Howay 12496 Posted May 18, 2018 Share Posted May 18, 2018 The accounts were 6 weeks overdue as well. I know the fine is negligible but it just shows the disorganization. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGingerQuiff 2412 Posted May 18, 2018 Share Posted May 18, 2018 4 minutes ago, Howay said: The accounts were 6 weeks overdue as well. I know the fine is negligible but it just shows the disorganization. Strategic to make the suggestion Rafa wants a big budget look unreasonable 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex 35063 Posted May 18, 2018 Share Posted May 18, 2018 (edited) Hoping he ekes another year out of Rafa then he'll spin the roulette wheel of mediocrity next summer when Rafa's contract is up. Hopefully he overdoses on coke first Edited May 18, 2018 by Alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 5217 Posted May 18, 2018 Share Posted May 18, 2018 2 hours ago, Alex said: The crack about spending what we generate makes sense now It does. We might just have to accept that it is what it is. 90m losses for being relegated is phenomenal. So, very likely thats where all the tv money went for this season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob032 38 Posted May 18, 2018 Share Posted May 18, 2018 I've concluded that he will never let go. He has it absolutely golden here. Year after year of free, global advertising. The ability to be far less than transparent about income and expenditure. Only has to dangle the carrot of takeovers that will never happen and the stadium fills straight up. He will string NUFC along as long as he can. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayatollah Hermione 13861 Posted May 18, 2018 Share Posted May 18, 2018 As if those books aren't cooked What, were Hanley and Murphy on 100 grand a week? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Dynamite 7025 Posted May 18, 2018 Share Posted May 18, 2018 Aye, definitely an ulterior motive with these numbers. The parachute payment offsets all but £30-40mil of losses. £90mil of losses is unprecedented. Especially as we had a transfer net profit ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 30569 Posted May 18, 2018 Share Posted May 18, 2018 1 hour ago, Kid Dynamite said: Aye, definitely an ulterior motive with these numbers. The parachute payment offsets all but £30-40mil of losses. £90mil of losses is unprecedented. Especially as we had a transfer net profit ! We lost £41m after transfers are taken into account. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LooneyToony 41 Posted May 18, 2018 Share Posted May 18, 2018 bollocks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil 6 Posted May 19, 2018 Share Posted May 19, 2018 Can one of our financially minded posters explain the significance of the 90m being an Operating Loss. My understanding is, it only includes income and expenses for that year. So Capital expenditure (player sales/purchases, income for past player sales/purchase) are either excluded or only include the 12 month value. As I'm pretty sure this is significant as Ashley said we would only ever buy players in full. And I know we sell on tick e.g. Sissoko for 6m a year x5 years. In my mind we at least broke even last year. Just not in cash flow (purchase in full vs player sales on ticks full income value). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OTF 7295 Posted May 19, 2018 Share Posted May 19, 2018 Newcastle United Annual Financial Accounts, proudly prepared for you by the PR department. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil 6 Posted May 19, 2018 Share Posted May 19, 2018 24 minutes ago, OTF said: Newcastle United Annual Financial Accounts, proudly prepared for you by the PR department. We have a PR guy? I'd have love to see that job advert. Quote Scape goat wanted. Experience not necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 5217 Posted May 19, 2018 Share Posted May 19, 2018 HF will be all over the accounts in due course I'm sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitman 2204 Posted May 19, 2018 Share Posted May 19, 2018 Apparently if a player is permanently out of the first team squad, like Colback is now, his wages over the remainder of his contract have to be expensed straight away. If there were a few of those in the 2017 accounts, it might explain why the loss was so high. In effect it’s treating those wages as paid upfront. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 30569 Posted May 19, 2018 Share Posted May 19, 2018 2 hours ago, Kitman said: Apparently if a player is permanently out of the first team squad, like Colback is now, his wages over the remainder of his contract have to be expensed straight away. If there were a few of those in the 2017 accounts, it might explain why the loss was so high. In effect it’s treating those wages as paid upfront. Who was saying that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 21912 Posted May 19, 2018 Share Posted May 19, 2018 What sort of shit is that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howay 12496 Posted May 19, 2018 Share Posted May 19, 2018 (edited) 5 hours ago, ewerk said: Who was saying that? It sounds a little bit like the treatment of an asset held for sale except I can’t see how it would work with wages (since they’re an expense and I know when a fixed asset is held for sale it’s remaining depreciation isn’t immediately expensed). Since I don’t think the wages of the contract are capitalized (this is where I might be incorrect and where the asset held for sale treatment might be this) the only immediate write off for an asset held for sale would be the impairment, which in Colbacks case would be the remaining amortization since he’s what can only be defined as a ‘worthless cunt’. The other point here is was Colback ever being amortized since he was free? I suppose it could be his signing on fee and any agent fees, but I doubt there’d be much remaining. I suppose there would also be players like Haidara, Saivet, etc that could all have been treat this way but I still can’t see it being a significant amount. Overall I’m not sure how this would work as I can’t see how you’d be able to immediately write off the remaining expense of a contract in the current period as they’re not period expenses even if the ‘asset’ is no longer intended for use. Edited May 19, 2018 by Howay 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howmanheyman 33141 Posted May 19, 2018 Share Posted May 19, 2018 The books have been cooked to A. Make Rafa seem unreasonable and B. Make the club look fucking brilliant in next years accounts for any potential buyers. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitman 2204 Posted May 20, 2018 Share Posted May 20, 2018 (edited) 8 hours ago, ewerk said: Who was saying that? I think it was in the Chronicle. I realise it might be bullshit but it seemed like one reason the wage bill might have spiked. And there must be agood reason... I cant believe that Ashley would generally sanction such a big spike in wages even if we hadnt been relegated Edited May 20, 2018 by Kitman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 30569 Posted May 20, 2018 Share Posted May 20, 2018 9 hours ago, Howmanheyman said: The books have been cooked to A. Make Rafa seem unreasonable and B. Make the club look fucking brilliant in next years accounts for any potential buyers. Pretty much the only two reasons I can think of. I can’t the provision being tax allowable so wouldn’t save us money going forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil 6 Posted May 20, 2018 Share Posted May 20, 2018 The books have been presented with one aim - to present Ashley in the best light possible. The cynic would believe the misleading 90m headline is to make out he is the savior of Newcastle United, and implies anyone who says otherwise is delusional. The truth is more likely they are trying to quash any expectations of spending more than last summer. It's rather concerning that Ashley didnt use this opportunity to court potential buyers to drive up the price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 30569 Posted May 20, 2018 Share Posted May 20, 2018 19 minutes ago, Phil said: It's rather concerning that Ashley didnt use this opportunity to court potential buyers to drive up the price. Arguably this could have done so as these accounts will be a year old and any purchasers would be looking at more recent unfinalised accounts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zerosum 234 Posted May 20, 2018 Share Posted May 20, 2018 Surely even Mike ashley isn’t dumb enough to cook the books when they’ve been under close scrutiny already from the revenue? Could it not be that they actually did just take a “financial gamble”? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 30569 Posted May 20, 2018 Share Posted May 20, 2018 We can write things down and make provisions in the accounts that won’t necessarily affect the tax we pay. I’d say that’s the case with this. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wykikitoon 20115 Posted May 23, 2018 Share Posted May 23, 2018 https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/44223584 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.png.403f4a475ac3bb53997c2626c09ef800.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now