Cheick Tiote

[LeazesMag 0]

Why should only 20m be spent? Carroll alone was sold for 35m plus it's likely that another million or so will be recouped from Routledge. The two of them are off the books as is Xisco who is likely to stay in Spain. Given that Carroll was a couldn't say no opportunistic sale then surely the entire amount needs to be invested in the side to make the most of the opportunity that was too good to refuse. That would be the case if the owner was motivated to bring about success on the pitch, but sadly he's not. Ashley will always attempt to do what he thinks will bring about the most money. The way that he intends to do that is already clear from out movements in the market. Absolutely nothing they say can be taken at face value as there's always an ulterior motive. Conversely you can analyse just about everything they do as it is revealing their true intentions.

 

They've been gradually talking down the amount that will be spent in the summer which is a classic maneuver in resetting expectations with the assistance of time. If there had been this sort of talk in the immediate wake of Carroll's departure noone would have accepted it willingly. The more of this talk that comes out the more suspicious the circumstances surrounding Carroll's departure become. Quite simply they must have known about the interest in the player well before the deal was inked. The gamble was taken in not arranging any sort of meaningful replacement and they'll now be thinking that it has paid off. Even more so when they spend significantly less than was garnered from the sale. What's worrying is how easy the apparent financial success is coming for them. Carroll firstly, but then the increase in value of Tiote and the interest in Enrique appears to lead them to think they're on the right track. Sadly each of these moves further devalues the wider profile of the club, but that doesn't matter when you only have the foresight to care about short term financial goals.

 

..as for financial figures available online, they can paint just about any picture you like. Accounting is a crafty business though so there's no way we'll get a real indication of how much money Ashley is indirectly taking out of the club through payment to himself amongst other things.

 

spot on

[Toonpack 9936]

Why should only 20m be spent? Carroll alone was sold for 35m plus it's likely that another million or so will be recouped from Routledge. The two of them are off the books as is Xisco who is likely to stay in Spain. Given that Carroll was a couldn't say no opportunistic sale then surely the entire amount needs to be invested in the side to make the most of the opportunity that was too good to refuse. That would be the case if the owner was motivated to bring about success on the pitch, but sadly he's not. Ashley will always attempt to do what he thinks will bring about the most money. The way that he intends to do that is already clear from out movements in the market. Absolutely nothing they say can be taken at face value as there's always an ulterior motive. Conversely you can analyse just about everything they do as it is revealing their true intentions.

 

They've been gradually talking down the amount that will be spent in the summer which is a classic maneuver in resetting expectations with the assistance of time. If there had been this sort of talk in the immediate wake of Carroll's departure noone would have accepted it willingly. The more of this talk that comes out the more suspicious the circumstances surrounding Carroll's departure become. Quite simply they must have known about the interest in the player well before the deal was inked. The gamble was taken in not arranging any sort of meaningful replacement and they'll now be thinking that it has paid off. Even more so when they spend significantly less than was garnered from the sale. What's worrying is how easy the apparent financial success is coming for them. Carroll firstly, but then the increase in value of Tiote and the interest in Enrique appears to lead them to think they're on the right track. Sadly each of these moves further devalues the wider profile of the club, but that doesn't matter when you only have the foresight to care about short term financial goals.

 

..as for financial figures available online, they can paint just about any picture you like. Accounting is a crafty business though so there's no way we'll get a real indication of how much money Ashley is indirectly taking out of the club through payment to himself amongst other things.

 

I said NET spend "north" of £20 Mill minimum, we could spend £100 Mill but if we recoup £80Mill that's a net of £20Mill way different to a spend of just £20Mill(I exaggerate I know). Wages have to be paid from somewhere BTW.

 

Middle para - It's all talk, taking what's said and reading into it what it means is superfluous. The summer is the acid test, then it will be plain to see.

 

Last Para, Some things are absolute (like accounting statements) and the rest erm that'd be illegal. The taxman gets a bit pissed off if you declare losses whilst creaming cash/earnings/profit into another pocket. There is no evidence anywhere that Lardarse has made a penny out of the club (thus far), the very opposite actually

 

As for the value of players, the increase in value is great isn't it, means you can speculate to accumulate, if you re-invest of course. That'll be seen in the summer won't it (or not).

 

Rather a player bought for £3-£6 Mill being worth £10-£15 Mill, than a player bought for say £17.5 Mill being worth nowt eh? Especially when players and their agents call the tune these days.

