NUFC not the subject of the police raids - Statement

[Guest optimistic nit]

Teasy read gemmills post above, i think it is applicable to you (i think, i'm no accountant).

 

 

[Teasy]

He wasn't very specific on what he meant to be honest.  Looked to me like he was just saying that people shouldn't mistake a clubs normal income with the occasional player sale.  What did you think he meant and why do you think it applys specifically to my posts?

[ohmelads]

people who came here only because we payed them more (Duff, Emre and Owen)

 

and all the rest of the playing staff came here for the love of the club ?...they are all here because we were the best they could get.

 

Didn't Duff say he turned down Liverpool to come here? I get your point though.

 

Solano turned down Liverpool too but that's understandable given he's a hero here and never wanted to leave.

[Guest optimistic nit]

he says cash and profit are different things. you mention us spending lots but only having a small loss. If we spend a lot of cash, but had a negative profit according to what gemmill says this cash spending wouldn't have affected the profit, i think.

[Teasy]

Ah right, well the transfer fee's were included in the financial reports, so I don't know how that could be the case.  That's not how I read his post, though only Gemmil can tell us exactly what he meant I suppose.  I'd be interested to read what he thinks actually if he's got the time to write it all up

[Colos Short and Curlies]

he says cash and profit are different things. you mention us spending lots but only having a small loss. If we spend a lot of cash, but had a negative profit according to what gemmill says this cash spending wouldn't have affected the profit, i think.

 

Ok, I'll try and put this in laymans terms:

 

Profit for a football club is calculated as basically

 

Turnover - Wages - Running costs - Ammortisation

 

Ammortisation is a paper exercise of spreading the cost of players of the length of their orignal contracts therefore has no bearing on the cash available for reinvestment

 

i.e Turnover - Wages - Running Costs

 

Spending money on players does not affect the annual profit at the time of purchase, however will in the future (for example if you spend £40m this summer on players on 4 years contracts profit will be lower by £10m next year). This does not however impact on the amount of cash you have to reinvest next summer.

 

Hope that helps, bit difficult putting it into prose, crap at that sort of stuff

[Colos Short and Curlies]

Ah right, well the transfer fee's were included in the financial reports, so I don't know how that could be the case.  That's not how I read his post, though only Gemmil can tell us exactly what he meant I suppose.  I'd be interested to read what he thinks actually if he's got the time to write it all up

 

In the reports you get two figures:

 

(1) Profit pre trading (which is what a normal business would class as profit)

 

(2) Profit after player trading (net buys and sales) - this is specific to sports clubs (and football in particular)

 

To give it a personal slant,

 

(1) would be what you or I pay out each year for our mortgages, car loans, credit card bills etc

 

(2) Would show the value of your purchases

 

So if you bought a new house for £200,000 and a car for £20,000 and had a salary of £20,000 (of which you pay £5,000 for your house and £5,000 for your car):

 

(1) Shows a net 'profit' of £10,000

 

(2) Shows a 'loss' of £200,000

 

(this is very simplified accountancy btw so isn't 100% accurate but it gets the picture across!)

[Teasy]

That makes sense yeah, I thought all transfer costs wouldn't be included in one lump sum but I was sure some of it had to be included.  Anyway you look at it our spending has certainly had an effect and our profits over the years.  As I said earlier I think we would have made a large profit the year after Souness bought the likes of Owen and Luque (around £50 million spent) had he not done so (well it was Shepherd who did it, but you know what I mean).

 

But to be honest I think my whole argument is sort of over anyway if I'm right on my misunderstanding of Baggio's original post so..

[Dunedin]

Ah right, well the transfer fee's were included in the financial reports, so I don't know how that could be the case.  That's not how I read his post, though only Gemmil can tell us exactly what he meant I suppose.  I'd be interested to read what he thinks actually if he's got the time to write it all up

Teasy according to gemmil's profile She is a female.

[Teasy]

Oh right, imagine the S in that case   I'll try to remember in future.

[Colos Short and Curlies]

Oh right, imagine the S in that case   I'll try to remember in future.

 

Robots are non-gender specific

 

And most female acountants look like men anyway

[Mick]

 

Do we know if our debt has been written off by Ashley?

 

That alone should see us make up the deficit (not paying the loan fees, and getting the full whack from tickets) nevermind the extra cash from the TV deal.

 

Get a few more wasters off the wage bill and get back into Europe and we could have a profitable club like Spuds, only greater, bigger and better. 

 

Ashley owns the club so he owns the debt, I really can't see him holding the levels of debt that we probably have and paying interest to service them.  The interest rate on savings is usually less than the rate for borrowing although that isn't always the case as you can get a fixed rate while low and get more back when the interest rate is high.

