Marco Silva

[Palfy]

17 minutes ago, Shukes said:

There’s no need to mate, you read them just like everyone else did. You already know I’m right.

Your not right do the maths on what we have spent since he arrived on players wages and management, against the extra income the club is generating, and then tell me how we are better off financially. 

We are getting a few Million more on sponsorship deals from shirt sponsors and training ground sponsor and the revenue from the league went up slightly but will now start to go down slightly, just the compensation payments to Martinez Koeman Allardyce Walsh and their entourage have cost millions more than what ever they generated against what we were getting for the same items before he joined. 

Then there’s the spend of 300 million on players against the revenue of about 135 million of sales, then there’s the the cost of club wages that have spiralled by the region of 25% since he joined, that loss is being born by the club in forms of loans from him and other institutions but they have to be repaid, so how can we be better off financially when our out going’s a far out stripping our income?  

I await your response with bated breath, but trust me on this you are wrong because the purchases we have brought have a value to go against off setting the debt that’s how you balance the books you fabricate to a degree that your assets are bigger than your debts, but in reality we know that the 300 million he has over seen on the acquisition of players we will only see a fraction of that back if we could sell them players, but we can’t even give them away because of the huge wages he signed off, but in the accounts they will be written as assets on what we paid for them and know one can argue with that because he will say that’s what we paid so that what they are worth to the business. 

Without appearing to be rude or arrogant if after what I said people still believe we are financially richer than when he arrived you are clearly delusional and probably Brexit voters

But get back to me Shukes it’s fair that you can post I’m wrong but show me the figures and enlighten me to were I’ve gone wrong?

[London Blue]

Palfy you appear to of caught Haff disease, please seek the urgent medical and physiological help you clearly need.

We need to prevent this from spreading so please do not infect other threads  

[StevO]

7 hours ago, Chach said:

Surprised how many people have liked this when it's demonstrably wrong. Just because someone structures a company in the most tax effective way ie to appear as though it's losing money does not mean its cost them anything when the value of it's shares are going through the roof.

This is not just football, CEO's don't give a shit about paying dividends, they just want to grow the business.

 

What are you talking about?

[Shukes]

57 minutes ago, Palfy said:

Your not right do the maths on what we have spent since he arrived on players wages and management, against the extra income the club is generating, and then tell me how we are better off financially. 

We are getting a few Million more on sponsorship deals from shirt sponsors and training ground sponsor and the revenue from the league went up slightly but will now start to go down slightly, just the compensation payments to Martinez Koeman Allardyce Walsh and their entourage have cost millions more than what ever they generated against what we were getting for the same items before he joined. 

Then there’s the spend of 300 million on players against the revenue of about 135 million of sales, then there’s the the cost of club wages that have spiralled by the region of 25% since he joined, that loss is being born by the club in forms of loans from him and other institutions but they have to be repaid, so how can we be better off financially when our out going’s a far out stripping our income?  

I await your response with bated breath, but trust me on this you are wrong because the purchases we have brought have a value to go against off setting the debt that’s how you balance the books you fabricate to a degree that your assets are bigger than your debts, but in reality we know that the 300 million he has over seen on the acquisition of players we will only see a fraction of that back if we could sell them players, but we can’t even give them away because of the huge wages he signed off, but in the accounts they will be written as assets on what we paid for them and know one can argue with that because he will say that’s what we paid so that what they are worth to the business. 

Without appearing to be rude or arrogant if after what I said people still believe we are financially richer than when he arrived you are clearly delusional and probably Brexit voters

But get back to me Shukes it’s fair that you can post I’m wrong but show me the figures and enlighten me to were I’ve gone wrong?

Nice post. As a businessman yourself you should know it’s better to use few, but important words. 

Financial accounts are simple. They tell you if your business is successful or not. Ours for the last year have shown an improvement over the last few years. 

Its not me writing them, just the facts. I know you don’t like facts, that’s fine. But they are facts nonetheless.

Quick point on your balancing off accounts. Players are an asset. You don’t spend that money and it disappears, it’s an asset to your business. Again, owning your own business, you should know this. 

Some we will make a loss on, some we could make a profit on if we sold them. But they are still an asset.

