Ashley's Transfer History thread

[jaythesouthernmag 0]

Have we sold anybody today yet ?

 

No, but I think Ba has signed.

 

how much of the Carroll money has been allowed to the manager so far ?

Windows only been open just over a week and we've signed Cabaye and Ba so far, two good players.

 

You never answered my question about Nolan, if so where is it?

 

I'm 38 btw, for what it matters

 

38 ? Are you sure ?

 

 

You don't know much about football for a 38 year old ? How many times have you seen Newcastle play ?

Plenty, I will answer your questions after you answer mine.

 

Would you have given Nolan a 5 yr deal on 50k a week, pretty simple question

[LeazesMag 0]

Have we sold anybody today yet ?

 

No, but I think Ba has signed.

 

how much of the Carroll money has been allowed to the manager so far ?

Windows only been open just over a week and we've signed Cabaye and Ba so far, two good players.

 

You never answered my question about Nolan, if so where is it?

 

I'm 38 btw, for what it matters

 

38 ? Are you sure ?

 

 

You don't know much about football for a 38 year old ? How many times have you seen Newcastle play ?

Plenty, I will answer your questions after you answer mine.

 

Would you have given Nolan a 5 yr deal on 50k a week, pretty simple question

 

is your point concerning the merits of one transfer, or the overall results of transfer policy ?

 

Do you think the club shouldn't have signed Alan Shearer because he was "too expensive" for instance ?

[jaythesouthernmag 0]

Have we sold anybody today yet ?

 

No, but I think Ba has signed.

 

how much of the Carroll money has been allowed to the manager so far ?

Windows only been open just over a week and we've signed Cabaye and Ba so far, two good players.

 

You never answered my question about Nolan, if so where is it?

 

I'm 38 btw, for what it matters

 

38 ? Are you sure ?

 

 

You don't know much about football for a 38 year old ? How many times have you seen Newcastle play ?

Plenty, I will answer your questions after you answer mine.

 

Would you have given Nolan a 5 yr deal on 50k a week, pretty simple question

 

is your point concerning the merits of one transfer, or the overall results of transfer policy ?

 

Do you think the club shouldn't have signed Alan Shearer because he was "too expensive" for instance ?

You stated you think the club should hang onto its better players, with Nolan its obvious it was about money and length of contract. My question was simply that. Now answer it and I will gladly answer yours.

Would you have given Nolan that deal?????

[LeazesMag 0]

so how much of the Carroll 35m quid has been given to the manager to spend on incoming transfers so far ?

[LeazesMag 0]

Have we sold anybody today yet ?

 

No, but I think Ba has signed.

 

how much of the Carroll money has been allowed to the manager so far ?

Windows only been open just over a week and we've signed Cabaye and Ba so far, two good players.

 

You never answered my question about Nolan, if so where is it?

 

I'm 38 btw, for what it matters

 

38 ? Are you sure ?

 

 

You don't know much about football for a 38 year old ? How many times have you seen Newcastle play ?

Plenty, I will answer your questions after you answer mine.

 

Would you have given Nolan a 5 yr deal on 50k a week, pretty simple question

 

is your point concerning the merits of one transfer, or the overall results of transfer policy ?

 

Do you think the club shouldn't have signed Alan Shearer because he was "too expensive" for instance ?

You stated you think the club should hang onto its better players, with Nolan its obvious it was about money and length of contract. My question was simply that. Now answer it and I will gladly answer yours.

Would you have given Nolan that deal?????

 

its a pointless question. Nolan had 2 years to go, so I would have kept him for at least 12 more months. They obviously sold him because they wanted to cash in on a good player and the club captain, like selling clubs do when they don't give the money for transfers back to the manager. He now has 40m quid to spend on transfers, how much will we see of this 40m quid ?

 

Do you think the club was wrong to pay all that money it cost to buy Alan Shearer ?

