Jump to content

NUFC Finance's


Recommended Posts

Man invents wheel tbh and it hasn't got the Luque and Owen deals on.

29067[/snapback]

 

 

The bit covering money paid in dividends to Shepherd & Hall families is worth a look, i don't know much about this but i think the Luque & Owen deals will be on next years accounts, can any accounting genius on here clarify that?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Said this for a while. Yes I know the Halls [not FF] are apparently taking about 4m out of the club a year [might be wrong, accounting whizz kids ..... ] and it's a lot, but not a lot in football terms either. It would hardly make that big a difference to our success on the pitch, especially if the managers blow it on crap like they have done.

 

All our managers have had more than enough money to be successful in my view, and if they were, none of us would be too bothered about these accounts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Can't seriously be having a go at what they have took out of our club after jut spending £26m in 2 weeks can you?

29078[/snapback]

 

I didn't think that was their own money, sorry, i didn't know. In that case i'm surprised the Shepherd & Hall families would spend that much of their own £££ on NUFC players.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The total net amount spent on transfer fees since 1998 is just under £64m or roughly an average of £8m per season.

 

Compare that with Liverpool who have spent £113m on players in the same period. They have played more seasons in Europe than us, won an FA Cup, two League Cups and the Uefa Cup, and are now the CL semi-finalists Finalists. winners.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Man invents wheel tbh and it hasn't got the Luque and Owen deals on.

29067[/snapback]

 

 

The bit covering money paid in dividends to Shepherd & Hall families is worth a look, i don't know much about this but i think the Luque & Owen deals will be on next years accounts, can any accounting genius on here clarify that?

29070[/snapback]

 

Accounting genius reporting for duty.

 

Confirmed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Said this for a while. Yes I know the Halls [not FF] are apparently taking about 4m out of the club a year [might be wrong, accounting whizz kids ..... ] and it's a lot, but not a lot in football terms either. It would hardly make that big a difference to our success on the pitch, especially if the managers blow it on crap like they have done.

 

All our managers have had more than enough money to be successful in my view, and if they were, none of us would be too bothered about these accounts.

29086[/snapback]

 

Genuine question: Do the Directors at other clubs get paid the same? Are any of them on performance related pay? Is our club normal in this respect?

Link to post
Share on other sites
The total net amount spent on transfer fees since 1998 is just under £64m or roughly an average of £8m per season.

 

Compare that with Liverpool who have spent £113m on players in the same period. They have played more seasons in Europe than us, won an FA Cup, two League Cups and the Uefa Cup, and are now the CL semi-finalists Finalists. winners.

29096[/snapback]

 

Links pse.

 

And what about Arsenal ?

Edited by LeazesMag
Link to post
Share on other sites

Liverpool transfer activity since 1998.

 

Spending = £180.25m

Transfer fees received = £69.565m

Net Spend = £110.685m

Average per season = £13.835m

 

(source = http://www.lfc-1.com/general/transfers.asp)

 

Newcastle transfer activity since 1998.

 

Spending = £183.88m

Received = £95.875m

Net Spend = £88.005m

Average = £11m

 

(source = www.nufc.com)

 

Not a great difference, and considering the amount of extra money Liverpool have received over the years from better cup runs, bigger worldwide fanbase, etc, I think our board has done very well to make us compete with them in the transfer market. Plus, we've had our stadium extension, I bet Liverpool's spending dips dramatically when they move to the "New" Anfield shortly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thougth at first impression 8m was a bit low.

 

You also have to take into consideration the money we have spent/spending on the ground. Liverpool haven't done this. It all counts.

 

That chart gets some people wound up, but I think those who do are just using it as a stick to beat the board with because they have it in their minds that because we have won nothing, it's because the board haven't stumped up cash ie the answer to all ills is to spend money. It isn't.

 

Arsenal have spent less than us, pretty sure about that, but would like a link.

 

If Liverpool have spent more than us, net, in the last 8 years or so, then that makes us the 4th biggest spenders, not 3rd. Hardly a disaster .............

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Despite his many faults, the only reason people think Shepherd doesn't back his managers is because they haven't seen, or forgotten what it was like, to have a chairman who didn't back his managers.

 

I agree with Gemmil that Liverpools net spend sounds a lot, and if true must have something to do with the fact they wouldn't match our bid for Owen !!!!!!

