2009 accounts

[Happy Face 29]

Quayside over on N-O is always good on the accounts. He's had a proper gander....

 

If anyone is interested the St James Holdings accounts have now been filed for year ended 30th June 2009, this is the parent company of NUFC. There are a few points that come out, some of these are already known and some clarify certain rumours that have been doing the rounds.

 

- As at 30th June Ashley's total investment (ie purchase cost plus loan) was £242.9 million. Since the year end the accounts report that he loaned a further £25.5 million making his investment up to £268.4 million.

 

- Obviously, since St James (like NUFC) is in an insolvent position it was necessary for him to personally guarantee to fund it for the next 12 months. Also, as with NUFC, he has shunted all his investment into current creditors instead of creditors due in more than 1 year.

 

- The rumour that Ashley has set up another company to act as the parent to St James Holdings is true. the company is called MASH Holdings Limited. It is a new company and has not filed any accounts and is not due to do so until late December. If there is any significance to the setting up of this company it is not apparent from the St James accounts.

 

- At one point in the year Ashley's investment had risen to £248.8 million, indicating that between that point and the year end about £6 million of his loan was repaid. This may be where the rumour about Ashley taking money out of the club came from. Although as I said above he put £25.5 million back in some time after he had received this repayment. Ashley has taken no money out by way of interest, salary or dividends.

 

- St James Holdings has a bank overdraft of £36 million, secured on the Group's fixed assets. This is a sharp increase from the previous year end where the overdraft stood at £1 million.

 

- As at the year end the Group was owed £17 million in transfer fees, of which £4 million was due in more than 1 year. The accounts repeat the club's philosophy of paying up front for players purchased even though this is not the case when players are sold, as is apparent from the £17 million still owing.

 

There may be some other points in the accounts which I've missed, but I've just had a quick look and those are the things that stood out for me.

[Park Life 71]

So, with PL money SJHoldings should break even this year if there is no or limited net spend (1-2m). Tell you what I'd rather be in our positon as bad as it seems than Liverpool.

Edited May 19, 2010 by Park Life

[Happy Face 29]

So, with PL money SJHoldings should break even this year if there is no or limited net spend (1-2m).

 

 

That's only one of 3 companies the way I read it.

 

Newcastle United - £20m overdraft outstanding (according to the club)

 

Owned by...

 

SJHoldings - £36m overdraft outstanding

 

Owned by...

 

MASHHoldings - No details available.

 

So if we were to make £20m profit each season it would take 3 years to pay of the debt we know about, without Ashley taking anything out for himself.

 

It would make more sense of the statement that way, but i might be way off.

Edited May 19, 2010 by Happy Face

[Park Life 71]

So, with PL money SJHoldings should break even this year if there is no or limited net spend (1-2m).

 

 

That's only one of 3 companies the way I read it.

 

Newcastle United - £20m overdraft outstanding (according to the club)

 

Owned by...

 

SJHoldings - £36m overdraft outstanding

 

Owned by...

 

MASHHoldings - No details available.

 

So if we were to make £20m profit each season it would take 3 years to pay of the debt we know about, without Ashley taking anything out for himself.

 

It would make more sense of the statement that way, but i might be way off.

 

Isn't the SJH and NUFC overdraft the same?

 

Turnover target this year will be 90m

Ourgoings around 60m?? (As player wages stand)...iirc

[Park Life 71]

Btw the money we need to watch when Mash accounts come in.

[Happy Face 29]

So, with PL money SJHoldings should break even this year if there is no or limited net spend (1-2m).

 

 

That's only one of 3 companies the way I read it.

 

Newcastle United - £20m overdraft outstanding (according to the club)

 

Owned by...

 

SJHoldings - £36m overdraft outstanding

 

Owned by...

 

MASHHoldings - No details available.

 

So if we were to make £20m profit each season it would take 3 years to pay of the debt we know about, without Ashley taking anything out for himself.

 

It would make more sense of the statement that way, but i might be way off.

 

Isn't the SJH and NUFC overdraft the same?

 

Not sure.

 

I'm waiting for Quayside to respond.

 

I thought it wasn't, because the clubs recent statement said "United also has an overdraft of £20 million that is fully committed."

 

That's £16m less than what the accounts from SJH say the overdraft is, or was in June 2009.

 

They could be the same overdraft and £16m could have been paid off the using some of the £25m Ashley loaned the club since then.

Edited May 19, 2010 by Happy Face

[Park Life 71]

It will look much better after this season as long as we don't buy any Mikey Owens or 60yr old black strikers.

[ewerk 31216]

For the financial year we had a net spend of £350k.

 

Since then we made a net profit of around £18m.

Edited May 19, 2010 by ewerk

[Happy Face 29]

So, with PL money SJHoldings should break even this year if there is no or limited net spend (1-2m).

 

 

That's only one of 3 companies the way I read it.

 

Newcastle United - £20m overdraft outstanding (according to the club)

 

Owned by...

 

SJHoldings - £36m overdraft outstanding

 

Owned by...

 

MASHHoldings - No details available.

 

So if we were to make £20m profit each season it would take 3 years to pay of the debt we know about, without Ashley taking anything out for himself.

 

It would make more sense of the statement that way, but i might be way off.

