Matt Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 When's the pdf version of the account going to be released? Usually within 48h of filing. Might appear tomorrow but more likely monday. 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. 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. Good point you know your insane when you compare generic business to football business i suppose from the football stand point and in comparison to others it is rather good. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable 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. Good point you know your insane when you compare generic business to football business i suppose from the football stand point and in comparison to others it is rather good. It's a nonsensical way of looking at things trying to compare the wages to turnover ratio of different types of businesses. In some types of business, such as consultancy or football, the person (or rather, their knowledge and experience) is the product. In others, such as oil or banking, it is not, and employees are much less so. Typically I would suggest that business sectors where personnel is not the primary product, the wages to turnover ratio is significantly lower. For example, a company like Shell or BP may have a turnover of millions per employee, whereas in most people related businesses the turnover will be much lower per employee. In the current climate I would be quite happy if my business had a 60% wages (personnel cost) to turnover ratio.. On topic: I've been very critical in the past, but have to admit I'm well impressed by these figures, and kudos to Ashley and Llambias for getting the club to run break even in a very challenging economy. Even moreso considering they have done it whilst improving the on the pitch performances. Now cut out the PR disasters and we might be heading in the right direction under their stewardship.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtype Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 On that note, wage to turnover(budget) ratio for my "company" is... approximately 8% Yeah, we're not much of a people business. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole_Toonfan Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 On that note, wage to turnover(budget) ratio for my "company" is... approximately 8% Yeah, we're not much of a people business. Lol, i work in a Server Maintenance company ( boring i know) and quite frankly all i care about is picking up my pay cheque I take no interest in the finances of the company at all, maybe i should incase things get bad but what ever. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie 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). Alan Smith's probably about 20% of that, the sponging bastard. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Oh god I forgot Alan Smith is fucking off Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole_Toonfan Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Xisco must be taking his fair share aswell Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Howaythetoon Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Take Carroll out of the equation, and things wouldn't be looking so cushty. They effectively got 35m for free in that deal and even saved money via future wages. I'm delighted we seem to be getting 'fixed' financially though and its clearly obvious what the intentions are in that regard. They'll look even better when Tiote and Ba bring in £30m plus in the summer, plus their saved future wages. If Ashley isn't taking any money out of the club I'm happy for him to plaster his brand all over the stadium as its a fair trade off. However, renaming the stadium will never be acceptable on any terms. If he never did that, he'd be getting 100% marks thus far in his running of the club since appointing Pardew. If Pardew delivers top six and European football even his decision to sack Hughton (the other question mark on his running of the club since relegation) will have been vindicated, if not acceptable at the time. They do not deserve credit though, its their duty to keep their business from failing financially. As for wages to turnover, I think that's a more than acceptable level at 60%. I'd be worried if it was 50% or below given that the players are the key people in all of this and if we are paying good wages which we clearly are it will mean the players are deserving of it, eg the new deals for Krul, Colo and now Ryan Taylor. As long as that ratio doesn't go any higher. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AliGupter Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 That's operating profit, the Carroll deal isn't involved. I think. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anderson Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 So if I've got this right... we've made £5m from player trading over those 12 months, this includes the £35m we sold Carroll for. That equates to £30m+ spending, but this will include fees from past transfers. So, for example, there'll have been a -£2.5m on the accounts for the transfer of Coloccini (approx £10m on a four year contract). Yes? £30m still seems massive like, especially when you consider we've hardly been prolific in the transfer market in recent times; any idea where it's all come from, anyone? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzieMandias Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Take Carroll out of the equation, and things wouldn't be looking so cushty. So what? Take ticket receipts out of the equation and things wouldn't be looking so cushty either. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUPERTOON Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 for someone with no clue about football finance, are the results good? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzieMandias Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Yeah, they are. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 They'll look even better when Tiote and Ba bring in £30m plus in the summer, plus their saved future wages. Why do this? WHY? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anderson Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Also, does the operating loss take the player trading into account? I assume not and this is reinforced by them referring to transfer spend as 'net cash spend', the key word being cash. But, if that's the case, why is it an operating loss after amortisation? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor Swift Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Because buying a player is like buying a car in terms of the P&L of a company. The asset is amortised over the life of it - 10 years for furniture, 20 for a building, 5 for a car, and for footballers, they're amortised over the life of their contracts. It'll be clearer in the PDF. There's too much propaganda in the article. I bet it looks pretty good and we made quite a bit of money, which is good. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdckelly Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Amortisation accounts for the spending on transfers over time right? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 It'll be clearer in the PDF. There's too much propaganda in the article. I bet it looks pretty good and we made quite a bit of money, which is good. They've gone to great lengths to obscure the pre-tax profit, which I suspect will be pretty healthy- at this stage impossible to tell which elements of purchased players are in the amortisation figure and how much are in player trading. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
loki679 Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Amortisation seems stupid. If I sign £10m in cash for £10m on a four year deal it'll only be worth £5m after two years. We should get players for nothing then cos a £10m player will cost us £20m over four years not including wages. 2 years into a 4 year deal Cabaye is only worth £2.5m according to this weird accountant voodoo? He'd be worth more than that if he only had one leg. Or maybe I just dont get it Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Howaythetoon Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 When Sir John Hall decided to save us and that's what he did by the way, he always stated from the start that his decision to come on board was primarily a business decision. He could see the boom in football coming from a mile off and got involved mainly due to the potential benefits from a business perspective. That said, he also understood how important NUFC was to the people and local econamy and that's why he also got involved. He had morals in that respect. I don't begrudge any of the money he has earned from NUFC because without his involvement we would not exist today, certainly not as a Premier League club and even a Football League club. He is/was a good man and whenever he gets interviewed about the club today you really do sense sandness in his eyes and voice, especially in not winning anything and seeing how it all ended, i.e. the sale to Ashley and relegation. He didn't really run NUFC mind, he was basically a spokesman, an ambassador, he left the running of the club to FS, his son and Fletcher, and of course KK, who was arguably the Owner, Chairman and manager all rolled into one such was his grip on all things NUFC at the time. I believe SJH saw a ceiling point with NUFC and indeed football in the same way he saw an impending boom in the game, and decided to get out while the iron is hot so to speak. In doing so he entrusted the club in the hands of his son and FS who to be fair, ran the club well underneath him when he was the owner. They let him down badly though, money got to them and after KK walked, they went from bad decision to bad decision until Sir Bobby. Of the grusome twosome (DH and FS) I do believe FS was the lesser evil and I believe he wanted to own the club outright and that's why he spent his dividends on buying more shares. DH on the other hand was a playboy and cared little for the running of the club. He cared about money and power with as little invilvement as possible in terms of the day to day running of the club. FS took a lot of stick on his behalf even though DH had just as much a say and in some ways, possibly more. Historically, the Halls and even FS, gave us our best times post-war in terms of league finishes, European football and our chances of competing for honours and so deserve some credit, especially Sir John. For me, the man is as big a legend as KK himself. When the dust is settled so to speak, historically, he will be credited with the enormous honour of saving this club and revitalising it. His Legacy is St James' Park, Alan Shearer, KK, the 3-2 win over Barcelona and even Sir Bobby. All events that would never have happened had he decided, when offered, to say no to saving this great club of ours. The fact he made millions doesnt bother me, what he pocketed, the club has wasted far more on the likes of Owen, Luque, et al. Those are the ones I trully begrudge. disagree with some parts of that. a)SJH never saw a ceiling point but knew when they were headed downwards, on and off the pitch and he sold up to whoever would buy, if he loved the club like you say he'd have been more thoughtful over who he was selling to. b) fred bought more shares to stop the price falling further and he'd have more shares to sell if we found a buyer, pure self interest (in his buying more shares) c) for all your' championing of him and his son and friend you have to wonder how well they could have done if they only wanted what was best for the club in the same way people now castigate ashley, if they hadn't drained every bit of cash they could from the club. A) His ceiling point was the floating of the club on the SE. Money wise, I don't think he saw it as ever getting as good as that. He was wanting out from that point. Mind, I think after KK left, I reckon the dream the two shared on the pitch, ended also for Sir John Hall that day. Regarding the sale of the club, he still maintains to this day that Ashley will be a good owner in time and while we could have ended up with a better owner, we could have ended up with someone worse as unthinkable as that might sound given what kind of owner Ashley has been, i.e. not a