[Shukes]

And there’s no point in paying the accounts as we have a thread on them already, it shows increased revinue. Increased sponsorship, extra sponsorship, better loan repayments.

Im surprised you haven’t looked at them yourself, as your using them to support your argument.

But I would be happy for you to post them here again for me. Football is on TV and I’m too lazy.

[StevO]

It’s not the increases in the accounts that make the big difference for me, the reduction in interest payments alone has been the biggest positive that I’ve seen. 

[MikeO]

Just saw the bookies odds on Mourinho's next club...

Real Madrid 5/2

Everton 4/1

Inter Milan 4/1

PSG 8/1

That would feel very odd.

[StevO]

The more I’ve had that conversation the more I think I would love it. 

I want Everton to be horrible and hated. 

[Palfy]

1 hour ago, Shukes said:

And there’s no point in paying the accounts as we have a thread on them already, it shows increased revinue. Increased sponsorship, extra sponsorship, better loan repayments.

Im surprised you haven’t looked at them yourself, as your using them to support your argument.

But I would be happy for you to post them here again for me. Football is on TV and I’m too lazy.

Shukes I’ve already highlighted those increases but they pair into significants we you look at the expenditure and loans whether interest free or other, it’s creative accounting based on the clubs assets primarily that the players such as Santo Balasie Schneiderlin and all the others that  he paid millions for and put on big contracts are worth what we paid for them. 

But the truth is we know have a bigger debt than before he came with a shed load of expensive over paid shit to show for it, and the money from Lukaku Stones Barkley Cleverly Funes and Rooney has been flushed down the toilet by the incompetence of Moshiri.

Instead of giving us an interest free loan of a 100 and something million on top of other loans, he should be holding his hands up saying I’ve fucked up my decisions have cost the club more than I’ve lent I’m going to write it off as a bad debt then I might have some respect for him, but he won’t do that because he’s here for the money not the love of the club. 

And by the way Shukes did you vote Brexit ? 

[Palfy]

3 hours ago, London Blue said:

Palfy you appear to of caught Haff disease, please seek the urgent medical and physiological help you clearly need.

We need to prevent this from spreading so please do not infect other threads  

Okay don’t open your eyes and you won’t be infected by reality

[London Blue]

7 minutes ago, Palfy said:

Okay don’t open your eyes and you won’t be infected by reality

My eyes are open Palfy, that's how I recognise your symptoms.

Maybe time for you to readjust the silver foil hat you have started wearing...

 

[Palfy]

9 minutes ago, London Blue said:

My eyes are open Palfy, that's how I recognise your symptoms.

Maybe time for you to readjust the silver foil hat you have started wearing...

 

[Shukes]

38 minutes ago, Palfy said:

Shukes I’ve already highlighted those increases but they pair into significants we you look at the expenditure and loans whether interest free or other, it’s creative accounting based on the clubs assets primarily that the players such as Santo Balasie Schneiderlin and all the others that  he paid millions for and put on big contracts are worth what we paid for them. 

But the truth is we know have a bigger debt than before he came with a shed load of expensive over paid shit to show for it, and the money from Lukaku Stones Barkley Cleverly Funes and Rooney has been flushed down the toilet by the incompetence of Moshiri.

Instead of giving us an interest free loan of a 100 and something million on top of other loans, he should be holding his hands up saying I’ve fucked up my decisions have cost the club more than I’ve lent I’m going to write it off as a bad debt then I might have some respect for him, but he won’t do that because he’s here for the money not the love of the club. 

And by the way Shukes did you vote Brexit ? 

But it’s not a new loan Palfy, we already had a loan. We were paying over the odds interest and Moshiri brought that down by giving us better terms. That’s smart business.

I voted remain. I’m a small business man and it made no sense to me to leave.

[Palfy]

16 minutes ago, Shukes said:

But it’s not a new loan Palfy, we already had a loan. We were paying over the odds interest and Moshiri brought that down by giving us better terms. That’s smart business.

I voted remain. I’m a small business man and it made no sense to me to leave.