[Dokko]

 

Do we know if our debt has been written off by Ashley?

 

That alone should see us make up the deficit (not paying the loan fees, and getting the full whack from tickets) nevermind the extra cash from the TV deal.

 

Get a few more wasters off the wage bill and get back into Europe and we could have a profitable club like Spuds, only greater, bigger and better. 

 

Ashley owns the club so he owns the debt, I really can't see him holding the levels of debt that we probably have and paying interest to service them.  The interest rate on savings is usually less than the rate for borrowing although that isn't always the case as you can get a fixed rate while low and get more back when the interest rate is high.

 

So you think he's got, or will get rid of it?

 

Its beneficial for all that it goes, even it its an interest free loan to himself.

[Mick]

 

So you think he's got, or will get rid of it?

 

Its beneficial for all that it goes, even it its an interest free loan to himself.

 

If you had £100 in your bank and were getting 50p extra back per year and you owed somebody £100 and that cost you £10, what would you do?

[Dokko]

 

So you think he's got, or will get rid of it?

 

Its beneficial for all that it goes, even it its an interest free loan to himself.

 

If you had £100 in your bank and were getting 50p extra back per year and you owed somebody £100 and that cost you £10, what would you do?

 

Agh, that's where i've been going wrong all this time...

[Mick]

 

Agh, that's where i've been going wrong all this time...

 

[ChezGiven]

The debt wont be held in the same place. The debt from the stadium makes up a proportion of that debt and is paid off each year from ticket sales. I doubt that will be touched. Other parts of the debt will be with the Northern Rock, who i presume we bank with. There may be other parts of the debt from elsewhere.

 

Imo, the debt with the bank will be paid off. Ashley has his own bankers. 

[TRon]

 

My point is with people ie supporters who say "we are better off without Bellamy" when we clearly are not. The same people who supported this player when he played for us and realised how influential he was ?

 

So what exactly is their problem. What exactly is your problem ?

 

Are such people saying that he is a good player if he plays for Newcastle, and a s*** player if he plays for someone else ?

 

Staggering that this needs to be explained.

 

Well maybe they are just saying that Bellamy was a decent player but not a fantastic one? It's not so "staggering" really, most people have come to the same conclusion after a while!

 

 

Your point about Gazza and Beardsley perhaps has deeper significance than you realise. If you begin by asking yourself why 2 NUFC supporting local lads chose to leave the club for bigger clubs with more ambition, and a Welsh player with no affinity whatsoever didn't really want to leave the club........

 

Think about it.

 

I don't expect MICK to get involved in this, its far too complicated for him

 

mackems.gif

 

I get your point...that Fat fred was a step up from the fossils that preceded him. Once we move beyond time warp factor though, don't mention Bellamy in the same breath as Gascoigne or Beardsley or you'll just end up looking like a ewe in heat on a Welsh sheep farm. There is no comparison.

 

 

[Matt]

The debt wont be held in the same place. The debt from the stadium makes up a proportion of that debt and is paid off each year from ticket sales. I doubt that will be touched. Other parts of the debt will be with the Northern Rock, who i presume we bank with. There may be other parts of the debt from elsewhere.

 

Imo, the debt with the bank will be paid off. Ashley has his own bankers. 

 

Now this may just be my memory going nuts, but is there not a payback or renegotiation clause on the stadium loan in the event of a change in ownership? Sure it was in an article about the US financier behind the deals.

[Teasy]

Well maybe they are just saying that Bellamy was a decent player but not a fantastic one? It's not so "staggering" really, most people have come to the same conclusion after a while!

 

I have to disagree completely, Bellamy was an excellent player for us.  Not just his pace and ability to worry defenders and open up space for others.  But the fact that everytime you saw his name on the team sheet you knew you'd have at least one player giving everything to win.  He was flawed obviously, with his injuries and his disciplinary problems.  But I'll always remember his time here with a lot of fondness, even if he is a bit of a w******

[Colos Short and Curlies]

The debt wont be held in the same place. The debt from the stadium makes up a proportion of that debt and is paid off each year from ticket sales. I doubt that will be touched. Other parts of the debt will be with the Northern Rock, who i presume we bank with. There may be other parts of the debt from elsewhere.

 

Imo, the debt with the bank will be paid off. Ashley has his own bankers.  

 

We actually bank with Barclays, well we certinly did pre-takeover

[NE5]

 

My point is with people ie supporters who say "we are better off without Bellamy" when we clearly are not. The same people who supported this player when he played for us and realised how influential he was ?

