Loïc Remy

[Wullie]

Why do you keep mentioning profit as a reason for us not to spend? You've already had it explained to you how accounts work but you don't seem to be grasping it at all.

 

How do you mean? It's not about assets v liabilities on the balance sheet - if we keep spending more than we bring in then our debt continues to increase. So either we have to borrow the money or Ashley has to provide it.

 

Is that not the case?

 

Well explain this to me: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/21152143

 

How have Spurs managed to spend £60m (about £40m net) having posted a loss in their last accounts?

 

It's because the players they've bought go onto their accounts as assets. There's no loss there until the contracts start to go down.

 

Saying "we've posted a £10m profit so could only afford £10m" is simply a gross misrepresentation of how the whole thing works. Football clubs don't just wait till summer, see how much cash is in the petty tin, then go out and spend it. Spurs did not make £60m profit that they've had free to use ffs.

 

If we spent £100m on players tomorrow, the final profit/loss number in the accounts would still say the same as it did yesterday, the £100m would simply be in assets instead of cash. That's why your profit numbers that you're using to justify us not buying any players are a complete irrelevance.

[colinmk]

If we are making any progress at all (have we since Ashley took over? I wouldn't say so), you could only classify it as "absolute" progress (if such a thing exists), not relative, because other, smaller clubs are overtaking us left, right and center.

 

That's probably fair, although I do think we exaggerate the progress of other clubs sometimes. Hopefully success that is based on short term thinking or unsustainable spending will be short-lived. Also, financial fair play is meant to reign in the clubs that rely too much on the personal wealth of the owner, although it remains to be seen whether that will work.

 

It's hard to underestimate the progress of clubs like Swansea and Southampton during the 6 years Ashley has been in charge of us, looking at our own "progress". They're on the up, yet both spent a significant amount despite having excellent seasons, while we're on the slide. It's all good and well looking at our squad of players and saying they're all internationals (the absolute progress) and should see us comfortably above these clubs, but they're also chock full of internationals. The average level in the Premiership has gone up much more than our own imho (the relative lack of progress).

 

It's not exactly rocket science what themselves and the likes of Norwich are doing either. Appoint good managers, make progress. Sign gradually better players within your means, make progress. Invest in youth, make progress. We had a good manager and sacked him, our current manager makes a mockery of our youth, we aren't allowed to sign players unless we think we can make a profit out of it in the long run and to top it all off we are a much, much bigger club than any of them in the first place!

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Why do you keep mentioning profit as a reason for us not to spend? You've already had it explained to you how accounts work but you don't seem to be grasping it at all.

 

How do you mean? It's not about assets v liabilities on the balance sheet - if we keep spending more than we bring in then our debt continues to increase. So either we have to borrow the money or Ashley has to provide it.

 

Is that not the case?

 

Well explain this to me: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/21152143

 

How have Spurs managed to spend £60m (about £40m net) having posted a loss in their last accounts?

 

It's because the players they've bought go onto their accounts as assets. There's no loss there until the contracts start to go down.

 

Saying "we've posted a £10m profit so could only afford £10m" is simply a gross misrepresentation of how the whole thing works. Football clubs don't just wait till summer, see how much cash is in the petty tin, then go out and spend it. Spurs did not make £60m profit that they've had free to use ffs.

 

You're simplifying the argument again. I'm not saying that we can only spend exactly the profit we make. No business works like that.

 

But one of two things has to happen. Either the trend has to be in the right direction (improving financial position overall, despite short-term losses) or we have to use credit to support our spending (either affordable credit from a bank or individual investment from an owner).

 

The problem we had in the past was a rapidly-worsening debt position with credit getting more expensive. And the problem we have now is no more subsidy from the owner.

[Wullie]

Why do you keep mentioning profit as a reason for us not to spend? You've already had it explained to you how accounts work but you don't seem to be grasping it at all.

 

How do you mean? It's not about assets v liabilities on the balance sheet - if we keep spending more than we bring in then our debt continues to increase. So either we have to borrow the money or Ashley has to provide it.

 

Is that not the case?

 

Well explain this to me: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/21152143

 

How have Spurs managed to spend £60m (about £40m net) having posted a loss in their last accounts?