 

Given revenue's have stagnated (league-wide) over the last three years (excluding the TV money) transfer profit is an essential "nice little earner".

Edited May 13, 2011 by Toonpack

[OTF 7485]

The net spend should be 35m at a minimum is what I'm saying.

 

What I suspect is that it will be under 20 with the very real possibility of some late movement in offloading some of our better players with any moves for potential replacements 'breaking down' with no time to replace them. Bets will be hedged on our form being decent enough to keep us out of the muck and under the cover of that positive reinvesting the cash will be glossed over.

 

The above is obviously only speculation at this stage, but it is based upon the already established trends of the owner. The amount of chances that many are naively offering in the wide eyed expectation that he has known exactly what he has been doing this entire time and that he's about to spend to improve our team is ridiculous. We needed to buy players in January, but instead we sold them.

 

I'd love nothing more than to be completely wrong, but I honestly can't see it and don't know how anyone who has closely followed the follies of the club under Ashley could. Whilst other teams are increasing their wage bills to be able to compete we're reducing ours (as was the case in the summer and in January), yet you're suggesting that we should be paying wages out of profits from transfers. Where's the future in that?

 

I'll ask this though - do you think the general profile of Newcastle United in Europe and in the rest of the world has deteriorated, stagnated or improved under Ashley's ownership?

[Toonpack 9936]

The net spend should be 35m at a minimum is what I'm saying.

 

What I suspect is that it will be under 20 with the very real possibility of some late movement in offloading some of our better players with any moves for potential replacements 'breaking down' with no time to replace them. Bets will be hedged on our form being decent enough to keep us out of the muck and under the cover of that positive reinvesting the cash will be glossed over.

 

The above is obviously only speculation at this stage, but it is based upon the already established trends of the owner. The amount of chances that many are naively offering in the wide eyed expectation that he has known exactly what he has been doing this entire time and that he's about to spend to improve our team is ridiculous. We needed to buy players in January, but instead we sold them.

 

I'd love nothing more than to be completely wrong, but I honestly can't see it and don't know how anyone who has closely followed the follies of the club under Ashley could. Whilst other teams are increasing their wage bills to be able to compete we're reducing ours (as was the case in the summer and in January), yet you're suggesting that we should be paying wages out of profits from transfers. Where's the future in that?

 

I'll ask this though - do you think the general profile of Newcastle United in Europe and in the rest of the world has deteriorated, stagnated or improved under Ashley's ownership?

 

The top bits, the ONLY way it'll be £35Mill net is if Ashley's dipping into his pocket more, which would be nice, admittedly.

 

(disclaimer - wild hypothesis time) What if we bought say two strikers at £10Mill each, a left back at £5Mill and a midfielder at £5 Mill, plus a couple of bosmans, but also got £10Mill for Enrique. That's a net of £20Mill, that not be good enough ??

 

Obviously we don't know what the "market rates" will be in the summer, but as the UEFA clock starts ticking on 1st June teams are going to have to do their sums carefully, be interesting if there's any effect this early in the scheme.

 

I don't believe I am naive tbh, I don't know what he'll do BUT as I have oft repeated, the financial state of the club is now such that there ain't no hiding place anymore.

 

Last Paragraph - and your "where's the future in that" question, I dunno, ask Man U, Arsenal or Spuds, or any number of relatively succesful continental teams, they all do it.

 

Regarding the wages, ours were ridiculous as are many other clubs, they'll all be plateauing soon enough, if they haven't already, as per Monsieur Platini. Where's the money come from to sustain higher wages than what we're intending paying. Please don't say revenue, because it is a fact that revenues across the league have stagnated (exc the TV cash) in the last 3 years.

 

Last sentence: Deteriorated, as it had been doing for some time, on the up now though.

Edited May 13, 2011 by Toonpack

[OTF 7485]

Last Paragraph - and your "where's the future in that" question, I dunno, ask Man U, Arsenal or Spuds, or any number of relatively succesful continental teams, they all do it.

 

Regarding the wages, ours were ridiculous as are many other clubs, they'll all be plateauing soon enough, if they haven't already, as per Monsieur Platini. Where's the money come from to sustain higher wages than what we're intending paying. Please don't say revenue, because it is a fact that revenues across the league have stagnated (exc the TV cash) in the last 3 years.

