Loïc Remy

[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.

 

 

[Shays Given Tim Flowers]

Wullie is right about assets in an accounting sense.

[Unbelievable]

Same old debate every fucking transfer window. Wish Ashley would finally up sticks.

[Hughesy]

I love it when we start talking about accounts.  WHAT ABOUT PLAYER AMORTISATION?  SOMEONE THINK ABOUT THE AMORTISATION!!!

[BottledDog]

Wullie is right about assets in an accounting sense.

 

We've been through it a million times before but it is clearly still is a bit of a head fuck. Does giving a non asset (like Wullie says Carroll was) a new long term contract make any difference?

 

Is he right that despite what the club accounts have shown, we are in fact, rolling in wonga?

 

 

[BottledDog]

I love it when we start talking about accounts.  WHAT ABOUT PLAYER AMORTISATION?  SOMEONE THINK ABOUT THE AMORTISATION!!!

 

:lol:

 

Loic's losing us £2m a season plus wages. Get rid!

 

[AyeDubbleYoo]

I love it when we start talking about accounts.  WHAT ABOUT PLAYER AMORTISATION?  SOMEONE THINK ABOUT THE AMORTISATION!!!

 

:lol:

 

Yeah, it is a funny one. Essentially debating something that nobody knows enough about to make a decision.

 

My belief has always been that as long as the club is making significant losses, and the debt is increasing, we are financially shafted. Unless someone shoulders the debt or the terms are very generous.

 

As to players as assets, I really don't have a clue how the accounting is done.

[Guest bimpy474]

I love it when we start talking about accounts.  WHAT ABOUT PLAYER AMORTISATION?  SOMEONE THINK ABOUT THE AMORTISATION!!!

 

:lol:

 

Yeah, it is a funny one. Essentially debating something that nobody knows enough about to make a decision.

 

My belief has always been that as long as the club is making significant losses, and the debt is increasing, we are financially shafted. Unless someone shoulders the debt or the terms are very generous.

 

As to players as assets, I really don't have a clue how the accounting is done.

 

I was about to post something similar. Aren't we really talking about things we really know feck all about (the details i mean).

[Shays Given Tim Flowers]

Wullie is right about assets in an accounting sense.

 

We've been through it a million times before but it is clearly still is a bit of a head f***. Does giving a non asset (like Wullie says Carroll was) a new long term contract make any difference?

 

Is he right that despite what the club accounts have shown, we are in fact, rolling in wonga?

 

Its not that Carroll was a non-asset its just his value for accounting purposes was nominal as he had come through the youth system (i.e. no money paid). The difference the new contract made was that it actually reduced the asset value of Carroll as the contract is a liability.

 

Net asset value = value of the asset minus liabilities.

 

That covers the position in accounts.

 

FWIW accounts ought not speculate as to the value of the assets they own, as they are supposed to be a realistic assesment of the actual monetary value of the company. From this assesment you can generally see how much liability the company can actually (not potentially cope with). Generally assets depreciate. The Value of the assets is determined by the cash that is paid for them and then usually depreciates on a year by year basis.

 

Accounts is basically a series of rules that don't make a huge amount of sense to the lay person. They also don't really fit particularly well with highly fluctuating things like football clubs.

[Shays Given Tim Flowers]

As to whether we are rolling in Money I don't know. We are just about breaking even. The TV money is guaranteed what will become of it is anyone's guess.

[Dave]

The finances bollocks comes up as a desperate final attempt to justify the lack of ambition and investment the club displays on a regular basis. No fan should need to give a flying fuck about it unless we're in serious danger of going under, which we're not.

[Guest neesy111]

The finances bollocks comes up as a desperate final attempt to justify the lack of ambition and investment the club displays on a regular basis. No fan should need to give a flying fuck about it unless we're in serious danger of going under, which we're not.

 

This.

 

The fact is smaller clubs with smaller attendances are spending more money than us.  Why is that?  It's because our twat of an owner penny pinches and is looking to take as much money out of the club while spending as little as possible.

[Guest icemanblue]

Because they need to?

[Shays Given Tim Flowers]

The finances bollocks comes up as a desperate final attempt to justify the lack of ambition and investment the club displays on a regular basis. No fan should need to give a flying f*** about it unless we're in serious danger of going under, which we're not.

 

go back to the Bobby Robson quote about the club. Nobody made Ashley buy us. Nobody said don't do due diligence or it won't be a good investment. But he can get to fuck if he thinks owning something that thousands of people are emotionally attached, and invested in does not bring with it a level of responsibility.

 

He may be the owner but its more akin to an invasion. We shouldn't toe his line just because he had the money to purchase our club.

[colinmk]

Not to mention he probably made the club significantly worse off by leading us to our relegation. Seems to be often forgotten.