We're rich

[Isegrim 9944]

I tells ya.

 

Well at least the NUST seems to think so.

 

The Trust has never got into a slanging match with Mr Ashley and Mr

Llambias and neither does it intend to, we're interested in our club

and more importantly its future. One final thought for you to consider

before you fill in the survey - sources have told us that Mr Ashley is

making up to £7m profit out of our club every month and whilst that's

not confirmed - do the maths - wages halved, no expenditure on

transfers, crowds up, new advertising revenue before the end of the

season and the assets of SJP Holdings. Make no mistake - Mr Ashley is

not going to lose on his investment in Newcastle but it's now time to

think about the club, city and community not himself.

 

Honestly, I had a lot of time for the NUST, although from my experience with German clubs I do have my reservations about clubs "owned" by fans. But a lot of the stuff the NUST has come out with is cringeworthy. I am sorry for the likes of peasepud and others, but in general they do a very good job in looking unprofessional.

Edited January 11, 2010 by Isegrim

[Matt 0]

That's almost all our turnover!

 

NUST have really lost it. The prospectus should be a interesting read, that's if it ever appears.

Edited January 11, 2010 by Matt

[andy_w_1986 0]

What a tragic statement. I do genuinely back the NUST but what a ridiculous statement. Attendances up, compared to when? How can new advertising in the future contribute to the current profit? "Sources close to the club" is that not one of the most ridiculed statements doing the rounds? For the sake of NUST's success, find the culprit who put that together and take him off writing duties, stories of that standard will land him a nice job at the Chronicle.

[ewerk 31349]

We've got bigger profits than Man U!

[OTF 7717]

7 million a month!

 

You've got to be kidding. When your 'source' tells you something like this it's time to get a new source.

 

If it was true we'd never get rid of Ashley. Assuming the club was worth £100 mill that would be an 84% annual return!

[ChezGiven 0]

Next season is going to be amazing.

[Guest alex]

Worst thing is stuff like this makes Ashley look more credible. It's not like NUSC needs bollocks like this to make him look bad anyway, is it?

[Craig 6700]

 

Pud do you lot actually converse before releases are made to the press or is this the work of a solo maverick??

[Happy Face 29]

The unfortunate thing is whatever is happening on the balance sheet this season (and i believe he IS turning a profit now) the accounts for 2009 are due in the next couple of months and will show a loss which loses NUST credibility even if their inside dope is spot on.

Edited January 12, 2010 by Happy Face

[Optimistic Nut 235]

If he is turning a profit of £7m a month, then nobody would have stuttered over a £100m buyout of the club.

[Andrew 4945]

thing is, i think you've grasped that wrong, while ashley is taking 7mil a month out of the club the club isn't making that much a month

 

once the club accounts come out they will show a huge loss because (apart from being relegated) of the money being taken out by FMA

[TheMoog 0]

thing is, i think you've grasped that wrong, while ashley is taking 7mil a month out of the club the club isn't making that much a month

 

once the club accounts come out they will show a huge loss because (apart from being relegated) of the money being taken out by FMA

 

If he is turning a profit of £7m a month, then nobody would have stuttered over a £100m buyout of the club.

 

Both good points actually, I've got to admit I'm doubting that we're making a £7m profit a month BUT it wouldn't surprise me to hear that Fat Cunt was taking any money made straight out again and putting it in his back pocket. At the end of the day we have a large, parasitic problem bleeding the club dry and that doesn't look likely to change any time soon sadly.

[Andrew 4945]

thing is, i think you've grasped that wrong, while ashley is taking 7mil a month out of the club the club isn't making that much a month

 

once the club accounts come out they will show a huge loss because (apart from being relegated) of the money being taken out by FMA

 

If he is turning a profit of £7m a month, then nobody would have stuttered over a £100m buyout of the club.

 

Both good points actually, I've got to admit I'm doubting that we're making a £7m profit a month BUT it wouldn't surprise me to hear that Fat Cunt was taking any money made straight out again and putting it in his back pocket. At the end of the day we have a large, parasitic problem bleeding the club dry and that doesn't look likely to change any time soon sadly.