 

You're telling me Arsenal, Man U, Spurs pay their wages out of profits from outgoing players? Simply not true. To employ this tactic you would need to continually be able to buy players for a lot lower than you subsequently sell them for whilst never spending substanciual amounts of money (and that's just to make a contribution to wages, never to actually cover the entire amount). You need to have a net profit from player movements each season. From the table indicating the net spend on transfers over the past five years Tottenham are third on the list having shelled out almost £100m net in their push to improve the status of their club (£20m net per season). They've gone some way to achieving it with an excellent run in the champions league this season. Obviously you can't pay wages with -£100m. That sort of spend is not sustainable, so I'm not suggesting we have anything like that. Manchester United despite the gargantuan sale of Ronaldo and the fact that they've bought very few high profile players since then still had a net spend of £2.69m. Not a great deal for a club of that size with such a high turnover, but considering their financial position and the amount of money spent on interest payments alone they've been somewhat fortunate that they've only been able to pay that much additional whilst maintaining an impressive trophy record (Ferguson certainly helps there). Now, onto Arsenal, they have actually made almost £30m over the five years on player transfers, taking a net of near £6m each season. Having just recently moved to a massive new stadium that cost nearly £400m to build they've tightened the belt as part of a sensible long term financiual strategy. Critically they've not won a single title, cup or trophy in that period of time.

 

Last sentence: Deteriorated, as it had been doing for some time, on the up now though.

 

Deteriorated I would say at a higher rate, certainly with the furore surrounding Kevin Keegan and the subsequent relegation the clubs profile dropped faster than it has in the last 20 years. It could potentially be on the up now, pending the movement of the owner in the summer, but that is more down to the fact that it has just about reached a new low.

 

More down to good luck than anything else the club are currently in what I'd consider a pretty good position to be able to continue building momentum and improve the squad and in doing so our profile. I just can't see it happening though, and that's what's particualrly frustrating about it all.

[ChezGiven 0]

The net spend should be £35m as receiving that amount of money could not have been in the business plan (in the financial administration sense). To spend all of it does mean that any losses carried over from last year will still be incurred. I can't see us making a loss this year though.

 

If I was in charge then I wouldn't spend it all either given the circumstances. £25m net would be a massive amount on any club's books apart from at city and chelsea. I doubt we will break £20m net, possibly as little as £10m.

 

If he sells Enrique then he'll be potentially £50m up since January, Carroll's add ons covering Ben Arfa's fee. If you think Tiote is off too then you're talking £70m up. This ridiculous scenario but mainly the decision not to play him at Chelsea, convinces me Tiote will be here at the start of next season. The risks involved in spending what you would have to do in that situation and replacing so many players is surely too risky for even these muppets.

[peasepud 59]

The net spend should be £35m as receiving that amount of money could not have been in the business plan (in the financial administration sense). To spend all of it does mean that any losses carried over from last year will still be incurred. I can't see us making a loss this year though.

 

If I was in charge then I wouldn't spend it all either given the circumstances. £25m net would be a massive amount on any club's books apart from at city and chelsea. I doubt we will break £20m net, possibly as little as £10m.

 

If he sells Enrique then he'll be potentially £50m up since January, Carroll's add ons covering Ben Arfa's fee. If you think Tiote is off too then you're talking £70m up. This ridiculous scenario but mainly the decision not to play him at Chelsea, convinces me Tiote will be here at the start of next season. The risks involved in spending what you would have to do in that situation and replacing so many players is surely too risky for even these muppets.

Or {insert name of aspirational club here} have said the deals lowered if hes going to be suspended at the start of next season.

 

Saying that I dont think hes off this window. Hes our big January sale, with HBA being next Summers.

[Toonpack 9936]

You're telling me Arsenal, Man U, Spurs pay their wages out of profits from outgoing players? Simply not true.

 

No that's not what I said, what I said was that revenues (matchday and commercial) have all but plateau'd for the aforementioned clubs in the last 3 years and one area where they have generated additional revenue was in transfer activity. In fact if you take Man City - because they've done some "bucking the trend" commercial deals with middle eastern companies, what a surprise! out of the current top six (non TV) revenue has grown at a huge 3%. (it's only 5% with Man city in it).

 

What I am saying is that profit on transfer activity is a perfectly valid income stream used to boost revenues by many many clubs.

