Toonpack

But we are now doing what they've been doing for years The question is for "Mad Jock", I know your views, but they will change in September, unless you extend your "wait and see" period further. We are not running the club like Spurs and Liverpool, we are selling our best players to them and replacing them with inferior cheapos. We were superior to Spurs when the Halls and Shepherd owned NUFC, and Alan Sugar ran Spurs "like a business"....Spurs have never looked back since Sugar sold the club. Fact. Anyway, like I said, I bet "Mad Jock" doesn't respond to my replies to him. No extension, the summer is it, definitively. Although I do NOT expect to spend the full £35Mill (as that would be stupid), I would be happy with north of £20Mill net, say around £25Mill'd be splendid. Dunno about Mad Jock, but I've re-read the thread and can't see those answers very clearly BTW.

If we had, at the price they paid, we want shot. In your opinion. Liverpool don't agree, but of course, you think they do it all wrong and we get it spot on. That should give us over 35m quid plus a budget in keeping with a club with the revenues and ambitions that we ought to have then. Should be a soopa doopa transfer window, we'll leave the likes of Carlton Cole to the 2nd rate selling clubs, yes ? Was free money for Liverpool, if it hadn't come straight via Chelsea and had had to come out of the owners pocket NO WAY would they have offered anything like that. It's an absurd amount for "potential", shit it's an absurd amount even for fully developed potential (£5 Mill more than Berbatov, who was overpriced as well). It'll fucking kill you, if we reinvest it, won't it. That said I can hear it now "He's not good enough", "he should have bought player x,y,z instead" and of course if we have a net spend of a penny under £35Mill you'll be on the soapbox again. Of course when Enrique goes at least that'll perpetuate your selling club myth. Thank your mate for where we've been.

If we had, at the price they paid, we'd want shooting.

Tough shit. A few (relatively) get burned for the benefit of millions

So one bloke tries to poke a maid and "the markets" wobble (Dollar rises against Euro when it had been falling), costing severe amounts of money all over the place. Just shows the whole financial system is absurd. These global debts are NEVER going to be paid off EVER, it's not real money, write them off FFS !!!!

sorry mate. Can't say on here, but he's finished. Rumours of N word, caught on camera and Edu at Ibrox maybe ? Be very surprised if true mind, the Hun elements in the press'd be all over it surely.

But we are now doing what they've been doing for years

Is NUFC's year end. So the Carroll money (or whatever portion is being spent) will have to have been spent by then (on the assumption that we aren't still making losses) or it'll attract tax, which I would hope, even he ain't daft enough to let happen. If it's not spent by then, the next accounts will show he's reduced his exposure, I reckon. June could be interesting.

Agree and FWIW I fully expect the next TV deal to give some chairmen a sharp intake of breath, unless Platini's rules bite first and they're already ready, so to speak. The last deal was crazy, especially the overseas rights, Singapore broadcaster (I think it was) paid something like £200Mill for a place with a population of 5 Million.

But all income, irrespective of source, goes in at the top and then wages and the depreciation etc. contribute to the operating costs and therefore to the bottom line, yes ??

They've already said the Carroll money has to cover incoming fees and wages. 2 x £5m signings on 30k/week over 5.5 years and it's nearly all accounted for. Ah but, not that simple, because they amorticise, those £5Mill players actually only cost you £1 Mill this year "in the books" along with first year wages, IF you carry the portion of the £35 Mill that covers the rest of the price/contract forward to cover those costs, you'll be showing a profit next year and subsequently, in relation to that player, and thus will be taxed, that's not good, unless of course you use it to reduce debt (for example) he could do that. e.g. two players at £5Mill plus £30K/week for 5 years = £10Mill fees plus £15.6Mill wages = £25.6 Mill total. Your actual "cost" in the books first year is only £2 Mill (2x£5Mill divided by 5 for amortisation) plus £4.2 Mill wages = £6.2 Mill, so you'd have a surplus of £19.2Mill in the books which could put you into profit and thus taxation. What you have to make sure is that when you buy a player that year on year you can cover their amortisation cost from the fee plus their wages in the yearly lumps. That comes from each years revenue and profit/loss account. Would be unusual to carry "cash at bank" for 5 years to cover the whole thing, that said you would only get taxed on it once. How the fuck that works if you pay up front (as we supposedly do) and yet amorticise (which we definitely do) I haven't a bloody clue. You shell out £5 Mill up front but only charge it back yearly over the duration of the contract, which means you "really" hand over £5mill for a player (in this example) but declare it in the books as £1Mill - assuming a 5 year contract. My brain hurts !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The facts I post come from multiple sources and strange as it may seem I don't believe many clubs post their accounts (for example) on Skunkers. Not making excuses at all, just can see reasons, is all. P.S. I'm typing this from where I live, it's an NE postcode BTW, I do work out of the area though. Have you rationalised KK's contradiction yet ???

Who thinks he is "mint" ????? First sentence is spot on, what'll happen, we'll see. Do you have figures for these "ridiculously cheap rates" ??? or is it a guess ???

Agreed, although don't forget the wages circa £25 Mill Net would be extremely positive IMO, what it will be is anyone's guess.