 

Do you think the transfer policy of Mike Ashley is going to do better than the one adopted by the Halls and Shepherd, with 4 years of the "plan" already gone and nowhere near. He had better get his skates on and fast if he is going to do it. The previous owners finished 3rd in the league within 2 years of taking over a club with one foot in the 3rd division and less than 20,000 supporters to fund it.

 

If you are going to judge a clubs transfer policy on one single transfer, you are an even bigger idiot than I thought.

Edited June 17, 2011 by LeazesMag

[ChezGiven 0]

Not much point in calculating the spend yet.

 

It's a bit odd to calculate the wages over a contract too, it's all about the wages as a % of turnover. Since turnover is annual then next years turnover will impact on the net income of the club. If the net income of the club is zero at the current wage level then adding to the wage bill will need to be financed by money from sales etc. However, that is unsustainable in business as you have to then rely on sales to fund wages. Wages must come from operational income, which are the normal predictable income streams. The only way it makes sense to include sales money in how high you set the wage bill is if you see the wages paid as an investment to generate extra income. Which would mean qualifying for Europe etc. Asset sales, I think, are usually referred to as 'exceptional' items on accounts so don't form part of your income which should be allocated to wages.

 

In short I don't get how income from asset sales / players can be used in the longer term to fund wages.

[LeazesMag 0]

Not much point in calculating the spend yet.

 

It's a bit odd to calculate the wages over a contract too, it's all about the wages as a % of turnover. Since turnover is annual then next years turnover will impact on the net income of the club. If the net income of the club is zero at the current wage level then adding to the wage bill will need to be financed by money from sales etc. However, that is unsustainable in business as you have to then rely on sales to fund wages. Wages must come from operational income, which are the normal predictable income streams. The only way it makes sense to include sales money in how high you set the wage bill is if you see the wages paid as an investment to generate extra income. Which would mean qualifying for Europe etc. Asset sales, I think, are usually referred to as 'exceptional' items on accounts so don't form part of your income which should be allocated to wages.

 

In short I don't get how income from asset sales / players can be used in the longer term to fund wages.

 

every case is different, but in general terms I really don't get people when they say something is "good business" or a "good sale" of a good player when the only value is in monetary terms. It is only a "good sale" if the manager is given all the money and manages to turn out a better team with quality signing with the money. The "good business" scenario where you don't see the money is all well and good for the small teams, who need to sell to survive, but NUFC ? Do NUFC need to sell to survive, with the 3rd biggest stadium and crowds in the country, and the 14th biggest turnover in football at the time Mike Ashley bought it ?

 

Like fuck they do. This was the sort of shite Mort was spouting within weeks of his appointment by Ashley when he took over the club.

 

This is a serious reply. Why does this sort of thing constantly need to be explained to people.

Edited June 17, 2011 by LeazesMag

[jaythesouthernmag 0]

Have we sold anybody today yet ?

 

No, but I think Ba has signed.

 

how much of the Carroll money has been allowed to the manager so far ?

Windows only been open just over a week and we've signed Cabaye and Ba so far, two good players.

 

You never answered my question about Nolan, if so where is it?

 

I'm 38 btw, for what it matters

 

38 ? Are you sure ?

 

 

You don't know much about football for a 38 year old ? How many times have you seen Newcastle play ?

Plenty, I will answer your questions after you answer mine.

 

Would you have given Nolan a 5 yr deal on 50k a week, pretty simple question

 

is your point concerning the merits of one transfer, or the overall results of transfer policy ?

 

Do you think the club shouldn't have signed Alan Shearer because he was "too expensive" for instance ?

You stated you think the club should hang onto its better players, with Nolan its obvious it was about money and length of contract. My question was simply that. Now answer it and I will gladly answer yours.

Would you have given Nolan that deal?????

 

its a pointless question. Nolan had 2 years to go, so I would have kept him for at least 12 more months. They obviously sold him because they wanted to cash in on a good player and the club captain, like selling clubs do when they don't give the money for transfers back to the manager. He now has 40m quid to spend on transfers, how much will we see of this 40m quid ?

