Loïc Remy

[Wullie]

I think this is our rough profit from what I can find online:

 

2009 - £38m loss

2010 - £34m loss

2011 - £4m profit

2012 - £10m profit

 

Cool we've got -£58m to spend. 

 

I mean, I know we are due some money, but we also have a lot of ongoing debt. Yes, it's to Mike Ashley now but that's only because he cleared our unsustainable debt position when he arrived. We could not go on losing £30m a season with the credit situation tightening, I don't know how anyone can argue otherwise.

 

The only clubs that can are the ones where the owner has the ability and desire to shoulder infinite debt.

 

(Obviously this is where the 'it's his own fault for buying us' argument fits in)

 

So you're fine with him taking £10m or whatever back out of the club this season instead of buying a quality wide player with it?

[AyeDubbleYoo]

If you buy a £50m player, your accounts will show exactly the same profit because they go onto the accounts as an asset, so I don't know why the fuck you're posting profits for or what that's meant to prove.

 

I don't think it's as simple as that. Otherwise things like the Carroll money wouldn't affect the P&L account, because we would receive £35m cash but lose a £35m asset.

[Hughesy]

I thought he took some money out of the club to pay the 'extra' loan he made us when we went down?

[Wullie]

Err we didn't lose any asset when we lost Carroll. We got him for free. Fairly simple stuff this like.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

So you're fine with him taking £10m or whatever back out of the club this season instead of buying a quality wide player with it?

 

I'd rather he bought a player, but I don't expect him to shoulder that debt interest free for ever. Reasonable debt repayments are part of any business model. I mean, if we didn't owe the money to Ashley we would presumably owe it to a bank at a much more expensive rate.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Err we didn't lose any asset when we lost Carroll. We got him for free. Fairly simple stuff this like.

 

So the balance sheet value of a footballer is just what we paid for them? That doesn't seem to really make sense. Could be wrong obviously, I'm not an expert by any means!

[Dokko]

Err we didn't lose any asset when we lost Carroll. We got him for free. Fairly simple stuff this like.

 

What? Players are either assets or they aren't, fuck sake.

[Beren]

Wenger's the man. Has his crown jewels asset-stripped on a bi-annual basis, doesn't get/to spend jack, and still leapfrogs Spurs in April and into the CL every year

[Dokko]

So you're fine with him taking £10m or whatever back out of the club this season instead of buying a quality wide player with it?

 

I'd rather he bought a player, but I don't expect him to shoulder that debt interest free for ever. Reasonable debt repayments are part of any business model. I mean, if we didn't owe the money to Ashley we would presumably owe it to a bank at a much more expensive rate.

 

Wullie wants us to spend next seasons money now, of course we just pluck that money out of the air until then, no interest or owt. Maybe if we pose as a Muslim club we'd get away with it.

[Wullie]

They're assets based on what you paid over the length of the contract. A ten million pound player on a five year deal is on the books as £10m asset when you buy him, £8m a year later and so on. After the contract period, or if the player was free, he is not treated as an asset at all for the purposes of the accounts.

[Mole_Toonfan]

So we haven't got a single new recruit for the new season. Good work Newcastle

 

Remy?

 

Who's injured for a month of it?

 

My point is we have the same team that finished 16th for Monday

 

Not being funny we could buy 10 quality players and still lose on Monday.

 

Season starts at home to West Ham.

[Guest bimpy474]

I think this is our rough profit from what I can find online:

 

2009 - £38m loss

2010 - £34m loss

2011 - £4m profit

2012 - £10m profit

 

Cool we've got -£58m to spend. 

 

I mean, I know we are due some money, but we also have a lot of ongoing debt. Yes, it's to Mike Ashley now but that's only because he cleared our unsustainable debt position when he arrived. We could not go on losing £30m a season with the credit situation tightening, I don't know how anyone can argue otherwise.

 

The only clubs that can are the ones where the owner has the ability and desire to shoulder infinite debt.

 

(Obviously this is where the 'it's his own fault for buying us' argument fits in)

 

So you're fine with him taking £10m or whatever back out of the club this season instead of buying a quality wide player with it?

 

If he wants to make a go of owning us then i'd expect him to spend the money, but if he's not going to, let him take the money to pay the debt, if it means he's fucking off asap.

[Wullie]

So you're fine with him taking £10m or whatever back out of the club this season instead of buying a quality wide player with it?

 

I'd rather he bought a player, but I don't expect him to shoulder that debt interest free for ever. Reasonable debt repayments are part of any business model. I mean, if we didn't owe the money to Ashley we would presumably owe it to a bank at a much more expensive rate.

 

Wullie wants us to spend next seasons money now, of course we just pluck that money out of the air until then, no interest or owt. Maybe if we pose as a Muslim club we'd get away with it.

 

Did we not get any last year like?  Where on Earth have you got this idea from that the club is skint?

