Bobzilla

Why is everyone looking at average wages for ''normal'' people and then comparing that to the very top end for football? The wages you are talking about are for the very best 500-odd footballers in the country for the PL, and then a further 650 for the champs. If you want a proper comparison, look at the average salaries of the top 1000 earners outside of the sporting/entertainment fields. You cannot compare the wages earned by people with very specific skills in very short supply with the wages earned by everyone else with no specialist skills, or skills with a decent supply in the market. So, the correct comparison is the career total earnings for a top footballer compared to the career total earnings for a top lawyer or accountant or equity analyst in a bank. You have to be VERY high up the foodchain in football to do better than these top guys who have four times the average career length. The average championship wage of £325k, for instance, is towards the bottom of what you can expect to earn as a partner in a big London professional practice (accountants, lawyers etc) and there are probably in excess of 6,000 of them. Do you get the picture?

I hear George Weah''s cousin might be available...

Never. Never. Never. Never. (ad infinitum). He''s a liability on the pitch and a troublemaker off it. Best way to destabilise a squad IMHO. There''s a reason he''s been bounced around from club to club.

£48 for a full price replica shirt? I know its been a while since I was in the club shop, but WTF?????????????! In other news, I''m larger than the average bear - take a 48 ish jacket size. Assuming I''m not the lycra type, what size shirt should I go for?

Where are they 50% off? On the club shop website they are still £24. Is that half price?

I can''t help but notice our record on live telly over the past 5 years (think I''ve seen us not lose less than a handful of times) and wonder whether 3 televised games from our last 7 didn''t help us? Just a thought. And yes, I know that there were loads more reasons we went down, including: Being goal shy Critical errors by Bassong Luck of the draw (Chelsea game, penalties against us that shouldn''t have been, and clear penalties for us that weren''t given) Us just not turning up for huge chunks of the season Putting 4 in and not winning against Liverpool

So, lets break this down. You want a Mr megabucks to own the club, and you want multi multi millionaires on the board. We had millionaires on the board (remember the Turners, anyone?) and what happened? Recession hit, and they were in trouble. We had Peter Cullum come in for the club, and where is he now? I can tell you that Towergate is not the company it used to be. A lot of people on here seem to confuse ''wealth'' with ''cash reserves''. They are very much NOT the same thing.

That''s nice dear. We have no idea what went on at board level. We have no idea who voted to keep Hughton. We have no idea whether motions were tabled to sack him. All we do know is that he won his crunch games. Until he lost against West Brom at home, and got fired. If we had won that game, we would have survived, and that''s the truth of the matter. In my view, we know absolutely nothing that would give anyone a reason to call for McNally''s head. Yes, there''s a lot of talk, and a lot of suspicion, but nothing concrete that anyone KNOWS that makes it an utter disgrace that arguably the most successful Chief Executive in the history of the club has not resigned yet, and has no intention of. I wouldn''t call for his head even if we were in the Championship for a while. Without bags and bags of money, it is difficult to get out, and it is very much about having the right manager and the right luck. We had the right manager in O''Neil, but Chase screwed that up. We then got the right manager in Worthington, but were not strong enough financially to stay up, coupled with a fair chunk of our squad just not turning up for the Fulham game. We had the right manager in Lambert, but he wanted bigger and better, yet went to Villa. Only time will tell whether the next guy is the right manager, and in my view, that cannot be guaranteed at this point, no matter who you appoint, unless you go with someone that I would never ever want to see at my club, like Warnock or Harry. No, nay never.

The team are in what can only be described as a desperate position. The guy hasn''t done the job that he was brought in to do, but then again foreign strikers often find it difficult to settle in their first season as the game is different here. He is most likely deeply frustrated with himself. So I am not surprised that he snapped when a bunch of idiots decide that they have the right to single him out personally for the team''s failures this year. He''s not even in a management position and able to influence how we as a side play. If he hasn''t tried all season, yeah, go for him, but I think it is universally accepted that he has tried. Don''t blame him for how the team gets set up. More experienced strikers have tried, failed and got desperately frustrated under our former manager.

