Toonpack

Like the money received for a new shirt in the club shop, a transfer fee received is just income to the club, it's not creative accounting, why don't some people get this ???

He's an arsehole, some type of long term WUM. Speaking of arseholes, you still banned on Skunkers Waiting for that screenshot, Oh and the proof that one of my posts some time ago was "pish", you never followed that up either. Shouldn't you be having a little pre-pubescent lass-like tantrum on twitter about someone calling Man U "united" or something.

I'm 53 years old In my opinion, he did. He could have done it significantly better, I accept. (within the boundaries of what it means "going bust" to a football club, not the commercial world) The one stick you cannot beat Ashley with is the "trousering cash" related one. My earlier post is purely factual, it is/was not a healthy position, what's hard to understand about that ??? Fortunately we have a dimwit Billionaire who can afford to cover his screw ups, but a goodly amount of the "hole" was not of his making. I mean come on, you'd think paying off managers was an Ashley invention the way some are going on. It's not a bed of roses now but it hasn't been for a long, long time.

Your stance on this would indicate that you would chalk off Ashley selling 100M of players (losses that have been made by the club since he bought it) to simply balancing the books. As though the fans who keep the club going should have to suffer his ongoing incompetence without so much as a question of where the money is being spent. Sacking managers and having to pay them out, undermining managers and having to pay them out, undermining the team and failing to strengthen when required resulting in relegation and subsequent massive loss of TV money, corporate revenue, sponsorship money etc, signing Alan Smith all direct actions undertaken by Mike Ashley and his elect and all resulting in a the loss of a metric fuckton of cash. But that's ok because he owns the club and can do whatever the fuck he wants with it. You can point your self-indulgent condescending wanker of a finger at whomever you like, but in the end it just highlights what a completely compliant cunt you are on this issue. Might as well pop some glasses on and call yourself Dekka. oooh name calling, what shall I do

Fuck off you condescending cunt. You know exactly what the conversation was about and you want to turn it into a justification of Ashley's woos. Forgetting the fact he deserves everything he gets for not performing due diligence on the club's finances when he bought it, the over inflated wages for players like Smith, the relegation, the payouts to dismissed managers are all his own doing. And you want to justify him not spending the fund because of his own ineptness. The conversation before you "showed me" was about this season/transfer window. About him balancing his current incomings to his current outgoings. Not him pocketing a large wedge because he's a fuck up. What's a woos ?? This years transfer buget (the fund) is not yet known or evidenced, the frugality of the recent past is rooted in the slightly more distant past as shown by my earlier post. YES he'd done himself no favours, indeed he's deepened the hole, but it was a big hole already. It's cost no-one money but himself. Your "pocketing a large wedge" comment just highlights your stupidity. Around £150,000,000.01 to go before he pockets even that one penny. BTW £52 Million is the wedge previously pocketed by others. Glad he didn't do due dilligence mind, he'd have run off (like the other potential buyers did) and then where'd we be ?? As for the over inflated wages, isn't that what you're all shouting for now ??

Here I’ll give you a clue (from the accounts): 2005 we made £600K profit, helped by a £13.4 profit on player sales, if we hadn’t made a profit on sales we would have made a loss of £12.8Million (plus the cost of whatever the wages were for those sold players). 2006 we made a £12 Mill loss, helped by a £5.2Mill profit on player sales, if we hadn’t made a profit on sales we would have made a loss of £17.2Million (plus the cost of whatever the wages were for those sold players). 2007 we made a £34.2 Mill loss, including a £2.1Mill deficit on player sales. 2008 we made a £20.3 Mill loss, helped by a £10.8Mill profit on player sales, if we hadn’t made a profit on sales we would have made a loss of £31.1Million (plus the cost of whatever the wages were for those sold players). 2009 we made a £15.2 Mill loss, helped by a £23.4Mill profit on player sales, if we hadn’t made a profit on sales we would have made a loss of £38.6Million (plus the cost of whatever the wages were for those sold players). 2010 we made a loss of £30Mill-ish not sure what the player trading figure is but it's a surplus. Add up the losses, that’ll show where the money’s gone. This year we should break even, even have a surplus (thanks to the Carroll cash). It is money we can spend without “you know who” putting his hand in his pocket any further than it already is. Whether he chooses to spend or recoup, we’ll find out. The transfer surplus in the OP would have had to happen no matter who the owner was (absent a Sheik or Oligarch). I would go further and suggest, it would have had to be significantly more vicious if we didn't have an owner who could cover circa £20Mill a year (on top of the cuts that have happened). Sorry but that's a completely different conversation. How?? You asked where'd the money go, I showed you. If it's beyond your comprehension, I apologise.

