Change @ St. James

[peasepud 59]

No, the point is why dig into his personal fortune to put the odd £20 million into NUFC when he could charge SD £20 million instead and not really effect his salary there or the share price etc.

 

Maybe there is a reason, Im just not sure what it is.

But he isnt forking out any money for us now, we break even remember?

[Guest Your Name Here]

Surely it would be in Mike Ashleys interest to pay NUFC (himself) sponsorship money from Sports Direct (plc).

 

I cant see why NUFC MA would give it free to SD MA.

 

Doesnt make sense?

Surely it's effectively 'free' either way though.

 

The point being he is the CEO of SD and will be paid a wage and bonus based on performance. It is a plc with shareholders.

 

NUFC however is 100% his and therefore in theory, any profit after tax can go straight into his bank account.

 

No one at SD could argue that there is no value is the advertising they are getting so it would seem sensible for him to set up a payment from SD to NUFC.

 

It is so much in his interest to do it, I can't see any reason / benefit why he wouldn't.

what, you can’t see any reason for him to benefit his beloved SD at the expense of NUFC’s sponsorship revenues? — blimey!

 

No, the point is why dig into his personal fortune to put the odd £20 million into NUFC when he could charge SD £20 million instead and not really effect his salary there or the share price etc.

 

Maybe there is a reason, Im just not sure what it is.

The logical conclusion is he’s running NUFC for SportDirect’s benefit. It’s not a hard concept to grasp if your prepared to accept he doesn’t give a shit about NUFC’s long term future.

[ewerk 30167]

It's a fucking expensive advertising campaign.

[Kitman 2204]

Surely it would be in Mike Ashleys interest to pay NUFC (himself) sponsorship money from Sports Direct (plc).

 

I cant see why NUFC MA would give it free to SD MA.

 

Doesnt make sense?

Surely it's effectively 'free' either way though.

 

The point being he is the CEO of SD and will be paid a wage and bonus based on performance. It is a plc with shareholders.

 

NUFC however is 100% his and therefore in theory, any profit after tax can go straight into his bank account.

 

No one at SD could argue that there is no value is the advertising they are getting so it would seem sensible for him to set up a payment from SD to NUFC.

 

It is so much in his interest to do it, I can't see any reason / benefit why he wouldn't.

 

It could be a lot more complex than you're alluding to. Thre's the possible impact on the respective share prices of SD and NUFC, the cash aspects, the tax impact, the loss position of NUFC and so on. Depends on his priorities I suppose.

[trophyshy 7066]

From the 2009 accounts:

During the current and prior year, advertising and promotional services were provided to companies associated with Mr MJW Ashley, the ultimate shareholder of the company's parent company, St James' Holdings limited. No consideration was paid or payable for these services and the cost associated with the services in the prior year was £42,250.

The club received no money from SD in 2008 & 2009, in fact we paid the costs for the privilege.

 

Crikey.

 

[Guest Your Name Here]

It's a fucking expensive advertising campaign.

It would be if SD were paying for it.

[ewerk 30167]

Even more expensive from one man's pocket.

[Guest Your Name Here]

Not if he claws back his loans through a ‘sell to fund running costs’ policy.

[Christmas Tree 4672]

Having a look around this morning it appears that sports direct only has an advertising spend of £4 million. To put this in perspective, when I used to do the advertising for a sofa retailer with 60 stores, I had an advertising budget of £6 million and that soon gets eaten up on TV.

 

This is why we will probably see no big payments from SD to NUFC as their current "advertising budget" simply couldnt justify it.

 

It should however be a great opportunity for a big company with lots to throw at branding and therefore seems surprising that no one has come in for the @ St James package, thus leading to the only logical conclusion that it is indeed, not for sale.

[Guest alex]

From the 2009 accounts:

During the current and prior year, advertising and promotional services were provided to companies associated with Mr MJW Ashley, the ultimate shareholder of the company's parent company, St James' Holdings limited. No consideration was paid or payable for these services and the cost associated with the services in the prior year was £42,250.

The club received no money from SD in 2008 & 2009, in fact we paid the costs for the privilege.

If that wasn't happening to us it would be comical.

[ewerk 30167]

Have you seen the state of their television adverts?

 

And the @St James name means very little as no one actually calls it that unlike the Emirates, Reebok etc.

[Guest alex]

Have you seen the state of their television adverts?

And the @St James name means very little as no one actually calls it that unlike the Emirates, Reebok etc.

Aye

[ChezGiven 0]

From the 2009 accounts:

During the current and prior year, advertising and promotional services were provided to companies associated with Mr MJW Ashley, the ultimate shareholder of the company's parent company, St James' Holdings limited. No consideration was paid or payable for these services and the cost associated with the services in the prior year was £42,250.

