You mean he isn't? **** I've been using his pearls of wisdom as a life guide. No wonder my missus has ****ed off, my house being repossessed and people keep punching me for no reason.
If you are going to come up with a ficticious figure why stop at 139 million make it 239 million it sounds more impressive
I posted you the link to the Guardian summary of each club finances. Do you not read these? Here is the link again. https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...ue-finances-club-by-club-breakdown-david-conn As you are obviously not very good at reading links here is the Sunderland Summary: Sunderland Accounts for Sunderland Limited for the year to 31 July 2015 • Ownership Owned by the American Ellis Short via Drumaville, a company registered in Jersey • Turnover 15th highest in League £101m, down from £104m in 2014 • Income Gate income £11m; TV and broadcasting £69m; Sponsorship & retail £10m; Conference & catering £9m; Retail & commerical £2m • Wage bill 11th highest in League £77m, up from £70m in 2014 • Wages as proportion of turnover 76% • Loss before tax £25m, following £17m profit in 2014 • Net debt £139m • Interest payable £6m • Highest-paid director Unnamed, £725,563 (Margaret Byrne was the chief executive)
To try and take any bias out of this I will refer to the national team. We won the highest prize in 1966 (before my time), we are absolutely carp now and when the likes of Germany say things such as "England are a good team" it's out of respect rather than actually thinking it. We (England) are not a force on the world stage and we cannot start harping back to the fact we won it in '66, yes it's history but it irrelevant as we are now turd. Our history means nowt in reality. I certainly wouldn't dream of using it as a basis to prove we are better than any other national side
You having a go at your tea lady? She's worth every penny she gets. Edit: Not forgetting your "cheesy chip" lady.
Unfortunately for you that seems to be a mis-print and/or is massively out of date as every other current source has Sunderland owing £139m. Here is one: https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...ue-finances-club-by-club-breakdown-david-conn Newcastle net debt = £81m (£129m debt less £48m cash at bank). Sunderland net debt = £139m Newcastle interest paid = £0.02m. Sunderland = £6m Newcastle wages to turnover = 50%. Sunderland = 76% Newcastle profit = £36m. Sunderland loss = £25m So which club is spending beyond its means by having an enormous wage bill and making a loss? Don't be afraid to ask for help. I know you have difficulty with the easy questions.
Look I have quoted you my source based on figures for YE 2015. There is more detail on the make up of the loan in there showing how it increased in 2015. As you dont quote your source I cant check when yours is from as GeneralLeeSpeaking says. However I have also said as numerous other posters have not to worry about it as its mostly debt to owner (definitely in NUFC case). Maybe not according to Guardian article for SAFC. But I only posted these numbers to show that businesses can operate with significant debt - its the nature of the debt thats important. You seem to want to turn it into a dick-measuring contest. What next - are you going to start comparing foul counts? So to sum up: 1) SAFC were more successful in the early days of the Football League 2) Newcastle have been a more successful team in the Premier League (although neither club should go boasting of their achievements) 3) Newcastle are in the Championship this season but seem to be operating on a relatively firm financial footing and their fans are enjoying the season 4) Sunderland are in the Premier League and are struggling probably due to some issues with finances that hindered their transfer activity this summer and my reading was that most fans weren't enjoying it at all but last weekend provided some welcome (but hopefully shortlived) relief.
Read the part to the right Concerning Man U, Chelski and N.U.F.C I apologise for bringing reality into your life but it is important I have never at any stage said that Sunderland were in a cosy position, this whole furore was brought about by the supposed profitable position of N.U.F.C
Debt is on the balance sheet. Profit is on the Profit/Loss. Only impact of debt on P/L is if you pay interest on the loan or overdraft that makes up the debt - Newcastle don't (MA makes it interest free). Your figures are for 2014/15 season. Guardian ones are for year ending 2015 so are more up to date. Sunderland increased its debt dramatically in 2015, from both Short and a loan company again according to Guardian) They are paying 6million interest a year according to Guardian. I apologise for posting recent facts and an understanding of how company affairs work - I find it is much more useful. If you want to keep arguing why don't you download latest Newcastle and Sunderland accounts from Co House. I am ****ed if I am going to spend anything on Sunderland so I am not doing it.
Jakarta - you should know by now that current information is not the number one in this game. The most preferable historical information will always be king in this game.
My figures are from Deloitte one of the most respected bodies in the world of finance, yours are from a newspaper, up to you to decide which are more likely to be correct, I can accept that Sunderland's figures could rise but on the face of it the team that by their owners own words spent 80 million last year alone are a better fit for the mantle of ( Dramatically ) The 129 million is at call, you would not want a situation where Mike was run over by a bus and his relatives want a share As for as arguing can I ask what you believe you are doing Can you point me to Co house I do not mind paying for education
I am officially giving up as requested by others here. Its getting boring. You can find Companies House on Google.
