Wages crisis?

[koven]

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]

 

 

I would like to see better success on the playing front as well but we've been up against a lot.  And you don't get success on the playing field without spending money.  You have to speculate to accumulate as they say.  Do you think we would have had the success with Keegan without spending a world record fee on Shearer?  No way.

 

The club has tried to do the same with Martins and Owen which of course will have a negative effect on the financial situation but the club is trying to get us into the UEFA cup/Champions League and they only way they can do this is by spending money.  Is the NUFC finances site yours btw?  I doubt you would have set it up/or continued if we had qualified for the champions league last year because we would have a much greater revenue.

 

Take Amazon again for example.  I'm not saying NUFC are as busines savvy as those guys but..  Anyway, they have still not made a profit, overall, the losses in the earlier days are larger than the current profits.  Yet they invested millions into the company, and it paid off.  They're steadily picking up profit.  In my opinion that's what NUFC are trying to do.  They aren't perfect but they're spending money in the hope that it'll pay off in the future.

 

If Newcastle was in such dire straights, with no optimism, there would not have been investors interested in a take over, of course I know they decided otherwise but if you could tell so much from the public accounts then why would they even bother investigating?

 

Don't some of the board also run Shepherd Offshore successufully?

[Slugsy]

Comparing Amazon and NUFC is again, quite ridiculous  - two entirely different business models, in different sectors and completely different funding structures.

[Colos Short and Curlies]

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?

 

If I remeber correctly you don't mark down for injury - the only example I had was Ole Gunnar, but he was worth next to nothing anyway.

 

The argument against would be a Shearer or a RvN - serious injury but argubly it didn't lessen their value

[Colos Short and Curlies]

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]

 

 

I would like to see better success on the playing front as well but we've been up against a lot.  And you don't get success on the playing field without spending money.  You have to speculate to accumulate as they say.  Do you think we would have had the success with Keegan without spending a world record fee on Shearer?  No way.

 

The club has tried to do the same with Martins and Owen which of course will have a negative effect on the financial situation but the club is trying to get us into the UEFA cup/Champions League and they only way they can do this is by spending money.  Is the NUFC finances site yours btw?  I doubt you would have set it up/or continued if we had qualified for the champions league last year because we would have a much greater revenue.

 

Take Amazon again for example.  I'm not saying NUFC are as busines savvy as those guys but..  Anyway, they have still not made a profit, overall, the losses in the earlier days are larger than the current profits.  Yet they invested millions into the company, and it paid off.  They're steadily picking up profit.  In my opinion that's what NUFC are trying to do.  They aren't perfect but they're spending money in the hope that it'll pay off in the future.

 

If Newcastle was in such dire straights, with no optimism, there would not have been investors interested in a take over, of course I know they decided otherwise but if you could tell so much from the public accounts then why would they even bother investigating?

 

Don't some of the board also run Shepherd Offshore successufully?

 

The 'success' with Keegan came pre Shearer surely?

[koven]

Comparing Amazon and NUFC is again, quite ridiculous  - two entirely different business models, in different sectors and completely different funding structures.

 

Yeah, cos speculate to accumulate doesn't apply to any other industry apart from online bookstores...

[koven]

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]

 

 

I would like to see better success on the playing front as well but we've been up against a lot.  And you don't get success on the playing field without spending money.  You have to speculate to accumulate as they say.  Do you think we would have had the success with Keegan without spending a world record fee on Shearer?  No way.

 

The club has tried to do the same with Martins and Owen which of course will have a negative effect on the financial situation but the club is trying to get us into the UEFA cup/Champions League and they only way they can do this is by spending money.  Is the NUFC finances site yours btw?  I doubt you would have set it up/or continued if we had qualified for the champions league last year because we would have a much greater revenue.

 

Take Amazon again for example.  I'm not saying NUFC are as busines savvy as those guys but..  Anyway, they have still not made a profit, overall, the losses in the earlier days are larger than the current profits.  Yet they invested millions into the company, and it paid off.  They're steadily picking up profit.  In my opinion that's what NUFC are trying to do.  They aren't perfect but they're spending money in the hope that it'll pay off in the future.