No that's not what I said, what I said was that revenues (matchday and commercial) have all but plateau'd for the aforementioned clubs in the last 3 years and one area where they have generated additional revenue was in transfer activity. In fact if you take Man City - because they've done some "bucking the trend" commercial deals with middle eastern companies, what a surprise! out of the current top six (non TV) revenue has grown at a huge 3%. (it's only 5% with Man city in it). What I am saying is that profit on transfer activity is a perfectly valid income stream used to boost revenues by many many clubs. If you have an Oligarch or a Sheik you can buy 28/29 year old "top players" without caring that they'll be worth nothing when they've seen out their contracts. Otherwise, isn't it eminently sensible to buy younger players from who can recoup some "profit" when they've seen out their contracts, because soon as they've got a year left (in most cases) they're looking for a move, it's just the way it is. Profit on transfers is a funny thing, as far as the bottom line is concerned due to player amortisation. As such "resale value" doesn't mean you have to buy a player for £5Mill and hope he's worth £10Mill in 4 years time so you can make a profit. Even if you sell him after 3 years for what you paid for him, in the year of sale you'll have made a £3 Mill profit from his resale, as he's been written down as an expense at £1 Mill a year for the time he was with the club. BTW, What that also means is that IF we sold Enrique for £10 Mill, we don't have all that £10Mill to spend as "profit" we've actually only got £8.8 Mill because his residual value/cost in the accounts is £1.2 Mill with a year left. It's not a simple calculation, but buying with a view to having some resale value generates income for the club (which can either contribute to profit, cover losses or fund further purchases). Don't know where the table you refer to is, or comes from, but according to Spurs accounts, between 2005 and 2010 they've declared profits totalling £124.8 Million on players sales - I would suggest that IF they had made a loss on sales of £100Mill you'd definitely find it in the accounts as that'd reduce their tax bill, and they are a Jewish club after all . I would add that overall they've made profits on operations (before tax) of £80.4 Million in the same period. Even if your sources figures were correct and they have shelled out £100 Million net, they could have afforded much more, because even after that alledged level of spend, they still made significant year on year profits. Well within their means. I would add that (in their accounts) Man U, Arsenal and Liverpool have ALL declared profits on player transactions, every year, for the last 3 years. Deterioration just a slightly speedier bottoming out of where we were already headed (solely in my opinion). The relegation was the prime eroder of stature, I think the KK furore was a furore to Mags but in the wider context of club stature pretty tame (elsewhere). As for luck, maybe, better to be lucky than good sometimes. Bold bit, we'll see won't we. He can do himself some huge favours this summer (even within the means of the club), whether he does or not ....................................

Why can't you see the difference between where people want us be based on our stature and in an ideal world versus where they think finishing in the real world given the fact that we have an arsehole owner and limited resources compared with the teams above is reasonable? arsehole owner = correct limited resources [because of the arsehole owner] = correct compared to the teams above us = rubbish Which is the entire point. Could've been posted in 2007 that one (if pluralised)

Just as the money tap dried up, funny that.

Tell me a club that we are above in this division who probably have a higher wage bill than us please. Can't, the accounts covering this season aren't our for a while yet? Not that it means owt anyway. Where'd you expect to finish this season ?

Including KK ?? After all they're his contradictory statements.

Bastards, they've sold Tiote, oustide the transfer window an all, shit we're going to get in bother

17th is never acceptable for a club like NUFC. Sometimes it's realistic though it isn't, its totally unacceptable, its only "realistic" if you set your sights lower than they ought to be. We are not Bolton or Blackburn, playing in front of 15000 supporters and selling your best players to the likes of Spurs and Liverpool......oh, wait a moment..... Don't think we've sold anyone to Spurs particularly recently, seem to recall we sold one of our better players to Spurs once before though, Les something he was called.

17th is never acceptable for a club like NUFC. Sometimes it's realistic though

No different from their viewpoint - that's the point. As for your quote, finishing in the top 10 given that no money will be spent is realistic from their point of view. You've written off 4 teams, I'd extend that to 6 so a margin of 7th to 10th isn't that huge. Of course we all want to aim higher and achieve it but as in everything in life there is a cost for that - Ashley won't pay the cost so I don't see the point in the bravado of saying we want higher. so selling your best player is no different to keeping him ? 3rd bottom is no different to 3rd top ? They are both "failures" ? Aiming for 10th minimum is no different than aiming for top 4/5 minimum ? I'm trying to be patient here mate, but you're way off any logical common sense here. Anyway, I've got to go. FROM MAN UNITED'S POINT OF VIEW. It doesn't matter to them where we finish as long as it's not top - their standards not ours - tha's what matters to them. Chelsea are probably going to sack their manager for failing to win the league - with high expectations comes high price of failure. Of course we would all love to finish 2nd but because they now expect to win it, 2nd is failure. so you confirm that finishing 3rd bottom is no worse than 3rd top, and if you are going to only finish 3rd top there is no point in bothering ? Yet you and other idiots on skunkers etc will be doing cartwheels if we finish 10th this season ? Breathtakingly Fantastic. 17th would have been acceptable THIS season, 10th or above would be excellent.

you can look at it in any way you like, I'm not posting that comment from that book again. Others will also tell you, who actually know what they are talking about which you clearly do not, that this is correct. You thought I was telling porkies when I said Beardsley waved to the Kop until I showed you the proof too. You have no reason to disbelieve me again, unless you are deliberately being an arsehole. So fuck off. Leazes in accusing Keegan of not knowing what he's talking about shocker!!!!, but hey it was in a book.

Saxon were OK, they were nee Magnum mind