Old Board vs New Board

[Guest]

More inclined to believe the club than "top football finance analysts", i.e an external source.

[peasepud 59]

More inclined to believe the club than "top football finance analysts", i.e an external source.

 

Then you clearly have sealed your place as a WUM.

 

Deloittes are the football analysts, they have access to the books, therefore it was the club saying the profit was made you thick fuck.

 

Deloittes dont randomly guess, they analyse the accounts of the clubs, they research every aspect and they're data is used by sensible people when buying a football club...oh and its also used by daft fucks when buying a club rather than do due diligence. Ashley employed Deloittes while purchasing us, he also made a call to them two days later begging them to sell it on for him, trouble was they told him where to go because he refused to take their advice (ie do due diligence) when buying it.

[Guest]

More inclined to believe the club than "top football finance analysts", i.e an external source.

 

Then you clearly have sealed your place as a WUM.

 

Deloittes are the football analysts, they have access to the books, therefore it was the club saying the profit was made you thick fuck.

 

Deloittes dont randomly guess, they analyse the accounts of the clubs, they research every aspect and they're data is used by sensible people when buying a football club...oh and its also used by daft fucks when buying a club rather than do due diligence. Ashley employed Deloittes while purchasing us, he also made a call to them two days later begging them to sell it on for him, trouble was they told him where to go because he refused to take their advice (ie do due diligence) when buying it.

 

 

Bit harsh like. Not knowing who the football analysts are doesn't make me thick, you fuckin' wanker.

[Happy Face 29]

More inclined to believe the club than "top football finance analysts", i.e an external source.

 

It's the club that keep telling us the horrible losses we're making

http://nufc-ashlies.blogspot.com/2010/03/a...abramovich.html

[peasepud 59]

Bit harsh like. Not knowing who the football analysts are doesn't make me thick, you fuckin' wanker.

 

tbf I was calling you thick because you would actually believe the club!

[ewerk 26383]

ASHLEY PLOUGHS MORE CASH INTO TOON

 

 

By Martin Hardy, 18/09/2010

 

MIKE ASHLEY has personally had to plough nearly £50 million into Newcastle in the last 12 months to keep the club viable.

 

The club's perilous financial position meant that Ashley had to finance both the fees AND the new salaries to land five players during the transfer window.

 

That saw the Sports Direct owner underwrite around £13 million in deals that landed Cheick Tiote, Sol Campbell, Hatem Ben Arfa, James Perch and Dan Gosling.

 

Newcastle had previously gone on record at the end of last season to declare that there would be no funds available to strengthen the squad that Chris Hughton led to the Championship title.

 

That was a legacy of relegation and also the fact the club was wrestling with a £30million overdraft.

 

However Ashley did find the required fess - around £6million - to land the quintet and also the estimated £7million in salaries out of his own pocket.

 

That comes on top of the previous two interest free loans he put into the club last season when their turnover was halved as a result of dropping out of the top flight.

 

That alone took around £50 million off turnover as a result of losing Sky money, television appearance money and a fall in commercial and gate receipts.

 

Last December, he handed the club a £25 million interest free loan so that the club could keep trading.

 

And then in February he was forced to put in a further interest-free figure of around £10million.

 

With his latest investment it means Ashley has put in just under £50million in less than a year.

 

There has also been a change in contractual policy within the club. Any player who signs a new contract worth more than £19,000-a-week has been asked to include a relegation clause that will reduce their salary in case the newly-promoted side do no retain their top-flight status.

 

Similarly, any existing deals that are being renegotiated are coming under the same policy.

 

Ashley believes it will take around five years to clear the debt that was created because of both relegation and the crippling debts he inherited when he bought the club back in 2007.

[sammynb 2929]

ASHLEY PLOUGHS MORE CASH INTO TOON

Ashley believes it will take around five years to clear the debt that was created because of both relegation and the crippling debts he inherited when he bought the club back in 2007.

 

The man has no-one to blame but himself - twat.

[Park Life 70]

Wages has come down from 68m to 48m ish...So where are all these big losses acrewing from? Relegation (Cost 25m ish TV money etc - parachute payment 10m over 2 seasons iirc).

 

Think there has been a profit from player sales as well hasn't there?

[Happy Face 29]

Wages has come down from 68m to 48m ish...So where are all these big losses acrewing from?

 

Sports Direct signage.

 

Source on those wages btw?

[Park Life 70]

Wages has come down from 68m to 48m ish...So where are all these big losses acrewing from?

 

Sports Direct signage.

 

Source on those wages btw?

 

You.

[Happy Face 29]

[Asprilla 96]

To be fair I think the average fan is only going to be alienated by this sort of guff.

 

Most people just want to see the team win and aren't about to take to the streets with their pitchforks....most don't even want to give up their pie and pint at half time.

