macbeth Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 has the club actually been losing £1mill per month ? ,ie to lose £12mill in one year doesn't necessarily mean you've lost £1mill per month when they published their accunts for the first 6 months of the 2005-2006 season the loss was £6m. When they published them for the full year to last June (only 11 months as they chanegd accoutnign dates), the loss for the whole period was over £12m. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 has the club actually been losing £1mill per month ? ,ie to lose £12mill in one year doesn't necessarily mean you've lost £1mill per month when they published their accunts for the first 6 months of the 2005-2006 season the loss was £6m. When they published them for the full year to last June (only 11 months as they chanegd accoutnign dates), the loss for the whole period was over £12m. but as you well know that is different to losing £1mill per month.(ie,they could make a profit of £1mill per month for 11months then buy torres(knowing us fred torres from stevenage borough) for £23 mill which would show a loss of £12mill but isn't a loss of £1mill per month. it may seem pedantic but the way you make it sound and it may be that way,that we are losing £1mill per month on the day-to-day running of the club not the one off hits for transfers. if we didn't buy anyone for a year would we still be "losing" £1mill per month ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gemmill Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 has the club actually been losing £1mill per month ? ,ie to lose £12mill in one year doesn't necessarily mean you've lost £1mill per month when they published their accunts for the first 6 months of the 2005-2006 season the loss was £6m. When they published them for the full year to last June (only 11 months as they chanegd accoutnign dates), the loss for the whole period was over £12m. but as you well know that is different to losing £1mill per month.(ie,they could make a profit of £1mill per month for 11months then buy torres(knowing us fred torres from stevenage borough) for £23 mill which would show a loss of £12mill but isn't a loss of £1mill per month. it may seem pedantic but the way you make it sound and it may be that way,that we are losing £1mill per month on the day-to-day running of the club not the one off hits for transfers. if we didn't buy anyone for a year would we still be "losing" £1mill per month ? Player purchases don't affect your profit on date of purchase, the cost is capitalised and amortised against the length of the players contract. So if you signed Torres for £20m on a 5 year contract, the costs would hit your books at £4m p.a. over the 5 years. So basically, you're wrong. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
macbeth Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 has the club actually been losing £1mill per month ? ,ie to lose £12mill in one year doesn't necessarily mean you've lost £1mill per month when they published their accunts for the first 6 months of the 2005-2006 season the loss was £6m. When they published them for the full year to last June (only 11 months as they chanegd accoutnign dates), the loss for the whole period was over £12m. but as you well know that is different to losing £1mill per month.(ie,they could make a profit of £1mill per month for 11months then buy torres(knowing us fred torres from stevenage borough) for £23 mill which would show a loss of £12mill but isn't a loss of £1mill per month. it may seem pedantic but the way you make it sound and it may be that way,that we are losing £1mill per month on the day-to-day running of the club not the one off hits for transfers. if we didn't buy anyone for a year would we still be "losing" £1mill per month ? The first half of the seaosn included all the summer signings, so Luque, Owen and Solano. The second half os last season had no transfer activity in it. The club do their accounts by dividing the cost of the transfer fee by the length of the contract and saying that's the monthly cost to the businhess.o So Luque for £10m, on a 5 year contract means the club accounts shows a cost of £2m per year, or £160k per month. Obviously things like wages and ground maintenance costs are the same every month. The income and expenditure for games happens as the games happen. So there is neither game-related income nor expenditure in June as there are no games. The club spread the season ticket money they receive in the summer across the football season. So say they get £25m in season ticket sales, then at half way through the season the accounts would say they had used up £12.5m of it, but it would also say that they knew they were going to have to use the other half in the second half of the season. The other steady outgoing is the interest payments on the ground redevelopment, and on the loans they have taken out. The steady incomes are from things like sponsorship, and from catering and merchandising. The sponsorship one is a slight concern. The club were given £8m of future year's sponsorship money (I guess from Nortern Rock) early, to allow them to buy Luque, Owen and Solano. This means that over the next few seasons there will be a drop of that amount from what woudl have been expected. This probably won't matter inthelong run as the extra Sky will swamp the drop. So, basically, "yes" we'd still be losing £1m per month even if we didn't sign anyone. The number will reduce but it will be hard work to get it back to the level where we at least break even. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 has the club actually been losing £1mill per month ? ,ie to lose £12mill in one year doesn't necessarily mean you've lost £1mill per month when they published their accunts for the first 6 months of the 2005-2006 season the loss was £6m. When they published them for the full year to last June (only 11 months as they chanegd accoutnign dates), the loss for the whole period was over £12m. but as you well know that is different to losing £1mill per month.(ie,they could make a profit of £1mill per month for 11months then buy torres(knowing us fred torres from stevenage borough) for £23 mill which would show a loss of £12mill but isn't a loss of £1mill per month. it may seem pedantic but the way you make it sound and it may be that way,that we are losing £1mill per month on the day-to-day running of the club not the one off hits for transfers. if we didn't buy anyone for a year would we still be "losing" £1mill per month ? Player purchases don't affect your profit on date of purchase, the cost is capitalised and amortised against the length of the players contract. So if you signed Torres for £20m on a 5 year contract, the costs would hit your books at £4m p.a. over the 5 years. So basically, you're wrong. but it would still be a once a year hit . snoops isn't on line so theres no need to try and show off. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 has the club actually been losing £1mill per month ? ,ie to lose £12mill in one year doesn't necessarily mean you've lost £1mill per month when they published their accunts for the first 6 months of the 2005-2006 season the loss was £6m. When they published them for the full year to last June (only 11 months as they chanegd accoutnign dates), the loss for the whole period was over £12m. but as you well know that is different to losing £1mill per month.(ie,they could make a profit of £1mill per month for 11months then buy torres(knowing us fred torres from stevenage borough) for £23 mill which would show a loss of £12mill but isn't a loss of £1mill per month. it may seem pedantic but the way you make it sound and it may be that way,that we are losing £1mill per month on the day-to-day running of the club not the one off hits for transfers. if we didn't buy anyone for a year would we still be "losing" £1mill per month ? The first half of the seaosn included all the summer signings, so Luque, Owen and Solano. The second half os last season had no transfer activity in it. The club do their accounts by dividing the cost of the transfer fee by the length of the contract and saying that's the monthly cost to the businhess.o So Luque for £10m, on a 5 year contract means the club accounts shows a cost of £2m per year, or £160k per month. Obviously things like wages and ground maintenance costs are the same every month. The income and expenditure for games happens as the games happen. So there is neither game-related income nor expenditure in June as there are no games. The club spread the season ticket money they receive in the summer across the football season. So say they get £25m in season ticket sales, then at half way through the season the accounts would say they had used up £12.5m of it, but it would also say that they knew they were going to have to use the other half in the second half of the season. The other steady outgoing is the interest payments on the ground redevelopment, and on the loans they have taken out. The steady incomes are from things like sponsorship, and from catering and merchandising. The sponsorship one is a slight concern. The club were given £8m of future year's sponsorship money (I guess from Nortern Rock) early, to allow them to buy Luque, Owen and Solano. This means that over the next few seasons there will be a drop of that amount from what woudl have been expected. This probably won't matter inthelong run as the extra Sky will swamp the drop. So, basically, "yes" we'd still be losing £1m per month even if we didn't sign anyone. The number will reduce but it will be hard work to get it back to the level where we at least break even. that's better explaINED. CHEERS. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
macbeth Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 that's better explaINED. CHEERS. I try Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shaun11177 Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 Income for this season 85m wages 50m running costs 22m interest on loans 5m 1st instalment on martins 5m i would say we are breaking even. duff 5m paid by selling faye and Boumsong Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parky Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 Income for this season 85m wages 50m running costs 22m interest on loans 5m 1st instalment on martins 5m i would say we are breaking even. duff 5m paid by selling faye and Boumsong The Northern Rock deal was for £4m a year for 5 years iirc. They have let us have 3 years worth in one go or so I heard. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parky Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 has the club actually been losing £1mill per month ? ,ie to lose £12mill in one year doesn't necessarily mean you've lost £1mill per month when they published their accunts for the first 6 months of the 2005-2006 season the loss was £6m. When they published them for the full year to last June (only 11 months as they chanegd accoutnign dates), the loss for the whole period was over £12m. but as you well know that is different to losing £1mill per month.