Monkeys Fist 41932 Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 Don't go giving Fatty any ideas, man! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitman 2204 Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 Don't go giving Fatty any ideas, man! Dont drop your Garde Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toonotl 2941 Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 LM got in touch...I didn't respond. No YOU wouldn't would YOU? When are YOU going to answer MY simple question?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anorthernsoul 1221 Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 Will we be able to afford Garde now? He'd be as much use a chocolate fire garde. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 21768 Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 Where's the missing millions? Expect a limited number of journalists to ask this including the local boys. Luke Edwards on the case Newcastle United announce record £18.7m profit - but why has there been a rise of £25m in operating costs? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/newcastle-united/11505163/Newcastle-United-announce-record-18.7m-profit-but-why-has-there-been-a-rise-of-25m-in-operating-costs.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Dynamite 6973 Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 Probably creative accounting to pay back £25mil of the debt whilst still claiming he's owed the full £129mil Also, how can we have one of the highest gates in the league, one of the lowest wage bills (relatively speaking), sign 2 loan players and 1 permanent player and still only make a profit because of the Cabaye sale? There's no one worth £20mil to sell in the team so are we posting a debt next year? The accounts look bent as fuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 30175 Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 The actual taxable profit will be the figure to look out for i.e. the profit that excludes the various accounting write downs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 I thought the write downs were used to reduce tax? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 44179 Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 He probably just paid himself a £25m bonus. Why not, it's his club and his profits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 30175 Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 I thought the write downs were used to reduce tax? The likes of player amortisation isn't an allowable expense in regards to corporation tax. It's normally done on a straight-line basis but the club may have chosen a one-off revaluation in order to reduce the headline profit figure for PR purposes. I'm just speculating but we'll find out at the end of the week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitman 2204 Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 He probably just paid himself a £25m bonus. Why not, it's his club and his profits. Back to the good old days of the previous regime? Presumably he'd have to be an officer of the company otherwise its really a dividend. Seems more likely its a fee of some kind paid to an associated company for unspecified services. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitman 2204 Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 (edited) The likes of player amortisation isn't an allowable expense in regards to corporation tax. It's normally done on a straight-line basis but the club may have chosen a one-off revaluation in order to reduce the headline profit figure for PR purposes. I'm just speculating but we'll find out at the end of the week. Yes. Also to be a tax deductible expense it has to be a real business expense of the company not a profit shift to Ashley or one of his companies. So if its a tax fiddle (as some are claiming on N-O) there has to be genuine business substance behind it to stand up to HMRC scrutiny. Edit: I mean if the extra cost is nothing to do with player depreciation Edited March 31, 2015 by Kitman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 30175 Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 I don't think Ashley is stupid enough to try and fool HMRC. More than likely he's just trying to fool the fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 10674 Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 I don't think Ashley is stupid enough to try and fool HMRC. More than likely he's just trying to fool the fans. He won't be fooling the HMRC, he'll just be a rich and powerful bloke making the most of being rich and powerful by employing rich and powerful bean counters that keep him rich and powerful by avoiding tax. Rich and powerful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JawD 99 Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 LM rewrites history more than Pardew. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 10674 Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 LM rewrites history more than Pardew. When you're the king, you can do anything Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 10674 Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 Newcastle United And The Questionable Value Of Their Profit 1by SebSB • General • Tags: Finance, Lee Charnley, Mike Ashley, Newcastle United This morning, Newcastle United have announced that during the financial year between June 2013 and June 2014 the club made a record profit of £18.7m. “I am pleased to report a positive set of results which confirms the healthy financial position the Club now finds itself in and is a reflection of the prudent and measured manner in which we operate. The Club benefits from a supportive owner and is financially stable. This gives us a strong platform from which to grow, both on and off the pitch, a result of which means, as we move forward, we are able to net spend on the playing squad and invest in other areas of the business.” (The Mirror). That’s Lee Charnley, Managing Director at St James’ Park, with a slightly