Jump to content

Mike Ashley -- Irrelevant Cunt


Christmas Tree
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hoping he ekes another year out of Rafa then he'll spin the roulette wheel of mediocrity next summer when Rafa's contract is up. Hopefully he overdoses on coke first

Edited by Alex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Alex said:

The crack about spending what we generate makes sense now

 

It does. We might just have to accept that it is what it is. 90m losses for being relegated is phenomenal.

 

So, very likely thats where all the tv money went for this season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've concluded that he will never let go. He has it absolutely golden here. Year after year of free, global advertising. The ability to be far less than transparent about income and expenditure. Only has to dangle the carrot of takeovers that will never happen and the stadium fills straight up. He will string NUFC along as long as he can.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kid Dynamite said:

Aye, definitely an ulterior motive with these numbers. The parachute payment offsets all but £30-40mil of losses. £90mil of losses is unprecedented. Especially as we had a transfer net profit !

We lost £41m after transfers are taken into account.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can one of our financially minded posters explain the significance of the 90m being an Operating Loss.

 

My understanding is, it only includes income and expenses for that year.  So Capital expenditure (player sales/purchases, income for past player sales/purchase) are either excluded or only include the 12 month value.

 

As I'm pretty sure this is significant as Ashley said we would only ever buy players in full.  And I know we sell on tick e.g. Sissoko for 6m a year x5 years.

 

In my mind we at least broke even last year.  Just not in cash flow (purchase in full vs player sales on ticks full income value).

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, OTF said:

Newcastle United Annual Financial Accounts, proudly prepared for you by the PR department.

 

We have a PR guy?  I'd have love to see that job advert.  

 

Quote

Scape goat wanted.  Experience not necessary.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently if a player is permanently out of the first team squad, like Colback is now, his wages over the remainder of his contract have to be expensed straight away. If there were a few of those in the 2017 accounts, it might explain why the loss was so high. In effect it’s treating those wages as paid upfront.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Kitman said:

Apparently if a player is permanently out of the first team squad, like Colback is now, his wages over the remainder of his contract have to be expensed straight away. If there were a few of those in the 2017 accounts, it might explain why the loss was so high. In effect it’s treating those wages as paid upfront.

Who was saying that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, ewerk said:

Who was saying that?

It sounds a little bit like the treatment of an asset held for sale except I can’t see how it would work with wages (since they’re an expense and I know when a fixed asset is held for sale it’s remaining depreciation isn’t immediately expensed).

Since I don’t think the wages of the contract are capitalized (this is where I might be incorrect and where the asset held for sale treatment might be this) the only immediate write off for an asset held for sale would be the impairment, which in Colbacks case would be the remaining amortization since he’s what can only be defined as a ‘worthless cunt’. The other point here is was Colback ever being amortized since he was free? I suppose it could be his signing on fee and any agent fees, but I doubt there’d be much remaining. I suppose there would also be players like Haidara, Saivet, etc that could all have been treat this way but I still can’t see it being a significant amount. 

 

Overall I’m not sure how this would work as I can’t see how you’d be able to immediately write off the remaining expense of a contract in the current period as they’re not period expenses even if the ‘asset’ is no longer intended for use. 

Edited by Howay
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, ewerk said:

Who was saying that?

 

I think it was in the Chronicle. I realise it might be bullshit but it seemed like one reason the wage bill might have spiked. And there must be agood reason... I cant believe that Ashley would generally sanction such a big spike in wages even if we hadnt been relegated

Edited by Kitman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Howmanheyman said:

The books have been cooked to A. Make Rafa seem unreasonable and B. Make the club look fucking brilliant in next years accounts for any potential buyers.

Pretty much the only two reasons I can think of.

I can’t the provision being tax allowable so wouldn’t save us money going forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The books have been presented with one aim - to present Ashley in the best light possible.

 

The cynic would believe the misleading 90m headline is to make out he is the savior of Newcastle United, and implies anyone who says otherwise is delusional.  The truth is more likely they are trying to quash any expectations of spending more than last summer.

 

It's rather concerning that Ashley didnt use this opportunity to court potential buyers to drive up the price.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

It's rather concerning that Ashley didnt use this opportunity to court potential buyers to drive up the price.

Arguably this could have done so as these accounts will be a year old and any purchasers would be looking at more recent unfinalised accounts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely even Mike ashley isn’t dumb enough to cook the books when they’ve been under close scrutiny already from the revenue? Could it not be that they actually did just take a “financial gamble”?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Andrew changed the title to Mike Ashley -- Irrelevant Cunt

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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.