Club statement

[Kitman 2207]

Given that the plan is to slowly reduce the losses over 5 years, we plan to lose £28m next season, then £22m, then 16m etc.

 

Im not sure how this whole thing works?

 

If the plan is, as has been intimated, to reduce the losses year on year and break even in 5 years then how are people thinking we will be debt free?

 

Seeing as we were £111m in debt to Ashley plus a £20m overdraft at the end of the 08/09 season and we allegedly lost £32.5m in 09/10 then that would put us currently £162.5m in debt.

 

If the plan is to reduce the losses to £28m this coming season then we'll be £200m in the red. At the end of year 2 it'll be £222m, year 3 will be £238m and 4 about £245m, so by the time we break even we'll be sitting on a debt of around £250m. How is that financially stable?

 

We'll not be debt free, we'll have bigger debts than those that took Portsmouth out however we could well be a league or two down on their position at the time.

How we going to lose money though??? I can't get me head round it. Forget the debt now to Ashley, HOW THE FUCK ARE WE GONNA LOSE MONEY. The wage is reportedly 35-40m now and that's believable. Our turnover will be 90-£100m. So some explain to me how we'll make a loss? The fuckin pies in the stadium don't cost £60m, nor do the gormless twats in the Ladbrokes kiosks. Someone in basic terms show me how we'll lose money in 2010/2011. or 2011/2012.

 

indeed. I wonder what the accountants etc will say that are currently defending this bollocks will say in a few years time when it becomes clear we [ie us the supporters who are the ones putting money into the club] are being taken completely to the cleaners. You don't have to be a financial wizard to look at our gates and support and seriously question the crap coming out of the club.

 

Indeed. I just don't get this bank manager mentality that some people have. They're not running the club FFS! As long as we're not being reckless why pore over the balance sheet? In football you have to invest or you'll be left far behind by your competitors. The only question is how much you spend, balancing ambition against what you can afford. The need to spend is obvious to most people, and as one of the best supported clubs in the country we should be able to afford more than the likes of Stoke and Bolton. But apparently not.

[JawD 99]

Puzzles me like. they say we lost X this season gone. But next season we have increased gates (likely), new shirt sales, increased tv revenue, premier league placement money, money from Puma. All stuff we didnt have last season. So with all this, we still likely to lose money and not pay anything back to Ashley? Fucking hell Unless he is taking money out and not classing it as repayment of loan.

[Kitman 2207]

Puzzles me like. they say we lost X this season gone. But next season we have increased gates (likely), new shirt sales, increased tv revenue, premier league placement money, money from Puma. All stuff we didnt have last season. So with all this, we still likely to lose money and not pay anything back to Ashley? Fucking hell Unless he is taking money out and not classing it as repayment of loan.

 

Somebody call the cops! Sounds like someone's been going down the casino with a hold-all stuffed with cash, and going home with bugger all

[OTF 7492]

It's a fair effing point, how can you lose £32.5m from a season in the the championship, then when you go up to the premierleague where your TV money is supposed to average out to around £45m just for league matches, with Domestic Cups potentially adding a small amount to it still lose £28m despite not spending any money on incoming players, or increasing the wages of any of the existing players. It flat out does not make any sense.

 

Let's inflate the TV figure we got from the Championship to £5m which means there's a additional £40m for the upcoming season. Take off that the £12m parachute payment that we would have received and that brings the additional funds figure to the princely sum of £28 million. So how the hell does that get turning into a minescule £4.5m difference over the losses from the previous season?! If no additional players were purchased that should bring the loss to a total of £4.5m. If Nicky Butt was on £50,000 a week taking his wage off the books nets an additional £2.6m so the total losses would then be £1.9m, before taking into account prize money for the position on the table. Finishing 17th on the table this season apparently netted West Ham £3.2m, so if we achieved the lofty ambition of survival next season without signing additional players in theory we should be turning a profit of £1.3m assuming we receive the same amount from gates/tickets.

 

 

...Is anyone able to confirm whether the TV figure of £45m is accurate as it all hinges on that.

[khay 10]

Have they claimed to still be paying off transfers from the past regime?

[Toonpack 9973]

Puzzles me like. they say we lost X this season gone. But next season we have increased gates (likely), new shirt sales, increased tv revenue, premier league placement money, money from Puma. All stuff we didnt have last season. So with all this, we still likely to lose money and not pay anything back to Ashley? Fucking hell Unless he is taking money out and not classing it as repayment of loan.

