SHEFFIELD WEDNESDAY - ACCOUNTS AND FFP THREAD

[Plonk]

8 minutes ago, Geoffrey said:

We were losing £400,000/week up to May last year.

Since then we have bought Jordan Rhodes for £8,000,000, Van Aken £3,000,000(?) and lured George Boyd away from a Premier League offer.

The chairman also turned down a reported £2,000,000 for George Hirst and then paid his wage for 6 months whilst refusing to let him train with his peers.

He has not sold any of the bloated playing squad who he regards as "family".

Are you confident that his plan to deal with the situation is working?

Perhaps with the decrease in attendances on top, losses are increasing?

Yes I am. You don’t accumulate the sort of wealth his family have, without knowing a bit about business. He always said the plan was promotion in two years, and he came within a whisker of achieving that. It didn’t happen, but I’m sure he will already have re evaluated what now needs to be done, to either achieve that or rebalance the business with a less ambitious objective. I find the vitriol towards him rather disturbing tbh. He has given us our best two seasons finish in twenty, by spending his own money. Yes he’s asked fans to contribute, and why shouldn’t they?

i don’t remember anyone on hear saying please don’t spend anymore of your money MrC.

[thewookieisdown]

2 minutes ago, bigrbuk said:

So from what I can make out.

 

1) We're making massive losses the ticket prices will never fix

2) The accounts released are for last year, the football league will already have projections and so any punishment could come any day from now.

3) Based on 2), we're too late to roll the dice for one last time. I think the last roll was buying the likes of Jordan Rhodes and we will now become the first example of what happens when the gamble doesn't work

4) We are already in "scale back" mode. I expect sales in the summer if we can manage to offload players.

 

 

To an extent. 

 

The two points are first that we are making big losses.  That;s neither surprising or uncommon at this level.  In risk terms it's something of a barbell to use the fashionable phrase.  It doesn't matter so long as the owner is happy to subsidise the losses; and he maintains he is happy.  If that changed and he wanted his soft loans repaid, then we are in trouble.

 

On 2 and 3 yes, but we don't know how tight the position is.  We don't have any loss figures to work with.  Some retrenchment is needed, almost certainly.  (I would prefer that to an attempt at the proverbial or bust).  Assuming better luck with injuries next season, some bringing on of young players, and a little offloading, and also assuming the right managerial appointment (I'm happy to try JL) there's no reason why we can't fight a top half campaign and kick on from that.

 

I don't think we'd be the first example of when the gamble doesn't work.  Forest too.  I suspect these mini-cycles will become more common as the middle0ish ranking clubs in the championship have a go, don't make it, rebuild. 

[Mrmason69]

The accounts announcement also adds credence to rhe story than many of our players on the injury list aren't injured at all but the club are refusing to play them in order to avoid paying out appearance related monies as agreed in their contracts. 

When jl was asked about this he refused to deny it as told reporters to ask the owner. 

What a mess we are in when our highest paid players are prevented from players to save money. It's a fair bet which players aren't actually injured. Too many get season ending injuries in training. If it were true then a competent manager would modify the training programme. If it's not true then the manager is incompetent as he can't see that his training methods are damaging and dysfunctional. 

This isn't monty python it's sheffield wednesday 

[steelowl]

Just now, S36 OWL said:

 

When wages are far outstripping income , thats when you really are in the brown stuff. 

 

tbh I think as @Mkowl  say we all feared these figures seeing them in black and white  seems worse

 

as i said earlier after every failed all in gamble there's a reckoning  

[Guest mkowl]

6 minutes ago, NorfolkNChance said:

 

If only I had said that on here yesterday

[NorfolkNChance]

Just now, mkowl said:

If only I had said that on here yesterday

 Sorry mate I'm late to the party 

[thewookieisdown]

12 minutes ago, Donny.Owl said:

 

Think those figures show we massively overachieved in 15/16, which is maybe what prompted Mr Chansiri to go for it last season.

 

It was a gamble...

It's truly shocking that income fell into 2014, looking back.  There are different forms of inadequate stewarding.

