Guest Posted March 1, 2018 Share Posted March 1, 2018 17 minutes ago, vulva said: You don’t get promoted with players like FF. He’s the tidy bird in the nightclub with huge knockers and visible panty line. You’d take her home, have a few weeks at it, then move on. You need players who do it for 38/40 games a season, seasoned professionals who can see games out. Can’t stand Warnock, but he knows the recipe, especially on a budget. Big keeper, 2 lumps at centre half, quick wide men and a couple of lumps upfront. Hasnt fessi been promoted before Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoffrey Posted March 1, 2018 Share Posted March 1, 2018 27 minutes ago, Watson said: The academy seems to be doing fine and putting money into those areas wouldn't release funds to invest in players. A player from our academy has yet to appear in the Premier League Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspector Lestrade Posted March 1, 2018 Share Posted March 1, 2018 2 minutes ago, A12owl said: Pension contributions reduced from £150k to £106k. What does that tell us? Someones died? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myHero Posted March 1, 2018 Share Posted March 1, 2018 6 hours ago, @owlstalk said: Can someone who knows their stuff and isn't some kind of mad nutter with an agenda give us a basic breakdown of what is in these? In short normal business don't lose £20m in one year and stay in business, but as we all know Football Clubs are not normal businesses. The Auditor and Directors are bound by law to make a judgement on if the business is a Going Concern. For example if you invested your money in a bank tomorrow and found out on Monday all your money had gone to cover existing debts, you'd be pissed off to say the least. That business would not be a Going Concern. Indeed it would be insolvent. You can see that the loss of £20 million has effectively gone straight into a £20 million increase in Liabilities due in over one year. I think we all know this money is owed to Mr Chansiri. Without him we are not a Going Concern. Which should not be a surprise to anyone. In the second screen shot you can see a statement to that effect, that the owner will provide sufficient funds to cover liabilities as they fall due for a period of no less that 12 months. None of the facts above concern me as I expected as much with the money spent on transfers and increased wages associated with an ever increasing squad size. I'm no expert of FFP, but the fact there is a Gross Loss i.e Cost of Sales are greater than Sales would suggest to me we will have a problem in that respect. Who knows what the FFP rules are on spending against Turnover? Football like Audited accounts can be a world of smoke and mirrors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wakefield owl Posted March 1, 2018 Share Posted March 1, 2018 13 minutes ago, mkowl said: Ok what to say that this thread has not already said. So I will try and comment on a few other points. The strategic report at the start of the accounts suggests that the average attendance was 27k up from 22k. It confuses me why the turnover is only similar but I concur with others that the benefit of reaching the play off final the season before was significant. On the basis the TV and solidarity payments are I think 6m it shows to me that match day income is still only about 10m. A good chunk of that was multi year season ticket monies rolled forward. Of course the renewals this time last year are rolled into 17/18. The accounts show expenditure of 11m on transfer fees. What I would say here is that a lot of transfer fee agreements are paid in instalments. A figure that caught my eye was 4m shown as trade creditors due more than a year. I can only think it is transfer instalments as not sure what other supplier would be happy to wait more than 12 months to be paid. The other stand out figure is 37m shareholder loan from DC an increase of 20m. Ok it is to DC not a bank or 3rd parties so much lower risk than the old days but it is now at a level equivalent to that era. Of course these accounts do not show what DC paid MM for the shares. Poster on here has that figure IIRC about 35m to 40m. Also the fact he has introduced funds allocated as share capital - think that is 8m or so now. Add it up and factor in this year and he is in for over 100m easily now. That is a scary number for him. The wage costs are incredible. Ok it includes the Club employees not just players but we are talking 500k a week in wages. A figure that has been suggested on here before. That must really hurt as the owner. Throwing in shed loads of cash to see them sat doing nowt. And if they are successful you have to find 7.5m to fund loyalty bonuses. Are we in trouble. When it comes to P & S then it is difficult to argue that we must be right to the limit. It's and buts on what can be excluded but we spent 1.5m on the ground and that is in assets. Overall are we in trouble. Well