 

If Newcastle was in such dire straights, with no optimism, there would not have been investors interested in a take over, of course I know they decided otherwise but if you could tell so much from the public accounts then why would they even bother investigating?

 

Don't some of the board also run Shepherd Offshore successufully?

 

The 'success' with Keegan came pre Shearer surely?

 

Partly, the argument still stands though.

 

Quote from wiki:

 

The 1995-96 season would see major team-strengthening, David Ginola, Les Ferdinand and others joining the squad. The team came close to winning the Premier League

 

Then we finished 2nd again with Shearer.

 

All i'm saying is you have to spend money to get success.

[Slugsy]

Comparing Amazon and NUFC is again, quite ridiculous  - two entirely different business models, in different sectors and completely different funding structures.

 

Yeah, cos speculate to accumulate doesn't apply to any other industry apart from online bookstores...

 

What an incredibly naive outlook on business. 

[macbeth]

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?

 

Except they started to give out longer, more expensive contracts bcefore the new Sky deal was agreed.

 

If the new money generally goes on the players wages, asit has since Sky started paying up, then all teams will have to pay more, and no one (palyers apart) is any better off

[koven]

Comparing Amazon and NUFC is again, quite ridiculous  - two entirely different business models, in different sectors and completely different funding structures.

 

Yeah, cos speculate to accumulate doesn't apply to any other industry apart from online bookstores...

 

What an incredibly naive outlook on business. 

 

Mate, there are fundamentals in business that apply to almost all sectors.

 

Hence why there is books about business in general and not "a book on how to run an online bookstore".

[Slugsy]

Comparing Amazon and NUFC is again, quite ridiculous  - two entirely different business models, in different sectors and completely different funding structures.

 

Yeah, cos speculate to accumulate doesn't apply to any other industry apart from online bookstores...

 

What an incredibly naive outlook on business. 

 

Mate, there are fundamentals in business that apply to almost all sectors.

 

Hence why there is books about business in general and not "a book on how to run an online bookstore".

 

Why don't you tell me about those fundamentals from your books, I'm all ears.

[Parky]

Comparing Amazon and NUFC is again, quite ridiculous  - two entirely different business models, in different sectors and completely different funding structures.

 

Yeah, cos speculate to accumulate doesn't apply to any other industry apart from online bookstores...

 

What an incredibly naive outlook on business. 

 

Mate, there are fundamentals in business that apply to almost all sectors.

 

Hence why there is books about business in general and not "a book on how to run an online bookstore".

 

There are dozens of links to the 'amazon model'...I do take your broader point. Altough where the analogy fails for me is that football isn't in real terms a blue sky business...Newcastle will never be worth a billion pounds regardless of brand development.  Football in the last decade has grown in financial terms PRIMARILY due to TV money.

 

You're not comparing us to this surely:

 

 

Financials

Sales:

$10.71 bil

 

Profits:

$190.00 mil

 

Assets:

$4.36 bil

 

Employees:

13,900

 

[Guest Knightrider]

Anyone who trusts a board with finances, a board that paid Blackburn Rovers to take their then soon-to-be-sacked manager off their hands, and then hand that manager a 5 year contract and some £50m plus is an idiot, seriously. And lets not even go into the whole Owen deal, that saw us offer a record amount at double what the competing club had offered, for a player who categorically stated "I don't want to sign for Newcastle United".

 

Or how about the board that sells a warehouse and rents it back at more than the sale cost.

 

As for planning, Africa does family planning better than we do planning.

[koven]

Comparing Amazon and NUFC is again, quite ridiculous  - two entirely different business models, in different sectors and completely different funding structures.

 

Yeah, cos speculate to accumulate doesn't apply to any other industry apart from online bookstores...

 

What an incredibly naive outlook on business. 

 

Mate, there are fundamentals in business that apply to almost all sectors.

 

Hence why there is books about business in general and not "a book on how to run an online bookstore".

 

Why don't you tell me about those fundamentals from your books, I'm all ears.