 

 

This transfer window has been the best one I can think of for a fucking long time. We're playing well and we've lost a lot of the big time Charlies (Owen/Martins/Viduka etc). Ashley should just keep quiet, I think if we finish mid table and have another shrewd transfer window next summer more than half the fans would start thinking he wasn't so bad after all.

[Slightly Bemused 0]

Firstly, the club had �69m debt at the end of the 06/07 season, more importantly though they were one of only 8 Premiership clubs to make a profit (�6.8m) so Im a little lost as to where this "club in the shit before Ashley" line ever comes from.

 

Ashley reckoned that he lent the club �111m on taking over to "pay some of the debt off, not all of it but some". How is that when the season before we had �69m? where did the other �42m magically appear from?

 

So anyway in 07/08 we were �111m and near the start of the 08/09 season we were told that MA was covering the losses of half a million per week so that equates to �26m putting us �137m in debt however there was also a �30m overdraft on top of the Ashley debt so by my reckoning we were �167m in debt at the end of 08/09 we then lost �30m through relegation putting us almost �200m in debt. We clearly lost money last season but then got promoted and a statement was made that we'd cleared �25m of debt through that so I reckon conservatively we're �180m+ in debt at this point in time.

 

SO..back to my question, how can we say that we were in the shit when we were only one of 8 clubs to make a profit?

 

You're using the wrong end point for Shepherd and the wrong starting point for Ashley. The accounts you have highlighted as the last set of accounts for Shepherd were the second last set. A year later and the profit was turned into a loss and the outlook was terrible as we didn't look like we were capable of changing anything going to a probable and well forecasted credit crunch which was certain to reduce income from the corporate sector. And before anybody claims we weren’t in a credit crunch, it was coming and the only uncertainty was when.

 

I thought that NUSC had claimed that the club was making a £7 million profit per month in the Championship? Have those figures been revised down?

[Slightly Bemused 0]

Firstly, the club had �69m debt at the end of the 06/07 season, more importantly though they were one of only 8 Premiership clubs to make a profit (�6.8m) so Im a little lost as to where this "club in the shit before Ashley" line ever comes from.

 

Ashley reckoned that he lent the club �111m on taking over to "pay some of the debt off, not all of it but some". How is that when the season before we had �69m? where did the other �42m magically appear from?

 

So anyway in 07/08 we were �111m and near the start of the 08/09 season we were told that MA was covering the losses of half a million per week so that equates to �26m putting us �137m in debt however there was also a �30m overdraft on top of the Ashley debt so by my reckoning we were �167m in debt at the end of 08/09 we then lost �30m through relegation putting us almost �200m in debt. We clearly lost money last season but then got promoted and a statement was made that we'd cleared �25m of debt through that so I reckon conservatively we're �180m+ in debt at this point in time.

 

SO..back to my question, how can we say that we were in the shit when we were only one of 8 clubs to make a profit?

 

You're using the wrong end point for Shepherd and the wrong starting point for Ashley. The accounts you have highlighted as the last set of accounts for Shepherd were the second last set. A year later and the profit was turned into a loss and the outlook was terrible as we didn't look like we were capable of changing anything going to a probable and well forecasted credit crunch which was certain to reduce income from the corporate sector. And before anybody claims we weren’t in a credit crunch, it was coming and the only uncertainty was when.

 

I thought that NUSC had claimed that the club was making a £7 million profit per month in the Championship? Have those figures been revised down?

[trophyshy 6434]

nice way to double your post count I suppose.

 

Welcome to the board SB

[peasepud 59]

You're using the wrong end point for Shepherd and the wrong starting point for Ashley. The accounts you have highlighted as the last set of accounts for Shepherd were the second last set. A year later and the profit was turned into a loss and the outlook was terrible as we didn't look like we were capable of changing anything going to a probable and well forecasted credit crunch which was certain to reduce income from the corporate sector. And before anybody claims we weren’t in a credit crunch, it was coming and the only uncertainty was when.

 

I dont believe I am.

 

Research by top football finance analysts Deloitte has revealed the club was one of only eight Premier League clubs to make a profit in the 2006/07 season – down from 16 the previous year.

 

The 2006/07 season would have ran from Aug 2006 to May 2007.

 

Ashley bought Halls shares in May 2007 and Shepherds in the June so he came into the club at the end of the 2006/07 season ie directly after the end of the season being talked about by Deloittes. If the article means to report a profit in 2006/07 then thats badly worded to say the least but again I would imagine thats not the case seeing as how it wasnt written about until May 2008.

[Slightly Bemused 0]

You're using the wrong end point for Shepherd and the wrong starting point for Ashley. The accounts you have highlighted as the last set of accounts for Shepherd were the second last set. A year later and the profit was turned into a loss and the outlook was terrible as we didn't look like we were capable of changing anything going to a probable and well forecasted credit crunch which was certain to reduce income from the corporate sector. And before anybody claims we weren’t in a credit crunch, it was coming and the only uncertainty was when.