Remain fair play mate you have got some redeeming features

[Haiku]

Hey guys you seem worried about the "loans". These are actually investments recorded as loans. That's because Moshiri owns about 70% of the shares. Making investment benefit all the shareholders. That means if he want to get his money back he can't without splitting them with other shareholders. By recording these investment as a loan, Moshiri keeps a hand on his money so he can pull them out when he decides without owning a cent to other shareholders. Meanwhile the club is not paying any interests whatsoever, and is not making any repayments just yet. There's no end date as well. Seems fair to me. Was he a sole owner of Everton these loans would have been proper investments.

[Palfy]

20 minutes ago, Shukes said:

But it’s not a new loan Palfy, we already had a loan. We were paying over the odds interest and Moshiri brought that down by giving us better terms. That’s smart business.

I voted remain. I’m a small business man and it made no sense to me to leave.

Right now we are getting some where he did give us an interest free loan the loan is getting bigger than the loan it paid off but there is no interest so that is good, but do not forget on top of that he had about 150 million in receipts from sales yet we still have massive debt and bunch of over paid shit players that we can’t give away. 

Brands was brought in primarily to clean up the shit he created, but the devastation Moshiri as created is that bad that Brands is struggling to get rid of the players brought in, and the ones that have left have gone for a lot less than we paid for them, and the ones out on loan we are substituting their wages because the clubs that are prepared to take them can’t and don’t pay anywhere near what we give them. 

I standby that we are financially worse off since he joined, and footballing wise the same we are poorer since he joined and thrown 300 million on players and about 40 on managers and DoF, for that sort of money to have been spent you wouldn’t be wrong in expecting to be challenging to top 5 instead of being closer to the bottom 5. 

[Palfy]

5 minutes ago, Haiku said:

Hey guys you seem worried about the "loans". These are actually investments recorded as loans. That's because Moshiri owns about 70% of the shares. Making investment benefit all the shareholders. That means if he want to get his money back he can't without splitting them with other shareholders. By recording these investment as a loan, Moshiri keeps a hand on his money so he can pull them out when he decides without owning a cent to other shareholders. Meanwhile the club is not paying any interests whatsoever, and is not making any repayments just yet. There's no end date as well. Seems fair to me. Was he a sole owner of Everton these loans would have been proper investments.

They are down as loans so the debt is the clubs he can call those loans in anytime of his choosing, the money we owe him is bigger than what we owed the banks and on top of that we have spent the money that we received in sales, so it would be more than fair to say we are financially in a worse position than when he joined. 

[Haiku]

46 minutes ago, Palfy said:

They are down as loans so the debt is the clubs he can call those loans in anytime of his choosing, the money we owe him is bigger than what we owed the banks and on top of that we have spent the money that we received in sales, so it would be more than fair to say we are financially in a worse position than when he joined. 

He can't. The money are already spent on assets. The club can generate those money through sales, but that would get us into bancruptcy and falling off the premier league with Moshiri losing a lot more money he invested through buying the major stake of shares and the huge money club generates as a PL participant.

Your arguments are saying that Newcastle is the club with best financial stability and people living in a trailer are in better financial position, because they don't have a mortgage.

[Palfy]

14 minutes ago, Haiku said:

He can't. The money are already spent on assets. The club can generate those money through sales, but that would get us into bancruptcy and falling off the premier league with Moshiri losing a lot more money he invested through buying the major stake of shares and the huge money club generates as a PL participant.

Your arguments are saying that Newcastle is the club with best financial status and people living in a trailer are in a better financial position, because they don't have a mortgage.

Of course I’m not what I’m saying is if you go out and buy 300 million pounds worth of players that are now potentially worth less than 50-60% of that value now has to put you financially in a worse position than you were in before you bought them, regardless of were the money come from. 

Working on your scenario of mortgage it’s the same principle you go out and buy a house for 200,000 you get a mortgage for 180,000 then the property market crashes and your house which is your asset falls to a 120,000 you then become on paper financially worse off, if you wish to sell you become worse off in the pocket because you have no asset yet a 60,000 debt. 

It doesn’t matter how you dress it up you are financially in a worse position. 

[Makis]

4 hours ago, StevO said:

The more I’ve had that conversation the more I think I would love it. 

I want Everton to be horrible and hated. 

We are already horrible, you want us to be hated as well?

[plaidharper]

Puel gone. That is probably Sarri gone. Didn’t see them leaving before Silva. 