 

 

Unless of course we're going to buy some new players out of the increased revenue (which wouldn't be "new capital outlay") which will put us into loss, but maybe a smaller loss year on year, possibly !!!! (skinchies)

Edited May 14, 2010 by Toonpack

[OTF 7492]

Have they claimed to still be paying off transfers from the past regime?

 

If they do, there's no way in the world they are in excess of the transfer fees still coming in from players sold within the last 18 months, as there is no way in the world that these players were all paid for in full up front.

[khay 10]

I know, but they don't always like to tell the truth.

[OTF 7492]

You mean 'ever' right?

[khay 10]

You mean 'ever' right?

 

I'm sure they at least get the fixtures right.

[Happy Face 29]

It's a fair effing point, how can you lose £32.5m from a season in the the championship, then when you go up to the premierleague where your TV money is supposed to average out to around £45m just for league matches, with Domestic Cups potentially adding a small amount to it still lose £28m despite not spending any money on incoming players, or increasing the wages of any of the existing players. It flat out does not make any sense.

 

Let's inflate the TV figure we got from the Championship to £5m which means there's a additional £40m for the upcoming season. Take off that the £12m parachute payment that we would have received and that brings the additional funds figure to the princely sum of £28 million. So how the hell does that get turning into a minescule £4.5m difference over the losses from the previous season?! If no additional players were purchased that should bring the loss to a total of £4.5m. If Nicky Butt was on £50,000 a week taking his wage off the books nets an additional £2.6m so the total losses would then be £1.9m, before taking into account prize money for the position on the table. Finishing 17th on the table this season apparently netted West Ham £3.2m, so if we achieved the lofty ambition of survival next season without signing additional players in theory we should be turning a profit of £1.3m assuming we receive the same amount from gates/tickets.

 

 

...Is anyone able to confirm whether the TV figure of £45m is accurate as it all hinges on that.

 

Cloud cuckoo land if you think we'll get £45m over our first season back...perhaps if we won it we'd get two thirds of that...

 

Here's how the prize money breaks down...

 

Chelsea - £16,000,000

Manchester United - £15,200,000

Arsenal - £14,400,000

Totenham Hotspur - £13,600,000

Manchester City - £12,800,000

Aston Villa - £12,000,000

Liverpool - £11,200,000

Everton - £10,400,000

Birmingham - £9,600,000

Blackburn - £8,800,000

Stoke - £8,000,000

Fulham - £7,200,000

Sunderland - £6,400,000

Bolton - £5,600,000

Wolves - £4,800,000

Wigan - £4,000,000

West Ham - £3,200,000

Burnley - £2,400,000

Hull - £1,600,000

Portsmouth - £800,000

 

As well as the money received for the final position in the Premier League table each club also received £14.6 million each this year for television appearances.

 

http://english-premier-league.suite101.com...tball-clubs-get

 

So (for example) Sunderland earned about £20m this year from Premier league position and TV income. You can add to that a few million on sponsorship.

 

We will be a lot better off but as you say, we had a parachute payment for relegation.

 

I reckon we'll be about £10m better off in the top flight.

 

When the daily mail say that the play off game is worth £45m, they're factoring in the £15m for your first season up and then the 2 parachute payments that follow over the next two seasons.

Edited May 14, 2010 by Happy Face

[Happy Face 29]

It's a fair effing point, how can you lose £32.5m from a season in the the championship, then when you go up to the premierleague where your TV money is supposed to average out to around £45m just for league matches, with Domestic Cups potentially adding a small amount to it still lose £28m despite not spending any money on incoming players, or increasing the wages of any of the existing players. It flat out does not make any sense.

 

Let's inflate the TV figure we got from the Championship to £5m which means there's a additional £40m for the upcoming season. Take off that the £12m parachute payment that we would have received and that brings the additional funds figure to the princely sum of £28 million. So how the hell does that get turning into a minescule £4.5m difference over the losses from the previous season?! If no additional players were purchased that should bring the loss to a total of £4.5m. If Nicky Butt was on £50,000 a week taking his wage off the books nets an additional £2.6m so the total losses would then be £1.9m, before taking into account prize money for the position on the table. Finishing 17th on the table this season apparently netted West Ham £3.2m, so if we achieved the lofty ambition of survival next season without signing additional players in theory we should be turning a profit of £1.3m assuming we receive the same amount from gates/tickets.

