs which are paying us in installments. Might be a couple of million for Nolan, a couple more for Enrique etc. Eh, they specifically say they don't do this. Actually Llambias says where possible, so I guess they do it at times "Some of the key financial principles we set in place when Mike bought to the Club back in 2007 are now beginning to reap rewards. Most notably, our adherence to a strict transfer policy which avoids, or limits wherever possible, the acceptance of dated payments for players bought or sold. We believe it is a far healthier financial model to settle full transfer fees for players up front, not dated over a period of years. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NG32 Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Its going to be interesting to see which clubs can cut their wages and costs in time for this...could see some casualties. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 The ratio of wages:turnover for some football clubs is absolutely terrifying. It's incredible that football as a whole has allowed players to become so overpaid. Not really surprising when you see 90M spent on a footballer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.S.R. Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Its going to be interesting to see which clubs can cut their wages and costs in time for this...could see some bargains Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geordie Ahmed Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 If you go off last years results (but using our results from today) we have the 5th lowest wages to turnover ratio in the Premier League. 1. Arsenal (29%) 2. Man United (46%) 3. Wolves (49%) 4. Spurs (56%) 5 . NUFC (60.6%) Especially with our position in the league and not being in Europe (with the extra turnover). Wait, you're 5th best with a 60% wages to turnover (which is the recommended percentage), where does that leave the following 15? And I thought La Liga was f***ed Ticking timebomb. We are where UEFA insist you must be, come 2014 so the other 15 have not long to sort it out and we've been through our slash and burn phase and are nicely placed. Be good to see the full accounts but looks good. Do the UEFA fair play rules say anything about debt? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole_Toonfan Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 So 60 % wages to Turnover is good? it sounds bad to me pretty much shows how much i know about football finances or finances in general for that matter The increased turnover, small loss and no debts apart from the ones to the owner is fantastic news tho. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BlacknWhiteArmy Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 The ratio of wages:turnover for some football clubs is absolutely terrifying. It's incredible that football as a whole has allowed players to become so overpaid. Aye. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Village Idiot Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 So 60 % wages to Turnover is good? it sounds bad to me pretty much shows how much i know about football finances or finances in general for that matter The increased turnover, small loss and no debts apart from the ones to the owner is fantastic news tho. It's the recommended percentage by FIFA. I don't know if it's a sane percentage for a generic business, but football is crazy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewJerseyMag Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 The inclusion of wages in with transfers seems irregular to me...... Do they include wages saved in this figure?? Considering our wages to turnover has gone down to 60% (ok so our revenue has gone up also) but we have rid ourselves of some high earners also, something doesn't seem quite right. They seem to be trying to say almost all of the Carroll money has been used on incoming transfers and wages.... but not including wages saved. Usually, transfer fees would be treated separately from wages. Next thing we will have the cost of hot dogs coming off outgoing transfer fees. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 The inclusion of wages in with transfers seems irregular to me...... Do they include wages saved in this figure?? Considering our wages to turnover has gone down to 60% (ok so our revenue has gone up also) but we have rid ourselves of some high earners also, something doesn't seem quite right. They seem to be trying to say almost all of the Carroll money has been used on incoming transfers and wages.... but not including wages saved. Usually, transfer fees would be treated separately from wages. Next thing we will have the cost of hot dogs coming off outgoing transfer fees. The full accounts will tell the story, but costs are just costs at the end of the day, but the accounts cannot lie, it's a legal thing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Getting paid up front means we'll be very unlikely to fall fowl to a club going down the pan like Rangers have. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewJerseyMag Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 The inclusion of wages in with transfers seems irregular to me...... Do they include wages saved in this figure?? Considering our wages to turnover has gone down to 60% (ok so our revenue has gone up also) but we have rid ourselves of some high earners also, something doesn't seem quite right. They seem to be trying to say almost all of the Carroll money has been used on incoming transfers and wages.... but not including wages saved. Usually, transfer fees would be treated separately from wages. Next thing we will have the cost of hot dogs coming off outgoing transfer fees. The full accounts will tell the story, but costs are just costs at the end of the day, but the accounts cannot lie, it's a legal thing. nah, there are a lot of options within the framework of what is legal...... accounts are like statistics, you can present them a number of ways to put a slant on the results. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor Swift Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 When's the pdf version of the account going to be released? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 The inclusion of wages in with transfers seems irregular to me...... It's probably best to wait for the filings to come through at Companies House. At least those accounts will be readable. The press release takes some decoding. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now