Old Board vs New Board

[JawD 31]

Jack of all trades and all that. No, hang on, that suggests he can play as a forward... Tbf, his commitment is beyond question its just his ability. I wouldnt like to say where his best role was. Type of player thats right up Fat Sams st so you never know (could end up at Real).

[Asprilla 96]

Jack of all trades and all that. No, hang on, that suggests he can play as a forward... Tbf, his commitment is beyond question its just his ability. I wouldnt like to say where his best role was. Type of player thats right up Fat Sams st so you never know (could end up at Real).

[Park Life 70]

Jack of all trades and all that. No, hang on, that suggests he can play as a forward... Tbf, his commitment is beyond question its just his ability. I wouldnt like to say where his best role was. Type of player thats right up Fat Sams st so you never know (could end up at Real).

 

Problem is that last inj at Man U robbed him of a lot of his mobility and pace, otherwise would still be a decent player. It's only his wages that bother me really if he was on say 30k, he'd be good back up for midfield.

[peasepud 59]

Wages at the hight water mark were 68% of income. Not totally club destroying but getting there. I'm guessing it's around 50-55% for now (till we get rid of Smith and argualbly Guti or Collo both rumoured to be on 60-70k bracket).

Im guessing its way higher than that, I assume you're working on the assumption of income being the same which as HF says is well down and I think its way more than we realise. We have little in the way of sponsorship, our main sponsor paid a fraction of what they did previously. Corporate is well down, Spurts Direct advertising boards around the ground are now in the majority so theres a major loss in income there. Merchandising, season ticket sales, pies n pints are all way below what they used to be when wages were 70%.

 

My argument all along is that theres a more sensible way to reduce the percentage of wages to turnover and thats to increase the turnover. The option taken was the shopkeeper method, ie sack staff, close shops and make savings there. This isnt a chain of charver clothes shops its a football club which only makes real money when its competing.

 

We also have to remember that any loss made by Shepherd included the 5m or so p/a that was paid in interest charges on the £70m debt, Ashely doesnt have that cost so there should have instantly been a £5m improvement, yet the opposite appears to have happened.

[Slightly Bemused 0]

The fact remains Ashleys taken that bar for 2007 and doubled the height of it....and some. About 18 times the growth in net debt that occured in Shepherd's last season.

 

 

It looks a bit like this....

 

 

Nice graph, maybe you can explain why the jump during Ashley's first year, what did he do to more than double the debt? You show the debt as being £70,000,000 then going up to £149,000,000. What influence did Ashley have on that considering that we actually finished higher up the league than the year before and our gates were also up?

[Slightly Bemused 0]

How has that happenned?

 

I'm guessing 50m of it is that he's just added the mortgage that became due to the debt.

 

I think so.

 

The £70m debt from 2007 became £124m immediatley due to clauses triggered from the sale.

 

 

Are you seriously trying to put that across as fact?

 

Where do you think this £54 million was hidden before the sale took place? Anything triggered by clauses due to the takeover was already in the accounts as debt. The only hidden debt was our sponsorship money from NR and Adidas showing up as future income when we'd already spent it. Other than that we had to pay an early settlement fee on top of the loan for the expansion, the mortgage as some people call it.

[Happy Face 29]

How has that happenned?

 

I'm guessing 50m of it is that he's just added the mortgage that became due to the debt.

 

I think so.

 

The £70m debt from 2007 became £124m immediatley due to clauses triggered from the sale.

 

 

Are you seriously trying to put that across as fact?

 

Where do you think this £54 million was hidden before the sale took place? Anything triggered by clauses due to the takeover was already in the accounts as debt. The only hidden debt was our sponsorship money from NR and Adidas showing up as future income when we'd already spent it. Other than that we had to pay an early settlement fee on top of the loan for the expansion, the mortgage as some people call it.

 

From NUFC Finances....

 

"The difference (between the reported debt in 2007 of £70m and £124m) comes from that change in the view of what Ashley did when he bought the club. What seems to have not been clear was that when he bought the club he would immediately have to pay off the mortgage on the stadium, as it wasn't listed in the previous accounts as being anything more than a long term loan.

 

This meant that in 2007 it looked as the the debt was £71m. When they realised that they had to pay off the mortgage they needed to add that extra amount in. It was also necessary to put money in to cover the £34m loss for that year."

