Are we feeling foolish?

[sharrowl]

I once had the foggiest, couldn't see nowt.

[parkerowl]

How can you increase your budget by £10m?

 

The only way to get an increase of £10m this season would be by putting another £10m on your turnover, where's that going to come from?

 

I've a bit of time on my hands today, so indulge me.

 

2013/14 Season

 

Turnover                     £13.8m

Wages and Salaries    £-12.5m

Operating expenses    £-6.7m

 

Operating loss                      -£5.4m

 

So with FFP limits of £8m, you’re well within it.

 

Last season accounts are yet to be published but it’s probably safe to assume that the only increase in revenue from the previous season would be higher average attendances, although that was only around 650 per game and the Man City cup ties revenue.

 

So again it’s not stretching it to guest that for season 2014/15, even if the wage budget showed a slight increase and operating expenses stayed the same as 13/14

 

Turnover                     £14.3m

Wages and Salaries    -£13m

Operating expenses    -£6.7m

 

Operating loss          -£5.4m

 

So with FFP limits of £6m, your sailing close to the wind for a January embargo.

 

 

For this season, 2015/16 the FFP limits drop again to £5m.

 

So assuming, once again, your operating expenses stay the same, as they have done for the past six years and you stay within the FFP limits. For your wage/salaries/fees budget to increase by £10m, your turnover would have to increase to over £25m.

 

I can't see anywhere in your last published accounts where that type of growth would come from. Have a look and see if you agree.

 

http://www.swfc.co.uk/documents/swfcaccount2014-lowres138-2297790.pdf

Why are you still on this forum ? i dont understand it, the thread isnt even anything to do with Leeds

[markowl]

Posts like this are starting to do my head in!

How do you know we've only got a limited budget, are you his f*cking financial advisor or summat?

He's' JTO Edited May 22, 2015 by markowl

[markowl]

Why are you still on this forum ? i dont understand it, the thread isnt even anything to do with Leeds

Because of the arse he made of himself, he can't show his face in the Leeds thread

[coopswfc76]

Looks like Kirkland is off to Wigan, Loovens been offered a contract by Cardiff, Kieran Lee had a few offers according to Twitter.

Only semedo looks likely.

Means we could well have to make more signings than we planned.

 

I hope you are feeling suitably foolish

[Guest shakesby]

I think Jon protests too much.

Hi Jon.

roger OFF. I am not Jon, seriously.

[Davidioso]

I'm JTO and so is my wife!

[sweetsheri]

roger OFF. I am not Jon, seriously.

Ok jon we get ya

[sage owl]

I hope you are feeling suitably foolish

It's ok he's had a great deal of practice.

[SallyCinnamon]

roger OFF. I am not Jon, seriously.

 

Ahh yeah you are. This post confirms it.

[jonesy87shef]

Could at least change your posting style, speed of reply, number of posts and or tone Jon if you're gonna try convincing people you are a completely new poster. You will get more respect for future posts under your new username if you're just honest.

[Guest sotonowl]

Je Suis Jon

[Bluesteel]

How can you increase your budget by £10m?

 

The only way to get an increase of £10m this season would be by putting another £10m on your turnover, where's that going to come from?

 

I've a bit of time on my hands today, so indulge me.

 

2013/14 Season

 

Turnover                     £13.8m

Wages and Salaries    £-12.5m

Operating expenses    £-6.7m

 

Operating loss                      -£5.4m

 

So with FFP limits of £8m, you’re well within it.

 

Last season accounts are yet to be published but it’s probably safe to assume that the only increase in revenue from the previous season would be higher average attendances, although that was only around 650 per game and the Man City cup ties revenue.

 

So again it’s not stretching it to guest that for season 2014/15, even if the wage budget showed a slight increase and operating expenses stayed the same as 13/14

 

Turnover                     £14.3m

Wages and Salaries    -£13m

Operating expenses    -£6.7m

 

Operating loss          -£5.4m

 

So with FFP limits of £6m, your sailing close to the wind for a January embargo.

 

 

For this season, 2015/16 the FFP limits drop again to £5m.

 

So assuming, once again, your operating expenses stay the same, as they have done for the past six years and you stay within the FFP limits. For your wage/salaries/fees budget to increase by £10m, your turnover would have to increase to over £25m.

 

I can't see anywhere in your last published accounts where that type of growth would come from. Have a look and see if you agree.

 

http://www.swfc.co.uk/documents/swfcaccount2014-lowres138-2297790.pdf

 

Doesnt the allowance go up now to 13m in any case? Perhaps we wont be sticking to FFP given that QPR got away with it.

 

I dont know and I dont think anyone does know what the budget is.

 

But I sure as hell dont spend my time studying attendances and accounts projections for clubs I dont even support. Coming from someone who spends far too much time on here, thats sad!

[Guest shakesby]

I had the same issue - took my understanding, foolishly, off the fl site.