 

Do you think the club was wrong to pay all that money it cost to buy Alan Shearer ?

 

Do you think the transfer policy of Mike Ashley is going to do better than the one adopted by the Halls and Shepherd, with 4 years of the "plan" already gone and nowhere near. He had better get his skates on and fast if he is going to do it. The previous owners finished 3rd in the league within 2 years of taking over a club with one foot in the 3rd division and less than 20,000 supporters to fund it.

 

If you are going to judge a clubs transfer policy on one single transfer, you are an even bigger idiot than I thought.

They only got 3m for Nolan,hardly big money? I guess as he didn't want to sign then cash in on what value he had, if it wasn't the money he wouldn't drop down a division would he?

 

I don't think Ashleys transfer policy is better than Shepherds but it is what can be afforded and I have stated numerous times we won't get the same league positions under Ashley. Fred did waste a shitload of money on crap players too, although you will dispute this.

 

I don't think we can get near the top 4 but maybe finishing in the top 7 is achievable providing we get some more quality in. Times have changed a lot in the last few years with regards to wealthy owners and transfer fees compared to when we had C.L. football and finished second. The last few years under Fred we didn't do a great deal either, maybe paid out a lot on poor players like Boumsong. Also signing players like Sibierski at the arse end of the window.

 

To summerise, yeah I did enjoy watching us when we had Robert,Shearer,Bellamy,Dyer and Solano but we were on the way down when Ashley bought the club and I admit he's fucked a lot of things up too. I hope we do see more signings of decent players and push on more then we get bought by a sugar daddy because let's face it its the only way we can challenge at the very top again.

 

I also doubt we could have been able to compete as we did in todays market

[LeazesMag 0]

"Fred" never owned the club, and he wasn't the manager or scout either. The Halls and Shepherds' transfer policy was correct and in keeping with such that should be demanded by a club like NUFC, that is why they transformed a club with one foot in the 3rd division and not able to sell on the stock exchange for 2.5m quid, with a cowshed of a stadium and less than 20000 supporters into one of the biggest in europe and filling a 52000 stadium every home game with one of the best stadiums to match.

 

Like it or not, whatever your "opinion", this is the TRUTH.

 

Goodnight.

[LeazesMag 0]

So, how much of the 35m quid for Carroll and now 5m for Nolan has the manager seen to replace them and improve the team with so far ?

[Toonpack 6892]

Not much point in calculating the spend yet.

 

It's a bit odd to calculate the wages over a contract too, it's all about the wages as a % of turnover. Since turnover is annual then next years turnover will impact on the net income of the club. If the net income of the club is zero at the current wage level then adding to the wage bill will need to be financed by money from sales etc. However, that is unsustainable in business as you have to then rely on sales to fund wages. Wages must come from operational income, which are the normal predictable income streams. The only way it makes sense to include sales money in how high you set the wage bill is if you see the wages paid as an investment to generate extra income. Which would mean qualifying for Europe etc. Asset sales, I think, are usually referred to as 'exceptional' items on accounts so don't form part of your income which should be allocated to wages.

 

In short I don't get how income from asset sales / players can be used in the longer term to fund wages.

 

I suppose it can if the years sales income covers the fees and is provided/held against the value of the contract, which I'm guessing would show as "cash at bank" on a diminishing balance in relation to the player.

 

Amortisation adds a strange dimension as well though, they're paying "cash up front" but that'll be charged year on year, as fee divided by length of contract so the player value depreciates (in the books) so, for example, if Collocini was sold for £10 Mill next year (one year left) his book value will be £2Mill at the time, so that's a profit of £8Mill next year. So they bought him for £10Mill sold him for the same amount but made an £8Mill profit in the year of sale !! Is that real money then ????? I suppose it must be.

[LeazesMag 0]

Not much point in calculating the spend yet.