[Decky]

So you're fine with him taking £10m or whatever back out of the club this season instead of buying a quality wide player with it?

 

I'd rather he bought a player, but I don't expect him to shoulder that debt interest free for ever. Reasonable debt repayments are part of any business model. I mean, if we didn't owe the money to Ashley we would presumably owe it to a bank at a much more expensive rate.

 

Wullie wants us to spend next seasons money now, of course we just pluck that money out of the air until then, no interest or owt. Maybe if we pose as a Muslim club we'd get away with it.

 

What about this seasons money? People say we chipped into it in January, but what about last season's money? We spent something like what, £14m net last season? That's not a lot, but people seem to think it's the equivalent of two seasons worth of transfer money.

[The College Dropout]

Wenger's the man. Has his crown jewels asset-stripped on a bi-annual basis, doesn't get/to spend jack, and still leapfrogs Spurs in April and into the CL every year

Every. Single. Year.

 

Spurs have had the better players for at least the last two seasons. At least the season before last RVP was the best player between them and maybe even the league. But last season, Bale was the RVP figure and Arsenal still finished above them.

[Decky]

Wenger's the man. Has his crown jewels asset-stripped on a bi-annual basis, doesn't get/to spend jack, and still leapfrogs Spurs in April and into the CL every year

 

He won't do it this year imo. Not unless he gets Suarez.

[Dokko]

They're assets based on what you paid over the length of the contract. A ten million pound player on a five year deal is on the books as £10m asset when you buy him, £8m a year later and so on. After the contract period, or if the player was free, he is not treated as an asset at all for the purposes of the accounts.

 

You are talking about something different there. Carroll wouldn't be classed as a value of zero to the club, besides none of this has anything to do with what we've got to spend on players, you may have a £50m asset on the books but you have £50m less in the bank, the bank sees it like this and if you are overdrawn you pay for it.

 

 

[Dokko]

So you're fine with him taking £10m or whatever back out of the club this season instead of buying a quality wide player with it?

 

I'd rather he bought a player, but I don't expect him to shoulder that debt interest free for ever. Reasonable debt repayments are part of any business model. I mean, if we didn't owe the money to Ashley we would presumably owe it to a bank at a much more expensive rate.

 

Wullie wants us to spend next seasons money now, of course we just pluck that money out of the air until then, no interest or owt. Maybe if we pose as a Muslim club we'd get away with it.

 

Did we not get any last year like?  Where on Earth have you got this idea from that the club is skint?

 

Where on earth to you get the idea the club has money? It's financially sound as of now, but it's paying for past mistakes and generates very little revenue for a club wanting to be where we want it to be.

 

 

[Dokko]

So you're fine with him taking £10m or whatever back out of the club this season instead of buying a quality wide player with it?

 

I'd rather he bought a player, but I don't expect him to shoulder that debt interest free for ever. Reasonable debt repayments are part of any business model. I mean, if we didn't owe the money to Ashley we would presumably owe it to a bank at a much more expensive rate.

 

Wullie wants us to spend next seasons money now, of course we just pluck that money out of the air until then, no interest or owt. Maybe if we pose as a Muslim club we'd get away with it.

 

What about this seasons money? People say we chipped into it in January, but what about last season's money? We spent something like what, £14m net last season? That's not a lot, but people seem to think it's the equivalent of two seasons worth of transfer money.

 

The tv money isn't just money in the bank it pays for shit, like players wages, without the tv money we simply wouldn't exist like most clubs in the league.

[Wullie]

Why don't we pay in installments then? Like every other club on the planet?

[Dokko]

Why don't we pay in installments then? Like every other club on the planet?

 

Because clubs will take less money upfront.

 

From the moment he came in he's done that, sure Mort said something about it, as well as being stung paying for players not even on the books any more. Its what Leeds did and they ended up still owing clubs money even though the players weren't there and sold on for less than what they paid.

[Guest icemanblue]

Remy, Remy, Remy

Can't you see?

Please treat your finances responsibl-y

[Jack Flash]

These last few pages reminds me of this post/thread...

 

http://www.newcastle-online.org/nufcforum/index.php/topic,92773.0.html

[Wullie]

So we can't afford to pay up front or in installments? You've really swallowed the Ashley propaganda.

 

And of course Carroll was sheer profit on the accounts. He was no more asset than any other Academy kid, young or old.

[Dokko]

So we can't afford to pay up front or in installments? You've really swallowed the Ashley propaganda.

 

And of course Carroll was sheer profit on the accounts. He was no more asset than any other Academy kid, young or old.

 

We won't pay over time, we get a better deal paying upfront, like everything in life.

 

What does it matter if he was or wasn't? If he was it shows how fucked up our finances are to have lost £58m over the last 4 years.

 

This propaganda shite is cringe worthy at best.