I'd also argue income is likely to be higher, with sponsorship likely to increase too. Wages are going to be drastically lower as it stands with only half a team under contract, so there's a couple of million possibly free in wages already.

I still don't understand where this round number of £10m comes in though.

It's a rough estimate. Considering our financial losses last working year, combined with our turnover - and lack of subsequent investment, we still lost £5m.

Now for me, I could be completely wrong and probably am, we aren't going to generate much more money from ticket sales. In my opinion, Chansiri has increased the prices to 1.) Make our budget more flexbile regarding FFP, and 2.) Bring about the fact that IF we perform better, the fans will come back regardless of ticket prices, and we'll make more money than if we had with lower prices.

That immediately gives us a little bit of wiggle room. Not much mind, because a lot of it is banking on how many people turn up, and how many people buy STs, at the moment Chansiri will be estimating how many because obviously we haven't reached the completed figure and can't arrange FFP suitably.

As you say too, the wages freed up could be pretty big. As I'm sure you know, in 2012/13 we had a turnover of £15m and a wage bill of £12m. That gave us around £3m to spend before making a loss, including operating costs.

We ended up losing £5m I believe. Straight away that suggests that Mandaric did invest in equity as the overall figure a club can lose is £3m if the owner injects equity.

Also bear in mind that in the 2012/13 season we had pretty high gates and a squad with not a great deal of money invested in it, and it still lost £5m.

So to explain my point properly. Last season was the first year we could be properly affected by it. Assuming we had a similar sort of turnover, which is unlikely considering we had sponsors that invested less than £1m and had lower gates, then we would have had a turnover at between roughly 14 and 15m. We will have had a similar wage budget of around £12m.

That again gives us leeway of £3m (let's be generous) to expand in whichever way we want, however we lost £5m that season, so again let's assume the figure will be a similar amount. Mandaric would have had to cover costs of losses, as documented by his leasing against the stadium - which has subsequently been paid off by Chansiri I believe.

That leaves us £2m in the red.

Our maximum loss we can make is £8m, if we're a Championship club. The ways around that are either pay a hefty fine or transfer ban OR get promoted. So immediately that leaves £6m that Chansiri can legitimately invest.

Obviously though on top of that we have to consider sponsorships and other revenue streams. The big screen wi give us more, but the most important aspect is the money that Chansiris sponsor can invest.

Now the FL say that all sponsorship money has to be checked and approved before it can be legitimately spent. If there are any ties to the owner and his companies, then it will be limited. It doesn't specify how much, so potentially it could be £30m, it could be £5m.

However I have seen people say that it is based on the club's value, and how much benefit the sponsor gets out of it.

The club's value is around £40m, not necessarily including the assets, so again what would a fair and legitimate value of money be for a sponsor putting money into SWFC? How much money would they stand to get out of it? Well it certainly wouldn't be more than £5-10m, and FFP don't allow sponsors to make investments into clubs and end up in the red so let's guess that it is that figure of £5-10m that is the most accurate.

That gives us £6m of Chansiris 'equity' and money from sponsors - which is up in the air but being generous will be no more than £10m.

So that means we either;

1.) Break the rules and face a fine

2.) Increase our revenues through as many streams as possible to bring as much money in as possible

3.) Stay within the rules and regulations.

if we do the latter - then we have on a generous estimate £16 - £20m. On a realistic one - £9-£14m.

Obviously on a easy argument against that - we don't know last year's figures, we don't know how much a fair value of investment from sponsors is. But we can make considered judgements, and I feel I'm being generous at £5m+. From a club of our stature a sponsor won't make more than £5m from sponsoring us, sadly, and while Chansiri and the rest of the consortium will be willing to make a loss initially if it means promotion, the FL won't allow that.

The only way I can see around it is if we have multiple sponsorships of smaller amounts from all around the ground. That to me would make sense but again the FL have to deem it sensible, sadly.

[jonesy87shef]

roger OFF. I am not Jon, seriously.

[Guest shakesby]

Could at least change your posting style, speed of reply, number of posts and or tone Jon if you're gonna try convincing people you are a completely new poster. You will get more respect for future posts under your new username if you're just honest.

This is the last comment I will make on it, I am not 'JTO', I'm a new poster that's been registered since the 1st of April and don't want to be bombarded with loads of accusations about who I am and who I'm not. I don't know why people are so set on me being 'JTO'. Last time I checked that's not my username and never will be.

[Pulsar]

This is the last comment I will make on it, I am not 'JTO', I'm a new poster that's been registered since the 1st of April and don't want to be bombarded with loads of accusations about who I am and who I'm not. I don't know why people are so set on me being 'JTO'. Last time I checked that's not my username and never will be.

Fair enough, I'll have a word with 'em mate to ask them to stop teasing you.

Cheers Jon!

[jonesy87shef]

This is the last comment I will make on it, I am not 'JTO', I'm a new poster that's been registered since the 1st of April and don't want to be bombarded with loads of accusations about who I am and who I'm not. I don't know why people are so set on me being 'JTO'. Last time I checked that's not my username and never will be.