[Slightly Bemused 0]

Im guessing its way higher than that, I assume you're working on the assumption of income being the same which as HF says is well down and I think its way more than we realise. We have little in the way of sponsorship, our main sponsor paid a fraction of what they did previously. Corporate is well down, Spurts Direct advertising boards around the ground are now in the majority so theres a major loss in income there. Merchandising, season ticket sales, pies n pints are all way below what they used to be when wages were 70%.

 

My argument all along is that theres a more sensible way to reduce the percentage of wages to turnover and thats to increase the turnover. The option taken was the shopkeeper method, ie sack staff, close shops and make savings there. This isnt a chain of charver clothes shops its a football club which only makes real money when its competing.

 

We also have to remember that any loss made by Shepherd included the 5m or so p/a that was paid in interest charges on the £70m debt, Ashely doesnt have that cost so there should have instantly been a £5m improvement, yet the opposite appears to have happened.

 

You don't have to guess about wage to turnover, it was 75.2% in 2007, it went down to 70.4% in 2008 but it shot up again during our relegation season to 82.55% and this was due to a rise in staff costs and a reduction in income. The drop to 70.4% was due to an increase in income as the staff costs went up slightly.

 

Do you not think the club have been trying to increase revenue? We do have Sports Direct all over the ground, my guess is that it's filling space and will go if anybody is prepared to pay for the space. Do you think Companies are trying to put money into the club and being turned away?

 

I'll also ask you this question and it has nothing to do with the massive profits we were making in the Championship as you obviously have no intention of discussing it. What influence do you think Ashley had in increasing our debt from £70 million to £149 million in his first year at the club?

[Slightly Bemused 0]

From NUFC Finances....

 

"The difference (between the reported debt in 2007 of £70m and £124m) comes from that change in the view of what Ashley did when he bought the club. What seems to have not been clear was that when he bought the club he would immediately have to pay off the mortgage on the stadium, as it wasn't listed in the previous accounts as being anything more than a long term loan.

 

This meant that in 2007 it looked as the the debt was £71m. When they realised that they had to pay off the mortgage they needed to add that extra amount in. It was also necessary to put money in to cover the £34m loss for that year."

 

 

So you’re now saying that the debt in 2007 was £124 million and not £70 million as you had suggested earlier, this is laughable. If it was a loan then it was a debt, simple as that. Honestly, you can’t blame Ashley for debt which the club had before he arrived.

 

Is this latest revision correct? We had £124 million debt at a time when we’d had Michael Owen basically free for a year and his huge wage was covered by the FA? I'm not trying to put words into your mouth, I'm just struggling to keep up.

[Happy Face 29]

From NUFC Finances....

 

"The difference (between the reported debt in 2007 of £70m and £124m) comes from that change in the view of what Ashley did when he bought the club. What seems to have not been clear was that when he bought the club he would immediately have to pay off the mortgage on the stadium, as it wasn't listed in the previous accounts as being anything more than a long term loan.

 

This meant that in 2007 it looked as the the debt was £71m. When they realised that they had to pay off the mortgage they needed to add that extra amount in. It was also necessary to put money in to cover the £34m loss for that year."

 

 

So you’re now saying that the debt in 2007 was £124 million and not £70 million as you had suggested earlier, this is laughable. If it was a loan then it was a debt, simple as that. Honestly, you can’t blame Ashley for debt which the club had before he arrived.

 

http://www.nufc-finances.org.uk/

 

Click '2008 results' and then 'debt'. It's not a cut and dry situation.

 

The way I see it...I have a £100,000 mortgage and a house it's taken out on and loans for £5,000....my Net Debt is £5,000.

 

If I was forced to repay the mortgage tomorrow (like ashley was when he bought), I'd have to borrow £100,000 from somewhere or someone. I'd then own the house, but my net debt would be £105,000.

 

That's how I see it. Is that wrong?

Edited September 20, 2010 by Happy Face

[Slightly Bemused 0]

http://www.nufc-finances.org.uk/

 

Click '2008 results' and then 'debt'. It's not a cut and dry situation.

 

The way I see it...I have a £100,000 mortgage and a house it's taken out on and loans for £5,000....my Net Debt is £5,000.

