Interim Results...

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

Dunno if they've been mentioned or posted elsewhere...

http://www.ananova.com/sport/story/sm_266508.html

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2001

Answers

good or bad? better or worse than expected?

Ananova says:

Newcastle turnover boost Newcastle United's interim results for the six months ending on January 31 of this year showed a 15% increase in turnover to £32.2million. Operating profit for the period, not taking into account player transfers, was £6.8million, an increase of 17%. Newcastle made a profit on ordinary activities after tax of £5,000, after a loss of £993,000 last year. The total operating expenses increase was held to 3% at £30.4million and the player trading deficit fell by 29% to £5.1million, set against £7.1million last year. The results also showed that the interim dividend had increased from 0.6p per share to £1.03 per share. Newcastle's St James' Park stadium is now operating near its capacity of 52,200 and Newcastle United plc chairman John Fender said: "We have the supporters and the venue and must now deliver the success on the pitch which everyone associated with Newcastle United expects and deserves."

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2001


LONDON, April 5 (Reuters) - Newcastle United Plc (LSE: NCU.L - news) reported a small first-half pre-tax profit on Thursday as an enlarged stadium and prudent approach to buying players began to pay off for the English soccer club. Revenues for the six months to January 31 climbed 15 percent to 32.2 million pounds ($46 million). The club made a pre-tax profit of 5,000 pounds, compared with a loss of 1.3 million in the same period last year.

Newcastle has been playing this season in St. James' Park, which has been rebuilt to expand capacity by 50 percent to 52,200 seats.

The added seats are boosting revenues and operating profits as well as providing an opportunity for a new generation of fans to watch the team play live.

But injuries to key players, including former England captain Alan Shearer, have plagued the Magpies this season. They are currently 13th in the premier league.

"Clearly recent football performances have been a disappointment to everyone associated with the club," Chairman John Fender said in a statement.

He was confident, however, that Newcastle would continue to draw faithful supporters, having averaged crowds of more than 50,000 per premier-league match this season.

The group will increase its interim dividend to 1.03 pence per share, from 0.6p last year.

Operating profit before player trading rose 17 percent to 6.8 million pounds for the six months.

Player trading costs were down 28 percent to 5.1 million pounds, with 8.2 million in players' fee installments offset by 3.1 million in profit on player disposals.

"What we're doing is taking a more controlled approach to it, which doesn't signify a lack of ambition... but you have to be prudent," Fender told Reuters in a telephone interview.

He added that the club would not make any major transfers in the near term as it waits for the new marketplace, under a recent compromise deal with the European Union, to settle down.

Shares in Newcastle were unchanged at 35 pence in light, early trade on the London stock market.

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2001


Increased capacity at St James' Park - and belt-tightening by manager Bobby Robson - has boosted Newcastle United football club's income by 15%, pushing the north-east club back into profit, but only just.

During the whole of the past financial year, the Magpies chalked up a profit of just £5,000.

In contrast, league leaders Manchester United reported profits of £17.3m.

In Newcastle, the team's recent poor form has not dented gate receipts at the 52,000 seat ground, which is running close to capacity.

Manager Robson has shaved £2m off the club's player trading deficit which stands at £5.1m.

Newcastle PLC chairman John Fender said Newcastle's financial health now needed to be matched by success on the pitch.

Television revenue

"We have the supporters and the venue and must now deliver the success on the pitch which everyone associated with Newcastle United expects and deserves," Mr Fender said.

Newcastle United's interim results for the six months ending on 31 January of this year showed a 15% increase in turnover to £32.2m.

Operating profit for the period, not taking into account player transfers, was £6.8m, an increase of 17%.

The club made a profit on ordinary activities after tax of £5,000, overturning a loss of £993,000 last year.

Match revenues increased by 30% to £16.1m despite one less game played than in 2000.

Premier League attendance at the first 12 home games was at an average of 51,405, the second highest in the Premiership.

Television revenue though fell from £8.3m to £6.9m, largely as a result of the team's failure to qualify for European competition.

Sponsorship revenue was also down at £4.1m from £4.8m largely because of league performance related terms in one of the group's main sponsorship deals.

A new Premiership television deal will drive strong operational cash flows in future years, the group said.

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2001


Bobby Robson's transfer dealings have helped get Newcastle United (LSE: NCU.L - news) back into black. Selling high earners from Ruud Gullit's squad has reduced the wage bill by 14% and also cut the club's player trading deficit by 29%.

Interim figures for the six months ended January 31 released today show that the deficit fell from £7.1 million to £5.1 million.

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2001


Points of note.....