 

It's a bit odd to calculate the wages over a contract too, it's all about the wages as a % of turnover. Since turnover is annual then next years turnover will impact on the net income of the club. If the net income of the club is zero at the current wage level then adding to the wage bill will need to be financed by money from sales etc. However, that is unsustainable in business as you have to then rely on sales to fund wages. Wages must come from operational income, which are the normal predictable income streams. The only way it makes sense to include sales money in how high you set the wage bill is if you see the wages paid as an investment to generate extra income. Which would mean qualifying for Europe etc. Asset sales, I think, are usually referred to as 'exceptional' items on accounts so don't form part of your income which should be allocated to wages.

 

In short I don't get how income from asset sales / players can be used in the longer term to fund wages.

 

I suppose it can if the years sales income covers the fees and is provided/held against the value of the contract, which I'm guessing would show as "cash at bank" on a diminishing balance in relation to the player.

 

Amortisation adds a strange dimension as well though, they're paying "cash up front" but that'll be charged year on year, as fee divided by length of contract so the player value depreciates (in the books) so, for example, if Collocini was sold for £10 Mill next year (one year left) his book value will be £2Mill at the time, so that's a profit of £8Mill next year. So they bought him for £10Mill sold him for the same amount but made an £8Mill profit in the year of sale !! Is that real money then ????? I suppose it must be.

 

yawn.

 

Are european places dished out for this ?

 

Do you have your scarf with "champions of the profit league" emblazoned on it yet ?

[Happy Face 29]

Leazes, you would have given Nolan a 50k a week 5 year deal??

 

 

Of course he would. And Barton and every single player we've got and the extra 6 or 7 that Pardew wants to bring in to improve us. Fuck the wage bill, that will just materialise out of somewhere.

 

Its like classic opposition politics. "We wont do the bad things, we'll only do the nice things"........Never any need to explain how it will be done, where the money will come from etc etc.

 

Its quite frightening when you see that West Ham have just spent £16 million over 5 years on one player.

 

I am sure someone will know the facts but I find it hard to believe the earnings percentage ratio today is anywhere near what it was in Sir Johns day.

 

This is where Leazes always falls down. He can never explain how financially it can be done in todays climate.

 

Great if you have a sheik but otherwise books need to be balanced.

Yet again you come up with stuff thats totally irrelevant to the discussion.

 

LM isnt arguing that we should buy them all and keep our existing players hes talking about strengthening the squad, not merely gambling on new "talent" while binning the known capable players.

 

Team irrelevant strikes again

No he's not, he wants to keep players regardless of costs and sign big names without knowing where the money is coming from

 

The money comes from the owner. He reaps the financial reward when he sells a club in the champions league.

If and its a fucking big if, Ashley is nowhere near City or Chelseas wealth, get real. It's foolish to think by spunking 200m on players to reach the C.L. then not doing it. Gamble,gamble,gamble

 

There's more than 2 Champions league places. Should we not aim to compete with Spurs?

[Kevin 1]

No spurs are a far superior team and fan base

[Happy Face 29]

No spurs are a far superior team and fan base

 

Their income only rose to £120m off the back of Champions league this year.

 

We were pulling in £100m prior to relegation in 2008.

[LeazesMag 0]

No spurs are a far superior team and fan base

 

Kevin = Danny B

[jaythesouthernmag 0]

"Fred" never owned the club, and he wasn't the manager or scout either. The Halls and Shepherds' transfer policy was correct and in keeping with such that should be demanded by a club like NUFC, that is why they transformed a club with one foot in the 3rd division and not able to sell on the stock exchange for 2.5m quid, with a cowshed of a stadium and less than 20000 supporters into one of the biggest in europe and filling a 52000 stadium every home game with one of the best stadiums to match.

 

Like it or not, whatever your "opinion", this is the TRUTH.

 

Goodnight.

The old Fred never owned the club line, one of your favourites there.

 

In short, fuck off you boring,old cunt. Enough is enough and to think I could have a sensible conversation with you.