 

If you have an Oligarch or a Sheik you can buy 28/29 year old "top players" without caring that they'll be worth nothing when they've seen out their contracts. Otherwise, isn't it eminently sensible to buy younger players from who can recoup some "profit" when they've seen out their contracts, because soon as they've got a year left (in most cases) they're looking for a move, it's just the way it is.

 

Profit on transfers is a funny thing, as far as the bottom line is concerned due to player amortisation. As such "resale value" doesn't mean you have to buy a player for £5Mill and hope he's worth £10Mill in 4 years time so you can make a profit. Even if you sell him after 3 years for what you paid for him, in the year of sale you'll have made a £3 Mill profit from his resale, as he's been written down as an expense at £1 Mill a year for the time he was with the club.

 

BTW, What that also means is that IF we sold Enrique for £10 Mill, we don't have all that £10Mill to spend as "profit" we've actually only got £8.8 Mill because his residual value/cost in the accounts is £1.2 Mill with a year left.

 

It's not a simple calculation, but buying with a view to having some resale value generates income for the club (which can either contribute to profit, cover losses or fund further purchases).

 

 

From the table indicating the net spend on transfers over the past five years Tottenham are third on the list having shelled out almost £100m net in their push to improve the status of their club (£20m net per season). They've gone some way to achieving it with an excellent run in the champions league this season.

 

Don't know where the table you refer to is, or comes from, but according to Spurs accounts, between 2005 and 2010 they've declared profits totalling £124.8 Million on players sales - I would suggest that IF they had made a loss on sales of £100Mill you'd definitely find it in the accounts as that'd reduce their tax bill, and they are a Jewish club after all . I would add that overall they've made profits on operations (before tax) of £80.4 Million in the same period.

 

Even if your sources figures were correct and they have shelled out £100 Million net, they could have afforded much more, because even after that alledged level of spend, they still made significant year on year profits. Well within their means.

 

I would add that (in their accounts) Man U, Arsenal and Liverpool have ALL declared profits on player transactions, every year, for the last 3 years.

 

Deteriorated I would say at a higher rate, certainly with the furore surrounding Kevin Keegan and the subsequent relegation the clubs profile dropped faster than it has in the last 20 years. It could potentially be on the up now, pending the movement of the owner in the summer, but that is more down to the fact that it has just about reached a new low.

 

More down to good luck than anything else the club are currently in what I'd consider a pretty good position to be able to continue building momentum and improve the squad and in doing so our profile. I just can't see it happening though, and that's what's particualrly frustrating about it all.

 

Deterioration just a slightly speedier bottoming out of where we were already headed (solely in my opinion). The relegation was the prime eroder of stature, I think the KK furore was a furore to Mags but in the wider context of club stature pretty tame (elsewhere).

 

As for luck, maybe, better to be lucky than good sometimes.

 

Bold bit, we'll see won't we. He can do himself some huge favours this summer (even within the means of the club), whether he does or not ....................................

Edited May 14, 2011 by Toonpack

[Toonpack 9936]

The net spend should be £35m as receiving that amount of money could not have been in the business plan (in the financial administration sense). To spend all of it does mean that any losses carried over from last year will still be incurred. I can't see us making a loss this year though.

 

If I was in charge then I wouldn't spend it all either given the circumstances. £25m net would be a massive amount on any club's books apart from at city and chelsea. I doubt we will break £20m net, possibly as little as £10m.

 

If he sells Enrique then he'll be potentially £50m up since January, Carroll's add ons covering Ben Arfa's fee. If you think Tiote is off too then you're talking £70m up. This ridiculous scenario but mainly the decision not to play him at Chelsea, convinces me Tiote will be here at the start of next season. The risks involved in spending what you would have to do in that situation and replacing so many players is surely too risky for even these muppets.

 

Agreed, although don't forget the wages

 

circa £25 Mill Net would be extremely positive IMO, what it will be is anyone's guess.

[LeazesMag 0]

The net spend should be £35m as receiving that amount of money could not have been in the business plan (in the financial administration sense). To spend all of it does mean that any losses carried over from last year will still be incurred. I can't see us making a loss this year though.

 

If I was in charge then I wouldn't spend it all either given the circumstances. £25m net would be a massive amount on any club's books apart from at city and chelsea. I doubt we will break £20m net, possibly as little as £10m.

