Matt
-
Posts
2089 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Matt
-
-
Because they have worded it very carefully.
We have spent £25m (cash) since June 11, so this figure will be in the next set of accounts. This number won't appear at all in those about to be released.
The reason the club is keen to point this out is because we will be booking a massive gain on the Carroll sale with little to offset it and I reckon our pre-tax profit is likely to be in the £20m area, unless there has been some huge impairments on the squad, which I can't see happening. £20m clear profit is not a figure they'd be keen to stress in their initial public sounding. Far better to promote the 'slow and steady' story. All expectations management.
We are still in debt to Mike Ashley as well, payable on demand. We are not debt free.That's a mirage. He could demand repayment and liquidate the club. But he could do that anyway as the 100% owner. He is under no obligation to continue running a business, it is in his gift to close it down whenever he likes (it would be stupid of course). To all practical purposes, the 'loan' is equity but is on the books as a loan because firstly it's tax efficient and secondly that it serves a nice reminder of all the cash Mike had to plough into the club having neglected to look at so much as the published accounts before buying the club.
-
Binned mine for next season. Travel costs, aided by TV moves, are getting out of hand.
-
Re: Portsmouth, I go back to the point that it's wrong on every level that the parachute payments has gone to the former owner instead of the club. Yes, I know someone pointed out that it's going to Gaydamak as the result of some court order but it throws the whole reason the parachute payments were set up in the first place right out of the window. It's a means by the FA to protect the continued interests of one of their clubs. Not a means to pay of their debts. If it's a loophole being exploited, it needs closing.
But football authorities can't overrule the company laws that apply to every other line of business. If they hadn't agreed to assign the parachute payments then Portsmouth would already have been liquidated.
-
Mint that they have this nebulous "classiness" to fall back on.
Lower than Newcastle in the league? Never mind cos you're "classier".
Get howked 5-1 in the only game that matters to you? Yeah but you're "classier".
Put in your best showing in the derby for a while and still not win? Mutter something about "class".
Everything tangible that you can point at, we're bigger and better at than them, so they've invented something intangible that they can pretend to lord it over us with. And they've ALL grabbed hold of it cos it's all they've got to cling to.
Thing is, football isn't remotely classy. It's an alcohol-fuelled revision of primeval rituals with an array of morons as the star attractions. To even attempt to describe it terms of class seems to demonstrate a lack of understanding of anything classy.
-
How can th PL get it so wrong with the parachute payments setup? Surely they should be paid to the registered club, not an individual?
i think they do get paid to the club, but under the last CVA they are legally assigned to Gaydamak.
-
It won't kick off the same as last time, as now it's been made clear that heads will be cracked as and when required.
-
7th season without a trophy for Arsenal now unless they get a miracle in the Champions League.
They're cursed by the boards around their ground listing all the trophies and leaving a space- they've not had to change them yet.
-
Give it a good decade and every team in the PL would've had their names changed by their owners. I WOULD do the same
No they wouldn't because it would be brand suicide.
-
Of course it should but after everything thats gone on over the last few years theres just no point getting worked up over something you cant do anything about.
Veni, Vedi, Vichy.
-
So he appoints the firm who had also been advising him on how to get himself out of the current predicament. Convenient.
-
Has no-one in HMG thought that once the NHS is destroyed as a public service into profit-making units, its legions of valuable and well-qualified staff will suddenly decide they would like more money? They can always go work for another provider, after all.
Most outsourcing agreements are based on the idea that multiple small-scale operations are better carried out by a larger specialist which can pool greater resources. It usually works for catering and bin collecting. This is the opposite, they are looking to break down the biggest healthcare provider in the world into smaller chunks, each taking a skim along the way.
Labour and the Libs will clearly be against it, it's not universally loved by Tories either and I suspect Cameron is not that hot on it either. He is being pressed by the lobbyists and far-right backbenchers. They will lose the vote on this for sure.