 

ChocChip...I think the directors are paid according to their "job"...ie differently, the only person who takes a significant "wage" is Shepherd, as chairman. The others are mainly divis like everyone else who has shares, although much has been made of the Gibraltar connection, but that is mainly Dogless so I believe, someone else will have to go into that one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think people feel its disgrace for the Directors to take ANY serious money out of the club that could be spent on players TBH

 

especially Dougie.................

29252[/snapback]

 

Again though, we don't know the ins and outs.

 

Is it totally unfeasable that when Sir John Hall invested a lot of his own personal millions into the club, he agreed that once the club was stable and able to run self-sufficiently, the family could regain the money they put in?

 

Serious question.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some people say he didn't put in the money mate, just made guarantees. Of course, even if he did that, he took a risk and deserved some rewards.

 

Whether he has had more than enough for his efforts though, is open to question. Remember though, it was Sir John who did it, not Dogless.

 

Personally I haven't got an issue with giving out divis if they are justified, I say that because I'm as pissed off as anyone at the close shaves we've had and after decades of not winning owt I want to win the FA Cup soon, if not the title of course,

and want to be there to see it too, having suffered all our 4 Wembley Cup Final defeats.

 

I also don't have a problem with some of the board ie Freddie getting paid, why should anyone work for nowt ?

 

The main problem to me is the money which goes to Gibraltar if this is in large amounts. The club has backed it's managers enough to be successful, but the point Rob makes is relevant to this area, at least it is for me.

 

So, I think it is very unfair to heap all the blame onto Shepherd, he isn't even the biggest shareholder, nor does he have overall control of the club. I just wish he would keep his gob shut and stop making himself look stupid in the press. I also don't agree with the view that it is "our money". It isn't, once you have spent on something at the club, it's the clubs - like anything else you buy !

 

And I'm not sticking up for Shepherd....HE/THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE APPOINTED SOUNESS !

Link to post
Share on other sites

from the finance site :-

 

The club in 1989, the Halls takeover :

 

The club had assets of £7m and it had revenue of £4m per year. (Amazingly small figures compared with now). It is believed that John Hall had to pay £6m to take over the club at this point. (We don't have proof of this, it was the figure mentioned in the press at the time, again any help would be appreciated).

 

As the club was in a desperate financial situation Hall put a further £775,000 in to help, and then spent a further £1.6m to end up with 79% of the shares. Our estimate is that it cost him £8.3m to own the club.

 

 

 

Since 1998 the Hall family have taken out just over £12m from the club, plus the £4.5m for the sale of some shares. So nearly £17m had gone to Douglas and Sir John Hall.

Link to post
Share on other sites
from the finance site :-

 

The club in 1989, the Halls takeover :

 

The club had assets of £7m and it had revenue of £4m per year. (Amazingly small figures compared with now). It is believed that John Hall had to pay £6m to take over the club at this point. (We don't have proof of this, it was the figure mentioned in the press at the time, again any help would be appreciated).

 

As the club was in a desperate financial situation Hall put a further £775,000 in to help, and then spent a further £1.6m to end up with 79% of the shares. Our estimate is that it cost him £8.3m to own the club.

 

 

 

Since 1998 the Hall family have taken out just over £12m from the club, plus the £4.5m for the sale of some shares. So nearly £17m had gone to Douglas and Sir John Hall.

29278[/snapback]

 

And the 10s of millions they will make upon selling the shares they purchased, of course.

Edited by 80-2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Can't seriously be having a go at what they have took out of our club after jut spending £26m in 2 weeks can you?

29078[/snapback]

 

That wasn't their money though was it. It was our money that we've ploughed into the club through ticket and merchendise sales, and via Sky Sports for our subscriptions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Can't seriously be having a go at what they have took out of our club after jut spending £26m in 2 weeks can you?

29078[/snapback]

 

That wasn't their money though was it. It was our money that we've ploughed into the club through ticket and merchendise sales, and via Sky Sports for our subscriptions.

29290[/snapback]

 

It isn't. If you buy a pair of jeans, it's the shops. If you buy a fridge, it's the shops, ultimately the company. If you buy a ticket for the match, it's the clubs !

 

They are supposed to re-invest in top players befitting Newcastle United, and run the football club at a high level and compete for top quality players with the money, which they have done. Although, they don't have to. The old directors didn't and there are plenty of other clubs that don't, or don't take risks. There is one 12 miles down the road who are run by a bunch of utter crap directors for instance.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Can't seriously be having a go at what they have took out of our club after jut spending £26m in 2 weeks can you?