 

Isn't the SJH and NUFC overdraft the same?

 

Not sure.

 

I'm waiting for Quayside to respond.

 

He says...

 

Yes that's about it although the numbers are a bit different. MASH owns St James which owns Newcastle United Ltd, which owns Newcastle United Football Club Ltd. Overdrafts in the various accounts are:

 

MASH - Unknown

St James - £36m

Newcastle United Ltd - the same £36m as St James

NUFC LTD - £48M

 

You can take it that the ovedraft was £36m at 30th June as that was the Group's net exposure, the NUFC figure of £48m isn't relevant. So if the statement said that the overdraft was £20m then I would think you are correct and some of the £25.5 Ashley put in went towards reducing the Group overdraft.

 

Either way, there's a lot of debt there to be repaid before Ashley starts takling money out of the club or buying players.

Edited May 19, 2010 by Happy Face

[Sonatine 11556]

Could be worse I suppose...

 

 

Roman Abramovich is still owed £726 million by Chelsea despite reports that he had written off the loan.

 

Chelsea's accounts for 2008-09 announced that Abramovich's enormous loan to the West London club he owns had been converted into shares.

 

But a report in the Guardian reveals that since Abramovich made his loan to a holding company, rather than the club itself, his debt is yet to be repaid.

 

The club's debt to the holding company was converted into shares, but the holding company's debt to Abramovich remains at £726m.

 

"The loan is interest free, but it is repayable if Abramovich gives 18 months' notice," writes David Conn in The Guardian.

 

"The Russian could still demand the money back some day, either if the club is making a profit, or if he were to sell it.

 

"He has not, in fact, written off the huge loans he has made on his Chelsea adventure."

[Park Life 71]

Could be worse I suppose...

 

 

Roman Abramovich is still owed £726 million by Chelsea despite reports that he had written off the loan.

 

Chelsea's accounts for 2008-09 announced that Abramovich's enormous loan to the West London club he owns had been converted into shares.

 

But a report in the Guardian reveals that since Abramovich made his loan to a holding company, rather than the club itself, his debt is yet to be repaid.

 

The club's debt to the holding company was converted into shares, but the holding company's debt to Abramovich remains at £726m.

 

"The loan is interest free, but it is repayable if Abramovich gives 18 months' notice," writes David Conn in The Guardian.

 

"The Russian could still demand the money back some day, either if the club is making a profit, or if he were to sell it.

 

"He has not, in fact, written off the huge loans he has made on his Chelsea adventure."

 

That's a lot of money even for A.

[Barney 0]

So, we insist on paying for players in total upfront, but are willing to accept payment for our players in installments?

[Happy Face 29]

So, we insist on paying for players in total upfront, but are willing to accept payment for our players in installments?

 

 

I don't see the problem with that to tell the truth.

 

I've often heard incredulity expressed at it, but can't see why it's a bad thing to pay your bills up front and spread your income over a few years.

[Park Life 71]

There is a difference, paying in installments, means you can get rid if he don't fit and you haven't paid out that much in the first place.

[ewerk 31216]

So, we insist on paying for players in total upfront, but are willing to accept payment for our players in installments?

 

 

I don't see the problem with that to tell the truth.

 

I've often heard incredulity expressed at it, but can't see why it's a bad thing to pay your bills up front and spread your income over a few years.

 

It's called matching, generally businesses should not offer customers better credit terms than they themselves get from suppliers.

 

Obviously a bit different with a football club where there are a small number of transactions. Seeing as Ashley is the sole owner of the club then I don't think it's a major problem.

[Sonatine 11556]

Also gives those in charge an excuse not to spend the money on a replacement, or am i being too cynical?

[Barney 0]

So, we insist on paying for players in total upfront, but are willing to accept payment for our players in installments?

 

 

I don't see the problem with that to tell the truth.

 

I've often heard incredulity expressed at it, but can't see why it's a bad thing to pay your bills up front and spread your income over a few years.

 

yeah, not really an issue unless there's a player slightly out of our budget. Good that we're willing to accept payment in installments.

 

 

The Guardian have an article up comparing each of the top flights accounts/finances. Can't access it on my phone or through the app. Anyone had a gander?

Edited May 19, 2010 by Barney

[The Fish 10972]

Clicky

[Barney 0]

Won't load properly on the iPhone. Merci, anyway, mr poisson.

[The Fish 10972]

nah it's in Adobe

 

I could probably screen grab it... but I cannot be arsed. Sorry

[Barney 0]

Nee probs dude. Will have a look and understand none of it to Tomorrow instead.

[Matt 0]

Paying up front and taking money in instalments is the total opposite of what any rational business should do. The whole idea is to hold on to cash as long as you can. I can only assume we have taken this policy because we are both comfortable that we don't need the cashflow for the operating cycle and that we can get a better deal out of other clubs by offering preferential payment stages.

 

Either that, or they're really stupid.

[peasepud 59]

they're really stupid.

 

FYP

[ewerk 31216]

Clicky

 

Can't access that at work for some reason.

 

Though I've had a look at this and we'd currently be sitting at 5th in that table.

[Happy Face 29]

Clicky

 

Man U and Chelsea hold 50% of all Premier League debt