Bet that was to me Did he explain how we could spend money, did he disect and destroy my post, or did he just drivel hmmmmmmmmmm You have chosen to ignore all posts from: LeazesMag. · View this post · Un-ignore LeazesMag Yeah I know but a quick ctrl/v sorts it out

Bet that was to me Did he explain how we could spend money, did he disect and destroy my post, or did he just drivel hmmmmmmmmmm

Oui. See my post above. Irrelevant to the impact of spending the money as we havent spent anything yet. All i'm doing is pointing out the basic maths. Really, you better tell deano then so he can include Messi in his next starting line up. btw chez, are you? Because really, in the god's honest truth, what has "team negative" concerned is when we get down to brass tacks, so far - as I've pointed out - there is a lot of notes in, wages have been cleared off the books and sweet fuck all spent.We ALL hope this changes between now and Sept 1 but history isn't on our side. Here I’ll give you a clue (from the accounts): 2005 we made £600K profit, helped by a £13.4 profit on player sales, if we hadn’t made a profit on sales we would have made a loss of £12.8Million (plus the cost of whatever the wages were for those sold players). 2006 we made a £12 Mill loss, helped by a £5.2Mill profit on player sales, if we hadn’t made a profit on sales we would have made a loss of £17.2Million (plus the cost of whatever the wages were for those sold players). 2007 we made a £34.2 Mill loss, including a £2.1Mill deficit on player sales. 2008 we made a £20.3 Mill loss, helped by a £10.8Mill profit on player sales, if we hadn’t made a profit on sales we would have made a loss of £31.1Million (plus the cost of whatever the wages were for those sold players). 2009 we made a £15.2 Mill loss, helped by a £23.4Mill profit on player sales, if we hadn’t made a profit on sales we would have made a loss of £38.6Million (plus the cost of whatever the wages were for those sold players). 2010 we made a loss of £30Mill-ish not sure what the player trading figure is but it's a surplus. Add up the losses, that’ll show where the money’s gone. This year we should break even, even have a surplus (thanks to the Carroll cash). It is money we can spend without “you know who” putting his hand in his pocket any further than it already is. Whether he chooses to spend or recoup, we’ll find out. The transfer surplus in the OP would have had to happen no matter who the owner was (absent a Sheik or Oligarch). I would go further and suggest, it would have had to be significantly more vicious if we didn't have an owner who could cover circa £20Mill a year (on top of the cuts that have happened).

Sorry maybe I'm as thick as leaze, sorry steve I know you're not think. But fuck me is that not a load of shite. Where in all that are you accounting for wages off the current wage bill? Just accounting for Carroll and Nolan, there is 80k a week. Plus the rumoured 20k big Sol was on. You guys take every opportunity to beat Leaze with your stick but be fair and account for what is there or not as the case maybe. I wasnt actually trying to do the NUFC accounts, i was posting on a messageboard trying to illustrate a point. I dont take every opportunity to beat anyone, i'm just trying to keep the discussions grounded in reality. However, just for you, try to ignore the ins and outs and just focus on the numbers as a thought exercise: The club is breaking even (wages + costs = revenue). It gains £30m from a transfer. It spends £30m on a new player. Wages increase by £10m. Revenue stays the same (wages + £10m + costs > revenue). Just trying to make sure everyone gets it. Oh great. btw, you never mentioned anything about "transfer fees." But it's never that way is it? Which is what Leaze keeps harping on about. tbf, none of us have a fucking clue what is going on financially at NUFC and to assume otherwise, "while making a point" is complete marde. What way is it then ??? Enlighten us, please.

