Dave Posted April 6, 2017 Share Posted April 6, 2017 Are the full accounts on companies house yet? Imagine it will be a couple of weeks before they are. Not yet, were filed on the 13th last year though so shouldn't be long. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobody Posted April 6, 2017 Share Posted April 6, 2017 The accounts were always going to take a huge hit, nothing too much of a surprise at all. Had we been languishing in mid table at this moment in time then it would be a different story. I'll wait for someone to put them into terms I can understand though. Does give thought for those who thought because we had a profit from transfers last summer that we still have that as cash sitting in a few tesco bags for life ready to splurge this summer. These only go up the 30th June last year, so most of last summers incoming business won't be included. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
r0cafella Posted April 6, 2017 Share Posted April 6, 2017 Are the full accounts on companies house yet? Imagine it will be a couple of weeks before they are. Not yet, were filed on the 13th last year though so shouldn't be long. Cheers Dave. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEMTEX Posted April 6, 2017 Share Posted April 6, 2017 We are also buggered if Spurs sell Sissoko.... Spurs selling Sissoko would in no way affect how much money we receive for him. The agreement is to receive the full amount of money over a given period. If they sell him, they would still have to pay us the rest of the money. It's a sad day when you're trolled by neesy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heron Posted April 6, 2017 Share Posted April 6, 2017 We are also buggered if Spurs sell Sissoko.... Spurs selling Sissoko would in no way affect how much money we receive for him. The agreement is to receive the full amount of money over a given period. If they sell him, they would still have to pay us the rest of the money. It's a sad day when you're trolled by neesy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
midds Posted April 6, 2017 Share Posted April 6, 2017 The accounts were always going to take a huge hit, nothing too much of a surprise at all. Had we been languishing in mid table at this moment in time then it would be a different story. I'll wait for someone to put them into terms I can understand though. Does give thought for those who thought because we had a profit from transfers last summer that we still have that as cash sitting in a few tesco bags for life ready to splurge this summer. Exactly, these accounts give a picture of how things looked in pre-season before we even kicked a ball in the championship this season. They'll probably not be too rosey this time next year either. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToonTastic Posted April 6, 2017 Share Posted April 6, 2017 Pretty sure clubs have to pay half of the transfer fee as a minimum even if structured payments so still get a decent wedge. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tgarve Posted April 6, 2017 Share Posted April 6, 2017 Pretty sure clubs have to pay half of the transfer fee as a minimum even if structured payments so still get a decent wedge. Where have u heard this? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToonTastic Posted April 6, 2017 Share Posted April 6, 2017 Good question. Something i just remember from previous discussions. I'll have a look. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToonTastic Posted April 6, 2017 Share Posted April 6, 2017 Pretty sure clubs have to pay half of the transfer fee as a minimum even if structured payments so still get a decent wedge. Where have u heard this? Yeah according to financial fair play rules for championship clubs, i totally made that up hahaha Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
afar Posted April 6, 2017 Share Posted April 6, 2017 I won't be too concerned about this until the evidence of spend in the summer becomes apparent. If Rafa leaves that'll be a major sign that there is real reason to worry. Right now it's just accountants massaging numbers for tax purposes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted April 6, 2017 Share Posted April 6, 2017 We are also buggered if Spurs sell Sissoko.... Spurs selling Sissoko would in no way affect how much money we receive for him. The agreement is to receive the full amount of money over a given period. If they sell him, they would still have to pay us the rest of the money. It's a sad day when you're trolled by neesy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 So Ashley has lent us a net £15m to cover our relegation, but our debt to him hasn't increased. Also Sports Direct to start to pay for sponsorship. Conclusion: Sports Direct on shirt in lieu of debt Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 So Ashley has lent us a net £15m to cover our relegation, but our debt to him hasn't increased. Also Sports Direct to start to pay for sponsorship. Conclusion: Sports Direct on shirt in lieu of debt No chance. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
paddydog Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 So Ashley has lent us a net £15m to cover our relegation, but our debt to him hasn't increased. Also Sports Direct to start to pay for sponsorship. Conclusion: Sports Direct on shirt in lieu of debt He loaned the money after the period these accounts cover so it will not appear, I'd have thought. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raconteur Posted April 8, 2017 Share Posted April 8, 2017 I won't be too concerned about this until the evidence of spend in the summer becomes apparent. If Rafa leaves that'll be a major sign that there is real reason to worry. Right now it's just accountants massaging numbers for tax purposes. Is the correct answer. The way Ashley runs our club, the numbers are essentially meaningless. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted April 8, 2017 Share Posted April 8, 2017 Full accounts are available now. https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/02529667/filing-history/MzE3Mjk5NTc0NWFkaXF6a2N4/document?format=pdf&download=0 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted April 8, 2017 Share Posted April 8, 2017 £40m up on transfers from last summer. http://i.imgur.com/JDN9S26.png Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raconteur Posted April 8, 2017 Share Posted April 8, 2017 So, Mike Ashley loaned 33m to the club, and used 18m of that to repay himself? See previous comment about the meaningless nature of our accounts Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted April 8, 2017 Share Posted April 8, 2017 So, Mike Ashley loaned 33m to the club, and used 18m of that to repay himself? See previous comment about the meaningless nature of our accounts Got a feeling this has to do with Tax. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
r0cafella Posted April 8, 2017 Share Posted April 8, 2017 £40m up on transfers from last summer. http://i.imgur.com/JDN9S26.png Thanks for posting this Dave, i hope the swiss ramble does a post on them again Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Posted April 8, 2017 Share Posted April 8, 2017 Can someone in the know on these things explain why these accounts are presented under Newcastle United Limited (02529667) of which the only appointed director is Lee Charnley whereas previously they have been presented under Newcastle United Football Company Limited (00031014) of which Charnley, Carr and Moncur are directors? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted April 8, 2017 Share Posted April 8, 2017 Can someone in the know on these things explain why these accounts are presented under Newcastle United Limited (02529667) of which the only appointed director is Lee Charnley whereas previously they have been presented under Newcastle United Football Company Limited (00031014) of which Charnley, Carr and Moncur are directors? I've just checked Companies House and it seems their's only 1 official person with the club now. Everyone else has resigned. This doesn't include directors though. https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/02529667/officers Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Posted April 8, 2017 Share Posted April 8, 2017 Can someone in the know on these things explain why these accounts are presented under Newcastle United Limited (02529667) of which the only appointed director is Lee Charnley whereas previously they have been presented under Newcastle United Football Company Limited (00031014) of which Charnley, Carr and Moncur are directors? I've just checked Companies House and it seems their's only 1 official person with the club now. Everyone else has resigned. https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/02529667/officers Different companies, hence my question. Charnley, Carr and Moncur are still directors of Newcastle United Football Company Limited. https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/00031014/officers Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Posted April 8, 2017 Share Posted April 8, 2017 No. They are different companies, with different registration numbers. The history is not the same, one incorporated in 1990 the other in 1890. Any accountants around? 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