(ie,they could make a profit of £1mill per month for 11months then buy torres(knowing us fred torres from stevenage borough) for £23 mill which would show a loss of £12mill but isn't a loss of £1mill per month. it may seem pedantic but the way you make it sound and it may be that way,that we are losing £1mill per month on the day-to-day running of the club not the one off hits for transfers. if we didn't buy anyone for a year would we still be "losing" £1mill per month ? The first half of the seaosn included all the summer signings, so Luque, Owen and Solano. The second half os last season had no transfer activity in it. The club do their accounts by dividing the cost of the transfer fee by the length of the contract and saying that's the monthly cost to the businhess.o So Luque for £10m, on a 5 year contract means the club accounts shows a cost of £2m per year, or £160k per month. Obviously things like wages and ground maintenance costs are the same every month. The income and expenditure for games happens as the games happen. So there is neither game-related income nor expenditure in June as there are no games. The club spread the season ticket money they receive in the summer across the football season. So say they get £25m in season ticket sales, then at half way through the season the accounts would say they had used up £12.5m of it, but it would also say that they knew they were going to have to use the other half in the second half of the season. The other steady outgoing is the interest payments on the ground redevelopment, and on the loans they have taken out. The steady incomes are from things like sponsorship, and from catering and merchandising. The sponsorship one is a slight concern. The club were given £8m of future year's sponsorship money (I guess from Nortern Rock) early, to allow them to buy Luque, Owen and Solano. This means that over the next few seasons there will be a drop of that amount from what woudl have been expected. This probably won't matter inthelong run as the extra Sky will swamp the drop. So, basically, "yes" we'd still be losing £1m per month even if we didn't sign anyone. The number will reduce but it will be hard work to get it back to the level where we at least break even. Don't forget we've been borrowing against future season ticket sales. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gemmill Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 has the club actually been losing £1mill per month ? ,ie to lose £12mill in one year doesn't necessarily mean you've lost £1mill per month when they published their accunts for the first 6 months of the 2005-2006 season the loss was £6m. When they published them for the full year to last June (only 11 months as they chanegd accoutnign dates), the loss for the whole period was over £12m. but as you well know that is different to losing £1mill per month.(ie,they could make a profit of £1mill per month for 11months then buy torres(knowing us fred torres from stevenage borough) for £23 mill which would show a loss of £12mill but isn't a loss of £1mill per month. it may seem pedantic but the way you make it sound and it may be that way,that we are losing £1mill per month on the day-to-day running of the club not the one off hits for transfers. if we didn't buy anyone for a year would we still be "losing" £1mill per month ? Player purchases don't affect your profit on date of purchase, the cost is capitalised and amortised against the length of the players contract. So if you signed Torres for £20m on a 5 year contract, the costs would hit your books at £4m p.a. over the 5 years. So basically, you're wrong. but it would still be a once a year hit . snoops isn't on line so theres no need to try and show off. Nice jibe. Doesn't deflect from the fact that you were talking shit though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colos Short and Curlies Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 has the club actually been losing £1mill per month ? ,ie to lose £12mill in one year doesn't necessarily mean you've lost £1mill per month when they published their accunts for the first 6 months of the 2005-2006 season the loss was £6m. When they published them for the full year to last June (only 11 months as they chanegd accoutnign dates), the loss for the whole period was over £12m. but as you well know that is different to losing £1mill per month.(ie,they could make a profit of £1mill per month for 11months then buy torres(knowing us fred torres from stevenage borough) for £23 mill which would show a loss of £12mill but isn't a loss of £1mill per month. it may seem pedantic but the way you make it sound and it may be that way,that we are losing £1mill per month on the day-to-day running of the club not the one off hits for transfers. if we didn't buy anyone for a year would we still be "losing" £1mill per month ? The first half of the seaosn included all the summer signings, so Luque, Owen and Solano. The second half os last season had no transfer activity in it. The club do their accounts by dividing the cost of the transfer fee by the length of the contract and saying that's the monthly cost to the businhess.o So Luque for £10m, on a 5 year contract means the club accounts shows a cost of £2m per year, or £160k per month. Obviously things like wages and ground maintenance costs are the same every month. The income and expenditure for games happens as the games happen. So there is neither game-related income nor expenditure in June as there are no games. The club spread the season ticket money they receive in