 

 

...Is anyone able to confirm whether the TV figure of £45m is accurate as it all hinges on that.

 

Cloud cuckoo land if you think we'll get £45m over our first season back...perhaps if we won it we'd get two thirds of that...

 

Here's how the prize money breaks down...

 

Chelsea - £16,000,000

Manchester United - £15,200,000

Arsenal - £14,400,000

Totenham Hotspur - £13,600,000

Manchester City - £12,800,000

Aston Villa - £12,000,000

Liverpool - £11,200,000

Everton - £10,400,000

Birmingham - £9,600,000

Blackburn - £8,800,000

Stoke - £8,000,000

Fulham - £7,200,000

Sunderland - £6,400,000

Bolton - £5,600,000

Wolves - £4,800,000

Wigan - £4,000,000

West Ham - £3,200,000

Burnley - £2,400,000

Hull - £1,600,000

Portsmouth - £800,000

 

As well as the money received for the final position in the Premier League table each club also received £14.6 million each this year for television appearances.

 

http://english-premier-league.suite101.com...tball-clubs-get

 

So (for example) Sunderland earned about £20m this year from Premier league position and TV income. You can add to that a few million on sponsorship.

 

We will be a lot better off but as you say, we had a parachute payment for relegation.

 

I reckon we'll be about £10m better off in the top flight.

 

When the daily mail say that the play off game is worth £45m, they're factoring in the £15m for your first season up and then the 2 parachute payments that follow over the next two seasons.

 

Actually, looking into it more.....

 

2008 (Ashley's first year) was the most we ever earned from TV in a non Champions league season. It was £41.1m.

 

The new tv package for 2010 - 2013 is supposed to be 5% more at £1.782Bn.

 

However even if all that money went to top flight clubs only, it's 1.782 divided by 3 = £594m per season....between 20 clubs, that's £29.7m each per season.

 

Perhaps overseas rights are worth £15m a season.

[Craig 6700]

Puzzles me like. they say we lost X this season gone. But next season we have increased gates (likely), new shirt sales, increased tv revenue, premier league placement money, money from Puma. All stuff we didnt have last season. So with all this, we still likely to lose money and not pay anything back to Ashley? Fucking hell Unless he is taking money out and not classing it as repayment of loan.

 

Compound that with the few soundbites we've heard from Llambias who blamed relegation as the sole cause for the reason we've lost money this season. Errr well that's been sorted out, so what's the fucking excuse this time?

[Happy Face 29]

I wonder what the accountants etc will say that are currently defending this bollocks will say in a few years time when it becomes clear we [ie us the supporters who are the ones putting money into the club] are being taken completely to the cleaners. You don't have to be a financial wizard to look at our gates and support and seriously question the crap coming out of the club.

 

There's not many people seriously defending a thing about it tbf.

 

I'm sure in a few years you'll make out as if you were the only one to raise any opposition like.

[Geordieracer 0]

Had a look over the accounts myself and they are ambiguous to say the least. It's clear some fairly creative accounting has been employed particularly around creditors.

 

One thing I do know is that given all that's gone on over the past few years, Fat Mike and Dracula must be laughing their cocks off.

 

"look at the silly fuckers, turning up in their thousand buying pies, pints, shirts, etc, after all we've done to them and their club".

 

I'm guilty of this myself before you think I'm having a pop.

[OTF 7492]

Let's inflate the TV figure we got from the Championship to £5m which means there's a additional £40m for the upcoming season. Take off that the £12m parachute payment that we would have received and that brings the additional funds figure to the princely sum of £28 million. So how the hell does that get turning into a minescule £4.5m difference over the losses from the previous season?! If no additional players were purchased that should bring the loss to a total of £4.5m. If Nicky Butt was on £50,000 a week taking his wage off the books nets an additional £2.6m so the total losses would then be £1.9m, before taking into account prize money for the position on the table. Finishing 17th on the table this season apparently netted West Ham £3.2m, so if we achieved the lofty ambition of survival next season without signing additional players in theory we should be turning a profit of £1.3m assuming we receive the same amount from gates/tickets.

