Toonpack

fucking great this man, on the one hand we have those [ie Toonpack - anything "Fred" did, lets do it differently] who think they dish out champions league and european places by virtue of your bank balance, and those of us who largely realise this is not the case. Glad I chose to un-ignore this post. Still making stuff up I see. Champions league places are "won" largely on ability to spend, which I would suggest equates to the health/depth of your (or your owners) bank balance. So indeed Champions League places are by virtue of said bank balance.

They are implicit based on what is available. If the club decides to spend £10m the 'budget' was £10m, if they decide to spend more, the budget was more. Its limited by what is available. When you've just transferred £5m to a club in France, thats £5m less available than you had the previous day. nice financial lessons Chez but are you saying NUFC are one of those clubs that need to sell to survive here ? No not at all, just establishing what is available and the limitations associated with it. There are 2 debates going on all the time, one is about where the club is in reality and the other is about what the club ought to do. If you dont understand the first, you cant have an informed discussion on the second. They wont do what they ought to do but if you think we are loaded and have £35m sloshing around doing nothing then we ought to spend at least that. If we are recovering from relegation and still have high wage costs, then perhaps they ought to spend a bit less. Ultimately they wont spend what they should but the level of disaffection should be tempered by knowing that there isnt quite the amount of money presumed to be available actually there. I'm not having either of those discussions at the moment. I'm sticking to the utter drivell that comes from the club which means the reality based discussion can't happen in the first place. There's only once a year that the reality based conversation changes, that's when the books come out. So we can look at the effect of the Carroll sale in about 9 or 10 months time. Why wait that long?? If there's been a policy change, it'll be evident by 1/9 and if that happens it'll be safe to accept that it was down to the Carroll money.

I can see both sides of this argument, Chez is right as far as Im concerned that the purchase was made in January however you'd be right to argue that the purchase wasnt a new one, we already had Ben Arfa and as far as the fans were aware we were planning on buying him regardless of whether Carroll stayed or went. To then include him as a "its alright we sold Carroll because we got Ben Arfa" would be a strange one. As has been said before, its too early to call either way on this transfer window. We've brought in some early and could continue to. On the other hand we could now get rid of all those that have been mentioned and end up in the brown stuff. Lets see come September, Im sure you can guess what I think the likely scenario is. As for Toonpacks statement that a transfer fee is not creative accounting, no the fee itself isnt but thats not what Oz was getting at, it was the inclusion of future wages into the whole spending of that income. We purchased Cabaye for £4.5m and are paying him £35k p/w on a 5 year contract which equates to a total outlay of £13.6m as far as the club are concerned. So out of the £35m Carroll money we now have £21.4m after Cabaye alone. Stick Ba on the same money and even on a free youve knocked another £9.1m off. Its very creative accounting. It works to a fashion if, when we sell players, we also add their remaining contract wages to the pot but you can be sure that wont happen. We've spent £13m on Cabaye but if we were to sell him next year for £10m say then you can bet your house that the value we get told we're spending is £10m and not £17m as it really should be. As for the original statement from Derek about it all going back into the club then yeah hes right but ultimately that equates to a saving for Ashley. I know that's what he was getting at. That income is club income just like any other, and thus wages have to be catered for out of the whole pot (which includes the Carroll cash and anything else). Just because it's a transfer fee in doesn't make it any different or mean it can be "ringfenced". p.s. According to the reports in France Cabaye is on £50K/week (60K Euros) I've said all along we "should" have a net spend of north of £20Mill, I still believe that is the case. As an aside, what's going to matter come 1st September the total the sum comes out at, or the content of the squad ??? (and before LM thinks I'm moving goalposts I'm not, it is a simple question)

Chez has common sense.

..and what about the loss of our leading scorer and most promising local player in some time? Completely different to selling a shirt. You surely must concede that. Andy Carroll is an asset to the club, one that would have helped to maintain premiership status, helped to sell those same shirts you talk about, would have sold the dream to the local youth coming through, kept fans entertained and attending matches, no doubt kept the tabloids going etc etc. We've been conned into thinking the sale of Carroll was too good to turn down because that money could easily be used to improve our squad. I'd stake my membership here on it. It is only different in terms of magnitude otherwise it is exactly the same. A club asset was sold for a price. Yeah, you're right. Anyone got the number for the Puma sweatshop? We'll get them to churn out some Andy Carrolls. Half a dozen or so at 35M a pop and we'll we debt free. I've seen the light. You're better than that. Don't be a spastic

..and what about the loss of our leading scorer and most promising local player in some time? Completely different to selling a shirt. You surely must concede that. Andy Carroll is an asset to the club, one that would have helped to maintain premiership status, helped to sell those same shirts you talk about, would have sold the dream to the local youth coming through, kept fans entertained and attending matches, no doubt kept the tabloids going etc etc. We've been conned into thinking the sale of Carroll was too good to turn down because that money could easily be used to improve our squad. I'd stake my membership here on it. It is only different in terms of magnitude otherwise it is exactly the same. A club asset was sold for a price. The club now has money, this summer it should use that money, I've said that all along. The sale of Carroll (at that price) was absolutely too good to turn down. We wait to see if that good is undone (or not).

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.