-
We tried 433/4231 for 3 games on the trot, with Ben Arfa, and we looked shite for all 3.
We dominated Fulham in that first half. We also played it against QPR after Ben Arfa came on and we improved that day.
The Fulham game proved that you can't rely on one formation. We controlled the game, then Fulham switched it around and we did nothing to stop the midfield being overloaded.
-
Only thing is we're away at Arsenal 2 weeks on Monday in the only game we've got before the mackems turn up.
Wolves first, Arsenal is after the mackems.
-
I'm surprised they are willing to hang themselves on this. The NHS is a hugely emotive subject and Cameron's staunch defence of it was, IMO, a major votewinner for him in the election.
The idea that private is always better is bollocks. Some services are better delivered privately, others are best as part of the state- health and education being two of the latter.
-
i thought the steak with bites missing was going to develop into some kind of scathing economic commentary, but otherwise I thought it was alright.
-
There is one thing I dont get though. Maybe Tecato can explain it to me.
If there is a release clause, and it is this low - and it seems like it is:
Why is Harry broadcasting this in the media? If he is interested like he says he is, why not keep it on the low instead of setting the entire top-6 including more attractive clubs than his - on red alert?
It could be that we're both going for the same target and he'd like us to use funds sorting out Ba's position, or more likely he's helping Ba's management get a nice pay-out while advising one of their other clients that Tottenham is the team for them.
-
I auditioned for Blockbusters
Me too. When it was hosted by Lisa Tarbuck. Judging by the standard of contestants, they were not selecting on the basis of intelligence.
-
The Baker Street sax thing is urban myth-tastic though.
IIRC, invented by Stuart Maconie as part of a fake 'did you know' column in a music mag.
-
The problem is it's not in isolation-if he's renewed at £80k that has to be about £30k more than the unofficial cap, and about £70k more than many players will be earning. That then becomes the prescedent they point to when they're looking to re-negotiate. If it had the knock on effect that everyones wages went up by £10k per week across the first team, that's an extra £5 million per year for the same players. That's not me saying we shouldnt move heaven and earth to keep him, just saying how i reckon FMA views it in his head and he's the one holding the purse strings.
I think this is the key point- the precedent it sets for other players. I still expect us to be touting him around in this window and in the summer. The club will be aware some clubs have defensive issues and will be doing their best to cash in now.
Which is depressing, as the guy is just immense.
-
You're unlikely to find a decent one central.
Cracking one up Chalk Farm called, Oscars (I think) and the Clapham Fish Club is top notch, but both a bit out of the way.
Olivers. Most middle-class chippy on earth. They cook the fish to order so be prepared to wait for it to arrive but they usually do a good job of it. Don't expect much change from a tenner.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-15113440
Transplanting faecal matter from one person to another - the thought might turn your stomach, but it could be lifesaving.Some doctors are using the procedure to repopulate the gut with healthy bacteria, which can become unbalanced in some diseases.
Dr Alisdair MacConnachie, who thinks he is the only UK doctor to carry out the procedure for Clostridium difficle infection, describes it as a proven treatment.
He says it should be used, but only as a treatment of last resort.
The logic is simple.
C. difficile infection is caused by antibiotics wiping out swathes of bacteria in the gut. It gives the surviving C. difficile bacteria room to explode in numbers and produce masses of toxins which lead to diarrhoea and can be fatal.
The first-choice solution, more antibiotics, does not always work and some patients develop recurrent infection.
The theory is that by adding more bacteria to the bowels, they will compete with C. difficile bacteria and control the infection.
Dr MacConnachie, from Gartnavel General Hospital in Glasgow, has performed just over 20 of the operations since he started in 2003.
"Ultimately all the patients I've treated, bar one, has got rid of their C. difficile," he said.
The procedure
If normal treatments fail to work, the patient will be given antibiotics up to the night before the operation, when their pills will be swapped for those to control stomach acid.
On the morning of the procedure, the donor will come into hospital and produce a sample.
