1. That the club would clarify exactly what we owe, to whom and when and in what amounts it's repayble. This would surely stop the Makems fantasising about the Toon's imminent liquidation.

2. That the club would put out a clear statement about the f...k is going on with the academy. The FA are apparently minded NOT to waive the "own premises" requirement for another year. Alex Ferguson is in today's papers calling the Academy system the biggest load of shite ever but it's the system that's currently in place. Will the club PLEASE tell us what the current position is?

3. Basically that the club would communicate all matters of interest to the supporters instead of telling us that Steve Harper baked a cake last week and shared it with some underprivileged housewives from Dunston.

Thank you.

-- Anonymous, March 12, 2002

Answers

Dougal - we're a plc - it's a matter of public record how much the club owes - it should not reveal any more than the legal requirement. No point in keeping competitors in the picture.

-- Anonymous, March 12, 2002

This would surely stop the Makems fantasising about the Toon's imminent liquidation.

Don't be so unkind - they've got nothing else to get excited about. :-)

-- Anonymous, March 12, 2002

Damn! Why wasn't I in Dunston last week!

-- Anonymous, March 12, 2002

My sister lives in Dunston. Thought she'd put on a bit of weight when I saw her at the weekend. Mind you, she's probably more interested in the cake than Steve Harper. At least she'd recognise a cake.

-- Anonymous, March 12, 2002

I disagree, Jonno. There is absolutely nothing transparent about our finances which is why you get mad estimates from broadsheet papers. This is where many small investors take their information when buying and selling. Our finances may not be anywhere near as parlous as the papers would have the world believe and the run on shares before Christmas may have been entirely avoidable. We look like an unsound business. The other thing is that Cameron Hall are currently being investigated by the DTI and, bearing in mind our connections, I honestly believe that we must be seen to be as transparent as possible in our financial dealings just as a matter of policy.

As for not giving competitors a helping hand, I think you are really over-estimating how useful competitors would find it to know that we owed Joe Bloggs Caterers £30,000. What competitors do find useful is a statement by a director that we are cash rich which opens us to greed in the purchase and sale of players.

-- Anonymous, March 12, 2002

PS. Some clever people on here (one of whom I believe ran a bigger PLC than NUFC) have tried to come up with a ballpark based on public info and haven't been entirely successful. I just can't see how this is a good thing.

-- Anonymous, March 12, 2002

Alex Ferguson is in today's papers calling the Academy system the biggest load of shite ever

What's this? What's AF on about?

-- Anonymous, March 12, 2002

It's in the Express and he basically says the old system of bringing players through was much better with less emphasis on being a star at 17...

Having said that, they are opening a huge new shiny Academy themselves in a couple of weeks.

-- Anonymous, March 12, 2002

Read something on icDP a few days back about how we may use some of the most talented local youngsters to other clubs with real academies if we don't get something sorted. It really is beyond a joke.

Re: Harper...where do I get on the list to sample his culinary skills?! ;-D

-- Anonymous, March 12, 2002

What p*sses me off most about the Academy is that it is now over ten years since we were promised the best Academy in Europe. Since then, Boro and Sunderland have built new grounds, new training facilities and state-of-the-art Academies, apparently without running into significant planning problems. I appreciate that Sunderland and Boro are basically *post-industrial slag heaps where any development is good development but that Newcastle City Council and NUFC can't come up with an agreement to protect the North East's biggest sporting institution (and Newcastle's biggest brand) is breathtaking.

* I don't take any pleasure saying that: people losing their jobs is never a joke.

-- Anonymous, March 12, 2002

When the issue of debt comes up again and again, people always seem to forget the below, which forms the majority of our long term debt and which I don't think is repayable early even if we wanted to. We also have a convertible loan of some sort for GBP24m @ July 2001, which has crept up. With the bond, every year, GBP6m of our income from ticket sales goes towards paying off capital and interest, and will do so until 2016. Not sure what the average season ticket price is, but a simple calculation showing the total additional ticket sales income from the expanded stadium less GBP6m should still leave us with a profit. If the stadium doesn't fill, then those additional profits are eaten into and nothing else