euphemistic spin on this morning’s announcement. Fans take a more active interest in their club’s accounts in 2015 and it’s no longer deemed an irrelevance. Some supporters’ concerns still don’t stretch beyond the pitch, but there are many who see financial performance as a future indicator and who, subsequently, are aware of what appears on these balance sheets. Superficially, then, the news out of Newcastle this morning should please the natives. A profit is a good thing, clearly, a record profit is even better. But this is Newcastle United and nothing in that world is really ever as it seems. This is the fourth successive year in which the club have made a profit and there has to be a point eventually at which that means something to the supporters. We are all aware of the recklessness that has punctuated football over the last decade and so, as a consequence, we are urged to admire anything resembling prudence. “But what about Leeds, what about Portsmouth…?” Yes, yes, yes. It’s irritating how often this discussion is separated into two opposing extremes, the insinuation being that clubs only ever have a choice between being ambitionless cash-hoarders or reckless, bankruptcy-seeking catastrophes. I am not a Newcastle United fan, therefore the club’s future is ultimately of little concern to be me beyond the precedent it’s currently setting, but it seems reasonable to ask what the end-game is in the North-East. The club is well-run as a business, but that has come at the cost of its identity. Heaven knows what the supporters think, but the outside association with this organisation is no longer sporting. When Newcastle United are mentioned now, first you think of Mike Ashley, thenSportsDirect, then the uber-branding inside the stadium. Then, maybe, you remember that they also play football. That can’t be right. The ‘sound business structure’ line from Newcastle has grown very tired. Fans can be unrealistic sometimes and they can demand too much spending or fail to recognise the perils attached to aggressive transfer policy, but this isn’t an example of that. After four successive years of profit – and now a decadent new broadcasting contract on the horizon – where is the suggestion that a new day is about to begin? Or, in more basic terms, what has this all been in aid of? What is Mike Ashley actually working towards? We all experience periods of enforced frugality in our lives and we all recognise that there are times when it’s right to bank pay-cheques rather than to spend them, but those moments usually occur within the context of a greater aim. A holiday, maybe, or a down-payment on a new house – perhaps something more simple like a new television? When is Newcastle United’s new television day going to be? Back in October 2014, plans for a new training complex received council approval – and that does represent infrastructural improvement – but progress with that, or at least the type that would vindicate budgetary caution, seems very scarce. Newcastle have cast themselves as a particular type of club. The realities of the Premier League mean that a team of their size will likely never challenge for the title again, but you still expect a degree of mobility – and that’s not in any way apparent. They buy to sell, they exist to collect. The pertinent question, therefore, is after how many successive years of profit will that change? How large does the television contract have to get before Newcastle start behaving like a football club again? Where is the pay-off for all this self-celebrated prudence? http://thepremierleagueowl.com/newcastle-united-and-the-questionable-value-of-their-profit/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trooper 940 Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 A shot in the dark here lads as i know absolutely nothing about business and financial things but. Remember last year when Ashley put himself on the board of directors do you think he could have paid himself and the others a massive salary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 30175 Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 Doubtful due to the tax he'd have to pay on it. It would make more sense to me to take that money out as a loan repayment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Carr's Gloves 3791 Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 Doubtful due to the tax he'd have to pay on it. It would make more sense to me to take that money out as a loan repayment. Just postulating but, would it not be better for the fat cunt to take a hit on tax so that his stranglehold on the club, ergo the unpaid loan, with which he is able to leverage free advertising for his Sports Direct brand (his first and only love) remained intact? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 30175 Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 If he takes out £25m then we're still left owing him £104m. Does it make a difference to his argument? Even if we owed him nothing he'd still have the SD branding plastered all over the place, the debt is just a convenient excuse for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trooper 940 Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 Or could he have paid himself (S.D.) £25 million for the advertising ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trooper 940 Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 Whatever it turns outto be there's a hell of a lot missing compared to the initial forecasts of £60/£50 or even £30 million. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trooper 940 Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 It'll be the big telly what with the extended warranty and the licence fees the guy who has to go up the ladder everyday to switch it on and off it all costs money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trophyshy 7066 Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 Otherwise known as Jimbo Tax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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