 

If he sells Enrique then he'll be potentially £50m up since January, Carroll's add ons covering Ben Arfa's fee. If you think Tiote is off too then you're talking £70m up. This ridiculous scenario but mainly the decision not to play him at Chelsea, convinces me Tiote will be here at the start of next season. The risks involved in spending what you would have to do in that situation and replacing so many players is surely too risky for even these muppets.

Or {insert name of aspirational club here} have said the deals lowered if hes going to be suspended at the start of next season.

 

Saying that I dont think hes off this window. Hes our big January sale, with HBA being next Summers.

 

Transfer windows used to be a period where we wondered what good player ie "trophy signing" was going to be signed, now its wondering which of our best players ie "trophy signings" is going to be sold. And some fools think we are moving forward ?

[Dr Kenneth Noisewater 0]

The net spend should be £35m as receiving that amount of money could not have been in the business plan (in the financial administration sense). To spend all of it does mean that any losses carried over from last year will still be incurred. I can't see us making a loss this year though.

 

If I was in charge then I wouldn't spend it all either given the circumstances. £25m net would be a massive amount on any club's books apart from at city and chelsea. I doubt we will break £20m net, possibly as little as £10m.

 

If he sells Enrique then he'll be potentially £50m up since January, Carroll's add ons covering Ben Arfa's fee. If you think Tiote is off too then you're talking £70m up. This ridiculous scenario but mainly the decision not to play him at Chelsea, convinces me Tiote will be here at the start of next season. The risks involved in spending what you would have to do in that situation and replacing so many players is surely too risky for even these muppets.

They've already said the Carroll money has to cover incoming fees and wages.

 

2 x £5m signings on 30k/week over 5.5 years and it's nearly all accounted for.

[Toonpack 9936]

The net spend should be £35m as receiving that amount of money could not have been in the business plan (in the financial administration sense). To spend all of it does mean that any losses carried over from last year will still be incurred. I can't see us making a loss this year though.

 

If I was in charge then I wouldn't spend it all either given the circumstances. £25m net would be a massive amount on any club's books apart from at city and chelsea. I doubt we will break £20m net, possibly as little as £10m.

 

If he sells Enrique then he'll be potentially £50m up since January, Carroll's add ons covering Ben Arfa's fee. If you think Tiote is off too then you're talking £70m up. This ridiculous scenario but mainly the decision not to play him at Chelsea, convinces me Tiote will be here at the start of next season. The risks involved in spending what you would have to do in that situation and replacing so many players is surely too risky for even these muppets.

They've already said the Carroll money has to cover incoming fees and wages.

 

2 x £5m signings on 30k/week over 5.5 years and it's nearly all accounted for.

 

Ah but, not that simple, because they amorticise, those £5Mill players actually only cost you £1 Mill this year "in the books" along with first year wages, IF you carry the portion of the £35 Mill that covers the rest of the price/contract forward to cover those costs, you'll be showing a profit next year and subsequently, in relation to that player, and thus will be taxed, that's not good, unless of course you use it to reduce debt (for example) he could do that.

 

e.g. two players at £5Mill plus £30K/week for 5 years = £10Mill fees plus £15.6Mill wages = £25.6 Mill total. Your actual "cost" in the books first year is only £2 Mill (2x£5Mill divided by 5 for amortisation) plus £4.2 Mill wages = £6.2 Mill, so you'd have a surplus of £19.2Mill in the books which could put you into profit and thus taxation.

 

What you have to make sure is that when you buy a player that year on year you can cover their amortisation cost from the fee plus their wages in the yearly lumps. That comes from each years revenue and profit/loss account. Would be unusual to carry "cash at bank" for 5 years to cover the whole thing, that said you would only get taxed on it once.

 

How the fuck that works if you pay up front (as we supposedly do) and yet amorticise (which we definitely do) I haven't a bloody clue. You shell out £5 Mill up front but only charge it back yearly over the duration of the contract, which means you "really" hand over £5mill for a player (in this example) but declare it in the books as £1Mill - assuming a 5 year contract.

 

My brain hurts !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ChezGiven 0]

You spend £5m on a player and you have bought an asset which has value for accounting and tax purposes. So you need to account for the depreciation of the value of the asset over the contract and ensure that you don't double count the value of the asset for tax purposes in subsequent years.

 

Wages are not related to transfer fee revenues anyway, it's about operating costs, the link was made by Pardew as he knows he wont get to spend £35m net.