The club received no money from SD in 2008 & 2009, in fact we paid the costs for the privilege.

If that wasn't happening to us it would be comical.

I think you've both misunderstood the statement (I'm also pretty sure that SD branding at SJP arrived in 2010?). Anyway, that fee is for services promoting Newcastle, not SD. A statement on SD's promotions isnt relevant to our accounts. Its basically saying that we got assistance in selecting e.g. promotional channels and refining brand messages for NUFC from the enormously powerful and successful marketing department at SD.

 

It does NOT mean we paid SD £42k to advertised SD at SJP.

[trophyshy 7066]

Have you seen the state of their television adverts?

And the @St James name means very little as no one actually calls it that unlike the Emirates, Reebok etc.

Aye

 

On the subject of amateurism, the NUFC online shop looks like it was created in 1995 in someone's bedroom.

[ChezGiven 0]

Having a look around this morning it appears that sports direct only has an advertising spend of £4 million. To put this in perspective, when I used to do the advertising for a sofa retailer with 60 stores, I had an advertising budget of £6 million and that soon gets eaten up on TV.

 

This is why we will probably see no big payments from SD to NUFC as their current "advertising budget" simply couldnt justify it.

 

It should however be a great opportunity for a big company with lots to throw at branding and therefore seems surprising that no one has come in for the @ St James package, thus leading to the only logical conclusion that it is indeed, not for sale.

The point i was making about tax is that the £4m is tax free as its a business cost. If SD get e.g. £2m advertising services out of us and dont pay for it, that £2m is now part of their profit (and not costs) and is subject to tax at corporation rate. Therefore, giving it to us for free costs SD the corporate tax rate of £2m i.e. its not free.

[Guest alex]

From the 2009 accounts:

During the current and prior year, advertising and promotional services were provided to companies associated with Mr MJW Ashley, the ultimate shareholder of the company's parent company, St James' Holdings limited. No consideration was paid or payable for these services and the cost associated with the services in the prior year was £42,250.

The club received no money from SD in 2008 & 2009, in fact we paid the costs for the privilege.

If that wasn't happening to us it would be comical.

I think you've both misunderstood the statement (I'm also pretty sure that SD branding at SJP arrived in 2010?). Anyway, that fee is for services promoting Newcastle, not SD. A statement on SD's promotions isnt relevant to our accounts. Its basically saying that we got assistance in selecting e.g. promotional channels and refining brand messages for NUFC from the enormously powerful and successful marketing department at SD.

 

It does NOT mean we paid SD £42k to advertised SD at SJP.

I stand corrected.

[ChezGiven 0]

When did SD branding arrive for the first time at the stadium?

[Guest alex]

When did SD branding arrive for the first time at the stadium?

Might be wrong but I thought it was during the season in the Championship.

Edit: had a quick look, 4th November 2009.

Edited July 27, 2011 by alex

[Christmas Tree 4672]

Having a look around this morning it appears that sports direct only has an advertising spend of £4 million. To put this in perspective, when I used to do the advertising for a sofa retailer with 60 stores, I had an advertising budget of £6 million and that soon gets eaten up on TV.

 

This is why we will probably see no big payments from SD to NUFC as their current "advertising budget" simply couldnt justify it.

 

It should however be a great opportunity for a big company with lots to throw at branding and therefore seems surprising that no one has come in for the @ St James package, thus leading to the only logical conclusion that it is indeed, not for sale.

The point i was making about tax is that the £4m is tax free as its a business cost. If SD get e.g. £2m advertising services out of us and dont pay for it, that £2m is now part of their profit (and not costs) and is subject to tax at corporation rate. Therefore, giving it to us for free costs SD the corporate tax rate of £2m i.e. its not free.

 

 

Tried reading that 3 times now and my head hurts. My old MD used to throw rulers at the our accountant when he spoke like that.

[ewerk 30167]

From the 2009 accounts:

During the current and prior year, advertising and promotional services were provided to companies associated with Mr MJW Ashley, the ultimate shareholder of the company's parent company, St James' Holdings limited. No consideration was paid or payable for these services and the cost associated with the services in the prior year was £42,250.

The club received no money from SD in 2008 & 2009, in fact we paid the costs for the privilege.

If that wasn't happening to us it would be comical.

I think you've both misunderstood the statement (I'm also pretty sure that SD branding at SJP arrived in 2010?). Anyway, that fee is for services promoting Newcastle, not SD. A statement on SD's promotions isnt relevant to our accounts. Its basically saying that we got assistance in selecting e.g. promotional channels and refining brand messages for NUFC from the enormously powerful and successful marketing department at SD.