You want a RT off someone so you make up a lie that you're doing a charity bicycle ride pmsl fuckin hehehehe ye a funny kid. As a total aside: The Slipknott v Justin Bieber video on youtube is class

No I didnt include those, simply the transfer fees and contracted wages for Ba, Marveaux and Cabaye but you have said wages should not be included, haven't you ? If you spend 35m on one or more players, you still have to pay them a wage. If the wage bill is already around 65% of turnover, then spending all the cash and leaving yourself with a higher wage bill will mean that costs could rise above turnover. You've spent all the cash and now are making a loss. It doesnt make any sense. There has to be a balance, only someone with no financial understanding would expect a club recovering from the financial losses of relegation to use all of the 30m on purchases. Its 30m too, not 35m as we bought Ben Arfa in January. we aren't supporting a "business" with trophies and european places given out for profits unfortunately Chez. They are only given for results on the pitch. And if you don't get results on the pitch, everything declines. There is no excuse for failing to give the manager the money from sales to make new purchases, if he chooses not to, then fair enough but it is highly unlikely that this is the case. As JawD pointed out, the wages saved from Carroll can be allocated towards wages for any new men, not the transfer fee. Stop speculating and you also go backwards. It is a business, its registered at Companies House, pays business taxes, employs people and contributes to the economy. As such 'money' the thing you find in you wallet, is fundamental to its operations and by operations i mean things like employees. Ignoring this will get you nowhere. I;m not going to argue but just think about this: We are currently breaking even (we hope, at best we break even this season). We currently have a wage bill of £65m which is at the limit since we are breaking even (important to grasp this bit) We have £35m to spend. We spend £35m on 4 players earning £10m a year. We are now losing £10m a year in the first year of their contracts. We have to borrow that money to pay them. Does that make sense? how many football clubs are currently in debt and have folded again ? Debt is a highly complex issue, it depends on who it is with, why it was secured, against what, at which rate. Lumping it under one term 'debt' make things easy but ignores the reality that across the PL, the debt structure is vastly different from club to club even if we say they are all 'in debt'. Thats why its best to focus on fundamentals: cash flow in and cash flow out. I hope you can see that spending every single penny of money generated from a transfer creats a cashflow problem if the club is only breaking even (or worse) before the transfer? This sort of cash loss is looked upon as very much an idiotic thing to do by banks, so if we then want to borrow to pay our wages the bank will call us muppets and charge us credit card levels of interest. Its very different to say, lending me money to leverage the ownership, build a stadium etc. These are solid investments. 'So we can pay our wages' is the worst reason in the world to create new debt. Saab are trying to sort a loan out today to pay their factory workers and its viewed as a calamity for them. This is basically what Portsmouth did, increased their wage bill beyond their means. He still won't "get it" man !! you're wasting your time. Wages come from the magic wages tree in the basement biodome at SJP, sadly that bastard Ashley refused to water it and carved his initials in its bark. Wouldn't have happened under the Halls and Shepherd, it got fed miracle grow and baby bio and all sorts in those days (and a good amount of horseshit) ......................

Aguero going to Juve evidently £22Mill, only £2Mill more than Henderson or two thirds of an Andy Carroll Fucking crazy

There are millions of books on every subject written by people who claim to be experts which are still complete and utter drivel. Haven't 54 teams went into administration? Yep, and if the protectionist "football creditors rule" didn't exist a goodly number of them would undoubtedly have ceased to be, of course they may have come back/been reborn as AFC Whoever.

No way in god's green earth they're going to sell him though. Am I right in thinking he left Man City for more money? That was I believe the story at the time, more money and happy to sit on the bench.

Has he pulled out the old, football clubs don't go bust like commercial businesses comparison and preposterous bollocks again

Cough cough, I haven't "embraced him" either. I believe the imposed financial policy was due to the shite left behind previously and I am pleased it's been gotten to grips with, furthermore I believe it was an absolute necessity. And yes I know the relegation made it worse, but it was beyond shite to start with. What his long term intentions will be, will be seen by 1st Sept. Either he want's to push on, or he want's to continue to trim to sell. We don't know yet. There is absolutely no proof as yet of "selling club" or lack of ambition IMO. There might be come 1/9. Nolan didn't move to West Ham because of ambition he moved because of the money/contract length (preposterous money/contract length an all). If WH and us had offered exactly the same deals (say 3 years at £45K a week) does anyone really think he'd have moved. The whole game is riddled with cunts top to bottom, owners to players, I don't trust any of them. What is the purpose of spending 5 years getting to grips with the clubs finances and getting the club spending within means...only then to go out and spend what is needed to start climbing higher? If he's not doing it now, and he's not done it before, he's never ever going to do it. And all the promises of 5 year plans, pushing on and steady growth are more lies. Nolan said what he wanted, the club said no and the manager didn't fight to keep his captain. Nolan might have accepted less....if anyone had shown an interest in retaining his services...much the same as Carroll. We don't know if he's not doing it now, we will by 1/9 The last sentence is beyond niaive The first sentence is beyond naive. Nope, it's a fact.