 

I dont believe I am.

 

Research by top football finance analysts Deloitte has revealed the club was one of only eight Premier League clubs to make a profit in the 2006/07 season – down from 16 the previous year.

 

The 2006/07 season would have ran from Aug 2006 to May 2007.

 

Ashley bought Halls shares in May 2007 and Shepherds in the June so he came into the club at the end of the 2006/07 season ie directly after the end of the season being talked about by Deloittes. If the article means to report a profit in 2006/07 then thats badly worded to say the least but again I would imagine thats not the case seeing as how it wasnt written about until May 2008.

 

I don't care what you believe or not, you're miles away and like I said a year out.

 

The accounts which you are on about are not the last set of accounts of Shepherd and I know that because I've got them all in front of me since 2004. The last set of accounts under the Hall/Shepherd regime covered up to 30th June 2007 and was signed off by Chris Mort who had just become Chairman. The accounts which you should be looking at for the end of the previous regime were available from Companies House dated 26th January 2008. Those set of accounts were showing us making a loss, not a profit, all of the figures were going south and were always going to get worse ongoing.

 

What about the profit Ashley made last season? Are these figures still current or did NUSC revise them?

[Slightly Bemused 0]

nice way to double your post count I suppose.

 

Welcome to the board SB

 

Thanks I’ve just quadrupled it.

[Happy Face 29]

Wouldn't try and argue that Shepherd ran the finances well, but in 2007 the net debt was only a fraction more than it had been in 2001....

 

 

Shepherd at the very least kept the debt that low while we got progressively worse over his last 6 years. According to every source going that debt has been doubled thanks to Ashley's first 3 years.

[OTF 6172]

Happy face that corresponds with the period where TV money skyrocketed, so without doing anything our incoming would have increased vastly.

[Slightly Bemused 0]

Wouldn't try and argue that Shepherd ran the finances well, but in 2007 the net debt was only a fraction more than it had been in 2001....

 

 

Shepherd at the very least kept the debt that low while we got progressively worse over his last 6 years. According to every source going that debt has been doubled thanks to Ashley's first 3 years.

Aye it is just a fraction, the problem is that it's roughly 1/8 which is quite a big fraction for one year and it was just the start. I guess you've noticed which direction that line was heading in.

[Happy Face 29]

Happy face that corresponds with the period where TV money skyrocketed, so without doing anything our incoming would have increased vastly.

 

Without doing anything...but staying up.

[Happy Face 29]

Aye it is just a fraction, the problem is that it's roughly 1/8 which is quite a big fraction for one year and it was just the start. I guess you've noticed which direction that line was heading in.

 

I repeat "I wouldn't try and argue that Shepherd ran the finances well"

 

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.

[Slightly Bemused 0]

Happy face that corresponds with the period where TV money skyrocketed, so without doing anything our incoming would have increased vastly.

During our last year under Hall/Shepherd our wages were 73% of our turnover, up 9% on the previous year which was actually only 11 months because we went from reporting at the end of July to the end of June. During the year which has been wrongly attributed as being the last of Hall/Shepherd we'd finished 7th, however in the actual last year of them we'd dropped to 13th which reduced income from the Premiership. Income was boosted in the last year because we qualified for Europe the year before and benefited in the actual last year.

[Slightly Bemused 0]

Happy face that corresponds with the period where TV money skyrocketed, so without doing anything our incoming would have increased vastly.

 

Without doing anything...but staying up.

 

I'm not sure what qualifies you to comment on the accounts but if pinching a graph off another site is the limit of your expertise then we’re not going to get far, are we? Our Operations loss had gone up from around £6 million to almost £26 million in 1 year. The losses would have been worse the year before if we hadn’t changed our financial year end to the 30th June. The overdraft had almost doubled during the last year in which we had income from Europe which wasn’t likely to something we were going to see again any time soon.

 

We had received a one off payment of £6,750,000 in compensation for Owen while these figures were all going tits up. This effectively reduced our losses as Owen was virtually taken off the wage bill for the best part of a year and was always going to become a future drain.

 

Graphs don't tell the full story without having the figures behind them. Also, the first set of Accounts were heavily impacted by what went on before him as wage increases were decided before he arrived apart from when Ashley rubber stamped signings which were made during the takeover. And, he had to really make as he would have been in no position to do anything once he'd taken over as it would have been too close to the end of the transfer window and he'd be starting from scratch.

 

I know he gets blamed for those shit signings, he was in a no win situation as the club had to be run with the new season approaching. He would have been rightly taken apart by us if he’d came in and blocked transfers.

Edited September 19, 2010 by Slightly Bemused