Not football, but could very easily be. Imagine if someone moved next door to CR and tried to get the place shut down because of noise - it could happen under current law, even though CR was there first. http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/62894

OK, player trading. Can it impact P&L? Yes it can. First impact has already been identified, being the amortisation charge on player contract fees. More player costs, bigger intangible, bigger amortisation, especially if shorter contracts, Second impact hasn''t been ref''d from what I can see. What happens when you sell a player? In terms of double entry, you get cash in (Dr Cash on balance sheet) and you remove the intangible relating to the player contract (Cr intangible asset). Thing is, the cash and the intangible very rarely match, difference going to P&L. So it is very correct to say that player TRADING has an impact on P&L. As I understand it, we had a good year the year before last on player trading, and sold players for more than they were accounted for. This year, we''ve let quite a lot of quite expensive players (which Lambert over-paid for, arguably) go for bugger all, so you would expect losses on player trading. Hopefully this settles things on player trading and P&L impact. If you want to discuss my accounting qualifications and experience, please feel free to PM me.

Purple Canary... Message a bit clearer. Fair enough on the terms - on that basis the contingency has materialised and the club can be obliged to repay. However, I still fundamentally disagree that an intention to do something has any impact on the underlying matter on which it is to be done. If it were not a debt (from your description of the terms, I''m not disputing that it is a debt, this is purely a hypothetical), and intention to repay it would not mean that you accounted for it as a debt. I would qualify the accounts if they tried to account for it as a debt when there was never any obligation to repay, simply because they wanted to repay it.

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Bobzilla"]Apart from the question of the terms of the debt. If a debt is never repayable at the holders request, it is not a debt. It is a permanent loan. The club can choose to repay it, but there is no obligation to repay it. Lawyers might consider this to still be a debt where there is a contingency upon which the debt actually becomes repayable (like liquidation), but for all intents and purposes, including accounting, there is no debt - simply investment. Now, I don''t know the terms of the Foulger ''debt'' but it is perfectly conceivable that this is not actually a debt. If there is a plan for a share buyback, does that turn the shares into debt? No planned payments will ever change the nature of the rights upon which payment is made (i.e. equity or debt), until such time as the right to a payment has actually crystallised - there will be a debt if (and only if) the club contractually agrees to repay Foulger. [quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="T"]Some very nice prose but a few corrections: Cash flow is lower as a result of player purchases and debt repayment but not the income statement as these expenses are not recorded in the income statement Bowkett is correct about the amount of internal debt repayable as smith and jones are eligible to be repaid but not Foulger. Correlatation between premier league wages and points was 91% in 2010/11 and 87% in 2011/12 but then lets not let reality get in the way of the myth that it is all down to CH''s tactics. I guess understanding finance is like uderstanding football... [/quote] These "corrections" need correcting. In all my nice prose I didn''t mention cashflow once, so I can''t have got anything wrong on that subject. As for saying that £2.1m figure in the quote from Bowkett for internal debt is right, no it isn''t. The correct figure, as I said, is £3.1m.. I suspect either Bowkett misspoke, as American politicians say, or it is a misprint. In a separate sidebar piece the EDP itself gives £3.1m as the right amount.Whether Foulger is yet eligible to be repaid is entirely irrelevant to the sum outstanding, which is what Bowkett and I are talking about. And it is clear from the fact that the club has already paid Foulger back £323,000 and Bowkett''s comments about the remaining debt ("We would be budgeting to eradicate that in this financial year.") that the plan is to pay it off whether strictly necessary or not. [/quote][/quote] It is definitely a debt. There is an oddity in that there is a difference in the terms as laid out in the 2012 accounts and the 2013 accounts, so the question of when repayment is due can be read two ways (a polite way of saying one is wrong).In 2012 the accounts said that, subject to us not owing BoS anything, the debt could be called in "on the earlier of August 31, 2012 OR"...upon Smith and Jones ceasing to own at least 30 per cent of the ordinary shares. Since we are past August 31 2012 and we have paid off BoS, clearly accordng to that wording Foulger can demand his money back. The 30 per cent bit is not a dealbreaker - it is an either/or with the date of August 31, 2012, depending on which comes first.But for some reason the terms in the 2013 accounts have changed, so that the 30 per cent stipulation IS a dealbreaker. Until Smith and Jones slash their shareholding (in effect no longer control the club) Foulger cannot claim his money.Either way, either now or in the future, Foulger can claim back the dosh, so it is a debt, and, as pointed out earlier, the question is rather moot because Bowkett has said they aim to repay it this financial year. [/quote] Fair enough on the terms - on that basis the contingency has materialised and the club can be obliged to repay. However, I still fundamentally disagree that an intention to do something has any impact on the underlying matter on which it is to be done. If it were not a debt (from your description of the terms, I''m not disputing that it is a debt, this is purely a hypothetical), and intention to repay it would not mean that you accounted for it as a debt. I would qualify the accounts if they tried to account for it as a debt when there was never any obligation to repay, simply because they wanted to repay it.