 

thing is, this statement has suffered from being awfully written, assuming Ive interpretted it right then why hasn't it been worded as such? the only way I got to the conclusion I did was from reading PPs post in the "comical dekka" thread explaining the whole thing, it wouldn't have been difficult to add that little bit of detail to make everything clearer

Edited January 12, 2010 by Andrew

[OTF 7717]

thing is, i think you've grasped that wrong, while ashley is taking 7mil a month out of the club the club isn't making that much a month

 

once the club accounts come out they will show a huge loss because (apart from being relegated) of the money being taken out by FMA

 

That makes no sense at all. How could you be taking more out of the club each month than is being generated? The only way would be to be making loans against the value of the club, putting the club further into debt. Of course that would be an incredibly ridiculous thing to do because if you intend to sell the club it would make it nigh on impossible to do, or if you intend to keep the club the costs of servicing the loans will be greatly in excess of any profits a wonderful businessman like Mike Ashley could make off that sort of capital.

 

If he is somehow managing to take out 7 million each month, despite the fact that the club does not bring in profits like that each quarter (let-alone-month) then it's flat out not a 'profit' in any way shape or form and the statement is blatantly wrong.

[peasepud 59]

thing is, i think you've grasped that wrong, while ashley is taking 7mil a month out of the club the club isn't making that much a month

 

once the club accounts come out they will show a huge loss because (apart from being relegated) of the money being taken out by FMA

 

That makes no sense at all. How could you be taking more out of the club each month than is being generated? The only way would be to be making loans against the value of the club, putting the club further into debt. Of course that would be an incredibly ridiculous thing to do because if you intend to sell the club it would make it nigh on impossible to do, or if you intend to keep the club the costs of servicing the loans will be greatly in excess of any profits a wonderful businessman like Mike Ashley could make off that sort of capital.

 

If he is somehow managing to take out 7 million each month, despite the fact that the club does not bring in profits like that each quarter (let-alone-month) then it's flat out not a 'profit' in any way shape or form and the statement is blatantly wrong.

 

Im guessing here but I reckon the whole "£7m per month" is a bit of a red herring, like I say its a guess as I've not seen the allegations but Im betting that when it comes out then its averaged over a period of time, so if say it was the last year then the allegation would be that he'd taken £84m over the last 12 months = average of £7m per month.

[OTF 7717]

If there is an element of truth in the statement then it's probably a case of around 7 million coming out in a particular month - that's entirely possible if it was over the offseason when a lot of our players were sold generating MUCH higher than usual income.

 

There's a big difference between around 7 million a month, and around 7 million in a month.

[peasepud 59]

If there is an element of truth in the statement then it's probably a case of around 7 million coming out in a particular month - that's entirely possible if it was over the offseason when a lot of our players were sold generating MUCH higher than usual income.

 

There's a big difference between around 7 million a month, and around 7 million in a month.

 

I dont believe it is, that in itself wouldnt make news and from what I do know, this is supposed to be somebodys up and coming big headline, investigative report.

[OTF 7717]

NEWCASTLE UNITED IN BIG STORYLINE COMING SHOCKER

[TheMoog 0]

thing is, i think you've grasped that wrong, while ashley is taking 7mil a month out of the club the club isn't making that much a month

 

once the club accounts come out they will show a huge loss because (apart from being relegated) of the money being taken out by FMA

 

That makes no sense at all. How could you be taking more out of the club each month than is being generated? The only way would be to be making loans against the value of the club, putting the club further into debt. Of course that would be an incredibly ridiculous thing to do because if you intend to sell the club it would make it nigh on impossible to do, or if you intend to keep the club the costs of servicing the loans will be greatly in excess of any profits a wonderful businessman like Mike Ashley could make off that sort of capital.

 

If he is somehow managing to take out 7 million each month, despite the fact that the club does not bring in profits like that each quarter (let-alone-month) then it's flat out not a 'profit' in any way shape or form and the statement is blatantly wrong.

 

Im guessing here but I reckon the whole "£7m per month" is a bit of a red herring, like I say its a guess as I've not seen the allegations but Im betting that when it comes out then its averaged over a period of time, so if say it was the last year then the allegation would be that he'd taken £84m over the last 12 months = average of £7m per month.

 

That makes more sense.

[ewerk 31349]

Where the fuck would the £84 million come from?

[Happy Face 29]

Where the fuck would the £84 million come from?

 

The seasonal year isn't over. August to december is 5 months, not 12 so you have to ask if he could have made £35m in that period to get an average figure of £7m per month.

 

I don't know if that's realistic, but i know West Brom made £11m+ in their last season in the championship which is about £1m a month...and they didn't have half the income we do....