[ChezGiven 0]

Not much point in calculating the spend yet.

 

It's a bit odd to calculate the wages over a contract too, it's all about the wages as a % of turnover. Since turnover is annual then next years turnover will impact on the net income of the club. If the net income of the club is zero at the current wage level then adding to the wage bill will need to be financed by money from sales etc. However, that is unsustainable in business as you have to then rely on sales to fund wages. Wages must come from operational income, which are the normal predictable income streams. The only way it makes sense to include sales money in how high you set the wage bill is if you see the wages paid as an investment to generate extra income. Which would mean qualifying for Europe etc. Asset sales, I think, are usually referred to as 'exceptional' items on accounts so don't form part of your income which should be allocated to wages.

 

In short I don't get how income from asset sales / players can be used in the longer term to fund wages.

 

I suppose it can if the years sales income covers the fees and is provided/held against the value of the contract, which I'm guessing would show as "cash at bank" on a diminishing balance in relation to the player.

 

Amortisation adds a strange dimension as well though, they're paying "cash up front" but that'll be charged year on year, as fee divided by length of contract so the player value depreciates (in the books) so, for example, if Collocini was sold for £10 Mill next year (one year left) his book value will be £2Mill at the time, so that's a profit of £8Mill next year. So they bought him for £10Mill sold him for the same amount but made an £8Mill profit in the year of sale !! Is that real money then ????? I suppose it must be.

I think amortisation is a bit of red herring, the business is run on cashflow to pay wages and player sales. We need to look at the last 2 seasons finance.

 

What are the current best estimates on our wage bill? £55m+? What was our income in the championship? £45m? What are the operating costs beyond wages for running the club? £15m+

 

On that basis we could have lost around £30m last year, the wage bill was lower last year so possibly only £20m. They are just rough estimates. Income from last season could have risen by £50m for extra TV. I'm sure i saw a table of TV revenue for this year's premiership at some point recently. This must mean the money has been paid to the clubs already. We should therefore have the same £45m from the championship + £50m of TV money maybe plus some more. The wage bill has risen and at current has risen again with Cabaye or Ba but only by a £2.5m roughly.

 

There therefore should already be money available. Ignoring Carroll just for a moment, we've spent around £15m since January 2010. Roughly we should have £95m (Income) which has gone one - £55m (wages) - £15m (Operating expenses) - £15m (Players). Which would leave £10m to spend.

 

Then you have the Carroll money. If this is a realistic assessment then, ignoring the debt just for a moment, he could spend £20m on 4 players who earn £10m a year. If he doesnt do that then maybe that assessment of the money situation is wrong, or people are very right to point out that he should be doing this and if he isnt then he must be prioritising debt (which should be stable and non-interest bearing) instead of showing ambition for the club.

[Toonpack 6892]

Not much point in calculating the spend yet.

 

It's a bit odd to calculate the wages over a contract too, it's all about the wages as a % of turnover. Since turnover is annual then next years turnover will impact on the net income of the club. If the net income of the club is zero at the current wage level then adding to the wage bill will need to be financed by money from sales etc. However, that is unsustainable in business as you have to then rely on sales to fund wages. Wages must come from operational income, which are the normal predictable income streams. The only way it makes sense to include sales money in how high you set the wage bill is if you see the wages paid as an investment to generate extra income. Which would mean qualifying for Europe etc. Asset sales, I think, are usually referred to as 'exceptional' items on accounts so don't form part of your income which should be allocated to wages.

 

In short I don't get how income from asset sales / players can be used in the longer term to fund wages.

 

I suppose it can if the years sales income covers the fees and is provided/held against the value of the contract, which I'm guessing would show as "cash at bank" on a diminishing balance in relation to the player.