[Toonpack 9936]

You spend £5m on a player and you have bought an asset which has value for accounting and tax purposes. So you need to account for the depreciation of the value of the asset over the contract and ensure that you don't double count the value of the asset for tax purposes in subsequent years.

 

Wages are not related to transfer fee revenues anyway, it's about operating costs, the link was made by Pardew as he knows he wont get to spend £35m net.

 

But all income, irrespective of source, goes in at the top and then wages and the depreciation etc. contribute to the operating costs and therefore to the bottom line, yes ??

[ChezGiven 0]

Yes but no business should be setting it's operating budget in line with one-off / uncertain revenue streams. Unless it's used to bridge a period over which operating revenues are forecast to rise. Ticket prices have been frozen and the recession has dampened marketing spends, so the next sky deal may not increase either.

Edited May 14, 2011 by ChezGiven

[LeazesMag 0]

The net spend should be £35m as receiving that amount of money could not have been in the business plan (in the financial administration sense). To spend all of it does mean that any losses carried over from last year will still be incurred. I can't see us making a loss this year though.

 

If I was in charge then I wouldn't spend it all either given the circumstances. £25m net would be a massive amount on any club's books apart from at city and chelsea. I doubt we will break £20m net, possibly as little as £10m.

 

If he sells Enrique then he'll be potentially £50m up since January, Carroll's add ons covering Ben Arfa's fee. If you think Tiote is off too then you're talking £70m up. This ridiculous scenario but mainly the decision not to play him at Chelsea, convinces me Tiote will be here at the start of next season. The risks involved in spending what you would have to do in that situation and replacing so many players is surely too risky for even these muppets.

They've already said the Carroll money has to cover incoming fees and wages.

 

2 x £5m signings on 30k/week over 5.5 years and it's nearly all accounted for.

 

which is probably what we'll get.

 

Sadly, some people think this is moving forward and is how a big club like us should be doing things.

Edited May 14, 2011 by LeazesMag

[Toonpack 9936]

Yes but not business should be setting it's operating budget in line with one-off / uncertain revenue streams. Unless it's used to bridge a period over which operating revenues are forecast to rise. Ticket prices have been frozen and the recession has dampened marketing spends, so the next sky deal may not increase either.

 

Agree and FWIW I fully expect the next TV deal to give some chairmen a sharp intake of breath, unless Platini's rules bite first and they're already ready, so to speak.

 

The last deal was crazy, especially the overseas rights, Singapore broadcaster (I think it was) paid something like £200Mill for a place with a population of 5 Million.

[sniffer 0]

The net spend should be £35m as receiving that amount of money could not have been in the business plan (in the financial administration sense). To spend all of it does mean that any losses carried over from last year will still be incurred. I can't see us making a loss this year though.

 

If I was in charge then I wouldn't spend it all either given the circumstances. £25m net would be a massive amount on any club's books apart from at city and chelsea. I doubt we will break £20m net, possibly as little as £10m.

 

If he sells Enrique then he'll be potentially £50m up since January, Carroll's add ons covering Ben Arfa's fee. If you think Tiote is off too then you're talking £70m up. This ridiculous scenario but mainly the decision not to play him at Chelsea, convinces me Tiote will be here at the start of next season. The risks involved in spending what you would have to do in that situation and replacing so many players is surely too risky for even these muppets.

They've already said the Carroll money has to cover incoming fees and wages.

 

2 x £5m signings on 30k/week over 5.5 years and it's nearly all accounted for.

 

which is probably what we'll get.

 

Sadly, some people think this is moving forward and is how a big club like us should be doing things.

 

Or 10 mill on carlton fucking cole locked into a five year deal.

[sniffer 0]

Ooops.

[PaddockLad 17646]

Another problem for the lad...been nicked...fucker thinks he's Stirling Moss...

 

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/cheick-tiote-newcastle-united-star-1707464

[sniffer 0]

Ameobi probably told him footballers didn't need insurance.

[TheMoog 0]

Another problem for the lad...been nicked...fucker thinks he's Stirling Moss...

 

 

http://www.mirror.co...ed-star-1707464

 

Says for fraud on the Beeb

[ewerk 31195]

Driving on a false license?

[Monroe Transfer 0]

As ill-disciplined off the pitch as he is on it, it seems.

[aimaad22 4222]

Perch has some mates in the police it seems.