 

I don't understand.  What do you think they teach in business school?  On on business degrees?  There are general business practices that apply to nearly all businesses.  One being you can't not spend money and expect to be successful.

 

There are dozens of links to the 'amazon model'...I do take your broader point. Altough where the analogy fails for me is that football isn't in real terms a blue sky business...Newcastle will never be worth a billion pounds regardless of brand development.  Football in the last decade has grown in financial terms PRIMARILY due to TV money.

 

You're not comparing us to this surely:

 

 

Financials

Sales:

$10.71 bil

 

Profits:

$190.00 mil

 

Assets:

$4.36 bil

 

Employees:

13,900

 

Is it a coincidence that the most financially successful football clubs are also the most successful?

 

People are reading way too much into the Amazon thing.  The point was that Amazon spent millions of pounds even when they were making a loss because they were confident in their business model that that investment would pay off.

 

Arguably, the football industry is a lot safer.  Amazon were on unknown territory with similar dot.com businesses failing every day.  It's no secret in the football business than if you spend money, wisely, on good players you will be more successful in the league.  Chelsea is an extreme example of this.  And with that success comes a lot more money.

 

Quoting Amazon's turnover and profit is neither here nor there because that isn't the comparison I was making.  NUFC is stuck in Newcastle and has a limit on it's success.  Amazon has the whole world as a market.  We don't.

[Parky]

Comparing Amazon and NUFC is again, quite ridiculous  - two entirely different business models, in different sectors and completely different funding structures.

 

Yeah, cos speculate to accumulate doesn't apply to any other industry apart from online bookstores...

 

What an incredibly naive outlook on business. 

 

Mate, there are fundamentals in business that apply to almost all sectors.

 

Hence why there is books about business in general and not "a book on how to run an online bookstore".

 

Why don't you tell me about those fundamentals from your books, I'm all ears.

 

I don't understand.  What do you think they teach in business school?  On on business degrees?  There are general business practices that apply to nearly all businesses.  One being you can't not spend money and expect to be successful.

 

There are dozens of links to the 'amazon model'...I do take your broader point. Altough where the analogy fails for me is that football isn't in real terms a blue sky business...Newcastle will never be worth a billion pounds regardless of brand development.  Football in the last decade has grown in financial terms PRIMARILY due to TV money.

 

You're not comparing us to this surely:

 

 

Financials

Sales:

$10.71 bil

 

Profits:

$190.00 mil

 

Assets:

$4.36 bil

 

Employees:

13,900

 

Is it a coincidence that the most financially successful football clubs are also the most successful?

 

People are reading way too much into the Amazon thing.  The point was that Amazon spent millions of pounds even when they were making a loss because they were confident in their business model that that investment would pay off.

 

Arguably, the football industry is a lot safer.  Amazon were on unknown territory with similar dot.com businesses failing every day.  It's no secret in the football business than if you spend money, wisely, on good players you will be more successful in the league.  Chelsea is an extreme example of this.  And with that success comes a lot more money.

 

Quoting Amazon's turnover and profit is neither here nor there because that isn't the comparison I was making.  NUFC is stuck in Newcastle and has a limit on it's success.  Amazon has the whole world as a market.  We don't.

 

Yes that's what I meant by 'blue sky business'. See you learn summat everyday.

[koven]

Anyone who trusts a board with finances, a board that paid Blackburn Rovers to take their then soon-to-be-sacked manager off their hands, and then hand that manager a 5 year contract and some £50m plus is an idiot, seriously. And lets not even go into the whole Owen deal, that saw us offer a record amount at double what the competing club had offered, for a player who categorically stated "I don't want to sign for Newcastle United".

 

Or how about the board that sells a warehouse and rents it back at more than the sale cost.

 

As for planning, Africa does family planning better than we do planning.

 

To be fair we didn't offer 16 million for a laugh.  That was RM's valuation.  Not Liverpool or any other club would have got him for anything other than 16 million.  That's how I read it anyway.

[koven]

Comparing Amazon and NUFC is again, quite ridiculous  - two entirely different business models, in different sectors and completely different funding structures.

 

Yeah, cos speculate to accumulate doesn't apply to any other industry apart from online bookstores...