as long as DC is prepared to keep lobbing in cash then no. Players on long contracts seems a pain but if FFP does bite we are not going to suffer unduly from a transfer embargo. Tbh with some of the crap bought not sure we should be too worried with the prospect. But to throw in a curveball everyone talks about shipping out players. Those loyalty and bonus payments and the weekly wage bill might explain why some might not be that keen to go unless a new club covers these off Will DC keep funding us - well if he doesn't he risks the 100m plus put into date doesn't he. For now without promotion who the flip would take this on These numbers really do question the ticket price debate. As some of us have long argued when you are losing 20m and funding 20m the incremental potential revenue of this ticketing strategy barely touches the sides. Could go on but if anyone has any questions on the figures will give it a go to answer it Pre creditors over one year I believe you are correct that we pay for some transfer over a period of time - I thought it was common knowledge? Re wages I wouldn't ignore NI and pension costs and so the total at £29.3m is getting close to £600k per week. A measure often used when assessing football clubs is wages to turnover. Our gross payroll costs at £29.3m are 126% of turnover. The rule of thumb is that wages shouldn't be above 100% and so we are scarily over that figure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mkowl Posted March 1, 2018 Share Posted March 1, 2018 1 minute ago, Dot said: That far to much I think everyone will agree, but surely that puts to bed the fantasy figures that are bandied about regarding certain players. For example, Fletcher, Rhodes, Hooper, Fessi etc are all on 40 grand a week according to some. with a squad of 40 plus youth players plus all other staff no way are they on 40k otherwise that bill would be a lot higher Don't know but a couple of hours with the payroll records would be enlightening. I would be intrigued with the add on wage payments for example. Can't say too much but I did have access to actual internal figures from probably 10 years ago and a) you would be surprised on how much per week some of those players were on b) the contractual add ons for appearances Put it one way when the rumours of fake injuries were doing the rounds to save money it is plausible. I have no clue if that is the case but a good conspiracy theory works on the basis it Is plausible. If we are tight on FFP it would be one way to save costs and indeed cash outflow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspector Lestrade Posted March 1, 2018 Share Posted March 1, 2018 Just now, Geoffrey said: A player from our academy has yet to appear in the Premier League I know ... your point is? Maybe the season after next once we win promotion to the Premier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiJ Posted March 1, 2018 Share Posted March 1, 2018 2 minutes ago, Watson said: I know ... your point is? Maybe the season after next once we win promotion to the Premier. There is no point. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelowl Posted March 1, 2018 Share Posted March 1, 2018 i keep looking at this andtbh not sure exactly what it means 'depending on the intentions of the owner ' and 3rd para existence of material uncertainty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mkowl Posted March 1, 2018 Share Posted March 1, 2018 7 minutes ago, room0035 said: Mk thanks for the summary, did you see the staff increase part look like we have employed an additional 50 staff in the year presumably for the in house catering and bar. If you say on average these people are on 15-20,000 a year then if the catering is not covering this cost we probably should not have brought it in house. What I would love to see would be a cost centres break down and income revenue streams, from this you could help the club move forward and maybe cut out waste of increase incomes. What do you think? Certainly the figures do not support any analysis on a cost centre basis. Need to tap up someone at the auditors BHP. Given I nicked a client off them not so long back I might not have luck. But it would be interesting to see the contributions from each revenue sector but that ain't feasible from published accounts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wakefield owl Posted March 1, 2018 Share Posted March 1, 2018 10 minutes ago, Watson said: How do you know this? I've heard it several times and believe it's accurate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1963owl Posted March 1, 2018 Share Posted March 1, 2018 48 minutes ago, Mr Farrell said: Me too. It just seems like he doesn't really know what he's doing. The not selling players thing is bizarre too. having no buyers probably answers that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiJ Posted March 1, 2018 Share Posted March 1, 2018 5 minutes ago, steelowl said: i keep looking at this andtbh not sure exactly what it means 'depending on the intentions of the owner ' and 3rd para existence of material uncertainty Depending on how much money he wants to put in. He's the owner at the end of the day. If he doesn't put the money in then it all goes t*ts up, but then that was pretty much the case from day one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspector Lestrade Posted March 1, 2018 Share Posted March 1, 2018 1 minute ago, Wakefield owl said: I've heard it several times and believe it's accurate So if you believe something does that make it accurate? If someone believes in fairies does it make it accurate? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wakefield owl Posted March 1, 2018 Share Posted March 1, 2018 4 minutes ago, mkowl said: Certainly the figures do not support any analysis on a cost centre basis. Need to tap up someone at the auditors BHP. Given I nicked a client off them not so long back I might not have luck. But it would be interesting to see the contributions from each revenue sector but that ain't feasible from published accounts I would be more interested in cost details. I think we all know our commercial income is pathetic for a club of our stature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vulva Posted March 1, 2018 Share Posted March 1, 2018 10 minutes ago, mkowl said: Don't know but a couple of hours with the payroll records would be enlightening. I would be intrigued with the add on wage payments for example. Can't say too much but I did have access to actual internal figures from probably 10 years ago and a) you would be surprised on how much per week some of those players were on b) the contractual add ons for appearances Put it one way when the rumours of fake injuries were doing the rounds to save money it is plausible. I have no clue if that is the case but a good conspiracy theory works on the basis it Is plausible. If we are tight on FFP it would be one way to save costs and indeed cash outflow The theory that more or less every single one of our first team, all the big earners, are out long term injured, is ludicrous in my opinion. It hasn’t added up for months, and I’m convinced the story will break eventually. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mkowl Posted March 1, 2018 Share Posted March 1, 2018 2 minutes ago, steelowl said: i keep looking at this andtbh not sure exactly what it means 'depending on the intentions of the owner ' and 3rd para existence of material uncertainty It's what we call in Latin coverus arsus. Basically the auditors have had some doubts. Well if they looked at those accounts and didn't they would be doing a rubbish job. So many indicators that a business operating at that level could easily go bust. However this note and there is a similar one in the accounts says it is sustainable because DC says he will provide enough funds to do so. However it clarifies that there is no legal obligation for him to do so. Anyway what it says to me is Don't become an unsecured creditor by e.g. getting a multi year season ticket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
room0035 Posted March 1, 2018 Share Posted March 1, 2018 7 minutes ago, mkowl said: Certainly the figures do not support any analysis on a cost centre basis. Need to tap up someone at the auditors BHP. Given I nicked a client off them not so long back I might not have luck. But it would be interesting to see the contributions from each revenue sector but that ain't feasible from published accounts In a previous life I used to work for BHP left in 2008/09 though a lot of the people there have since moved on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wakefield owl Posted March 1, 2018 Share Posted March 1, 2018 1 minute ago, SiJ said: Depending on how much money he wants to put in. He's the owner at the end of the day. If he doesn't put the money in then it all goes t*ts up, but then that was pretty much the case from day one. This is the case with many football clubs. The statement from the audit report is not unusual but does show how reliant we are on DCs continued financial backing. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Costello 77 Posted March 1, 2018 Share Posted March 1, 2018 3 minutes ago, mkowl said: It's what we call in Latin coverus arsus. Basically the auditors have had some doubts. Well if they looked at those accounts and didn't they would be doing a rubbish job. So many indicators that a business operating at that level could easily go bust. However this note and there is a similar one in the accounts says it is sustainable because DC says he will provide enough funds to do so. However it clarifies that there is no legal obligation for him to do so. Anyway what it says to me is Don't become an unsecured creditor by e.g. getting a multi year season ticket. "What we call in Latin"...... FFS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now