A relative is generally used, preferably one who lives with the patient, because living in the same environment and eating the same food means they are more likely to have similar bowel bacteria.
About 30g (1oz) is taken and blitzed in a household blender with some salt water. This is poured through a coffee filter to leave a watery liquid.
Dr MacConnachie inserts a tube up the patient's nose and down to the stomach. Other doctors use a different route to the bowels.
About 30ml (1fl oz) of liquid is poured down the tube.
"My personal view is that this technique is there for patients who have tried all the traditional treatments," Dr MacConnachie.
"If a patient doesn't respond to that and still gets recurrent C. difficile then they're in real trouble and there isn't really any other technique or any other treatment that has the proven efficacy that faecal transplant does."
I asked him why, if that was true, were more doctors in the UK not carrying out the procedure: "It's a published technique, I guess people are scared of it.
"It sounds disgusting, it is disgusting and I think people are probably worried about approaching patients and discussing it."
That is not a problem faced by Prof Lawrence Brandt, a gastroenterologist at Montefiore Medical Center in New York.
He says he now gets between two and four emails a day from people who want a transplant. So far he has carried out the procedure 42 times.
He remembers the first in 1999: "She called me within six hours of me doing the faecal transplant saying she didn't know what I did in there, but she felt better than she'd felt for six months and in fact she never had recurrence of that C. difficile."
As well as patients, he says there are more doctors expressing an interest in the US.
"Within the next six months or year, this will be the most exciting thing that's happened to gastroenterology. It will change the way that certainly C. difficile is treated and many other diseases too."
Irritable bowel syndrome, diarrhoea and constipation are also on his list of possible applications. "It looks like a terrific approach to a wide variety of diseases," he says.
Proof?
The practice has been reported only as a series of small case by case studies for recurrent C. difficile infection.
There has been an average success rate about 90%. However, this is not enough for the technique to be widely adopted.
The gold standard for determining if a treatment works is a randomised clinical trial - taking a large group of patients and giving one set the therapy and another a placebo or pretend therapy. The two groups are compared to see if the treatment really makes a difference.
Until such a trial takes place, widespread acceptance will be difficult achieve.
-
Had ours today. Went to the 'Lahore Kebab House' which was canny, followed by a few beers then home. Nowt much.
-
We're getting weaker with every passing match, seeing the likes of Perch and Lovenkrands in the side is a miserable prospect.
-
Bruce Arena? Souless corporate bastards, rebranding their ground like that. Fair play for giving Bagpuss some recognition though.
Newcastle United Finances Ending 30th June 2011
in Newcastle Forum
Posted
Interest is tax deductible. So if the club makes £10m profit, then 26% (£2.6m) goes to the taxman. The remaining £7.4m can be paid as dividends, held in the company, whatever is preferred.
But if Ashley decided interest is payable (there are limits set by HMRC on what is allowed) at say 7% a year on the £140m (which is not unreasonable) then the club pays £9.8m interest and only £0.2m profit. The taxman takes 26% of that (about £52k) and the club can use the remaining £148k. Ashley's company then has the £9.8m of income.
It gets a bit more complicated after that, because ultimately the interest has to escape the corporate chain at some point and what often happens (but I dont think is the case here) is that one of the companies in the chain is offshore (Guernsey of Cayman registered for example) where there is little or no tax on dividends and the cash can be extracted there. There is a whole plethora of legislation around this which goes well beyond my understanding, but the fundamental is that you can reduce the overall tax burden on the company through this 'tax shield'.
The other benefit is being able to improve returns from a liquidation process. If you imagine that you were owed £50m by a company in which you also owned all the shares and the other creditors were owed £25m, then you probably want to use your position as majority creditor to your advantage if the company becomes distressed. This is the calling card of the feller up at Rangers. Not that I'm saying Ashley is doing that- far from it- he is likely owed 99% of the total club's debt so it's not an issue. But it's why some people use secured intercompany loans rather than common equity, which always ranks last in line for the spoils.