 

 

...Is anyone able to confirm whether the TV figure of £45m is accurate as it all hinges on that.

 

Cloud cuckoo land if you think we'll get £45m over our first season back...perhaps if we won it we'd get two thirds of that...

 

Here's how the prize money breaks down...

 

Chelsea - £16,000,000

Manchester United - £15,200,000

Arsenal - £14,400,000

Totenham Hotspur - £13,600,000

Manchester City - £12,800,000

Aston Villa - £12,000,000

Liverpool - £11,200,000

Everton - £10,400,000

Birmingham - £9,600,000

Blackburn - £8,800,000

Stoke - £8,000,000

Fulham - £7,200,000

Sunderland - £6,400,000

Bolton - £5,600,000

Wolves - £4,800,000

Wigan - £4,000,000

West Ham - £3,200,000

Burnley - £2,400,000

Hull - £1,600,000

Portsmouth - £800,000

 

As well as the money received for the final position in the Premier League table each club also received £14.6 million each this year for television appearances.

 

http://english-premier-league.suite101.com...tball-clubs-get

 

So (for example) Sunderland earned about £20m this year from Premier league position and TV income. You can add to that a few million on sponsorship.

 

We will be a lot better off but as you say, we had a parachute payment for relegation.

 

I reckon we'll be about £10m better off in the top flight.

 

When the daily mail say that the play off game is worth £45m, they're factoring in the £15m for your first season up and then the 2 parachute payments that follow over the next two seasons.

 

The £45 figure was taken from the vestibule of knowledge that is Wikipedia:

 

The total raised from these deals is more than £2.7 billion, giving Premier League clubs an average media income from league games of £45 million a year from 2007 to 2010. They also receive smaller amounts from media rights for the domestic cups and in some cases substantial amounts from media rights for European matches.

 

I also saw that article from which you are quoting ('tis where I obtained the figure West Ham received), and that is what prompted me to ask if the £45m figure was accurate.

 

Breaking it down if the average was £45m that means for 20 teams it's a total of £900m pounds across the season.

 

Sky and Setanta paid a total of £1.7 billion. Breaking that down it was apparently Sky paying £1.3 billion and Setanta £392 million giving them coverage from 2007 to 2010. This is just for the UK. So divisding that by the 3 seasons that it covers that's £564m per season. Then the BBC has a deal for match of the day games. Across the same three seasons that was for £171.6m or £57.2m per season. Sky and BT pay £84.3m over the 3 years (£28.1/season) for the rights to show delayed matches.

 

This takes the total TV money per season from the UK to £649.3m.

 

Then you have international TV rights which apparently was £625m across 3 season, breaking down to £208.3m per season. Add that onto the UK figure and you're at £857.6 per season already very close to the figure required to earn the average team £45m. So even if it's not actually £45m it's certainly closer to that figure than it is to the £14.6m mentioned above.

[Happy Face 29]

The £45 figure was taken from the vestibule of knowledge that is Wikipedia:

 

The total raised from these deals is more than £2.7 billion, giving Premier League clubs an average media income from league games of £45 million a year from 2007 to 2010. They also receive smaller amounts from media rights for the domestic cups and in some cases substantial amounts from media rights for European matches.

 

I also saw that article from which you are quoting ('tis where I obtained the figure West Ham received), and that is what prompted me to ask if the £45m figure was accurate.

 

Breaking it down if the average was £45m that means for 20 teams it's a total of £900m pounds across the season.

 

Sky and Setanta paid a total of £1.7 billion. Breaking that down it was apparently Sky paying £1.3 billion and Setanta £392 million giving them coverage from 2007 to 2010. This is just for the UK. So divisding that by the 3 seasons that it covers that's £564m per season. Then the BBC has a deal for match of the day games. Across the same three seasons that was for £171.6m or £57.2m per season. Sky and BT pay £84.3m over the 3 years (£28.1/season) for the rights to show delayed matches.

 

This takes the total TV money per season from the UK to £649.3m.

 

Then you have international TV rights which apparently was £625m across 3 season, breaking down to £208.3m per season. Add that onto the UK figure and you're at £857.6 per season already very close to the figure required to earn the average team £45m. So even if it's not actually £45m it's certainly closer to that figure than it is to the £14.6m mentioned above.