 

Amortisation adds a strange dimension as well though, they're paying "cash up front" but that'll be charged year on year, as fee divided by length of contract so the player value depreciates (in the books) so, for example, if Collocini was sold for £10 Mill next year (one year left) his book value will be £2Mill at the time, so that's a profit of £8Mill next year. So they bought him for £10Mill sold him for the same amount but made an £8Mill profit in the year of sale !! Is that real money then ????? I suppose it must be.

I think amortisation is a bit of red herring, the business is run on cashflow to pay wages and player sales. We need to look at the last 2 seasons finance.

 

What are the current best estimates on our wage bill? £55m+? What was our income in the championship? £45m? What are the operating costs beyond wages for running the club? £15m+

 

On that basis we could have lost around £30m last year, the wage bill was lower last year so possibly only £20m. They are just rough estimates. Income from last season could have risen by £50m for extra TV. I'm sure i saw a table of TV revenue for this year's premiership at some point recently. This must mean the money has been paid to the clubs already. We should therefore have the same £45m from the championship + £50m of TV money maybe plus some more. The wage bill has risen and at current has risen again with Cabaye or Ba but only by a £2.5m roughly.

 

There therefore should already be money available. Ignoring Carroll just for a moment, we've spent around £15m since January 2010. Roughly we should have £95m (Income) which has gone one - £55m (wages) - £15m (Operating expenses) - £15m (Players). Which would leave £10m to spend.

 

Then you have the Carroll money. If this is a realistic assessment then, ignoring the debt just for a moment, he could spend £20m on 4 players who earn £10m a year. If he doesnt do that then maybe that assessment of the money situation is wrong, or people are very right to point out that he should be doing this and if he isnt then he must be prioritising debt (which should be stable and non-interest bearing) instead of showing ambition for the club.

 

 

Which is in essence what I've been saying, as in 1st Sept will be interesting. We will know exactly which way he's going as he (the club) aren't running down the hill after the ball any more, they have (he has) the choice.

[Happy Face 29]

As someone mentioned it in the deadline thread, I'll maintain this opening post as a go-to reference. Corrections gratefully received.

 

Summer 2007

Out

Alan O'Brien -£200,000

Scott Parker -£7,000,000

Albert Luque -£1,000,000

Kieron Dyer -£6,000,000

Nolberto Solano -£500,000

Paul Huntington -£500,000

In

Joey Barton £5,800,000

Abdoulaye Faye £2,000,000

Alan Smith £6,000,000

Habib Beye £2,000,000

Jose Enrique £6,000,000

David Rozenhal £3,100,000

 

Total = £9.7 million spend

 

 

 

January 2008

Out

none

In

Fabio Zamblera £300,000

 

Total = £300K spend

 

 

 

Summer 2008

Out

David Rozehnal -£2,900,000

Emre -£2,000,000

Abdoulaye Faye -£2,250,000

James Milner -£12,000,000

In

Danny Guthrie £2,500,000

Jonas Gutierrez £5,200,000

Fabricio Coloccini £9,100,000

Francisco Jiminez Tejada "Xisco" £5,000,000

 

Total = £2.65 Million spend

 

 

 

January 2009

Out

Charles N'Zogbia -£6,000,000

Shay Given -£8,000,000

In

Kevin Nolan £4,000,000

 

Total = £10 Million net inflow

 

 

 

Summer 2009

Out

Obafemi Martins -£9,000,000

Damien Duff -£2,500,000

Habib Beye -£2,000,000

Sebastien Bassong -£8,000,000

In

None

 

Total = £21.5 million net inflow

 

 

 

January 2010

Out

None

In

Danny Simpson £1,000,000

Wayne Routledge £1,000,000

Mike Williamson £1,000,000

Leon Best £1,000,000

 

Total = £4 million spend

 

 

 

Summer 2010

Out

None

In

James Perch £1,000,000

Cheick Tiote £3,500,000

 

Total = £4.5 Million Spend

 

 

 

January 2011

Out

Andy Carroll -£35,000,000

In

Hatem Ben  Arfa £5,750,000

 

Total = £29.25 Million net inflow

 

Summer 2011

Out

Kevin Nolan £4,000,000

 

In

Yohan Cabaye £4,300,000

 

Total = £0.3 Million Spend

 

GRAND TOTAL = £43.3 Million net inflow

[donaldstott 0]

At this stage, the wheeling and dealing is positive.