Apart from the question of the terms of the debt. If a debt is never repayable at the holders request, it is not a debt. It is a permanent loan. The club can choose to repay it, but there is no obligation to repay it. Lawyers might consider this to still be a debt where there is a contingency upon which the debt actually becomes repayable (like liquidation), but for all intents and purposes, including accounting, there is no debt - simply investment. Now, I don''t know the terms of the Foulger ''debt'' but it is perfectly conceivable that this is not actually a debt. If there is a plan for a share buyback, does that turn the shares into debt? No planned payments will ever change the nature of the rights upon which payment is made (i.e. equity or debt), until such time as the right to a payment has actually crystallised - there will be a debt if (and only if) the club contractually agrees to repay Foulger. [quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="T"]Some very nice prose but a few corrections: Cash flow is lower as a result of player purchases and debt repayment but not the income statement as these expenses are not recorded in the income statement Bowkett is correct about the amount of internal debt repayable as smith and jones are eligible to be repaid but not Foulger. Correlatation between premier league wages and points was 91% in 2010/11 and 87% in 2011/12 but then lets not let reality get in the way of the myth that it is all down to CH''s tactics. I guess understanding finance is like uderstanding football... [/quote] These "corrections" need correcting. In all my nice prose I didn''t mention cashflow once, so I can''t have got anything wrong on that subject. As for saying that £2.1m figure in the quote from Bowkett for internal debt is right, no it isn''t. The correct figure, as I said, is £3.1m.. I suspect either Bowkett misspoke, as American politicians say, or it is a misprint. In a separate sidebar piece the EDP itself gives £3.1m as the right amount.Whether Foulger is yet eligible to be repaid is entirely irrelevant to the sum outstanding, which is what Bowkett and I are talking about. And it is clear from the fact that the club has already paid Foulger back £323,000 and Bowkett''s comments about the remaining debt ("We would be budgeting to eradicate that in this financial year.") that the plan is to pay it off whether strictly necessary or not. [/quote]

Damn, no edit function. Having re-read, I might have mis-read first time round. We need more people on the forum who actually know what they are talking about on the finance side of things - there are enough people spouting rubbish about our finances without really having any sort of clue as to what they are talking about. The more people offering an informed view, the better imho. BTW, I think my smallest client (proper) was worth about £1bn when it sold recently. Might have a few slightly smaller ones, but not much. I reckon S&J would be lucky to get NAV for the club given that the majority of the ''value'' is intangible - players contracts - where the accounting doesn''t really match up with reality in terms of value. No idea what your usualy practice is, but for me the club is very small. [quote user="Bobzilla"]I''m not going to start a willy waving response on this, but suffice it to say I know a thing about company law, accounting, business, how companies actually work in practice etc. I''m not going to tell you what I actually do, and what my academic background is, but suffiice it to say that I have more letters after my name than in the whole of my birth names (not that I use any of them - the quality of my work says far more than my letters ever will), and the cost of my grad and post grad education (even the stuff borne by me personally rather than my employers) would buy a mid-range beemer. I''m not saying you don''t know what you are doing, I''ve seen your comments on the annual accounts and very often (for the most part) agree with your analysis and insight. What I''m saying is that I too know what I am doing, and have a decent amount of experience and education in this field. My opinions are as equally valid as yours - they are just that, opinions. I''d be interested to see where you think I have defamed someone - I have more than a working knowledge of that one, albeit from a few years ago, and am very careful not to defame people on the internet. We''ve all seen the consequences of that one, and whilst I am well remunerated for what I do, I don''t have £50k of hush money I can just drop to a charity in someone''s name.[/quote]