 

It's because the players they've bought go onto their accounts as assets. There's no loss there until the contracts start to go down.

 

Saying "we've posted a £10m profit so could only afford £10m" is simply a gross misrepresentation of how the whole thing works. Football clubs don't just wait till summer, see how much cash is in the petty tin, then go out and spend it. Spurs did not make £60m profit that they've had free to use ffs.

 

You're simplifying the argument again. I'm not saying that we can only spend exactly the profit we make. No business works like that.

 

But one of two things has to happen. Either the trend has to be in the right direction (improving financial position overall, despite short-term losses) or we have to use credit to support our spending (either affordable credit from a bank or individual investment from an owner).

 

The problem we had in the past was a rapidly-worsening debt position with credit getting more expensive. And the problem we have now is no more subsidy from the owner.

 

We don't need subsidy from the owner. What it is about that simple concept that you cannot grasp?

 

We post much more profit than most other Premier League clubs. Much more than Tottenham, Everton, sunderland, Liverpool, and that's with Mike Ashley grasping his loan back year-on-year. Must have bills to pay, the poor soul.

[Dokko]

End of the day there are two sides of the arguement here.

 

Group A: I want newcastle to sign more players but I understand the limits the club have selfimposed and have to work within while it won't change any time soon under Ashley.

 

Group B: I want newcastle to sign more players end of, no excuses, we are better than this and clubs around us don't have the same problem.

 

Both want the same, arguing about it and the same points over and over again isn't going to make it any more likely to happen. Neither are going to change their minds, so it's pointless really going on about it any further. Just cross your fingers the club gets another striker in at least.

 

 

 

 

 

So this Remy fella...

[AyeDubbleYoo]

We don't need subsidy from the owner. What it is about that simple concept that you cannot grasp?

 

We post much more profit than most other Premier League clubs. Much more than Tottenham, Everton, sunderland, Liverpool, and that's with Mike Ashley grasping his loan back year-on-year. Must have bills to pay, the poor soul.

 

Where does the money come from then? Am I missing something incredibly obvious here?

 

I know players are assets once they arrive, but obviously that can't mean that anyone can just spend infinite money. You still need cash. We never posted a profit over £10m... therefore if we spend more than that we start incurring losses that add to our debt, right?

[Wullie]

Man United got £60m TV money this season for winning the title - next season the club that finishes bottom will receive £63m, yet all the players, by and large, are going to be on the same wages. A massive increase in revenue with no increase in costs, and we're meant to believe that we're still completely skint and that signing players could place the club in jeopardy.

 

Make no mistake about it, Mike Ashley is going to take most of that increase back out of his loan, whilst still taking the £10m he's already clearing out of course.

 

That's ok though, because Leeds.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

If Ashley takes too much out I will criticise him for it. If we get the new TV money and don't invest enough, I will criticise that as well. But that doesn't change the overall position I just explained.

[Wullie]

We don't need subsidy from the owner. What it is about that simple concept that you cannot grasp?

 

We post much more profit than most other Premier League clubs. Much more than Tottenham, Everton, sunderland, Liverpool, and that's with Mike Ashley grasping his loan back year-on-year. Must have bills to pay, the poor soul.

 

Where does the money come from then? Am I missing something incredibly obvious here?

 

I know players are assets once they arrive, but obviously that can't mean that anyone can just spend infinite money. You still need cash. We never posted a profit over £10m... therefore if we spend more than that we start incurring losses that add to our debt, right?

 

Ian.

 

If we spent £10m tomorrow on a player on a five year deal, the profit the day after would still be £10m. Next year (assuming a hypothetical situation in which every other single thing remains constant), the profit posted would be £8m.

 

Please understand this. How many times?

 

Your profit numbers are completely and utterly irrelevant to the argument.

[Guest neesy111]

He took out 10M last year, a significant amount considering our small transfer budget.

[Wullie]

If Ashley takes too much out I will criticise him for it. If we get the new TV money and don't invest enough, I will criticise that as well. But that doesn't change the overall position I just explained.

 

If we get the new tv money? If?

[Wullie]

He took out 10M last year, a significant amount considering our small transfer budget.

 

Apparently Ian's going to criticise him for that, he's just said. Over to you Ian.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

We don't need subsidy from the owner. What it is about that simple concept that you cannot grasp?