[Guest mkowl]

1 minute ago, steelowl said:

 

tbh I think as @Mkowl  say we all feared these figures seeing them in black and white  seems worse

 

as i said earlier after every failed all in gamble there's a reckoning  

The only good news is that it's not my company 

[torryowl]

how  you sign good young players from other clubs if you arnt allowed to spend any money could be a problem ......

[fred mciver]

9 minutes ago, WayneTheOwl said:

As I stated in the other thread Mr C has a big decision. Go for it and fizz FFP like wolves and hope it works or sell up. Can't see him wanting a stagnant investment for 3-4 years and to keep propping up the club at 10-20m a season. 

Wolves took a calculated gamble, aided by agent owners with loads o footy experience and contacts.

 

For example, they sign a winger from Portugal for £15 million, 6 months later Arsenal offer £35 million for him.

 

Even without promotion they have no FFP 2 probs.

[@owlstalk]

10 minutes ago, NorfolkNChance said:

 

 

 

Christ

[Plonk]

We are only in the brown stuff, if he’s got no more money. Anyone really think that is the case?

 

if only we could lure someone like those chaps at Chesterfield to turn our club around eh?

[Geoffrey]

3 minutes ago, Plonk said:

Yes I am. You don’t accumulate the sort of wealth his family have, without knowing a bit about business. He always said the plan was promotion in two years, and he came within a whisker of achieving that. It didn’t happen, but I’m sure he will already have re evaluated what now needs to be done, to either achieve that or rebalance the business with a less ambitious objective.

You seem to have ignored my points.

We were losing £400,000/week up to May 2017. How does signing Rhodes, Van Aken and Boyd and refusing to sell any players show he will have "re evaluated"?

I would suggest it shows that our losses are increasing.

[steelowl]

1 minute ago, mkowl said:

The only good news is that it's not my company 

 

thing I don't like is the vote to continue this course of action  that means we are afloat only on the whim /'determination' of DC

 

yet how can we continue doing this it's impossible isn't it  or is he going to chuck a motherload at it and damn the consequences 

[Guest mkowl]

1 minute ago, @owlstalk said:

 

 

Christ

Football is a ridiculous business and the accounts just demonstrate it in black and white.

 

 

[@owlstalk]

34 minutes ago, steelowl said:

found it 

A) Would you prefer the prices at Sheffield Wednesday across the board, for example Season Tickets, matchday tickets, official merchandise, corporate hospitality, were reduced to previous eras? The consequence of this would be the sale of key senior players, regular promotion to the first team of academy youngsters and a reduced level of investment.

Answer: Yes 29.94% No 70.06%

B) Alternatively, would you prefer the club to build on the current level of investment, maintain the pricing structure, and extend our ongoing strategy geared towards promotion to the Premier League.

Answer: Yes: 70.14%  No: 29.86%

 

 

Its not doable without a HUGE spending spree and deliberately breaching FFP

[Geoffrey]

Just now, Plonk said:

We are only in the brown stuff, if he’s got no more money. Anyone really think that is the case?

 

 

For how long do you think he will be happy losing £400,000/week?

If he was in it for the long term why the lack of investment in the training ground and the academy which don't come under FFP rules?

[@owlstalk]

8 minutes ago, Mrmason69 said:

The accounts announcement also adds credence to rhe story than many of our players on the injury list aren't injured at all but the club are refusing to play them in order to avoid paying out appearance related monies as agreed in their contracts. 

When jl was asked about this he refused to deny it as told reporters to ask the owner. 

What a mess we are in when our highest paid players are prevented from players to save money. It's a fair bet which players aren't actually injured. Too many get season ending injuries in training. If it were true then a competent manager would modify the training programme. If it's not true then the manager is incompetent as he can't see that his training methods are damaging and dysfunctional. 

This isn't monty python it's sheffield wednesday 

 

 

Controversial

 

(not the monty python bit)

[steelowl]

Just now, @owlstalk said:

 

 

Its not doable without a HUGE spending spree and deliberately breaching FFP

 

hence me saying chuck a motherload at it and damn the consequences mate

[Geoffrey]

1 minute ago, @owlstalk said:

 

 

Christ

Even he couldn't save us.