[StevO]

Players aren’t in the accounts as regular assets, but their transfer costs are spread across the length of their first contract. So a £50m player with a four year contract will be amortised at £12.5m per year for four years. So if you sell them after four years they are technically a profit. 

Just putting that in if it helps. 

Also, selling players doesn’t come straight in either. It comes in based on the payment plan as almost no one pays up front in full. So sales of people like Lukaku will be spread over maybe three or four years accounts. Stones is probably a single payment as City are happy to pay in full. 

[Palfy]

39 minutes ago, plaidharper said:

Puel gone. That is probably Sarri gone. Didn’t see them leaving before Silva. 

It’s a results industry there paid massive money to get results, big game Tuesday if we lose that after Cardiff got smashed 5-1 at home to Watford he must surly get the push. 

Something is afoot to much speculation going on especially with the bookies and there not usually wrong. 

[StevO]

3 hours ago, Makis said:

We are already horrible, you want us to be hated as well?

We aren’t horrible, shit yeah, but not horrible. Of course I want us to be hated, did you not grow up hating Man Utd because they won everything and were aggressive on the pitch? I know I did. Then Chelsea were the same. 

[Palfy]

1 minute ago, StevO said:

We aren’t horrible, shit yeah, but not horrible. Of course I want us to be hated, did you not grow up hating Man Utd because they won everything and were aggressive on the pitch? I know I did. Then Chelsea were the same. 

Yes and Liverpool when Souness was there kicking the shit out of us. 

We are now looked upon by other clubs as a good chance to get 3 points. 

[StevO]

19 minutes ago, Palfy said:

Yes and Liverpool when Souness was there kicking the shit out of us. 

We are now looked upon by other clubs as a good chance to get 3 points. 

Exactly!! And dirty Leeds! I’d love us to be hated and feared. 

[Haiku]

34 minutes ago, StevO said:

Players aren’t in the accounts as regular assets, but their transfer costs are spread across the length of their first contract. So a £50m player with a four year contract will be amortised at £12.5m per year for four years. So if you sell them after four years they are technically a profit. 

Just putting that in if it helps. 

Also, selling players doesn’t come straight in either. It comes in based on the payment plan as almost no one pays up front in full. So sales of people like Lukaku will be spread over maybe three or four years accounts. Stones is probably a single payment as City are happy to pay in full. 

Well no, as you said further down your post it depends on the payment plan whether it's a single payment or spread in installments over 2-3-4 years, but once you bought that player it doesn't matter when you sell him, you owe the money accordingly to the payment plan even when the player is no longer at your club. I think we still owe money to Ajax for Klaassen.

[MikeO]

16 minutes ago, StevO said:

And dirty Leeds!

Too much that, if we became like Revie's Leeds I'd struggle to support us; but then I'm old enough to remember them unlike your good self.

Take your point though.

[Palfy]

6 minutes ago, MikeO said:

Too much that, if we became like Revie's Leeds I'd struggle to support us; but then I'm old enough to remember them unlike your good self.

Take your point though.

Billy Bremner probably the horribles player I’ve ever seen a nasty dangerous piece of work more a thug than a footballer, and Norman Hunter would cut you in half with a wild tackle than let you pass him. 

We don’t want people like that in the game anymore. 

[pete0]

2 hours ago, StevO said:

Players aren’t in the accounts as regular assets, but their transfer costs are spread across the length of their first contract. So a £50m player with a four year contract will be amortised at £12.5m per year for four years. So if you sell them after four years they are technically a profit. 

Just putting that in if it helps. 

Also, selling players doesn’t come straight in either. It comes in based on the payment plan as almost no one pays up front in full. So sales of people like Lukaku will be spread over maybe three or four years accounts. Stones is probably a single payment as City are happy to pay in full. 

 

1 hour ago, Haiku said:

Well no, as you said further down your post it depends on the payment plan whether it's a single payment or spread in installments over 2-3-4 years, but once you bought that player it doesn't matter when you sell him, you owe the money accordingly to the payment plan even when the player is no longer at your club. I think we still owe money to Ajax for Klaassen.

From memory you can choose whether to declare the full amount in the accounts or spread it.

Think it was highlighted in the past when we put Fellaini's fee as just the first installment but had used the full fee we would eventually get for whatever player we sold that year to balance the books.