the summer across the football season. So say they get £25m in season ticket sales, then at half way through the season the accounts would say they had used up £12.5m of it, but it would also say that they knew they were going to have to use the other half in the second half of the season. The other steady outgoing is the interest payments on the ground redevelopment, and on the loans they have taken out. The steady incomes are from things like sponsorship, and from catering and merchandising. The sponsorship one is a slight concern. The club were given £8m of future year's sponsorship money (I guess from Nortern Rock) early, to allow them to buy Luque, Owen and Solano. This means that over the next few seasons there will be a drop of that amount from what woudl have been expected. This probably won't matter inthelong run as the extra Sky will swamp the drop. So, basically, "yes" we'd still be losing £1m per month even if we didn't sign anyone. The number will reduce but it will be hard work to get it back to the level where we at least break even. Don't forget we've been borrowing against future season ticket sales. I thought we'd used the future ticket sales as security to raise the loan, i.e look mr bank manger I'm going to be earning £25m a year - bit like you do for your mortgage. The income from the sales doesn't directly go against the loan as it were, the payments dont move in line with season ticket sales Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 has the club actually been losing £1mill per month ? ,ie to lose £12mill in one year doesn't necessarily mean you've lost £1mill per month when they published their accunts for the first 6 months of the 2005-2006 season the loss was £6m. When they published them for the full year to last June (only 11 months as they chanegd accoutnign dates), the loss for the whole period was over £12m. but as you well know that is different to losing £1mill per month.(ie,they could make a profit of £1mill per month for 11months then buy torres(knowing us fred torres from stevenage borough) for £23 mill which would show a loss of £12mill but isn't a loss of £1mill per month. it may seem pedantic but the way you make it sound and it may be that way,that we are losing £1mill per month on the day-to-day running of the club not the one off hits for transfers. if we didn't buy anyone for a year would we still be "losing" £1mill per month ? Player purchases don't affect your profit on date of purchase, the cost is capitalised and amortised against the length of the players contract. So if you signed Torres for £20m on a 5 year contract, the costs would hit your books at £4m p.a. over the 5 years. So basically, you're wrong. but it would still be a once a year hit . snoops isn't on line so theres no need to try and show off. Nice jibe. Doesn't deflect from the fact that you were talking s*** though. mmmmmm not really.the asset amortisation(players) still mean it is a very grey area as i've already pointed out. for example how much is martins worth,according to the balance sheet a lot less than in reality. don't make yourself look a knob by saying people are talking shit when they are in a civil discussion,theres few enough going on on here as it is. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gemmill Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 has the club actually been losing £1mill per month ? ,ie to lose £12mill in one year doesn't necessarily mean you've lost £1mill per month when they published their accunts for the first 6 months of the 2005-2006 season the loss was £6m. When they published them for the full year to last June (only 11 months as they chanegd accoutnign dates), the loss for the whole period was over £12m. but as you well know that is different to losing £1mill per month.(ie,they could make a profit of £1mill per month for 11months then buy torres(knowing us fred torres from stevenage borough) for £23 mill which would show a loss of £12mill but isn't a loss of £1mill per month. it may seem pedantic but the way you make it sound and it may be that way,that we are losing £1mill per month on the day-to-day running of the club not the one off hits for transfers. if we didn't buy anyone for a year would we still be "losing" £1mill per month ? Player purchases don't affect your profit on date of purchase, the cost is capitalised and amortised against the length of the players contract. So if you signed Torres for £20m on a 5 year contract, the costs would hit your books at £4m p.a. over the 5 years. So basically, you're wrong. but it would still be a once a year hit . snoops isn't on line so theres no need to try and show off. Nice jibe. Doesn't deflect from the fact that you were talking s*** though. mmmmmm not really.the asset amortisation(players) still mean it is a very grey area as i've already pointed out. for example how much is martins worth,according to the balance sheet a lot less than in reality. don't make yourself look a knob by saying people are talking shit when they are in a civil discussion,theres few enough going on on here as it is. You're the one who made the "don't show off" comment, because I'd explained how player amortisation worked. As for Martins true worth versus his balance sheet value - I'm not sure how player revaluations work, as I've never had a football club as a client, or if they're permitted at all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 has the club actually been losing £1mill per month ? ,ie to lose £12mill in one year doesn't necessarily mean you've lost £1mill per month when they published their accunts for the first 6 months of the 2005-2006 season the loss was £6m. When they published them for the full year to last June (only 11 months as they chanegd accoutnign dates), the loss for the whole period was over £12m. but as you well know that is different to losing £1mill per month.