Jump to content

A Quick Look at SWFC's Finances


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, pride_of_the_road said:

Maybe now the prem teams have mostly got large investers,  hopefully we will see the investers coming into the championship like they have done at Villa.

Was the second richest owner in world football at Wolves and "worth £700m" Dejphon Chansiri not large enough investors for you? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest wilyfox

I raided DC's secret files. One read..

 

'swfc bank balance = £0 - 3billion'

 

'situation megafooked' 

 

All other docs were on Scientology. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, @owlstalk said:

 

That'll help yeah

Be about ten million so still not enough


Estimates have it at 12 million this season to find to just get free of embargo

Next season we have an even worse profit and loss situation if the other finance thread has it accurately. That means even more woes


And I'm not sure on whether we've spent all the five year season ticket money or not - if we have then we're really in the sh*t as all those with extended season tickets won't be contributing 

The 3 year season ticket money should be pro rated cross the entire accounting period thk gawd

Edited by DuttyTeabags
Pro rate
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ve seen a few suggestions on here and elsewhere that we need new investment.

 

That would have no impact at all on this. 

 

We are not short on cash. Any investment does not go on the P&L and so doesn’t matter with FFP. The Villa situation was a lack of cash in order to pay due liability’s.

 

 

Also, the multi-year season ticket revenues are spead out over the course of their duration.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, OwlWednesday said:

I’ve seen a few suggestions on here and elsewhere that we need new investment.

 

That would have no impact at all on this. 

 

We are not short on cash. Any investment does not go on the P&L and so doesn’t matter with FFP. The Villa situation was a lack of cash in order to pay due liability’s.

 

 

Also, the multi-year season ticket revenues are spead out over the course of their duration.

The revenue are spread over their duration but with the business burning cash at a rate of about £1.5m per month the cash itself is long gone. 

Edited by kobayashi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We probably have already spent the cash, but they've not all been taken into account for FFP.

It shouldn't really matter about the physical cash, Chansiri has plenty and can put as much as he wants into the club, but the club just wouldn't be able to spend it on things which would go against FFP.

 

He could give the club £100m in cash tomorrow if he wanted but it would probably just sit in the bank

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, OwlWednesday said:

We probably have already spent the cash, but they've not all been taken into account for FFP.

It shouldn't really matter about the physical cash, Chansiri has plenty and can put as much as he wants into the club, but the club just wouldn't be able to spend it on things which would go against FFP.

 

He could give the club £100m in cash tomorrow if he wanted but it would probably just sit in the bank


Yeah absolutely

I was just curious as to us selling 3/4/5 year season tickets to fans, using that money up, and then not having income from those fans for the next couple of years. Surely will have some kind of impact on us (e.g. less incoming revenue from tickets for a year or two)

I just can't see a way out of our situation at all. Even selling Forestieri might prove fruitless if we struggle, crowds drop, and then we have to tackle the FFP situation again once the next set of accounts are published which include the likes of Rhodes, Winnall etc?

 


Owlstalk Shop

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, @owlstalk said:

I was just curious as to us selling 3/4/5 year season tickets to fans, using that money up, and then not having income from those fans for the next couple of years. Surely will have some kind of impact on us (e.g. less incoming revenue from tickets for a year or two)

 

the multi year seasons actually guarantee revenue (from an accounting perspective) in the coming years because even if we spend the cash they are accounted for in the year the customer gains from their spend. 

Edited by OxonOwl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, OxonOwl said:

 

the multi year seasons actually guarantee revenue (from an accounting perspective) in the coming years because even if we spend the cash they are accounted for in the year the customer gains from their spend. 

 

 

Got it. That's a positive then.

 


Owlstalk Shop

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, sonofbert2 said:

We need to sell someone for really daft money like Lees or Reach who go on to bigger and better things so we don't feel too bad about it and at the same time sort us out with some proper dough to go again when we're allowed to.

 

Both these two still have that "could potentially be much better" quality still that Premier clubs chuck relatively silly money at without even blinking.

 

To get noticed they'll have to play consistently well again which will only be good for us in the short-term.

 

Our team and squad is worth a lot more than some think and cost considerably less too than some go on about.

 

Could be why we are playing Dawson, If he plays as well as last season he's as good as Gunn and possibly a saleable asset in the region of £10-£15 million. 

Westwood leaves at the end of the season and we are left with Wildsmith as first choice next season. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, kobayashi said:

No it absolutely isn’t. Mortgage the future and you are only going one way. For a guy with supposedly lots of cash DC seems to like mortgaging the future.

 

 

It is fairly standard business practice. Subscriptions, licences etc. Companies selling these will nearly always have multi year options. This means that rather than forecasting all your future revenue, a certain portion is known so your revenue forecast are more accurate.

 

The only pitfall is if you don't have any money and you spend the money you get in. This is more the  'mortgaging the future' to which you refer.

 

Assuming that DC isn't short of money, this isn't the case with us.

 

It is a positive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, OxonOwl said:

 

 

It is fairly standard business practice. Subscriptions, licences etc. Companies selling these will nearly always have multi year options. This means that rather than forecasting all your future revenue, a certain portion is known so your revenue forecast are more accurate.

 

The only pitfall is if you don't have any money and you spend the money you get in. This is more the  'mortgaging the future' to which you refer.

 

Assuming that DC isn't short of money, this isn't the case with us.

 

It is a positive.

 


Ah right that's a positive then.

 


Owlstalk Shop

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, OxonOwl said:

 

 

It is fairly standard business practice. Subscriptions, licences etc. Companies selling these will nearly always have multi year options. This means that rather than forecasting all your future revenue, a certain portion is known so your revenue forecast are more accurate.

 

The only pitfall is if you don't have any money and you spend the money you get in. This is more the  'mortgaging the future' to which you refer.

 

Assuming that DC isn't short of money, this isn't the case with us.

 

It is a positive.

There’s no way having already spent the next couple of years st money can be seen as a positive:manager:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...