 

West Bromwich Albion

Accounts for the year to 30 June 2008

 

 

Ownership Over 50% owned by the chairman, Jeremy Peace

 

 

Turnover (2007-08, in the Championship): £27.2m (up from £24m the previous year, an increase of 13% mainly due to increased parachute payments)

 

Gate and matchiday £7m

 

Merchandising £2.2m

 

TV and broadcasting £14m

 

Other commercial income £4m

 

 

Wage bill £21.8m (up from £17.4m the previous year, an increase of 25%)

 

Wages as proportion of turnover 80%

 

 

Profit before tax £11.3m

 

Debts £8.9m

 

Interest payable £91,000

 

Highest paid director Jeremy Peace: £625,000

 

 

State they're in This is the portrait of a former Premier League club pushing for promotion in the Championship, with the benefit of parachute payments, which increased by £4.5m during the year. West Bromwich carry little debt, have reduced ticket prices, and under Jeremy Peace's chairmanship do not gamble when they are promoted. Can be expected to be strong in the Championship next season and to yo-yo back up while still under the Premier League's parachute canopy.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/ju...ier-league-debt

 

Just on the gate receipts, their £7m is dwarfed by the £23m our 40,000+ crowds bring in.

 

Since August we've also sold Martins, Bassong, Beye & Duff. With no outgoing transfer costs how much is that?

[Isegrim 9944]

They are likely to only have had a fraction of the current expenses of Newcastle though...

[Happy Face 29]

They are likely to only have had a fraction of the current expenses of Newcastle though...

 

Why?

 

The club staff at Newcastle has been cut from 1500 to 500.

 

The queues outside don't clear until 15 minutes after the game has started because half of the gates remain closed to lower costs.

 

What do Newcastle pay for that West Brom don't?

 

Our wages are £35m compared to their £22m, so that's £13m more outgoings we've got. As I said, the gate receipts alone more than cover that difference. That's before you look at how much better we do from merchandise, advertising and other commercial interests.

 

How much have we saved Mike on his Sports Directs advertising budget? What would they have had to pay any other club for blanket advertising around the stadium & the stadium renamed for them? That's got to be worth 7 figures.

Edited January 13, 2010 by Happy Face

[Isegrim 9944]

They are likely to only have had a fraction of the current expenses of Newcastle though...

 

Why?

 

The club staff at Newcastle has been cut from 1500 to 500.

 

The queues outside don't clear until 15 minutes after the game has started because half of the gates remain closed to lower costs.

 

What do Newcastle pay for that West Brom don't?

 

Our wages are £35m compared to their £22m, so that's £13m more outgoings we've got. As I said, the gate receipts alone more than cover that difference. That's before you look at how much better we do from merchandise, advertising and other commercial interests.

 

How much have we saved Mike on his Sports Directs advertising budget? What would they have had to pay any other club for blanket advertising around the stadium & the stadium renamed for them? That's got to be worth 7 figures.

That's all a bit simplistic, isn't it. Of course Newcastle have drastically cut costs. The expenses are still likely to be much higher than West Brom's. The bigger turnover and higher gate receipts don't just equate with a bigger profit. There are a lot of other running costs that have to be considered, e.g. a bigger ground means higher maintenance costs, same applies for the training complex etc.

[Happy Face 29]

They are likely to only have had a fraction of the current expenses of Newcastle though...

 

Why?

 

The club staff at Newcastle has been cut from 1500 to 500.

 

The queues outside don't clear until 15 minutes after the game has started because half of the gates remain closed to lower costs.

 

What do Newcastle pay for that West Brom don't?

 

Our wages are £35m compared to their £22m, so that's £13m more outgoings we've got. As I said, the gate receipts alone more than cover that difference. That's before you look at how much better we do from merchandise, advertising and other commercial interests.

 

How much have we saved Mike on his Sports Directs advertising budget? What would they have had to pay any other club for blanket advertising around the stadium & the stadium renamed for them? That's got to be worth 7 figures.

That's all a bit simplistic, isn't it. Of course Newcastle have drastically cut costs. The expenses are still likely to be much higher than West Brom's. The bigger turnover and higher gate receipts don't just equate with a bigger profit. There are a lot of other running costs that have to be considered, e.g. a bigger ground means higher maintenance costs, same applies for the training complex etc.

 

Undoubtedly.

 

West Broms other costs that season came to £13m

 

Newcastles Premier league other costs the same year (07/08) were £50m (£120m total outgoing - £70m salary) so they were ran at a quarter of the cost of us. But we've drastically reduced those running costs in the last 2 years, it remains to be seen if it's by enough. I think it's safe to say it is for a Premier league club.