(ie,they could make a profit of £1mill per month for 11months then buy torres(knowing us fred torres from stevenage borough) for £23 mill which would show a loss of £12mill but isn't a loss of £1mill per month. it may seem pedantic but the way you make it sound and it may be that way,that we are losing £1mill per month on the day-to-day running of the club not the one off hits for transfers. if we didn't buy anyone for a year would we still be "losing" £1mill per month ? Player purchases don't affect your profit on date of purchase, the cost is capitalised and amortised against the length of the players contract. So if you signed Torres for £20m on a 5 year contract, the costs would hit your books at £4m p.a. over the 5 years. So basically, you're wrong. but it would still be a once a year hit . snoops isn't on line so theres no need to try and show off. Nice jibe. Doesn't deflect from the fact that you were talking s*** though. mmmmmm not really.the asset amortisation(players) still mean it is a very grey area as i've already pointed out. for example how much is martins worth,according to the balance sheet a lot less than in reality. don't make yourself look a knob by saying people are talking s*** when they are in a civil discussion,theres few enough going on on here as it is. You're the one who made the "don't show off" comment, because I'd explained how player amortisation worked. As for Martins true worth versus his balance sheet value - I'm not sure how player revaluations work, as I've never had a football club as a client, or if they're permitted at all. if you go back a few pages you'll find it's already been discussed by myself and macbeth with the point i made,being made there also. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colos Short and Curlies Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 has the club actually been losing £1mill per month ? ,ie to lose £12mill in one year doesn't necessarily mean you've lost £1mill per month when they published their accunts for the first 6 months of the 2005-2006 season the loss was £6m. When they published them for the full year to last June (only 11 months as they chanegd accoutnign dates), the loss for the whole period was over £12m. but as you well know that is different to losing £1mill per month.(ie,they could make a profit of £1mill per month for 11months then buy torres(knowing us fred torres from stevenage borough) for £23 mill which would show a loss of £12mill but isn't a loss of £1mill per month. it may seem pedantic but the way you make it sound and it may be that way,that we are losing £1mill per month on the day-to-day running of the club not the one off hits for transfers. if we didn't buy anyone for a year would we still be "losing" £1mill per month ? Player purchases don't affect your profit on date of purchase, the cost is capitalised and amortised against the length of the players contract. So if you signed Torres for £20m on a 5 year contract, the costs would hit your books at £4m p.a. over the 5 years. So basically, you're wrong. but it would still be a once a year hit . snoops isn't on line so theres no need to try and show off. Nice jibe. Doesn't deflect from the fact that you were talking s*** though. mmmmmm not really.the asset amortisation(players) still mean it is a very grey area as i've already pointed out. for example how much is martins worth,according to the balance sheet a lot less than in reality. don't make yourself look a knob by saying people are talking s*** when they are in a civil discussion,theres few enough going on on here as it is. You're the one who made the "don't show off" comment, because I'd explained how player amortisation worked. As for Martins true worth versus his balance sheet value - I'm not sure how player revaluations work, as I've never had a football club as a client, or if they're permitted at all. Not allowed Gemms. ammortised over the length of the original contract with no revisions of life or value. One of accountancy's stupid rules I'm afraid, makes football clubs balance sheet somewhat meaningless Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gemmill Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 has the club actually been losing £1mill per month ? ,ie to lose £12mill in one year doesn't necessarily mean you've lost £1mill per month when they published their accunts for the first 6 months of the 2005-2006 season the loss was £6m. When they published them for the full year to last June (only 11 months as they chanegd accoutnign dates), the loss for the whole period was over £12m. but as you well know that is different to losing £1mill per month.