 

We post much more profit than most other Premier League clubs. Much more than Tottenham, Everton, sunderland, Liverpool, and that's with Mike Ashley grasping his loan back year-on-year. Must have bills to pay, the poor soul.

 

Where does the money come from then? Am I missing something incredibly obvious here?

 

I know players are assets once they arrive, but obviously that can't mean that anyone can just spend infinite money. You still need cash. We never posted a profit over £10m... therefore if we spend more than that we start incurring losses that add to our debt, right?

 

Ian.

 

If we spent £10m tomorrow on a player on a five year deal, the profit the day after would still be £10m. Next year (assuming a hypothetical situation in which every other single thing remains constant), the profit posted would be £8m.

 

Please understand this. How many times?

 

Your profit numbers are completely and utterly irrelevant to the argument.

 

Aren't you confusing P&L with balance sheet? I understand how player values are accounted for as assets, but increasing spending still increases debt right?

[Guest chopey]

Keegan used to always say that the season ticket money always be spent on improving the team, under Ashley we dont even spend the pie money

[Incognito]

We need a Remynder about which thread we're in.

[Guest reefatoon]

Wowsers, haven't managed to get on all day (bloody work), and this thread as gone off on one.  So while the adults talk about money, who wants to join my in giggling at an old man going up an escalator?

 

http://i.imgur.com/fbQeO.gif

[Wullie]

We don't need subsidy from the owner. What it is about that simple concept that you cannot grasp?

 

We post much more profit than most other Premier League clubs. Much more than Tottenham, Everton, sunderland, Liverpool, and that's with Mike Ashley grasping his loan back year-on-year. Must have bills to pay, the poor soul.

 

Where does the money come from then? Am I missing something incredibly obvious here?

 

I know players are assets once they arrive, but obviously that can't mean that anyone can just spend infinite money. You still need cash. We never posted a profit over £10m... therefore if we spend more than that we start incurring losses that add to our debt, right?

 

Ian.

 

If we spent £10m tomorrow on a player on a five year deal, the profit the day after would still be £10m. Next year (assuming a hypothetical situation in which every other single thing remains constant), the profit posted would be £8m.

 

Please understand this. How many times?

 

Your profit numbers are completely and utterly irrelevant to the argument.

 

Aren't you confusing P&L with balance sheet? I understand how player values are accounted for as assets, but increasing spending still increases debt right?

 

It doesn't increase debt if you've got the money Ian. The massive TV deal says that we have.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

We don't need subsidy from the owner. What it is about that simple concept that you cannot grasp?

 

We post much more profit than most other Premier League clubs. Much more than Tottenham, Everton, sunderland, Liverpool, and that's with Mike Ashley grasping his loan back year-on-year. Must have bills to pay, the poor soul.

 

Where does the money come from then? Am I missing something incredibly obvious here?

 

I know players are assets once they arrive, but obviously that can't mean that anyone can just spend infinite money. You still need cash. We never posted a profit over £10m... therefore if we spend more than that we start incurring losses that add to our debt, right?

 

Ian.

 

If we spent £10m tomorrow on a player on a five year deal, the profit the day after would still be £10m. Next year (assuming a hypothetical situation in which every other single thing remains constant), the profit posted would be £8m.

 

Please understand this. How many times?

 

Your profit numbers are completely and utterly irrelevant to the argument.

 

Aren't you confusing P&L with balance sheet? I understand how player values are accounted for as assets, but increasing spending still increases debt right?

 

It doesn't increase debt if you've got the money Ian. The massive TV deal says that we have.

 

Ah right, yep, we should invest a lot of that money. But we don't get it until the end of the season.

 

We could borrow against it spend it I'm advance I guess, might be a good idea. Doesn't strike me as something Ashley would go for mind.

[hakka]

 

Imagine if Ashley just keeps being tight and eventually pays off all the club debt with this new TV money. Should only take a couple years.

 

Then if he doesn't invest in the squad he will be a new level of cunt.

[Guest chopey]

Just a quick question.

 

If a football club doesn't spend any money that it makes on new players to improve the team and give the supporters a bit of hope and optimism, then what else does it spend it on ?