 

If I was forced to repay the mortgage tomorrow (like ashley was when he bought), I'd have to borrow £100,000 from somewhere or someone. I'd then own the house, but my net debt would be £105,000.

 

That's how I see it. Is that wrong?

 

I’m not trying to be a prick with this answer, I’m just trying to clarify something. I’ve not put any spin on the definition of debt, here it is from an online dictionary and the wording has nothing to do with me.

 

An amount owed to a person or organization for funds borrowed. Debt can be represented by a loan note, bond, mortgage or other form stating repayment terms and, if applicable, interest requirements. These different forms all imply intent to pay back an amount owed by a specific date, which is set forth in the repayment terms.

 

A mortgage has got to be classed as debt and the one I took out on my house was debt the day I signed for it and that will be the case until I have paid it off in full.

[JawD 31]

Difference is the long and short terms loans. The figures had been reporting short term loans (imo). Ashley buying the club triggered the need for the long term loan to be brought in with the short. Its likely he didnt realise that when he bought the club. The debt was always there, it was also being managed by Halls/Shepherd as a long term loan. Not Ashleys fault, but he should have known about that before.

 

Accountants man, no better breed to make figures say what the fuck they want.

[Guest]

I like this slightly bemused guy, he's fucking putting it right up you lot, I'm happy to just take a back seat here

[OTF 6129]

Im guessing its way higher than that, I assume you're working on the assumption of income being the same which as HF says is well down and I think its way more than we realise. We have little in the way of sponsorship, our main sponsor paid a fraction of what they did previously. Corporate is well down, Spurts Direct advertising boards around the ground are now in the majority so theres a major loss in income there. Merchandising, season ticket sales, pies n pints are all way below what they used to be when wages were 70%.

 

Corporate income would be way down for the majority of sides, the only ones that would have been in somewhat of a bubble are those with extremely large profiles in places where the financial crisis had much less of an impact - like Manchester United in Asia. That's not simply a Mike Ashley issue, though he hasn't helped it at all.

 

We also have to remember that any loss made by Shepherd included the 5m or so p/a that was paid in interest charges on the £70m debt, Ashely doesnt have that cost so there should have instantly been a £5m improvement, yet the opposite appears to have happened.

 

That's not to say that the other fat Bastard Shepherd couldn't have floated his own money to prevent interest from being due, or even just paid the interest out of his own pocket which is effectively what Ashley is doing if he's provided an interest free loan.

 

The wage bill was previously at 75% of annual turn over, which is just flat out shocking.

[Kitman 2188]

I like this slightly bemused guy, he's fucking putting it right up you lot, I'm happy to just take a back seat here

 

Actually I expect most people aren't interested in discussing accounting definitions ad nauseam. Whatever the amount of debt, Ashley has still been a massive twat. You can't polish a turd after all.

[Guest]

I think the unprovoked brothel twatness is more twatish than what Ashley did. Ashley basically said fuck 'em when he was gettin called a fat cockney wanker when the Keegan thing went unintentionally pear-shaped, how many people would be thick skinned enough to keep bankrolling the club after that fallout? He probably thought that after all he'd done, bailing us out of debt, buying players, that we'd jumped on his back and stuck the knife in because of a dof model gone wrong. What shepherd did doesn't compare

[Kitman 2188]

I think the unprovoked brothel twatness is more twatish than what Ashley did. Ashley basically said fuck 'em when he was gettin called a fat cockney wanker when the Keegan thing went unintentionally pear-shaped, how many people would be thick skinned enough to keep bankrolling the club after that fallout? He probably thought that after all he'd done, bailing us out of debt, buying players, that we'd jumped on his back and stuck the knife in because of a dof model gone wrong. What shepherd did doesn't compare

 

I don't think I've anything to be thankful to Ashley for.....yet. He's generally taken the club backwards imo, through his own ego or folly, we've endured avoidable relegation and are now only just showing signs of progressing taking his ownership as a whole. He's not a registered charity so he's not putting his money in for the love of Geordies and he'll expect it back and more. If we end the season in the PL and continue the current progression then I might think better of him.

 

I realise this is the "old board" vs new board" thread.....which is why I haven't really contributed to it. I'm not really that interested in debating the relative twatiness of the two regimes, I didn't agree with a lot of what the old regime did especially in its latter days but for me that's ancient history now.