(ie,they could make a profit of £1mill per month for 11months then buy torres(knowing us fred torres from stevenage borough) for £23 mill which would show a loss of £12mill but isn't a loss of £1mill per month. it may seem pedantic but the way you make it sound and it may be that way,that we are losing £1mill per month on the day-to-day running of the club not the one off hits for transfers. if we didn't buy anyone for a year would we still be "losing" £1mill per month ? Player purchases don't affect your profit on date of purchase, the cost is capitalised and amortised against the length of the players contract. So if you signed Torres for £20m on a 5 year contract, the costs would hit your books at £4m p.a. over the 5 years. So basically, you're wrong. but it would still be a once a year hit . snoops isn't on line so theres no need to try and show off. Nice jibe. Doesn't deflect from the fact that you were talking s*** though. mmmmmm not really.the asset amortisation(players) still mean it is a very grey area as i've already pointed out. for example how much is martins worth,according to the balance sheet a lot less than in reality. don't make yourself look a knob by saying people are talking s*** when they are in a civil discussion,theres few enough going on on here as it is. You're the one who made the "don't show off" comment, because I'd explained how player amortisation worked. As for Martins true worth versus his balance sheet value - I'm not sure how player revaluations work, as I've never had a football club as a client, or if they're permitted at all. if you go back a few pages you'll find it's already been discussed by myself and macbeth with the point i made,being made there also. What has? I've gone back a few pages but can't find any discussion relating to player revaluations. The only discussion on player amortisation seems to be on this page. Whatever anyway, I'm not really arsed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gemmill Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 has the club actually been losing £1mill per month ? ,ie to lose £12mill in one year doesn't necessarily mean you've lost £1mill per month when they published their accunts for the first 6 months of the 2005-2006 season the loss was £6m. When they published them for the full year to last June (only 11 months as they chanegd accoutnign dates), the loss for the whole period was over £12m. but as you well know that is different to losing £1mill per month.(ie,they could make a profit of £1mill per month for 11months then buy torres(knowing us fred torres from stevenage borough) for £23 mill which would show a loss of £12mill but isn't a loss of £1mill per month. it may seem pedantic but the way you make it sound and it may be that way,that we are losing £1mill per month on the day-to-day running of the club not the one off hits for transfers. if we didn't buy anyone for a year would we still be "losing" £1mill per month ? Player purchases don't affect your profit on date of purchase, the cost is capitalised and amortised against the length of the players contract. So if you signed Torres for £20m on a 5 year contract, the costs would hit your books at £4m p.a. over the 5 years. So basically, you're wrong. but it would still be a once a year hit . snoops isn't on line so theres no need to try and show off. Nice jibe. Doesn't deflect from the fact that you were talking s*** though. mmmmmm not really.the asset amortisation(players) still mean it is a very grey area as i've already pointed out. for example how much is martins worth,according to the balance sheet a lot less than in reality. don't make yourself look a knob by saying people are talking s*** when they are in a civil discussion,theres few enough going on on here as it is. You're the one who made the "don't show off" comment, because I'd explained how player amortisation worked. As for Martins true worth versus his balance sheet value - I'm not sure how player revaluations work, as I've never had a football club as a client, or if they're permitted at all. Not allowed Gemms. ammortised over the length of the original contract with no revisions of life or value. One of accountancy's stupid rules I'm afraid, makes football clubs balance sheet somewhat meaningless What happens in the event of injury? Do they permit impairment reviews or anything like that if it's clear that the value of the player has fallen considerably? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
macbeth Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 The player value in the books is never marked up. The club have though marked some down over the last few seasons. This has been when they have had somebody (Viana was one) out on loan with the other club setting up the deal so that they knowthe purchase price at the end of the loan. I think there was a similar download revaluation of Robert when he was out on loan. The amortisation of the transfer fee across the length of the original contract does have some sense in it as at the end of their contract they can just leave for nothing,and wouldbe worth nothing to the club. So the valuation is always a worst case situation. The inability to revalue upwards stops unscrupulous clubs (so not of concern to us) from arbitarily bumping up the values, making the finances look better and using the new assets for "dodgy" purposes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slugsy Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 has the club actually been losing £1mill per month ? ,ie to lose £12mill in one year doesn't necessarily mean you've lost £1mill per month when they published their accunts for the first 6 months of the 2005-2006 season the loss was £6m. When they published them for the full year to last June (only 11 months as they chanegd accoutnign dates), the loss for the whole period was over £12m. but as you well know that is different to losing £1mill per month.(ie,they could make a profit of £1mill per month for 11months then buy torres(knowing us fred torres from stevenage borough) for £23 mill which would show a loss of £12mill but isn't a loss of £1mill per month. it may seem pedantic but the way you make it sound and it may be that way,that we are losing £1mill per month on the day-to-day running of the club not the one off hits for transfers. if we didn't buy anyone for a year would we still be "losing" £1mill per month ? Player purchases don't affect your profit on date of purchase, the cost is capitalised and amortised against the length of the players contract. So if you signed Torres for £20m on a 5 year contract, the costs would hit your books at £4m p.a. over the 5 years. So basically, you're wrong. Apart from where you have players such as Marcelino or Luque whose economic useful value has actually been deemed as nil and the asset is written off in one fail swoop! On that thought, maybe the entire team (Given aside) should be written off! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