Cough cough, I haven't "embraced him" either. I believe the imposed financial policy was due to the shite left behind previously and I am pleased it's been gotten to grips with, furthermore I believe it was an absolute necessity. And yes I know the relegation made it worse, but it was beyond shite to start with. What his long term intentions will be, will be seen by 1st Sept. Either he want's to push on, or he want's to continue to trim to sell. We don't know yet. There is absolutely no proof as yet of "selling club" or lack of ambition IMO. There might be come 1/9. Nolan didn't move to West Ham because of ambition he moved because of the money/contract length (preposterous money/contract length an all). If WH and us had offered exactly the same deals (say 3 years at £45K a week) does anyone really think he'd have moved. The whole game is riddled with cunts top to bottom, owners to players, I don't trust any of them. What is the purpose of spending 5 years getting to grips with the clubs finances and getting the club spending within means...only then to go out and spend what is needed to start climbing higher? If he's not doing it now, and he's not done it before, he's never ever going to do it. And all the promises of 5 year plans, pushing on and steady growth are more lies. Nolan said what he wanted, the club said no and the manager didn't fight to keep his captain. Nolan might have accepted less....if anyone had shown an interest in retaining his services...much the same as Carroll. We don't know if he's not doing it now, we will by 1/9 The last sentence is beyond niaive

Cough cough, I haven't "embraced him" either. I believe the imposed financial policy was due to the shite left behind previously and I am pleased it's been gotten to grips with, furthermore I believe it was an absolute necessity. And yes I know the relegation made it worse, but it was beyond shite to start with. What his long term intentions will be, will be seen by 1st Sept. Either he want's to push on, or he want's to continue to trim to sell. We don't know yet. There is absolutely no proof as yet of "selling club" or lack of ambition IMO. There might be come 1/9. Nolan didn't move to West Ham because of ambition he moved because of the money/contract length (preposterous money/contract length an all). If WH and us had offered exactly the same deals (say 3 years at £45K a week) does anyone really think he'd have moved. The whole game is riddled with cunts top to bottom, owners to players, I don't trust any of them.

Yes. Link? Independant football finance guru: http://swissramble.blogspot.com/2010/12/ne...-black-and.html or this bloke: http://www.nufc-finances.org.uk/

I think the club could've done more to keep him if they'd really wanted to but he only left because West Ham made their offer, i.e. if he didn't want to leave and no one was out there willing to give him a better contract he wouldn't have gone anywhere. For a start it's a different situation to Barton because he has two years left on his current deal. True but there is a definite impression that if it's decided a player is surplus to requirements then they are made feel "unwelcome," no? Or is it just coincidence/speculation that Nolan, Barton and Carroll have all alluded to being made feel that way? I would suggest if West Ham were offering him £10K a week less, he'd have lived with any feeling of being unwelcome.

What you're forgetting is that it's Toontoon's fault that Ashley is now running down the club. He once inadvertently (though of course there's no proof) used the phrase "anyone but Fred" and the universe decided to unleash divine retribution on him and all the other doubters and force the Halls to sell to Ashley. Toontoon then forgets that it worked 15 years ago so there's no reason it won't work now. Arsenal didn't build the Emirates, Man Utd and Liverpool aren't underwritten by yanks and several lesser clubs aren't underwritten by millionaires, including "the likes of Bolton and Blackburn" as only Chelsea and Man City have been bought. There has also not been a credit crunch or recession so there's no reason the turnover of a North East business should fall or finance secured. On top of that the current owner won't do the obvious - invest his own money to benefit the club in the attempt to get that investment back unlike the previous owners who put vast pennies of their own wealth into the club. Enough fuel for a phrase bot meltdown?

An excellent post, from Toontoon off skunkers, that place full of morons as per LM (TT being one of LM's favourite morons):

I agree with most of that Marcos, we should be trying to sign top players but unfortunately we have become a selling club because Ashley does not have the ambition to match our exceptional fan base Did you buy that Ferrari or Bentley yet ???

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13827267 RIP Big Man