• The forums will be unavailable for a few hours on Saturday 6th June, when they do return they will initially be in a degraded state with some features missing, but normal posting/reading will be possible. The main website will not be affected by these updates.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.
    Some other features of the forum are also currently disabled.

So here it is ....

Status
Not open for further replies.

Scotsmackem said:
If I didn't put a timescale on I'd never have to pay....

I never gave you the option of putting a timescale either.

Like I said, if it runs it's course and has less replies I'll pay no bother at all.
Click to expand...

Because you never put a timescale i assumed you meant right now. Whats your timescale then?

Poor from you tbh
 
Grumpy Old Man said:
Not Merry Christmas, but the Grumpy take on the Mags accounts.

So, what does a trawl through the Mags latest accounts tell us?

Perhaps the most important thing is that it’s probably a terrible idea to get into a poker game with Fat Mike. He’s basically bet the farm on getting first time promotion and, to be fair, it’s come off. However, if they had done what Villa just did, they’d be looking straight down the barrel.

As it is, there’s more than enough going on here to suggest that it’s very far from all sweetness and light for them.

First amber light comes on the first page – corporate governance; they have one director. If old MBH twisted for days on here about our lack of proper board meetings, God know how the Mags can do it with only one director. Of course, these are legal niceties; Ashley will surely have some influence, and that could make him a shadow director in legal terms (I’m having to choose words carefully here). There are potential ramifications to that, which, again, I can’t really expand on without a risk of overstepping fair comment.

Second amber light – trading performance. This is where the farm has been bet. They incurred a trading loss of £55m – that’s the loss before player contract amortisation and profit or loss on transfers, contrasted with a £29m trading profit the year they were relegated. A fall in turnover of £40m can’t really be called unexpected, although a halving of commercial income from £25m to £12.5m speaks volumes about the attractiveness of Championship football to sponsors. The surprise comes in the increase of the cost base. Far from cutting costs to match the drop in status and turnover, they actually increased employee numbers and operating costs in all areas, with a 50% increase in the wage bill. They will no doubt claim this is inflated by promotion payments, which indeed it is; but only to the tune of £10m (which is hidden in the small print of the director’s strategic review, rather than in main accounts and notes). That leaves them re-entering the PL with a wage bill 38% higher than when they left, before any transfer activity last summer. Of course, the commercial income will bounce back, and, with a PL payment of around. Now there is another possible explanation for the increase in wages, which we’ll come to at the end, which would mean that the increase is a little bit of an illusion.

Next up – profit/loss before tax and FFP.

A bit of good news for them. They’re safe under FFP, primarily because they had two good years in 2014/15 and 2015/16, which offset the current loss, and being able to exclude player amortisation from the calculation of allowable losses, although, curiously profit/loss on transfers is included. The regulations themselves don’t help – they’re long and more than a bit ambiguous. If you like being tied up in logical knots, or prefer a non-pharmaceutical remedy for insomnia, the EFL regulations are here
You must be logged on to see external links
. It’s not helped by the rules changing from 2016/17 onwards.

Cash flow – they’re still leaking cash, but not nearly as badly as in the previous season, where they burned through huge amounts trying to stay up. Their cash flow should improve however, as it looks like they’ve been offering very generous terms on players they’ve sold. They have £61m owed to them by other clubs, £38m of which isn’t due till next season. This is far higher than amounts they owe other clubs. The cash flow was improved by a £15m increase in loans form Ashley, you know, the man who never puts a penny of his own money in.


And a final little kicker. In the cash flow statement, there’s a curious line – increase In provisions £22m. Hmm, what’s that? A bit further on I see the following – provision for onerous employment contracts and other charges. What the hell is that? Right at the end in the contingent liabilities note – what the ….

“In April 2017 HMRC attended certain Group premises and executed a search warrant. Subsequent to these events, Newcastle United Football Company Limited (NUFCL) received claims from HMRC relating to alleged underpayment of tax and national insurance, and interest to date thereon. The amount that has been claimed by HMRC has been assessed by the Director and an accrual has been made in the Group’s financial statements. The amount accrued represents a best estimate at this time of the amount which may be payable. The amount claimed excludes any amount which may be payable in respect of penalties and only reflects the amounts the Group has been made aware of. Claims have been lodged against these assessments, and the matter remains in the hands of the Group’s legal advisers.

In the opinion of the Director, at this stage in the process, there is insufficient information available to him to make a reliable estimate of either the un-accrued amount of any liability which may ultimately arise in this regard, or when any such sums may become payable.”

Now, before you all get too excited, there are a couple of huge caveats here.

Firstly, it’s entirely possible that the provision has nothing to do with the HMRC case. It could just as easily relate to wage subsidies due in future seasons in respect of players they’ve already sold, and they’re simply taking all the pain in this financial year. This would also explain some of this year’s wage increase. On reflection, it’s probably the more likely answer.

Secondly, even if they have accrued some money, this is not and should not be seen as an admission of guilt of any criminal offence. All it says is that they accept that some of the amount assessed by HMRC is actually owing. This happens all the time with PAYE assessments up and down the country. It’s clear that are disputing other elements of the assessments. As the investigation is ongoing, anything else has to be regarded as pure speculation.

So there you have it, they took a punt, and got away with it. However, in doing so, they’ve made a loss that will be there for PL FFP purposes for another season yet. They’ll need to make compensatory profits, and that probably one of the reasons why their approach this season, and most likely next, has been more conservative than their fans and manager might want.
Click to expand...

Good work GOM

Villa next please ;)
 
Mboma said:
If you get shot of those players and it gives you around 50 million to play with, would it not be a better idea for Benitez to clear the air with Mitrovic and keep him?

A new striker (a good one) is going to take up a lot of that budget and you are going to need more than one and then other areas will need strengthening as well.

Do you think Benitez would stay if offered the amount you're suggesting?
Click to expand...

Mitrovic isn't good enough. He's too lazy and not mobile or hard working enough for how we play.

Yeah the noises are that Benitez will stay until at least next summer.
 
Grumpy Old Man said:
Nope. Although looking at 2015/16 and 2016/17 would give a good indication of what they'd need to do to not be in the shit.
Click to expand...

Peddle the Honey Monster, for a start. :D

I admire and appreciate your insight as always - this was a good read and your previous threads were also well worth a look!
 
Mboma said:
If the post doesn't interest you or you don't understand it then f***ing move on to a different one.

I'm not particularly interested in their finances but it's interesting enough to see that Benitez (and the fans) may not be able to get the warchest they want this season due it actually being down to the club's finances and not Fat Mike being stubborn or tight.
Click to expand...

This is the SUNDERLAND message board.

It isn’t interesting. They are going to be shopping at harrods. I could not give a fuck about them, go and have a read of skunkers if you’re so f***ing interested.

They will be pissing themselves that we’ve started multiple threads on this topic, like the titanic has hit an iceberg and some fucker wants to talk about a ship up the road that’s got poor quality deck chairs.
 
Doberman said:
we're better than this. Haven't read the post. Don't intend to. Appreciate the OP's knowledge on our finances but analysing their accounts? Ha'way man.
Click to expand...
Tbf GOM was asked to do this as he has for other clubs.
 
lurker said:
This is the SUNDERLAND message board.

It isn’t interesting. They are going to be shopping at harrods. I could not give a fuck about them, go and have a read of skunkers if you’re so f***ing interested.

They will be pissing themselves that we’ve started multiple threads on this topic, like the titanic has hit an iceberg and some fucker wants to talk about a ship up the road that’s got poor quality deck chairs.
Click to expand...
Multiple threads...on their accounts
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top