 

I guess the £14.6m is the base figure everyone gets....then you get more based upon the number of your games shown.....so the £45m average takes into account the top few teams that are on tv twice as much as anyone else.

 

I was mistaken, it's not quite cloud cuckoo land, but we've never got more than £42 million before, even when we were in the champions league.

 

Either way, it's difficult to see how they arrive at 5 years to break even, without a few million being spent on players or debt each season.

Edited May 14, 2010 by Happy Face

[Matt 0]

In the long run of course the cash generated from supporter revenue will always be higher than Bolton et al, but you have to put it into some context. Say we have 45,000 season tickets at £550 a pop and we get twice as many as another club- that's £12.4m extra income a year- or £240k a week. That's roughly what goes out on Smith, Barton, Coloccini and Xisco.

 

So for all our additional ticket money, we're getting an extra half-decent centre-half and not much else.

 

Clearly a bit of a crude example, but goes to show that we are still suffering from ludicrous contract offers- all of which came about post-takeover.

 

I guess all we can do is hope that somehow, some common sense will prevail and we get the bodies in that we need.

[Lazarus 0]

Anyone know if weve started to receive money from man city for the given transfer?

[ChezGiven 0]

It will take 5 years to break if he plans to spend some of the increased revenue which as someone pointed out, isnt a capital outlay.

 

I think (but am not sure obviously) that no capital outlay on players means he wont be taking funds from outside NUFC to fund purchases, which i believe he would had to have done in January.

 

If he plans to use the increased revenue from TV/prem etc, then it will take some time to break even.

 

Its about the only way any of this makes any sense. Doesnt mean its true though.

Edited May 14, 2010 by ChezGiven

[Happy Face 29]

It will take 5 years to break if he plans to spend some of the increased revenue which as someone pointed out, isnt a capital outlay.

 

I think (but am not sure obviously) that no capital outlay on players means he wont be taking funds from outside NUFC to fund purchases, which i believe he would had to have done in January.

 

If he plans to use the increased revenue from TV/prem etc, then it will take some time to break even.

 

Its about the only way any of this makes any sense. Doesnt mean its true though.

 

 

But if he plans to spend the tv revenue on players rather than capital outlay, then he's going to have to loan the club more money to cover the losses the TV revenue was going to cover.

 

It's nonsensical.

[ChezGiven 0]

It will take 5 years to break if he plans to spend some of the increased revenue which as someone pointed out, isnt a capital outlay.

 

I think (but am not sure obviously) that no capital outlay on players means he wont be taking funds from outside NUFC to fund purchases, which i believe he would had to have done in January.

 

If he plans to use the increased revenue from TV/prem etc, then it will take some time to break even.

 

Its about the only way any of this makes any sense. Doesnt mean its true though.

 

 

But if he plans to spend the tv revenue on players rather than capital outlay, then he's going to have to loan the club more money to cover the losses the TV revenue was going to cover.

 

It's nonsensical.

 

I know, evey time i come up with an idea to explain it, i realise i'm contradicting myself. I suspect he did this deliberately.

[OTF 7492]

Further on the TV money, 50% of it is divided up equally amongst all clubs (£22.5m each), and 25% is divided out based on appearances on TV. The final 25% is the prize money that is divided and distributed based on league position.

 

So I was wrong to include the prize money in addition in my earlier calculations.

[LeazesMag 0]

I wonder what the accountants etc will say that are currently defending this bollocks will say in a few years time when it becomes clear we [ie us the supporters who are the ones putting money into the club] are being taken completely to the cleaners. You don't have to be a financial wizard to look at our gates and support and seriously question the crap coming out of the club.

 

There's not many people seriously defending a thing about it tbf.

 

I'm sure in a few years you'll make out as if you were the only one to raise any opposition like.

 

I realise most people on here now realise that I was right all along, so I'm not really talking about on here I suppose.

[LeazesMag 0]

Puzzles me like. they say we lost X this season gone. But next season we have increased gates (likely), new shirt sales, increased tv revenue, premier league placement money, money from Puma. All stuff we didnt have last season. So with all this, we still likely to lose money and not pay anything back to Ashley? Fucking hell Unless he is taking money out and not classing it as repayment of loan.

 

Somebody call the cops! Sounds like someone's been going down the casino with a hold-all stuffed with cash, and going home with bugger all

 

 

and he isn't buying anybody a pint down the Bigg Market anymore either