According to a report in Financial Times London, dated 21st September '99, Newcastle United has become the first club in football to securitise its commercial revenue streams by issuing a GBP55m bond that will be backed by income from future ticket sales and corporate hospitality receipts. The financing will help pay for the reconstruction of the club's St James Park stadium, which is already under way. Previously funded by a GBP40m bank loan, the development will increase the stadium's seating capacity from 38,000 to 51,000 by next August. Note that Formula -1 was among the first cases of securitisation of receivables in the sports area. However, sports businesses are regarded as promising vehicles for securitisation issues because their revenues from TV rights and sponsorship deals tend to be secured by long-term deals. Ticket sales are also seen as a dependable source of income. The 17-year Newcastle United bond has a weighted average fixed interest rate of 7.43 per cent and is repayable in annual instalments of GBP6m - initially representing GBP4m of interest and GBP2m of capital - between 2001-2016.

-- Anonymous, March 12, 2002

Pete, it's not the securitisation I'm really talking about. It's a clear break down of exactly how much we owe at this moment in time - for example, we owe Notts Forest another 2.5 million for JJ. That's a debt. Equally, the club claimed to have earmarked £10 million for the academy, then announced that Darsley Park meant we had saved £10 million. Almost immediately, we bough Laurent Robert. Now, we learn that Darsley Park isn't definite and WILL need building work. So, will we have to find the money for that?

It's all a bleeding mess.

-- Anonymous, March 12, 2002

But the broadsheets' mad estimates come from the same information source - ie the 2001 accounts, without understanding the securitisation. At this precise moment in time the debt situation would be an internal issue, and adding up all the items that seem like they might have created a net debt is dodgy because we don't know the income/debtor side. For instance all the Intertoto income and increased tv income. We had plenty of cash (ca. 15M) in July 2001 so we shouldn't go bust. What we don't want to see is the convertible loan go up any more. I would hope to see it go down, and player trading/academy/training etc to be funded by additional income, not debt.

-- Anonymous, March 12, 2002

This academy thing gets me annoyed. For years they've been on about new training facilities and an academy. First it was badgers, then poisonous ash and now the Forest Hall residents object to a bit of building work at Darsley Park. God it would be my dream to have the training facilities on my doorstep FFS!

But it can't be good for a prem team to have to get changed at SJP go in a coach, get all muddy and cold, go back in a coach and then get showered and changed!

There are so many misleading statements about the facilities it's hard to know where they are up to.

-- Anonymous, March 12, 2002

There is absolutely nothing transparent about our finances which is why you get mad estimates from broadsheet papers.

The finances of a plc are transparent. No, the reason you get mad estimates in the papers is down to the quality of the journalists. For example the recent £105m estimate came from David Conn who wrote "The Football Business"(?) and who has a particular political slant on these matters. Look at carol.com (company annual reports on line) and you'll see the Toon's balance sheet and how much the Toon owes.

I think you are really over-estimating how useful competitors would find it to know that we owed Joe Bloggs Caterers £30,000.

Well, I don't think we would find that useful either really. :- )

(Although if Bloggs is indeed the supplier it might well explain the quality of the pies)

-- Anonymous, March 12, 2002

Jonno I had a look at carol.com and www.carol.com and they're both "Carol Shaw's Home Page" about bicycles and cameras. Is it something else with carol in it?

-- Anonymous, March 12, 2002

I found it - it's carol.co.uk

-- Anonymous, March 12, 2002

I like the way they classify NUFC under "entertainment" in carol.co.uk, whereas SAFC is under ...

-- Anonymous, March 12, 2002

leisure and hotel

-- Anonymous, March 12, 2002

as are mufc, leeds, chelsea, etc.. We ARE the entertainers

-- Anonymous, March 12, 2002

Thankyou Barry. So as of last July the figure is £82m. Most of it, as Peter points out, is £55m securitisation and £24m convertible loan. The convertible loan is a paper entry. It converst to shares and thus will never be a cash call on the club. (Actually, due to recent deals with NTL and Premier TV I'm not sure if it is still there.)

-- Anonymous, March 12, 2002

OK, Jonno, then will you please, for the love of God, look at CAROL for me, and tell me exactly how much we owe and when the lot of it has to be paid back as I'm obviously too thick to work it out? I'm assuming that obscure deals with Notts Forest etc are on this system, too?