macbeth Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 The net assets of the club is the "intangible assets + Tangible assets + money owed to the club + cash in the bank - overdraft - mortgage - money owed to others". At 30 June 2006 I found my copy ) we had: Intangible asstes, essentially the players, and in this is roughly £48m Tangible asstes are the ground, the academy and other bricks and mortar types of things, this is roughly £90m Owed to us, and cash ~£25m So assets come to ~£164m in total. The liabilities are made up of the amounts of money owed to people for the assets, this is currently ~£147m. The net assets then come out to be £16.8m (Now these figures do not include anything to do with Martins. His purchase should make no difference as he will be in as an asset, but we will owe the same amount of money.) So all our players are collectively valued at £48m, and at that level the club has overall assets of £16.8m If we have continued to lose money at roughly the rate we were last season, then the club will be worth ~£6m less than it was in June. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
koven Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 There's nothing inherently wrong with making a loss each year, provided you plan ahead and i'm sure the club have. It may mean we have to hold back a little on the player spending though. Amazon.com didn't make a profit in the first 7 years but they knew that and they had a plan. I trust NUFC that they knew they might post a loss and have a plan for the future. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest devlin_adl Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 There's nothing inherently wrong with making a loss each year, provided you plan ahead and i'm sure the club have. It may mean we have to hold back a little on the player spending though. Amazon.com didn't make a profit in the first 7 years but they knew that and they had a plan. I trust NUFC that they knew they might post a loss and have a plan for the future. The difference is that Amazon is a high growth company. Newcastle's revenues have actually been going down (though, as other posters have mentioned, the new TV revenue will rectify that and save the board). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
macbeth Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 There's nothing inherently wrong with making a loss each year, provided you plan ahead and i'm sure the club have. It may mean we have to hold back a little on the player spending though. Amazon.com didn't make a profit in the first 7 years but they knew that and they had a plan. I trust NUFC that they knew they might post a loss and have a plan for the future. In the 9 years as a PLC to June 2006 the club made a combined loss of £59.7m. I love your belief that there is a plan in there somewhere. I'd have hoped to see the club looking mroe healthy on the playing front than it is today. If we about to compete in Europe with a team of young players, led by a bright innovative coach, all ready to blossom into the next great team then the idea that there was a plan of some sort may be right. [Potential agenda alert} Of that 9-year loss nearly 60% comes from giving money away to needy causes, and is nothing at all do with the way the business has performed. If for the next 9 years we did exactly the same, but didn't give away ll that money we'd be doign very well. The sad thing is that the only reason we got away with giving so much money away was because of the money put in at the launch of the PLC. That money has now gone, and the current financial results show we're a bit stuck. [/Potential agenda alert] Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
koven Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 There's nothing inherently wrong with making a loss each year, provided you plan ahead and i'm sure the club have. It may mean we have to hold back a little on the player spending though. Amazon.com didn't make a profit in the first 7 years but they knew that and they had a plan. I trust NUFC that they knew they might post a loss and have a plan for the future. The difference is that Amazon is a high growth company. Newcastle's revenues have actually been going down (though, as other posters have mentioned, the new TV revenue will rectify that and save the board). Most people attribute Amazon's success to it's slow growth, they went through a dot.com bubble bursting. A lot harder than NUFC's situation. It wasn't obvious they would do well to the outside world. And I like how you mention the TV revenue like it will save them. Do you not think they know this is coming and include a relevant figure in future plans? 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