 

So what exactly is their problem. What exactly is your problem ?

 

Are such people saying that he is a good player if he plays for Newcastle, and a s*** player if he plays for someone else ?

 

Staggering that this needs to be explained.

 

Well maybe they are just saying that Bellamy was a decent player but not a fantastic one? It's not so "staggering" really, most people have come to the same conclusion after a while!

 

 

Your point about Gazza and Beardsley perhaps has deeper significance than you realise. If you begin by asking yourself why 2 NUFC supporting local lads chose to leave the club for bigger clubs with more ambition, and a Welsh player with no affinity whatsoever didn't really want to leave the club........

 

Think about it.

 

I don't expect MICK to get involved in this, its far too complicated for him

 

mackems.gif

 

I get your point...that Fat fred was a step up from the fossils that preceded him. Once we move beyond time warp factor though, don't mention Bellamy in the same breath as Gascoigne or Beardsley or you'll just end up looking like a ewe in heat on a Welsh sheep farm. There is no comparison.

 

 

I would not mention Bellamy in the same breath as Gazza and Beardsley and neither would I mention Shepherd and Hall, NUFC's league positions, and qualifications for europe between the years 1992-2007 in the same breath either in comparison to the clubs "achivements" between the late 1950's and 1992, the directors, and qualification for europe either. Unlike MICK, who thinks it is all "just the same"

 

You can carry on making things up or presuming things if you like. It is pretty normal for some people to do this, it would seem.

 

 

 

 

[NE5]

Well maybe they are just saying that Bellamy was a decent player but not a fantastic one? It's not so "staggering" really, most people have come to the same conclusion after a while!

 

I have to disagree completely, Bellamy was an excellent player for us.  Not just his pace and ability to worry defenders and open up space for others.  But the fact that everytime you saw his name on the team sheet you knew you'd have at least one player giving everything to win.  He was flawed obviously, with his injuries and his disciplinary problems.  But I'll always remember his time here with a lot of fondness, even if he is a bit of a w******

 

Exactly. Spot on. And nailed.

 

Take him on his own merits, and this is absolutely correct. But some people will simply change their opinion when he plays for someone else. How sad.

 

 

[TRon]

Well maybe they are just saying that Bellamy was a decent player but not a fantastic one? It's not so "staggering" really, most people have come to the same conclusion after a while!

 

I have to disagree completely, Bellamy was an excellent player for us.  Not just his pace and ability to worry defenders and open up space for others.  But the fact that everytime you saw his name on the team sheet you knew you'd have at least one player giving everything to win.  He was flawed obviously, with his injuries and his disciplinary problems.  But I'll always remember his time here with a lot of fondness, even if he is a bit of a w******

 

So you disagree on some things, but presumably agree that he wasn't a good finisher. Quite a big flaw for a striker though...

[TRon]

 

My point is with people ie supporters who say "we are better off without Bellamy" when we clearly are not. The same people who supported this player when he played for us and realised how influential he was ?

 

So what exactly is their problem. What exactly is your problem ?

 

Are such people saying that he is a good player if he plays for Newcastle, and a s*** player if he plays for someone else ?

 

Staggering that this needs to be explained.

 

Well maybe they are just saying that Bellamy was a decent player but not a fantastic one? It's not so "staggering" really, most people have come to the same conclusion after a while!

 

 

Your point about Gazza and Beardsley perhaps has deeper significance than you realise. If you begin by asking yourself why 2 NUFC supporting local lads chose to leave the club for bigger clubs with more ambition, and a Welsh player with no affinity whatsoever didn't really want to leave the club........

 

Think about it.

 

I don't expect MICK to get involved in this, its far too complicated for him

 

mackems.gif

 

I get your point...that Fat fred was a step up from the fossils that preceded him. Once we move beyond time warp factor though, don't mention Bellamy in the same breath as Gascoigne or Beardsley or you'll just end up looking like a ewe in heat on a Welsh sheep farm. There is no comparison.

 

 

I would not mention Bellamy in the same breath as Gazza and Beardsley and neither would I mention Shepherd and Hall, NUFC's league positions, and qualifications for europe between the years 1992-2007 in the same breath either in comparison to the clubs "achivements" between the late 1950's and 1992, the directors, and qualification for europe either. Unlike MICK, who thinks it is all "just the same"

 

You can carry on making things up or presuming things if you like. It is pretty normal for some people to do this, it would seem.

 

 

 

 

 

What about the board in 1927? I think you missed that part and how it was linked to Bellamy being a good lad and a mediocre finisher. Care to elaborate?