Apologies, you aren't JTO (anymore). You are a new poster who has been registered form the 1st of April. It isn't your username and it more than likely never will be.

However JTO used to be your username. You were always very clever with semantics.

[poite]

Would be looking to Martinez at Arsenal on loan as a replacement.

 

Richard O'Donnell turned down a new deal at Walsall today, being chased by a number of teams. Not saying he'd come here to warm the bench again, but he is looking for a team closer to home.

 

And Arsenal would loan us Martinez to sit on our bench because.........

[Hawkeye]

It's a rough estimate. Considering our financial losses last working year, combined with our turnover - and lack of subsequent investment, we still lost £5m.

Now for me, I could be completely wrong and probably am, we aren't going to generate much more money from ticket sales. In my opinion, Chansiri has increased the prices to 1.) Make our budget more flexbile regarding FFP, and 2.) Bring about the fact that IF we perform better, the fans will come back regardless of ticket prices, and we'll make more money than if we had with lower prices.

That immediately gives us a little bit of wiggle room. Not much mind, because a lot of it is banking on how many people turn up, and how many people buy STs, at the moment Chansiri will be estimating how many because obviously we haven't reached the completed figure and can't arrange FFP suitably.

As you say too, the wages freed up could be pretty big. As I'm sure you know, in 2012/13 we had a turnover of £15m and a wage bill of £12m. That gave us around £3m to spend before making a loss, including operating costs.

We ended up losing £5m I believe. Straight away that suggests that Mandaric did invest in equity as the overall figure a club can lose is £3m if the owner injects equity.

Also bear in mind that in the 2012/13 season we had pretty high gates and a squad with not a great deal of money invested in it, and it still lost £5m.

So to explain my point properly. Last season was the first year we could be properly affected by it. Assuming we had a similar sort of turnover, which is unlikely considering we had sponsors that invested less than £1m and had lower gates, then we would have had a turnover at between roughly 14 and 15m. We will have had a similar wage budget of around £12m.

That again gives us leeway of £3m (let's be generous) to expand in whichever way we want, however we lost £5m that season, so again let's assume the figure will be a similar amount. Mandaric would have had to cover costs of losses, as documented by his leasing against the stadium - which has subsequently been paid off by Chansiri I believe.

That leaves us £2m in the red.

Our maximum loss we can make is £8m, if we're a Championship club. The ways around that are either pay a hefty fine or transfer ban OR get promoted. So immediately that leaves £6m that Chansiri can legitimately invest.

Obviously though on top of that we have to consider sponsorships and other revenue streams. The big screen wi give us more, but the most important aspect is the money that Chansiris sponsor can invest.

Now the FL say that all sponsorship money has to be checked and approved before it can be legitimately spent. If there are any ties to the owner and his companies, then it will be limited. It doesn't specify how much, so potentially it could be £30m, it could be £5m.

However I have seen people say that it is based on the club's value, and how much benefit the sponsor gets out of it.

The club's value is around £40m, not necessarily including the assets, so again what would a fair and legitimate value of money be for a sponsor putting money into SWFC? How much money would they stand to get out of it? Well it certainly wouldn't be more than £5-10m, and FFP don't allow sponsors to make investments into clubs and end up in the red so let's guess that it is that figure of £5-10m that is the most accurate.

That gives us £6m of Chansiris 'equity' and money from sponsors - which is up in the air but being generous will be no more than £10m.

So that means we either;

1.) Break the rules and face a fine

2.) Increase our revenues through as many streams as possible to bring as much money in as possible

3.) Stay within the rules and regulations.

if we do the latter - then we have on a generous estimate £16 - £20m. On a realistic one - £9-£14m.

Obviously on a easy argument against that - we don't know last year's figures, we don't know how much a fair value of investment from sponsors is. But we can make considered judgements, and I feel I'm being generous at £5m+. From a club of our stature a sponsor won't make more than £5m from sponsoring us, sadly, and while Chansiri and the rest of the consortium will be willing to make a loss initially if it means promotion, the FL won't allow that.

The only way I can see around it is if we have multiple sponsorships of smaller amounts from all around the ground. That to me would make sense but again the FL have to deem it sensible, sadly.

This makes more sense now.

Things to consider;

We didn't sell out our boxes last year. Not even close.

We failed abjectly with our sponsorship and corporate deals, in terms of how much a club like us should be producing.

Then, you look at the work already in progress by chansiri, and ask - how much extra do we already have to play with thanks to that?

Ticket prices are going up across the board, with a moderately successful, play off chasing side, we will improve on this year's average attendances.

Stand and even stadium sponsorship is a possibility, as is a shirt deal we actually get paid for.

Then you have the wage bill - how much have we already shaved off in losing the loanees, deadwood and high earners.

Reality is, without knowing how much chansiri has lined up in sponsorship, we are all completely in the dark around overall budget. But I'd say worse case, we have a lot more scope for wages, maybe a minimal amount on fees.