 

What an incredibly naive outlook on business. 

 

Mate, there are fundamentals in business that apply to almost all sectors.

 

Hence why there is books about business in general and not "a book on how to run an online bookstore".

 

Why don't you tell me about those fundamentals from your books, I'm all ears.

 

I don't understand.  What do you think they teach in business school?  On on business degrees?  There are general business practices that apply to nearly all businesses.  One being you can't not spend money and expect to be successful.

 

There are dozens of links to the 'amazon model'...I do take your broader point. Altough where the analogy fails for me is that football isn't in real terms a blue sky business...Newcastle will never be worth a billion pounds regardless of brand development.  Football in the last decade has grown in financial terms PRIMARILY due to TV money.

 

You're not comparing us to this surely:

 

 

Financials

Sales:

$10.71 bil

 

Profits:

$190.00 mil

 

Assets:

$4.36 bil

 

Employees:

13,900

 

Is it a coincidence that the most financially successful football clubs are also the most successful?

 

People are reading way too much into the Amazon thing.  The point was that Amazon spent millions of pounds even when they were making a loss because they were confident in their business model that that investment would pay off.

 

Arguably, the football industry is a lot safer.  Amazon were on unknown territory with similar dot.com businesses failing every day.  It's no secret in the football business than if you spend money, wisely, on good players you will be more successful in the league.  Chelsea is an extreme example of this.  And with that success comes a lot more money.

 

Quoting Amazon's turnover and profit is neither here nor there because that isn't the comparison I was making.  NUFC is stuck in Newcastle and has a limit on it's success.  Amazon has the whole world as a market.  We don't.

 

Yes that's what I meant by 'blue sky business'. See you learn summat everyday.

 

Well thanks lol, I have learned something new then.

[Slugsy]

Koven - I'll let you into a little secret - keep spending more than you have and eventually you can't borrow anymore to cover the deficit and you become insolvent! 

 

Spending is great while you have funds and investors to cover the losses but if you don't actually increase what comes in to cover that spending and the cost of your financing structure you get into some problems.

 

We keep spending but nothing is changing - actually, thats a lie, we are getting worse and generating less revenue.

[Guest Knightrider]

Koven, Amazon had funds running into their billions through VC funding and so forth, and could afford to make a loss.

[Guest Knightrider]

We keep spending but nothing is changing - actually, thats a lie, we are getting worse and generating less revenue.

 

Never mind though, the board will surely have some kind of plan in place to get us back on track, I mean who are we to question their wisdom - we don't run a football club.

[koven]

Koven - I'll let you into a little secret - keep spending more than you have and eventually you can't borrow anymore to cover the deficit and you become insolvent! 

 

Spending is great while you have funds and investors to cover the losses but if you don't actually increase what comes in to cover that spending and the cost of your financing structure you get into some problems.

 

We keep spending but nothing is changing - actually, thats a lie, we are getting worse and generating less revenue.

 

Well obviously, but we aren't spending at a rate that would induce insolvency in any way, shape or form.  It's already been established that the Sky revenue will cover our losses and any cut backs to the transfer fund will save money.

 

I don't think we're getting worse than under Souness tbh but nevertheless do you think spending less money would make us better?  How would this magical method work?

[Guest Knightrider]

Koven - I'll let you into a little secret - keep spending more than you have and eventually you can't borrow anymore to cover the deficit and you become insolvent! 

 

Spending is great while you have funds and investors to cover the losses but if you don't actually increase what comes in to cover that spending and the cost of your financing structure you get into some problems.

 

We keep spending but nothing is changing - actually, thats a lie, we are getting worse and generating less revenue.

 

Well obviously, but we aren't spending at a rate that would induce insolvency in any way, shape or form.  It's already been established that the Sky revenue will cover our losses and any cut backs to the transfer fund will save money.

 

I don't think we're getting worse than under Souness tbh but nevertheless do you think spending less money would make us better?  How would this magical method work?

 

If the board don't spend money we don't have in the summer, season ticket sales will fall even further, meaning reduced revenue anyway. There is no way out of this hole they have dug for themselves because the man they appointed isn't capable of bringing success to this club with or without money to spend.

