NUFC finances

[Hhtoon]

I don't have an issue with the £33m really, nor with him refusing to finance the club anymore. The key aspect is the lack of commercial revenue as it's frittered on Sports Direct.

Any idea how our commercial revenue compares to other clubs?

[Anderson]

 

http://priceoffootball.com/newcastle-united-2017-18-apply-some-pressure/

[Matt]

Ah, the shareholder loan thing again. In corporate finance terms it's all equity and any repayment of the loan or interest paid on it should be considered a dividend.

[quayside]

Ah, the shareholder loan thing again. In corporate finance terms it's all equity and any repayment of the loan or interest paid on it should be considered a dividend.

 

Well yes. From the latest communications it seems that, at present, Ashley is prepared to leave the £111 million in as quasi equity. Anything over and above is repayable on demand. I suspect he prefers to leave it that way rather than turn the £111 million into real equity because he can use it is a bargaining chip when he sells the club. “I want £x million for the club plus my Loan back”. As opposed to the £111 million getting swallowed up into part of the equity. If you get my drift? Unlike many on here I do think he does intend to sell....I sense that SD paying “something” in future for the advertising at SJP might be a clue. I don’t post on here too often these days so won’t be arsed if I am wrong 

[Sho Time]

http://priceoffootball.com/newcastle-united-2017-18-apply-some-pressure/

 

take the first leter of each paragraph...  :cool:

 

[LV]

http://priceoffootball.com/newcastle-united-2017-18-apply-some-pressure/

 

take the first leter of each paragraph...  :cool:

 

 

Genius

[Disco]

Thread

 

[Raconteur]

Thread

 

 

So many damning indictments of rank shithousery in a single thread

[ToonArmy1892]

http://priceoffootball.com/newcastle-united-2017-18-apply-some-pressure/

 

take the first leter of each paragraph...  :cool:

 

 

[Paully]

https://twitter.com/bigchrisholt/status/1121294952976326657

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Getting promoted and taking 16% off your wage bill is mental. Then again, we stayed up so Ashley is right again.

[Yorkie]

I'm extremely sceptical that either of those figures represent the true amount. Who knows how they've been arrived at? They won't have been reached via the same calculations as all the other clubs on that list.

 

I'm certainly not convinced that a squad featuring Ruben Neves, Ivan Cavaleiro, Helder Costa, Diego Jota, Alfred N'Diaye and Benik Afobe - players who were signed from top tier and/or Champions League outfits - resulted in a cumulative wage bill £60million cheaper than our own title-winning squad. Gayle, Ritchie, Mitrovic and Shelvey were probably all pretty high earners but £112m? Aye alright.

 

It's all spin. They'll manipulate the numbers as much as they can in order to try and plead poverty and get away with it. They can fuck off. There's no defence.

[Sho Time]

Getting promoted and taking 16% off your wage bill is mental. Then again, we stayed up so Ashley is right again.

 

He'S a gR8 BuSINnssmAn

[James]

I'm extremely sceptical that either of those figures represent the true amount. Who knows how they've been arrived at? They won't have been reached via the same calculations as all the other clubs on that list.

 

I'm certainly not convinced that a squad featuring Ruben Neves, Ivan Cavaleiro, Helder Costa, Diego Jota, Alfred N'Diaye and Benik Afobe - players who were signed from top tier and/or Champions League outfits - resulted in a cumulative wage bill £60million cheaper than our title-winning squad.

 

It's all spin. They'll manipulate the numbers as much as they can in order to try and plead poverty and get away with it. They can fuck off. There's no defence.

 

They were in the Championship / in outer space

[Pata]

Getting promoted and taking 16% off your wage bill is mental. Then again, we stayed up so Ashley is right again.

 

Championship accounts had the promotion bonuses and some stuff I don't understand included. One tweet from Swiss Ramble explains it but I can't be arsed to go back looking for it.

[Away Day Gadgie]

Getting promoted and taking 16% off your wage bill is mental. Then again, we stayed up so Ashley is right again.

