Dokko Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 WE COULD OF DONE LEEDS RANGERS Of of of of. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest elbee909 Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Conjugate the verb 'to of'. I DUHDHDUH You DUHBBBBURRBDH He/she BUUR X FACTOR DUUUH etc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JCONA Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 I thought the announcement was very positive until this: Mike Ashley continues to provide loans totalling £140 million interest-free, for which we are extraordinarily fortunate. Once again, Mike has not taken any money out of the Club What is the point in this? Why are they still trying to push the whole YOU MUST BE GRATEFUL OF MIKE bollocks. He might not of taken any money out of the club in actual terms but HE HAS taken money out from advertising space: If you replaced every sports direct sign in the stadium (including the big f*** off massive ones on the roofs) with Nike signs for example, and it was called the Nike Arena (sigh) can you imagine how much this would cost Nike annually. Trying to pull wool over our eyes as usual. Good idea on then Nike thing. I dare say that would get us aload of money. I reckon they should 'showcase' the idea using Mike's company. Yeh I bet that would showcase just how supportive the fans would be of it too. It wouldn't put companies off advertising at SJP at all! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
quayside Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Haven't seen the full financials yet but it sounds pretty much as expected. A close to break-even trading result, wages under control and a very good profit on player trading resulting in an overall profit. The one bit that maybe wasn't foreseen is that it sounds like Ashley hasn't reduced his loan, although perhaps he has killed off the Barclays overdraft rather than reduce his loan - or maybe he had to do that under the overdraft agreement. I am sceptical about some of the stuff on here earlier about amortisation being "used" to distort a message, not that I am rejecting any idea of the club taking a cynical stance when it fits, but I'd like to see the full picture before saying any more. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
80 Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 To clarify, most of my comments were about amortisation in principle, as opposed to NUFC and our Board. Only comment I'm making on them is that it's funny they've claimed we've made both a profit and a loss on different occasions. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Roger Kint Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 To clarify, most of my comments were about amortisation in principle, as opposed to NUFC and our Board. Only comment I'm making on them is that it's funny they've claimed we've made both a profit and a loss on different occasions. In all fairness last year was nowhere near as bad as it looked on first sight either Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 2007 v 2011 £87m v £88m Turnover £59m v £54m Wages £28m v £16m Commercial £34m v £24m Matchday £26m v £47m TV Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
J7 Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 2007 v 2011 £87m v £88m Turnover £59m v £54m Wages £28m v £16m Commercial £34m v £24m Matchday £26m v £47m TV As I expected. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 That's still a guessed breakdown btw. Tv is bound to be higher, but only a small amount. More interested in the praise they heap on themselves for the performance when numbers are so similar to when they took over. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robm Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 We lost £33million in 2007. Dont know how you can say numbers are similar Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 We sold a 35m player in 2011 and spent £20m+ in 2007. The revenue & wages are basically the same. The difference (in addition to our debt being double) is whether or not this basis is one from which to invest and shoot for the big time, or not. Shepherd thought so, but didn't have the time to see if it would work. I don't think ashley will try. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hakka Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 2007 v 2011 £87m v £88m Turnover £59m v £54m Wages £28m v £16m Commercial £34m v £24m Matchday £26m v £47m TV Really don't get how are wages are still so high, would have expected it to be even less in 2011. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallace Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 http://swissramble.blogspot.com/2012/03/aston-villa-prophets-and-losses.html The Swiss Ramble has done a blog on Villa's financial results. It is an interesting comparison and although our financial results had not been published when it was written, it is useful to look at the figures quoted for other clubs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 2007 v 2011 £87m v £88m Turnover £59m v £54m Wages £28m v £16m Commercial £34m v £24m Matchday £26m v £47m TV Really don't get how are wages are still so high, would have expected it to be even less in 2011. It's 5m less than in 2007. In 2008 they shot up to 70m as shepherd spent beyond our means chasing Europe. He might have made it work alongside allardyce, didn't get the chance though. Unfortunately ashley couldn't. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 2007 v 2011 £87m v £88m Turnover £59m v £54m Wages £28m v £16m Commercial £34m v £24m Matchday £26m v £47m TV That's still a guessed breakdown btw. Tv is bound to be higher, but only a small amount. More interested in the praise they heap on themselves for the performance when numbers are so similar to when they took over. It can look similar if you only post certain numbers, also the wage bill for 2007 was £62.5m: 2007 v 2011 £87m v £88m Turnover £62.5m v £54m Wages £7.3m v £0 interest payable 72% vs 61% wage to turnover ratio £5m of that turnover in 2007 was effectively a loan from MGM which had to be repaid a few months after the period covering the accounts ended due to the casino plan falling through. Also because external debt increased by over £30m in 2007 that meant the following year interest payments would increase to over £10m, making it even harder to not to make a loss, and not increase interest payments even further. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hakka Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 2007 v 2011 £87m v £88m Turnover £59m v £54m Wages £28m v £16m Commercial £34m v £24m Matchday £26m v £47m TV Really don't get how are wages are still so high, would have expected it to be even less in 2011. It's 5m less than in 2007. In 2008 they shot up to 70m as shepherd spent beyond our means chasing Europe. He might have made it work alongside allardyce, didn't get the chance though. Unfortunately ashley couldn't. Cheers, that makes more sense when putting it in to context with what 2008 spent. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 We lost £33million in 2007. Dont know how you can say numbers are similar That would be a combination of incorrect numbers (wages were actually £62.5m in 2007) and missing some important facts. There were several reasons we lost so much money in 2007. For instance £7.3m had to be spent on paying interest on external loans. £3.2m had to be spent on sacking our manager and staff. £2.9m was spent on refinancing plans and in preparation for various takeovers, none of which happened. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Howaythetoon Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 We've lost a lot of commercial revenue due to many local firms deciding not to sponsor the club in one form or another since Ashley took over, that and Sports Direct now dominates all advertising. As for attracting other sponsors and increasing commercial revenue, that isn't going to happen because who would want to be associated with Sports Direct? Companies will want to be associated with NUFC but the more SD adverts are plastered around the stadium and the whole stadium renaming crap, will only ever put would be sponsors off. Virgin Money was a no brainer. They are on an offensive charm having taken over Northern Rock, to continue sponsoring NUFC's shirt but under the new VM brand, was the logical thing to do. In no other circumstances would Virgin Money want to be associated with NUFC had it not taken over NR. The finances look healthy but more by default than by design. Carroll has basically brought things in line. And, we still owe one man over 130m. At no time in this club's history have we ever owed anyone or any entity so much money. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 Wages were actually £62.5m in 2007 http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_jLlqDrcSYeQ/TQc_oO7oUgI/AAAAAAAACrI/TfJP4oPYxNg/s400/5%2BNewcastle%2BProfit.jpg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
skryp2nit3 Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 We've lost a lot of commercial revenue due to many local firms deciding not to sponsor the club in one form or another since Ashley took over, that and Sports Direct now dominates all advertising. As for attracting other sponsors and increasing commercial revenue, that isn't going to happen because who would want to be associated with Sports Direct? Companies will want to be associated with NUFC but the more SD adverts are plastered around the stadium and the whole stadium renaming crap, will only ever put would be sponsors off. Virgin Money was a no brainer. They are on an offensive charm having taken over Northern Rock, to continue sponsoring NUFC's shirt but under the new VM brand, was the logical thing to do. In no other circumstances would Virgin Money want to be associated with NUFC had it not taken over NR. The finances look healthy but more by default than by design. Carroll has basically brought things in line. And, we still owe one man over 130m. At no time in this club's history have we ever owed anyone or any entity so much money. Moot point really, we were owing the same amount to multiple parties and paying over 7m in interest annually. Now we owe Ashley and dont pay any interest, presumably. How is that a bad thing? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Howaythetoon Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 We've lost a lot of commercial revenue due to many local firms deciding not to sponsor the club in one form or another since Ashley took over, that and Sports Direct now dominates all advertising. As for attracting other sponsors and increasing commercial revenue, that isn't going to happen because who would want to be associated with Sports Direct? Companies will want to be associated with NUFC but the more SD adverts are plastered around the stadium and the whole stadium renaming crap, will only ever put would be sponsors off. Virgin Money was a no brainer. They are on an offensive charm having taken over Northern Rock, to continue sponsoring NUFC's shirt but under the new VM brand, was the logical thing to do. In no other circumstances would Virgin Money want to be associated with NUFC had it not taken over NR. The finances look healthy but more by default than by design. Carroll has basically brought things in line. And, we still owe one man over 130m. At no time in this club's history have we ever owed anyone or any entity so much money. Moot point really, we were owing the same amount to multiple parties and paying over 7m in interest annually. Now we owe Ashley and dont pay any interest, presumably. How is that a bad thing? Which multiple 'parties' did we owe 130m + too? I doubt what we owed was as much as what we 'owe' Mike Ashley. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colos Short and Curlies Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 We've lost a lot of commercial revenue due to many local firms deciding not to sponsor the club in one form or another since Ashley took over, that and Sports Direct now dominates all advertising. As for attracting other sponsors and increasing commercial revenue, that isn't going to happen because who would want to be associated with Sports Direct? Companies will want to be associated with NUFC but the more SD adverts are plastered around the stadium and the whole stadium renaming crap, will only ever put would be sponsors off. Virgin Money was a no brainer. They are on an offensive charm having taken over Northern Rock, to continue sponsoring NUFC's shirt but under the new VM brand, was the logical thing to do. In no other circumstances would Virgin Money want to be associated with NUFC had it not taken over NR. The finances look healthy but more by default than by design. Carroll has basically brought things in line. And, we still owe one man over 130m. At no time in this club's history have we ever owed anyone or any entity so much money. 2 small points, firstly we've just about broke even regardless of the AC 35m, and secondly sports direct are one of the more successful brands out there at the moment. Plenty of companies would happily be associated with them. They've gone ott with the advertising in the ground, but signs can come down as easily as they go up. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 We've lost a lot of commercial revenue due to many local firms deciding not to sponsor the club in one form or another since Ashley took over, that and Sports Direct now dominates all advertising. As for attracting other sponsors and increasing commercial revenue, that isn't going to happen because who would want to be associated with Sports Direct? Companies will want to be associated with NUFC but the more SD adverts are plastered around the stadium and the whole stadium renaming crap, will only ever put would be sponsors off. Virgin Money was a no brainer. They are on an offensive charm having taken over Northern Rock, to continue sponsoring NUFC's shirt but under the new VM brand, was the logical thing to do. In no other circumstances would Virgin Money want to be associated with NUFC had it not taken over NR. The finances look healthy but more by default than by design. Carroll has basically brought things in line. And, we still owe one man over 130m. At no time in this club's history have we ever owed anyone or any entity so much money. Moot point really, we were owing the same amount to multiple parties and paying over 7m in interest annually. Now we owe Ashley and dont pay any interest, presumably. How is that a bad thing? Which multiple 'parties' did we owe 130m + too? I doubt what we owed was as much as what we 'owe' Mike Ashley. Add 7m a year interest to the 76m debt when ashley arrived and you have 111m total. So we're almost 30m worse off than that without paying interest. Great. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 aye, Happy Face - and where would we have found the money to cover the losses for the last three seasons? Relegation or not, we were facing huge OP losses with the financial set up as it was. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 aye, Happy Face - and where would we have found the money to cover the losses for the last three seasons? Relegation or not, we were facing huge OP losses with the financial set up as it was. We'd have been in the shit even without those losses if we never got into Europe and the banks weren't lending. Though not getting relegated would have seen us breaking even a year sooner. 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