[macbeth]

Koven - I'll let you into a little secret - keep spending more than you have and eventually you can't borrow anymore to cover the deficit and you become insolvent! 

 

Spending is great while you have funds and investors to cover the losses but if you don't actually increase what comes in to cover that spending and the cost of your financing structure you get into some problems.

 

We keep spending but nothing is changing - actually, thats a lie, we are getting worse and generating less revenue.

 

Well obviously, but we aren't spending at a rate that would induce insolvency in any way, shape or form.  It's already been established that the Sky revenue will cover our losses and any cut backs to the transfer fund will save money.

 

I don't think we're getting worse than under Souness tbh but nevertheless do you think spending less money would make us better?  How would this magical method work?

Koven - I'll let you into a little secret - keep spending more than you have and eventually you can't borrow anymore to cover the deficit and you become insolvent! 

 

Spending is great while you have funds and investors to cover the losses but if you don't actually increase what comes in to cover that spending and the cost of your financing structure you get into some problems.

 

We keep spending but nothing is changing - actually, thats a lie, we are getting worse and generating less revenue.

 

Well obviously, but we aren't spending at a rate that would induce insolvency in any way, shape or form.  It's already been established that the Sky revenue will cover our losses and any cut backs to the transfer fund will save money.

 

I don't think we're getting worse than under Souness tbh but nevertheless do you think spending less money would make us better?  How would this magical method work?

 

It probably wouldn't work in the sense that you'd like the team to improve. The thing is that demonstrably the overspending by £59 in 9 years did nothing but get us to mid-table medicority.

 

Most of the other sides in the Premiership, our competitors, will benefit from the new Sky money. We won't. All it will do will pay for the excess spending and poor overall running of the club of the last few years.

[ChezGiven]

Koven - I'll let you into a little secret - keep spending more than you have and eventually you can't borrow anymore to cover the deficit and you become insolvent! 

 

Spending is great while you have funds and investors to cover the losses but if you don't actually increase what comes in to cover that spending and the cost of your financing structure you get into some problems.

 

We keep spending but nothing is changing - actually, thats a lie, we are getting worse and generating less revenue.

 

Well obviously, but we aren't spending at a rate that would induce insolvency in any way, shape or form.  It's already been established that the Sky revenue will cover our losses and any cut backs to the transfer fund will save money.

 

I don't think we're getting worse than under Souness tbh but nevertheless do you think spending less money would make us better?  How would this magical method work?

Koven - I'll let you into a little secret - keep spending more than you have and eventually you can't borrow anymore to cover the deficit and you become insolvent! 

 

Spending is great while you have funds and investors to cover the losses but if you don't actually increase what comes in to cover that spending and the cost of your financing structure you get into some problems.

 

We keep spending but nothing is changing - actually, thats a lie, we are getting worse and generating less revenue.

 

Well obviously, but we aren't spending at a rate that would induce insolvency in any way, shape or form.  It's already been established that the Sky revenue will cover our losses and any cut backs to the transfer fund will save money.

 

I don't think we're getting worse than under Souness tbh but nevertheless do you think spending less money would make us better?  How would this magical method work?

 

It probably wouldn't work in the sense that you'd like the team to improve. The thing is that demonstrably the overspending by £59 in 9 years did nothing but get us to mid-table medicority.

 

Most of the other sides in the Premiership, our competitors, will benefit from the new Sky money. We won't. All it will do will pay for the excess spending and poor overall running of the club of the last few years.

 

We were the only ones who anticpated the increased revenue for next season?

 

I dont think you can say that we wont benefit where other more frugal clubs will. Everyone has had clear sight of this revenue change and will have acted upon it already.

 

I'd hazard that even Chelsea's financial plan over the next 4 seasons depends on it too. 

[Howaythelads]

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.

 

 

To think you moan about the tone of other people's posts. 

 

[Howaythelads]

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]

 

 

Grow up, ffs.

 

While you're at it, tell me again why you're now advocating that we should have bought more players in summer 2003. I think I must have missed it the first time you answered it.