29078[/snapback]

 

That wasn't their money though was it. It was our money that we've ploughed into the club through ticket and merchendise sales, and via Sky Sports for our subscriptions.

29290[/snapback]

 

It isn't. If you buy a pair of jeans, it's the shops. If you buy a fridge, it's the shops, ultimately the company. If you buy a ticket for the match, it's the clubs !

 

They are supposed to re-invest in top players befitting Newcastle United, and run the football club at a high level and compete for top quality players with the money, which they have done. Although, they don't have to. The old directors didn't and there are plenty of other clubs that don't, or don't take risks. There is one 12 miles down the road who are run by a bunch of utter crap directors for instance.

29320[/snapback]

 

I don't think he was doing anything other than making it clear that the £17m or so that has been spent this Summer (a net figure, based on transfers in recent times, ignoring various other sources of revenue) were not personal funds injected by the Halls and/or Shepherds. Phrases like "getting his wallet out" only further establish a mis-conception/falsehood that money outlayed is something we should be particularly thankful for, when those in charge are merely doing their job of spending the club's money (money which has recently departed our pockets - arguments about whether we're consumers, donors or spiritual owners of the club are for another thread). Whether they spend the money spend, horde or invest the money wisely is left for us individuals to judge.

 

Do people who were singing "Shepherd Out" and "Sack the Board" at Bolton honestly think a new chairman or board, with the same finances, would have gone and spent £28m in a week?

29297[/snapback]

 

Those who guide Bolton plan their strategy around one central fact - they guide Bolton. As Maynard Keynes said, "When the facts change, I change my mind - what do you do?". Should the people at Bolton come to Newcastle, they would, in all likelihood, approach things in quite a different manner, applying their financial nouse in ways appropriate to their new surroundings. There would be greater income, greater natural momentum and, generally speaking, greater potential.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Can't seriously be having a go at what they have took out of our club after jut spending £26m in 2 weeks can you?

29078[/snapback]

 

That wasn't their money though was it. It was our money that we've ploughed into the club through ticket and merchendise sales, and via Sky Sports for our subscriptions.

29290[/snapback]

 

It isn't. If you buy a pair of jeans, it's the shops. If you buy a fridge, it's the shops, ultimately the company. If you buy a ticket for the match, it's the clubs !

 

They are supposed to re-invest in top players befitting Newcastle United, and run the football club at a high level and compete for top quality players with the money, which they have done. Although, they don't have to. The old directors didn't and there are plenty of other clubs that don't, or don't take risks. There is one 12 miles down the road who are run by a bunch of utter crap directors for instance.

29320[/snapback]

 

I don't think he was doing anything other than making it clear that the £17m or so that has been spent this Summer (a net figure, based on transfers in recent times, ignoring various other sources of revenue) were not personal funds injected by the Halls and/or Shepherds. Phrases like "getting his wallet out" only further establish a mis-conception/falsehood that money outlayed is something we should be particularly thankful for, when those in charge are merely doing their job of spending the club's money (money which has recently departed our pockets - arguments about whether we're consumers, donors or spiritual owners of the club are for another thread). Whether they spend the money spend, horde or invest the money wisely is left for us individuals to judge.

 

Do people who were singing "Shepherd Out" and "Sack the Board" at Bolton honestly think a new chairman or board, with the same finances, would have gone and spent £28m in a week?

29297[/snapback]

 

Those who guide Bolton plan their strategy around one central fact - they guide Bolton. As Maynard Keynes said, "When the facts change, I change my mind - what do you do?". Should the people at Bolton come to Newcastle, they would, in all likelihood, approach things in quite a different manner, applying their financial nouse in ways appropriate to their new surroundings. There would be greater income, greater natural momentum and, generally speaking, greater potential.

29433[/snapback]

 

You could equally apply that criteria to the directors of the likes of Villa, Leeds, Everton, mackems, Spurs, for instance, over the years. They all have greater potential than Bolton too. In fact, how many of those have spent the money we have and attempted to compete at the level we have done in the last decade ?

 

Whether or not they spend the money wisely ? Now that is a question that should be aimed at the managers, unless you think it is the chairman who chooses who to buy and sell, which he doesn't.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...