[OTF 6129]

I realise this is the "old board" vs new board" thread.....which is why I haven't really contributed to it. I'm not really that interested in debating the relative twatiness of the two regimes, I didn't agree with a lot of what the old regime did especially in its latter days but for me that's ancient history now.

 

It would be good to be able to talk some sort of solution to our current predicament, given that no amount of financial nous will change what has happened in the past.

 

I'd guess that there wouldn't be one too much better than what we're doing currently. That is trying to bring in players who improve the squad on a relatively limited budget on non-excessive wages to ensure our survival and to make sure the positive ground we made last season continues. Improved performances will keep the crowds up, and in turn we should see improvements on the corporate side, with sponsorships, ground advertising etc.

[Happy Face 29]

http://www.nufc-finances.org.uk/

 

Click '2008 results' and then 'debt'. It's not a cut and dry situation.

 

The way I see it...I have a £100,000 mortgage and a house it's taken out on and loans for £5,000....my Net Debt is £5,000.

 

If I was forced to repay the mortgage tomorrow (like ashley was when he bought), I'd have to borrow £100,000 from somewhere or someone. I'd then own the house, but my net debt would be £105,000.

 

That's how I see it. Is that wrong?

 

I’m not trying to be a prick with this answer, I’m just trying to clarify something. I’ve not put any spin on the definition of debt, here it is from an online dictionary and the wording has nothing to do with me.

 

An amount owed to a person or organization for funds borrowed. Debt can be represented by a loan note, bond, mortgage or other form stating repayment terms and, if applicable, interest requirements. These different forms all imply intent to pay back an amount owed by a specific date, which is set forth in the repayment terms.

 

A mortgage has got to be classed as debt and the one I took out on my house was debt the day I signed for it and that will be the case until I have paid it off in full.

 

You're confusing me.

 

You've come in here and had a pop cos I don't have the necessary qualifications to comment and then you've used an online dictionary definition you know has little to do with the accountancy tricks the club (and every other business) use when reporting on their accounts..

 

As far as the reported results for the past decade go, it seems to me the mortgage only became part of the "net debt" in 2007 after the buyout (otherwise, if you take the mortgage out of the numbers above we were actually in profit most of the decade....which isn't the case). That's the main reason the chart goes up so much at that point (though not the only one). I've no problem with including the mortgage in the club debt earlier than that....but there's no point arbitrarily including it for one year before Ashley arrived to make it look like Shepherd went mad one year. If you want to include it then it has to be applied from the moment it was taken out.....

 

 

So between 2001 and 2007 the debt grew 3.5%

 

Between 2007 and 2010 it's grown 45%

Edited September 21, 2010 by Happy Face

[Asprilla 96]

The Sports Direct advertising is a shrewd business move though.

 

He'll make far more from SD than NUFC but he can use our profile to expand his business.

 

I would think that it's therefore in his interest to have NUFC doing as well as possible without wasting money on dead wood players and to be fair, he's starting to show it may be possible. To get to the next level though, he'll need to invest but I believe he will.

[OTF 6129]

 

So between 2001 and 2007 the debt grew 3.5%

 

Between 2007 and 2010 it's grown 45%

 

That graph is slightly more meaningful, but why choose 2001 as the year to compare? If you take it back over the same amount of time, is would be between 2004 and 2007 for an increase of 38%.

 

At any length this table is largely useless as there as so many external factors that are an influence. Key for me is noting particular decisions and actions undertaken by the current owner and board that have contributed to an increasing debt. More important of course is what is being done to turn an operating loss into a profit so that the debt can begin to be reduced.

 

Forgive me if it's a silly question, but where has the figure of 175m come from?

 

If you're taking that table as the only evidence* then it indicates that relegation only had a maximum 'cost' to the club of 26m.

 

* - Which I don't suggest anyone does.

Edited September 21, 2010 by OzToonFan

[Happy Face 29]

That graph is slightly more meaningful, but why choose 2001 as the year to compare? If you take it back over the same amount of time, is would be between 2004 and 2007 for an increase of 38%.