 

To be honest, I don't really care whether we spend every penny of the Carroll fee, what matters is that the transfer dealings we do improve the team and the squad.

 

And regardless of fees paid, we have a better team and a better squad now than at the end of the season.

 

Three players in, seemingly Barnetta and Taylor to follow. I know it's cliched but Bafra and Gosling are like new signings.

 

Now, that's not to say that the board doesn't have the propensity to royally fuck it all up.

[Kitman 2188]

At this stage, the wheeling and dealing is positive.

 

To be honest, I don't really care whether we spend every penny of the Carroll fee, what matters is that the transfer dealings we do improve the team and the squad.

 

And regardless of fees paid, we have a better team and a better squad now than at the end of the season.

 

Three players in, seemingly Barnetta and Taylor to follow. I know it's cliched but Bafra and Gosling are like new signings.

 

Now, that's not to say that the board doesn't have the propensity to royally fuck it all up.

 

Fair enough but I'd like to see us use the money to strengthen the squad further. Also there may be further departures.

[JawD 31]

Whether we spend the £35M or not I dont really mind. If the squad is stronger come the start of the season I'll be happy. By Stronger I mean two decent forwards and any player that leaves is replaced with an improvement. It's very early days but it looks like Cabaye, Ba & Marveaux replacing Nolan, Kuqi and Campbell is good work. The single biggest move for me is still to come and is that of a proven goalscorer. Someone who could get us 15-20 a season.

 

Also possible exits are Enrique and Barton. Both of those would need to be replaced, especially Enrique. If Taylor comes in that will be a welcome move but not a replacement. Centre halfs are also thin on the ground. Taylor and Colo (better fucking stay!) look to be the pairing for next season. Williamson the back up but further strengthening here wouldnt go a miss.

 

The formation it is said will change from 4-4-2 to a more 4-3-1-2. The three in the centre Id assume would be Tiote flanked by Cabaye and Marv or Barton? Maybe they dont expect Marv to see a full season. Who knows. Ben Arfa behind front two of Ba and Shola at the moment?

 

As for the pot, who knows whats in it. £35M from Carroll but what about his wages? If you use 3 years as a standard and £40K a week as an average (for ease). Then the pot should be £41M. Plus Sol, £47M. Plus Nolan £56M. Less Ba £50M, Less Marv £44M, Less Cabaye £33M. Could be less if you include agents fees and that the likes of Sol was on more but shorter contract.

[ChezGiven 0]

Not much point in calculating the spend yet.

 

It's a bit odd to calculate the wages over a contract too, it's all about the wages as a % of turnover. Since turnover is annual then next years turnover will impact on the net income of the club. If the net income of the club is zero at the current wage level then adding to the wage bill will need to be financed by money from sales etc. However, that is unsustainable in business as you have to then rely on sales to fund wages. Wages must come from operational income, which are the normal predictable income streams. The only way it makes sense to include sales money in how high you set the wage bill is if you see the wages paid as an investment to generate extra income. Which would mean qualifying for Europe etc. Asset sales, I think, are usually referred to as 'exceptional' items on accounts so don't form part of your income which should be allocated to wages.

 

In short I don't get how income from asset sales / players can be used in the longer term to fund wages.

 

I suppose it can if the years sales income covers the fees and is provided/held against the value of the contract, which I'm guessing would show as "cash at bank" on a diminishing balance in relation to the player.

 

Amortisation adds a strange dimension as well though, they're paying "cash up front" but that'll be charged year on year, as fee divided by length of contract so the player value depreciates (in the books) so, for example, if Collocini was sold for £10 Mill next year (one year left) his book value will be £2Mill at the time, so that's a profit of £8Mill next year. So they bought him for £10Mill sold him for the same amount but made an £8Mill profit in the year of sale !! Is that real money then ????? I suppose it must be.