 

It does NOT mean we paid SD £42k to advertised SD at SJP.

 

 

Surely it says that 'services were provided to companies associated with Mr MJW Ashley'?

 

Though on the other hand it says that no consideration was paid, when if it had've been us providing advertising it would've said 'no consideration was received'.

 

I dunno.

[LoveTheBobby 1]

*politely pokes head round door*

 

on serious note - Chez , get onto The Code (3 part series starts on BBC tonight)

 

all about magic numbers n wotnot

 

*apologises and closes door behind him*

[ewerk 30167]

Having a look around this morning it appears that sports direct only has an advertising spend of £4 million. To put this in perspective, when I used to do the advertising for a sofa retailer with 60 stores, I had an advertising budget of £6 million and that soon gets eaten up on TV.

 

This is why we will probably see no big payments from SD to NUFC as their current "advertising budget" simply couldnt justify it.

 

It should however be a great opportunity for a big company with lots to throw at branding and therefore seems surprising that no one has come in for the @ St James package, thus leading to the only logical conclusion that it is indeed, not for sale.

The point i was making about tax is that the £4m is tax free as its a business cost. If SD get e.g. £2m advertising services out of us and dont pay for it, that £2m is now part of their profit (and not costs) and is subject to tax at corporation rate. Therefore, giving it to us for free costs SD the corporate tax rate of £2m i.e. its not free.

 

 

Tried reading that 3 times now and my head hurts. My old MD used to throw rulers at the our accountant when he spoke like that.

 

Your MD must've had trouble with basic accounting.

 

As I've said before, I don't think SD shareholders or the board would accept throwing silly money on advertising with us as an acceptable way of reducing their corporation tax liability.

Edited July 27, 2011 by ewerk

[Barney 0]

I believe the "@ SJP" stuff started in the Championship. I remember Lineker referring to it before a home match they had on live.

[ChezGiven 0]

Having a look around this morning it appears that sports direct only has an advertising spend of £4 million. To put this in perspective, when I used to do the advertising for a sofa retailer with 60 stores, I had an advertising budget of £6 million and that soon gets eaten up on TV.

 

This is why we will probably see no big payments from SD to NUFC as their current "advertising budget" simply couldnt justify it.

 

It should however be a great opportunity for a big company with lots to throw at branding and therefore seems surprising that no one has come in for the @ St James package, thus leading to the only logical conclusion that it is indeed, not for sale.

The point i was making about tax is that the £4m is tax free as its a business cost. If SD get e.g. £2m advertising services out of us and dont pay for it, that £2m is now part of their profit (and not costs) and is subject to tax at corporation rate. Therefore, giving it to us for free costs SD the corporate tax rate of £2m i.e. its not free.

 

 

Tried reading that 3 times now and my head hurts. My old MD used to throw rulers at the our accountant when he spoke like that.

Sorry.

 

If a business has revenue of £10m and costs of £4m, then it makes £6m profit, of which e.g. 33% is taxed, giving £2m tax bill and post-tax profits of £4m.

 

If that company gets £2m worth of services, the profit becomes £4m and the tax bill is £1m. The £2m worth of services benefits both companies in the long term and they pay £1m less tax. Since SD is a PLC the reduced profits are translated into giving smaller dividends to shareholders.

 

Am not saying this is what he has done but there is a clear rationale for paying NUFC. It may be he prefers to keep all the money in SD because he is fighting to get every penny of profit on SD and doesnt give a shit about NUFC but i find that argument faintly ridiculous given his investments so far.

[OTF 7220]

From the 2009 accounts:

During the current and prior year, advertising and promotional services were provided to companies associated with Mr MJW Ashley, the ultimate shareholder of the company's parent company, St James' Holdings limited. No consideration was paid or payable for these services and the cost associated with the services in the prior year was £42,250.

The club received no money from SD in 2008 & 2009, in fact we paid the costs for the privilege.

If that wasn't happening to us it would be comical.

I think you've both misunderstood the statement (I'm also pretty sure that SD branding at SJP arrived in 2010?). Anyway, that fee is for services promoting Newcastle, not SD. A statement on SD's promotions isnt relevant to our accounts. Its basically saying that we got assistance in selecting e.g. promotional channels and refining brand messages for NUFC from the enormously powerful and successful marketing department at SD.

 

It does NOT mean we paid SD £42k to advertised SD at SJP.

 

Genuinely what makes you say that? Is there something other than this slightly ambiguous statement that goes into further detail? The way I read it as a piece of evidence unto its own it says that services were provided [by the club] to other companies associated with Mike Ashley. These services involved no payment [to the club from other companies] and no payment was made [by the club to the other companies] for theses services. The cost to the club of rpvoding these services was £42,250.