 

At any length this table is largely useless as there as so many external factors that are an influence. Key for me is noting particular decisions and actions undertaken by the current owner and board that have contributed to an increasing debt. More important of course is what is being done to turn an operating loss into a profit so that the debt can begin to be reduced.

 

Forgive me if it's a silly question, but where has the figure of 175m come from?

 

If you're taking that table as the only evidence* then it indicates that relegation only had a maximum 'cost' to the club of 26m.

 

* - Which I don't suggest anyone does.

 

I choose 2001 because it's the worst year of our previous excesses before Shepherd reigned in spending/increased income.

 

I'm not fussed about raking over old decisions, who did what right and who did what wrong, I'm no fan of either owners but i know they both wanted the best for Newcastle. The only question for me is "where are we now?"

 

If you read the papers they'd have you believe Ashley has stabilised everything, that the debt has been wiped out and the club is going to break even within 5 years. I'm much less optimistic when i look at these numbers.

 

£175m comes from £149m of debt reported on the last set of accounts plus the amount the club says they've gone on to borrow since....

 

"If it wasn't for Mike's continued input... we would be in a similar position to Portsmouth. Let me set the record straight about Mike's commitment to Newcastle United, since the beginning of the season, he has pumped £25.5m into this football club and this week, a further £5m was needed. In addition to these amounts, Mike, realising the need to bring in new faces and back his manager's request, spent £5.5m in the January transfer window.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/t...ted/8553411.stm

 

£25.5 + £5 + £5.5 = £36m

 

£149m + £36m = £175m

[Slightly Bemused 0]

You're confusing me.

 

You've come in here and had a pop cos I don't have the necessary qualifications to comment and then you've used an online dictionary definition you know has little to do with the accountancy tricks the club (and every other business) use when reporting on their accounts..

 

As far as the reported results for the past decade go, it seems to me the mortgage only became part of the "net debt" in 2007 after the buyout (otherwise, if you take the mortgage out of the numbers above we were actually in profit most of the decade....which isn't the case). That's the main reason the chart goes up so much at that point (though not the only one). I've no problem with including the mortgage in the club debt earlier than that....but there's no point arbitrarily including it for one year before Ashley arrived to make it look like Shepherd went mad one year. If you want to include it then it has to be applied from the moment it was taken out.....

 

 

So between 2001 and 2007 the debt grew 3.5%

 

Between 2007 and 2010 it's grown 45%

 

 

I'm confusing you; do you want to shorten the length of the words that I'm typing?

 

I've used an online dictionary definition as I thought that it would mean that you wouldn't pick holes in my personal understanding of what Debt means you numpty. I'm quite happy for you to come up with a more meaningful definition which isn't something dreamed up in your head.

 

You're dangerous, you haven't a clue what you're talking about and you're trying to pass it off as fact, I can only guess that some people are taking your word for it as you seem to be getting away with it.

 

Thanks for brightening up a dull subject, even if that wasn’t your intention.

[Slightly Bemused 0]

That graph is slightly more meaningful, but why choose 2001 as the year to compare? If you take it back over the same amount of time, is would be between 2004 and 2007 for an increase of 38%.

 

At any length this table is largely useless as there as so many external factors that are an influence. Key for me is noting particular decisions and actions undertaken by the current owner and board that have contributed to an increasing debt. More important of course is what is being done to turn an operating loss into a profit so that the debt can begin to be reduced.

 

Forgive me if it's a silly question, but where has the figure of 175m come from?

 

If you're taking that table as the only evidence* then it indicates that relegation only had a maximum 'cost' to the club of 26m.

 

* - Which I don't suggest anyone does.

 

What he’s doing is a bit like knowing the answer and not the question so he’s making the question up in an attempt to justify something he hasn’t the first idea about.

[Happy Face 29]

I'm confusing you; do you want to shorten the length of the words that I'm typing?

 

I've used an online dictionary definition as I thought that it would mean that you wouldn't pick holes in my personal understanding of what Debt means you numpty. I'm quite happy for you to come up with a more meaningful definition which isn't something dreamed up in your head.

 

You're dangerous, you haven't a clue what you're talking about and you're trying to pass it off as fact, I can only guess that some people are taking your word for it as you seem to be getting away with it.

 

Thanks for brightening up a dull subject, even if that wasn’t your intention.

 

Shame you couldn't put me right.