Pete, I am not denying that we have revenue streams. My firm actually did the securitisation so I'm fairly well up to speed on it. It's everything else that I'm worried about. I mean, you're right, we've made a mint this season, so why in God's name do we have to defer payment on JJ?

As far as I can see, we are completely in the dark on finances.

-- Anonymous, March 12, 2002

Dougal, pet, I'm not sure why you're so exercised about our borrowings at present but those are the latest figures available. The interim numbers (to December 31) come out in early April I believe so we'll get a more up to date picture then.

Since the numbers above (to 31/7/01) we have spent £15m on Robert & Jenas, which is the major change to the last balance sheet. During that time of course, we have been earning money from TV, merchandising, sponsorship and cup gate money, as well as paying out untold billions in wages. At the start of the period we had £16m in the bank. I don't think our borrowings have grown significantly since the last BS. For Forest to accept a deffered payment on Jenas, they must have assured themselves of our credit rating.

As to why we had to defer payment on Jenas, I can only assume that Freddy needed some out-of-pocket expenses for his trip down under in Australia. :-)

BTW, regarding the Academy, I read on .com that building at Darsley Park began in January. Were you aware of that? I wasn't.

What alarms me is the fact that we have not heard about this cake for a full week after the event. What sort of cake was it?, a sponge?, a fruit cake?, a tart?(surely not!), was it iced? Did the good ladies of Dunston enjoy it? Will the club suffer any liability if an action for damages is brought for an increase in their waistlines, or an outbreak of tooth decay?

I think we should be told. This was obviously no trifle.

-- Anonymous, March 12, 2002

Jeez dougal... you could really feed the tabloids/mackems/etc. with this!!

"why in God's name do we have to defer payment on JJ? "

why NOT!?????? play by the rules of every transfer.. 50% up front + 50% within 12 months.

If your plumber had said half now and half later would you have said "no ta... I'll pay it all now" ?

-- Anonymous, March 12, 2002

Depends whether it took interest rates and inflation into account Geordie :)

-- Anonymous, March 12, 2002

Jonno, we have applied for permission to start building work and have done some bits and pieces that don't require planning permission. There's an article in last week's Ronnie on the subject. Although the Ronnie may be misinformed.

Geordie, the press currently make out that we have debts of at least £105 million, more than half the debt that won Real Madrid the Spanish League, the Europen Cup and bought Zidane and Figo and without their relationship with royalty. I have said on here that the securitisation is a great financing package and the club did well to get it. I have also said that I don't believe that our debts are anywhere near what the press says they are. But I'd just love us, in the spirit of openness and communication, to put the speculation to rest.

-- Anonymous, March 12, 2002

PS. Geordie, unless you can't afford it, you normally pay up front, don't you?

I think you'll find the tabloids have probably covered this after extensive coverage in the broadsheets.

-- Anonymous, March 12, 2002

errr no! I'd rather keep my 2.5 Million pounds in MY bank account earning interest for ME until I had to pay it over

-- Anonymous, March 12, 2002

The accounts split debt into 'due within 12 months' and 'due after 12 months' which covers up to 25 years probably. Can't find the numbers though !

-- Anonymous, March 12, 2002

Does Stevie do take aways?

-- Anonymous, March 12, 2002

These are the numbers from the july 2001 B/S in £m

Creditors due within 1 year 26.3
Amounts due after more than 1 year 82.9

So at the very worst there you could say we owed 109 which would be the truth but not the whole truth.

However against the amounts due within 1 year ought to be set the trade debtors which amounts to 16.4
Also remember that 24 of the 82.9 will not be repaid in cash - but simply by the issue of more paper. So I estimate the true figure of net debt to have been under £70m (109-16.4-24). £55m of that is the securitisation.

I have no expertise in this (or indeed any other) area, so you must interpret these numbers as you will. Remember that football shares can go down as well as plummet.

-- Anonymous, March 12, 2002

I think the papers have just used the number that Jonno refers to above as our 'debt' which is totally misleading. Dougal, I'm not saying you aren't aware of the securitisation - I'm saying the papers have ignored it. I really don't think we have any real massive debt issues, but as with all companies we have to be careful with cashflow, hence why deferring fees is useful (ie we might not get paid tv revenue till later in the year and such like). The speculation about our debt is not financial speculation (as far as I can see)from the City, but journalists after a footie story.

-- Anonymous, March 13, 2002