very good one. Sir John Hall says he refused many an offer from Hedge Fund firms and bogus billionaires from the continent. For me, I believe Sir John Hall regrets many of his decisions and that for me is a man with a concience, a man with morals and genuine feelings (for NUFC). I remember when KK came back and ITV interviewd SJH, his eyes lit up and he talked like a fan, willing KK to finish the business the two of them started in the first place. B) I agree he did buy shares for those reasons, but he also did it to increase his stakehold with the grande intention if you like of one day owning the club himself. Of course that would mean more money for the fat man which was always one of his intentions but I also believe it wasn't all about the money, that he was a fan of the club and wanted the best for the club. C) I'm not championing FS and DH, but SJH who did his best and gave his best and had the clubs best interests at heart, certainly while he was in full control himself. As for FS, DH et al, I agree with you. That said, I think they genuinley thought they could pay themselves millions and still bring success and to be fair, we challenged for the league, we played European football and we signed the top stars or some of them, under that lot. Mike Ashley and co have a long long way to go to even get near those heights. Good results financially and sitting 6th in the table is good stuff but hardly ground breaking or worth shouting about given we were that kind of club before he took over despite the monies going out and the daft decisions. It was only a few years back Roeder had us finishing 7th and in a UEFA Cup QF for example. Financially its his duty to run the club well, it is after all his business. Now if we made record profits, had a record season, etc. etc. then he will deserve all the praise in the world. As it is, he is no Sir John Hall and never will be really. That particular person saved this club and gave us the platform to compete globally at any level, be it for honours or players which we did under his ownership. He paved the way if you like and showed just what this club can achieve. KK likewise. Can Ashley follow suit? I doubt it. Mind, we should all be happy at the moment in terms of our finances and where we sit in the league. These are good things, things to build on. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Amortisation seems stupid. If I sign £10m in cash for £10m on a four year deal it'll only be worth £5m after two years. We should get players for nothing then cos a £10m player will cost us £20m over four years not including wages. 2 years into a 4 year deal Cabaye is only worth £2.5m according to this weird accountant voodoo? He'd be worth more than that if he only had one leg. Or maybe I just dont get it Amortisation is based on the value at the end of an intangible asset's life. In the case of a player's registration, that is worth zero because the player can leave on a free. If you take a physical asset costing £10m which could be scrapped for £2m and had a life of 4 years- then you would count £2m depreciation (more or less same thing, but for tangible assets) per year until it was worth its scrap value at the end of its life. It is simply a way of allocating costs over long periods. If a company spent £100m on new kit that would bring them huge revenues over 10 years- why should they suffer a huge loss in the year they bought it? This method ensures that costs and benefits are fairly allocated. This is also not what a player is worth- its just what is on the books. We're at liberty to sell a player for more or less- it's purely an accounting methodology. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
loki679 Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Amortisation seems stupid. If I sign £10m in cash for £10m on a four year deal it'll only be worth £5m after two years. We should get players for nothing then cos a £10m player will cost us £20m over four years not including wages. 2 years into a 4 year deal Cabaye is only worth £2.5m according to this weird accountant voodoo? He'd be worth more than that if he only had one leg. Or maybe I just dont get it Amortisation is based on the value at the end of an intangible asset's life. In the case of a player's registration, that is worth zero because the player can leave on a free. If you take a physical asset costing £10m which could be scrapped for £2m and had a life of 4 years- then you would count £2m depreciation (more or less same thing, but for tangible assets) per year until it was worth its scrap value at the end of its life. It is simply a way of allocating costs over long periods. If a company spent £100m on new kit that would bring them huge revenues over 10 years- why should they suffer a huge loss in the year they bought it? This method ensures that costs and benefits are fairly allocated. This is also not what a player is worth- its just what is on the books. We're at liberty to sell a player for more or less- it's purely an accounting methodology. Fair enough if we're talking about equipment and vehicles etc but it barely relates to the value of a footballer if at all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Take Carroll out of the equation, and things wouldn't be looking so cushty. They effectively got 35m for free in that deal and even saved money via future wages. I'm delighted we seem to be getting 'fixed' financially though and its clearly obvious what the intentions are in that regard. They'll look even better when Tiote and Ba bring in £30m plus in the summer, plus their saved future wages.What evidence do you have that 35m was part of their scheme - and more importantly that their scheme includes routine blockbuster sales like that - and not just something that pushed the return to financial solvency timetable ahead by a few years? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbandit Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 They'll look even better when Tiote and Ba bring in £30m plus in the summer, plus their saved future wages. Why do this? WHY? Yeah,no need for that HTT, they're going nowhere 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