 

Even if you take the “Promotion bonus” into account, it proves that getting back into the Premier League is a million times more important to Ashley that actually competing in it.  He’ll shift heaven and earth to get back on the gravy train but has absolutely zero interest in us actually getting some enjoyment out of our club.

[ianovthetoon]

I’d imagine that we insist on paying the salaries of players we get on loan as part of the fee agreement, but take a loan fee from other clubs and continue to pay the salaries of those players. Because we count transfer fees differently to wages it would probably have accounted for the high wage bill in the championship season when the likes of Cabella and Saivet were still on our books.

[Mattoon]

Weren't wages paid up for players deemed surplus to requirements? So the likes of Colback had the remaining time on their contract paid up from that seasons P&L. This of course won't be reimbursed if said players are sold before their contract is complete or discounted if loaned out with partial wage cover by the loaning team.

These are the figures that need investigating, the staged payments for players past the initial payments that are never mentioned, the wages already factored into transfer fees that are no longer relevant, we always here about the expenditure but never about the recuperation, it's a black hole of finance.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

So the take-away message is that it's impossible to know what's going on even after you see the accounts.

[Hhtoon]

Weren't wages paid up for players deemed surplus to requirements? So the likes of Colback had the remaining time on their contract paid up from that seasons P&L. This of course won't be reimbursed if said players are sold before their contract is complete or discounted if loaned out with partial wage cover by the loaning team.

These are the figures that need investigating, the staged payments for players past the initial payments that are never mentioned, the wages already factored into transfer fees that are no longer relevant, we always here about the expenditure but never about the recuperation, it's a black hole of finance.

 

They don't need reimbursing and no cash payments were made to the players, just accounting adjustments.

[Mattoon]

Weren't wages paid up for players deemed surplus to requirements? So the likes of Colback had the remaining time on their contract paid up from that seasons P&L. This of course won't be reimbursed if said players are sold before their contract is complete or discounted if loaned out with partial wage cover by the loaning team.

These are the figures that need investigating, the staged payments for players past the initial payments that are never mentioned, the wages already factored into transfer fees that are no longer relevant, we always here about the expenditure but never about the recuperation, it's a black hole of finance.

 

They don't need reimbursing and no cash payments were made to the players, just accounting adjustments.

 

Replace reimbursed with readjust then still stands

[Guest chopey]

So Rafa is on £6 million a year which leaves £88 million, that means that each of the remaining 100 people employed by the club are on £17,000 a week ...........seems legit.

[Matt]

The actual wages number quoted for this 16/17 and 17/18 are totally meaningless due to the adjustments made but that hasn't stopped the media using them and doing analysis without taking any normalisation into account.

[morpeth mag]

Totally agree. Take Colbeck for example and assume he is on £2.5m pa. The 2016/17 accounts made provisions for players with no economic value. He had two years of his contract left so they may have written down £5m in the 2016/17 accounts, inflating wages in that year. In 2017/18 we actually loaned him to Forest; say for £1m fee. His wages are already written off so we then make a surplus of £1m on wages in that year. In short, the write down not only inflated wages in the promotion season but probably reduced the wage bill in the last accounts for all the players on loan.

[quayside]

I also agree with that.

 

The accounts are now on the Companies House website. I will try and explain what (I think) has happened with wages. In 2016/17 the club made a provision of £22 million for "onerous employment contracts". The precise details of this provision are not disclosed, nor is there any requirement for that to happen. I would imagine Colback would have been part of it, and perhaps some other deals where we have loaned out or even sold players and are still picking up some of their wages?

 

So in effect the actual wages paid to players and staff actually at the club in 2016/2017 would have been £112 million less the provision of £22 million = £90 million.

 

In 2017/2018 the club released £10 million of the provision which means that the actual wages paid to players and staff actually at the club would have been £94 million plus the provision release of £10 million = £104 million.

 

Another observation on the accounts is that as at 30th June 2018 we were owed £30 million for players we had sold, and we owed £28 million for players we had bought. So the old policy of paying up front and selling by instalments seems to have been abandoned.