 

My season ticket costs the best part of £600 and I expect that to be spent on players to improve the quality of the football I watch.

[hakka]

Presume it's reducing debt.

[Wullie]

We don't need subsidy from the owner. What it is about that simple concept that you cannot grasp?

 

We post much more profit than most other Premier League clubs. Much more than Tottenham, Everton, sunderland, Liverpool, and that's with Mike Ashley grasping his loan back year-on-year. Must have bills to pay, the poor soul.

 

Where does the money come from then? Am I missing something incredibly obvious here?

 

I know players are assets once they arrive, but obviously that can't mean that anyone can just spend infinite money. You still need cash. We never posted a profit over £10m... therefore if we spend more than that we start incurring losses that add to our debt, right?

 

Ian.

 

If we spent £10m tomorrow on a player on a five year deal, the profit the day after would still be £10m. Next year (assuming a hypothetical situation in which every other single thing remains constant), the profit posted would be £8m.

 

Please understand this. How many times?

 

Your profit numbers are completely and utterly irrelevant to the argument.

 

Aren't you confusing P&L with balance sheet? I understand how player values are accounted for as assets, but increasing spending still increases debt right?

 

It doesn't increase debt if you've got the money Ian. The massive TV deal says that we have.

 

Ah right, yep, we should invest a lot of that money. But we don't get it until the end of the season.

 

We could borrow against it spend it I'm advance I guess, might be a good idea. Doesn't strike me as something Ashley would go for mind.

 

Again, this comes back to our ludicrous decision to pay for all transfers in advance, which every other club thinks is a fucking stupid thing to do, which is why they don't do it.

 

When it's guaranteed money, there's really no issue. I know I'm getting paid at the end of the month so if I want a pair of shoes, I'll buy a pair, not wait three weeks and walk round with a plastic bag on my feet until then.

[Wullie]

Just a quick question.

 

If a football club doesn't spend any money that it makes on new players to improve the team and give the supporters a bit of hope and optimism, then what else does it spend it on ?

 

My season ticket costs the best part of £600 and I expect that to be spent on players to improve the quality of the football I watch.

 

It spends it on Mike Ashley's loan mate, which is good for us because Portsmouth.

[hakka]

We don't need subsidy from the owner. What it is about that simple concept that you cannot grasp?

 

We post much more profit than most other Premier League clubs. Much more than Tottenham, Everton, sunderland, Liverpool, and that's with Mike Ashley grasping his loan back year-on-year. Must have bills to pay, the poor soul.

 

Where does the money come from then? Am I missing something incredibly obvious here?

 

I know players are assets once they arrive, but obviously that can't mean that anyone can just spend infinite money. You still need cash. We never posted a profit over £10m... therefore if we spend more than that we start incurring losses that add to our debt, right?

 

Ian.

 

If we spent £10m tomorrow on a player on a five year deal, the profit the day after would still be £10m. Next year (assuming a hypothetical situation in which every other single thing remains constant), the profit posted would be £8m.

 

Please understand this. How many times?

 

Your profit numbers are completely and utterly irrelevant to the argument.

 

Aren't you confusing P&L with balance sheet? I understand how player values are accounted for as assets, but increasing spending still increases debt right?

 

It doesn't increase debt if you've got the money Ian. The massive TV deal says that we have.

 

Ah right, yep, we should invest a lot of that money. But we don't get it until the end of the season.

 

We could borrow against it spend it I'm advance I guess, might be a good idea. Doesn't strike me as something Ashley would go for mind.

 

Again, this comes back to our ludicrous decision to pay for all transfers in advance, which every other club thinks is a fucking stupid thing to do, which is why they don't do it.

 

When it's guaranteed money, there's really no issue. I know I'm getting paid at the end of the month so if I want a pair of shoes, I'll buy a pair, not wait three weeks and walk round with a plastic bag on my feet until then.

 

Get the point, but we are quite way off that in footballing terms in fairness.

[Unbelievable]

If Ashley takes too much out I will criticise him for it. If we get the new TV money and don't invest enough, I will criticise that as well. But that doesn't change the overall position I just explained.

 

Wow, so we'll be spending that extra 40 million TV money next summer. The Championship won't know what hit them..