I think amortisation is a bit of red herring, the business is run on cashflow to pay wages and player sales. We need to look at the last 2 seasons finance.

 

What are the current best estimates on our wage bill? £55m+? What was our income in the championship? £45m? What are the operating costs beyond wages for running the club? £15m+

 

On that basis we could have lost around £30m last year, the wage bill was lower last year so possibly only £20m. They are just rough estimates. Income from last season could have risen by £50m for extra TV. I'm sure i saw a table of TV revenue for this year's premiership at some point recently. This must mean the money has been paid to the clubs already. We should therefore have the same £45m from the championship + £50m of TV money maybe plus some more. The wage bill has risen and at current has risen again with Cabaye or Ba but only by a £2.5m roughly.

 

There therefore should already be money available. Ignoring Carroll just for a moment, we've spent around £15m since January 2010. Roughly we should have £95m (Income) which has gone one - £55m (wages) - £15m (Operating expenses) - £15m (Players). Which would leave £10m to spend.

 

Then you have the Carroll money. If this is a realistic assessment then, ignoring the debt just for a moment, he could spend £20m on 4 players who earn £10m a year. If he doesnt do that then maybe that assessment of the money situation is wrong, or people are very right to point out that he should be doing this and if he isnt then he must be prioritising debt (which should be stable and non-interest bearing) instead of showing ambition for the club.

 

 

Which is in essence what I've been saying, as in 1st Sept will be interesting. We will know exactly which way he's going as he (the club) aren't running down the hill after the ball any more, they have (he has) the choice.

 

I know, i actually read your posts so i know where you stand. I dont agree on absolutely everything but i certainly know where you're coming from.

 

I thought it might be useful to set out the basic finance as it should be clear that if you've got £35m to spend and you bring in 4 players for £20m on £10m a year, you've got £5m left to pay the additional £10m wages in year 2 of their contract. This means you have to grow overall income otherwise spending the money like that will create problems in year 2. I think most sensible people recognise this.

 

Ultimately, it looks like its going to be a complicated summer with new players coming in for feee on incentivised contracts, players leaving and possible some big money spent on an out and out striker. Keeping tabs will be tricky.

[LeazesMag 0]

Whether we spend the £35M or not I dont really mind. If the squad is stronger come the start of the season I'll be happy. By Stronger I mean two decent forwards and any player that leaves is replaced with an improvement. It's very early days but it looks like Cabaye, Ba & Marveaux replacing Nolan, Kuqi and Campbell is good work. The single biggest move for me is still to come and is that of a proven goalscorer. Someone who could get us 15-20 a season.

 

Also possible exits are Enrique and Barton. Both of those would need to be replaced, especially Enrique. If Taylor comes in that will be a welcome move but not a replacement. Centre halfs are also thin on the ground. Taylor and Colo (better fucking stay!) look to be the pairing for next season. Williamson the back up but further strengthening here wouldnt go a miss.

 

The formation it is said will change from 4-4-2 to a more 4-3-1-2. The three in the centre Id assume would be Tiote flanked by Cabaye and Marv or Barton? Maybe they dont expect Marv to see a full season. Who knows. Ben Arfa behind front two of Ba and Shola at the moment?

 

As for the pot, who knows whats in it. £35M from Carroll but what about his wages? If you use 3 years as a standard and £40K a week as an average (for ease). Then the pot should be £41M. Plus Sol, £47M. Plus Nolan £56M. Less Ba £50M, Less Marv £44M, Less Cabaye £33M. Could be less if you include agents fees and that the likes of Sol was on more but shorter contract.

 

indeed. Those who insist that the 35m quid for Carroll should be spent on wages of incoming players = meaning NUFC need to sell to survive ie a selling club - then the reverse is also true.