Dividend to share holders up from 0.6p to 1.03p NOT £1.03 as in the first posting !!!!

"the club would not make any major transfers in the near term as it waits for the new marketplace, under a recent compromise deal with the European Union, to settle down.", despite what Douglas thought

Changes .... Gate money + £3.7m, with one game less played Telly - £1.4m cos we weren't in Europe Sponsrship - £700k cos we get it performance related Profit +£1m Wage bill -14%, but I can't work out what that means in real money, yet .............. Assuming we stay up, and season tickets prices stay roughly the same, and that the crowds remain then the revenues will be the same next year. The only pluses available are if the team do better and therefore get higher sponsorship money. Looking back I think the split is usual 3:1 on revenue for the revenue for first 6 months to second six months. It will be slightly better for the second half as there will be one more gate to take into consideration.

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2001



At first glance these results look disappointing.
They suggest full year Turnover at around £51-52 million (£45 million in the last full year) and Operating revenue at ca. £48, leaving only £3-4 million gross profit from which to fund player acquisition costs etc.

The figures also suggest match revenues will only increase by some £6 million to ca £25-26 million, despite operating at well over 90% capacity throughout the season.

Catering revenue was up by some £1.8 million as a result of the new facilities - say £2.5 million over the whole season. However, given it was projected that the stadium expansion would increase revenue by some £15 million pa, these results appear to leave a lot of explaining to do.

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2001


The PL gate revenue (non cup) goes to pay the bondholders so the increase in attendance figure because of expansion is a red herring as that additional revenue pays interest on the bond and the bond is secured against season ticket sales.

The bond attracts interest at 9% and rates today have gone to 5.5% and there is a massive sterling inverse yield curve.

merchandising and replica kit sales are masisvely down.

These results disguise a lot of real problems.

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2001


I'm not certain you're correct carzyhorse - but of course you may be.
I feel fairly sure that the Turnover figure that has been quoted will be the gross figure, including all ticket revenue from the expansion.
Most of the additional ticket revenue generated from the expansion will effectively be profit, and the bondholders will have a priority call on that element of profit.
I think the bond debt repayment is in the operating expense figure - presumably why it has increased when the 'players wages' figure has gone down - but I'm not 100% certain yet. If I figure it out I'll let you know.

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2001

I think Clarky is right, it's encouraging that we can return a profit without bit exposure & mid-table mediocraty with no European bonuses, as we'll have to get used to that for a while.

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2001

To be clear, these results are a great improvement on the last full year, and certainly represent a stabilisation of the Club's financial situation. However, they are not as good as I was expecting considering the very high occupancy rate in the stadium expansion - indeed they offer a very clear indication of what things would look like if we had contrived to get relegated.

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2001


With profits at £6.8 million (£10 million for the full year). Talk of spending £20 -£30m on new players at the end of the year without flogging off the crown jewels have to be a load of bollocks.

Expect either a total layout of £5- £10 million on fresh players or a mass exodus.

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2001


I have to agree with that view Rik.
One reason I was expecting better results was that I assumed Mr. Hall had had sight of the Interim financial results, and his verbal diorrhaea (sp?) was based on a much stronger financial position than has now been revealed.

A massive spending spree could not be financed from current trading cash flow, and long-term debt is already at £84 million.

Beats me! Perhaps he'll tell us.

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2001


Ooh goody, pots more cash. What shall we do with all this old rope?

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2001

What galls is that there is a profit of £5,000 but the Hall family take out £700,000 in dividends which they could have forgone. No financial prudence or commitment from the Hall's again.

-- Anonymous, April 06, 2001

hey, never mind the Halls, just ask Jonno how much his shares have weakned the company balance sheet

-- Anonymous, April 06, 2001


Woohoo, what will I do with my £5.04 dividend.

-- Anonymous, April 06, 2001

You're spot on again, Crazyhorse - and this is why NUFC is a sham public company, and 'public' only in name - the two major shareholders do precisely as they please.
THAT is one of the major reasons why the shares are only 35p, and regarded as 'toxic waste' by the City institutions.

-- Anonymous, April 06, 2001

agree - to take it private at these prices would be a good deal but the Hall's would not sell their 40% stake. Until they decide that they squeezed every last drop out of the club (which they have) no one will be able to buy it.

Although technically if someone could get their hands on 50% they could start mopping up over time, subject to takeover panel approval (15% per annum I think) and, the Hall's would have to sell.

Can't see it happening.

The Halls have had close to £70M out of NUFC in the last 10 years for an investment of £3M.

Not bad eh?

-- Anonymous, April 06, 2001


Moderation questions? read the FAQ