Clarky

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Unofficial Newcastle United Football Club BBS : One Thread

If you want the full thing, go to the London Stock Exchange site, then into prices, type in NCU (our symbol), click onto the little button saying "Regulatory News Service" and you will be given a choice of looking at the divident info or the financials..

-- Anonymous, October 16, 2000

Answers

Dougal - aah've telt ye before. You can't go making offers like that on here. You never knaaw - Mrs Clarky might be reading over his shoulder and I'd doubt if she'd get past the second comma before laying dear old Al-k-Traz oot cold. Bliddy Wimmin', eh?

-- Anonymous, October 16, 2000

Thanks Dougal - I got it via Hemstock.net which I use quite a lot.
In all honesty it makes grisly reading for a fan/shareholder. However, as I've been tagged the arch 'Board Hater' I'm reviewing the information carefully before I make any specific comment.
It is entirely apparent now why the share price fell sharply last week, and indeed why the annoucement of the results was delayed.
In the US there is a phrase used to describe what 'Management' frequently do when they need to announce bad financial results - they "back up the truck". In other words - things are bad, they are going to get criticised/pilloried in any event, so why not just "back up the truck" and load up the reults with every conceivable piece of additional bad news that might be forthcoming. So what if it makes things a little worse?
I feel sure NUFC have done this here, and that is why they needed a little extra time to complete the 'financial engineering'. I suspect the #4 million of devaluation of 'player assets' falls into that category - it is fairly subjective anyway, and with the EU situation on transfer fees still unclear, it actually makes good sense in NUFC's situation to write down the playing assets "just in case", and thereby perhaps avoid another potential negative financial effect in the current year.

-- Anonymous, October 16, 2000

Good point Clarky, re the player write-offs. Also means that any sales proceeds will go straight to bottom line profit this year. Does anyone know which players were written down? Maric? Marcelino? Goma? Ferguson even? Pistone?

-- Anonymous, October 16, 2000

Mr Traz, I'll be very interested in your analysis. Don't feel you need to be to pedantic just because of me ;-)

Directly or indirectly attributable to the board, the effect of the SoS campaign no doubt has been a major factor in this. Now I'm not saying that the board were whiter than white over the whole sorry episode(s) but I do think that the action of so few has had a major impact on the club as a whole.

This is purely gut feel, but a quick totting up of the ins and outs during the 8/99-7/00 doesn't amount to anywhere near #19M defecit. Even taking #4M asset devaluation into account doesn't come close to #19M.

I assume this "asset devaluation" was for assets on the books at the end of July and not necessarily any who are currently with us? Surely we lost more than that on Big Yin alone, not to mention the others that Windy quoted.

-- Anonymous, October 16, 2000


At the preliminary level of analysis, it seems to me that the SOS issue can only have had a marginal impact on the results - although it would be natural of management to flag this as a mitigating issue in a horrific set of financial results.
For instance 'legal expenses' at ca.#600k where the same as in the previous year. Attendances and hence gate revenues were not impacted. Merchandising was down a couple of million, but they themselves attribute that to general retial market conditions. So what other way did it have an impact - programme or pie sales? The #19mm represents the overall deficit on the transfer of players in versus out in the period. I believe the #4mm write-down is more a view taken just before closing the accounts as to the present market value of players now on the books. Out of interest, they identify a #535k 'exceptional item' relating to compensation for a previous Manager/Director's contract - TSM's nest-egg perchance?

-- Anonymous, October 16, 2000


Clarky I cant be arsed to argue, hence I accept we all have opinions etc. BUT TO SAY SOS HAD MINOR IMPLICATIONS IS A JOKE!

It was a disasterous campagn designed to be OTT by the media to assassinate the toons image. How do Newton heath sell football tops to the London youths?

Notice how clubs with bad images pay OTT in wages for top stars? Boro & Boksic etc!

-- Anonymous, October 17, 2000


In the Time stoday it said the 535k was a compensation payment to Freddie Flectcher as he was on a two year rolling contract.

I thought he left the club, in which case is he taking the piss by being awarded that sort of golden handshake?

-- Anonymous, October 17, 2000


T.smith,

I can't be arsed to argue either, but what I actually said was that I didn't believe the SOS campaign had a major effect on the Company's 1999/2000 financial results - I believe they are using this as a pretty lame excuse. After all, even if it did have a major effect, it was the Club who created the conditions for the problem in the first place.
I WASN'T for one moment arguing that the SOS campaign wasn't a serious or important issue - actually, it was a huge disaster.

De builder,

I have to agree with you about Fletcher's "golden handshake", but what could we really expect?

-- Anonymous, October 17, 2000


Game, set and match - Clarky!

;0)

-- Anonymous, October 17, 2000


Moderation questions? read the FAQ