I''m not going to start a willy waving response on this, but suffice it to say I know a thing about company law, accounting, business, how companies actually work in practice etc. I''m not going to tell you what I actually do, and what my academic background is, but suffiice it to say that I have more letters after my name than in the whole of my birth names (not that I use any of them - the quality of my work says far more than my letters ever will), and the cost of my grad and post grad education (even the stuff borne by me personally rather than my employers) would buy a mid-range beemer. I''m not saying you don''t know what you are doing, I''ve seen your comments on the annual accounts and very often (for the most part) agree with your analysis and insight. What I''m saying is that I too know what I am doing, and have a decent amount of experience and education in this field. My opinions are as equally valid as yours - they are just that, opinions. I''d be interested to see where you think I have defamed someone - I have more than a working knowledge of that one, albeit from a few years ago, and am very careful not to defame people on the internet. We''ve all seen the consequences of that one, and whilst I am well remunerated for what I do, I don''t have £50k of hush money I can just drop to a charity in someone''s name.

OK, I''ll bite PC. 1 - Difference of opinion as to what success is and how many clubs. I''ll concede he wasn''t CEO at Celtic, but he wasn''t exactly a failure I''m guessing. 2 - Not dismissing Smith and Jones, but would we be where we are if they were the executive board? Hell no. They are very good owners, but they are owners with a decent handle on business in general, not football. You remember the Doomcaster years? 3 - We are a small company. We may be a plc, but do you have any idea what the difference in constitution between a plc and Ltd is? The only necessary difference is that a plc must maintain share capital equal to £50k. That''s the only difference. There are source of finance advantages to being a plc - you can widely market your shares and securities rather than just to private individuals, but I suspect that there would be ways to enable the supporters trust to invest in the way that they have even if we were a Ltd. We do not need to be a plc - there is absolutely no financial advantage. Net assets - £16m. Fair value of the company? Probably nothing on a break-up basis - our entire value is wrapped up on us staying in the premiership. At the end of 2011, we had net assets of £3m, and would have left outstanding liabilities if we''d ceased trading. Like it or not, we are a small company. We would be nowhere on AIM, and absolutely nowhere on an LSE listing. Sure, we''re no owner-managed-business, but don''t kid yourself as to our size or value. (If we were an OMB, McNally would matter less and S&J would have more actual power as chances are they would be able to run the business themselves without the specific football experience that McNally brings). My point was not that McNally could force the board. My point was that if McNally was forced to act against his wishes, the first thing he would be doing is resigning. And there would be plenty of clubs willing to snap him up just like that. You underestimate the power of the man who has turned us from very very nearly insolvent into a club that would at least wipe its own face if it were to fold. And I think you underestimate the consequences of McNally walking. I don''t think that either Smith or Jones would.

Owners, not managers. They know how to appoint a good CEO and back him, and keep him. They then leave the job of CEO to the guy they have appointed. [quote user="nutty nigel"]AGM''s probably a couple of months away. Plenty of time for a Pink Un resolution to come together. Are any of the Hought Outers shareholders? Delia is a corker of a cook and Wynnie''s a peach of a publisher but of course together they are two of the most experienced and respected football club owners in the country. I think we can trust in them. [/quote]

Actually, that is exactly how it works in a small company. The shareholders may be directors so they can propose motions at board meetings (like sack the manager), and they can unanimously vote to do that in both board meetings and shareholder meetings, but never ever forget that Delia is a cook and Michael is a publisher, whereas McNally is a VERY successful and experienced CEO of several football clubs now. In the space of 3 years, he took us from Division 1 to Premiership survival, and had decent form at his previous clubs (Fulham and Celtic). If he gets over-ruled on something as fundamental as the manager, he will walk, and Delia and Michael would never allow that, let alone provoke that. They might try and persuade him, but if he is adamant that Hughton stays, that is what will happen. [quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="jas the barclay king"]Davey Mac''s opinion is, really, the only one that matters.... if he backs hughton then like it or not there''s sod all anyone can do.[/quote] Heck yes. Even if the chairman, the deputy chairman, the two joint owners and the other two directors all vote to sack Hughton McNally can veto that decision. That is absolutely the way boardroom democracy works in multi-million-pound companies. [/quote]

Why do quotes come out so shite? And why can''t you use standard HTML tags? I''d still give it to his daughter though.

[quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="TIL 1010"] Having been encouraged by others to join Twitter which i hasten to add i am more more of an observer than a participant i have taken to ''Following'' David McNally.Now if some of you think there are idiots on Canary Call here is a flavour of the stupid questions that get asked of a CEO on circa £1 million a year. Can you tell me when the Man Utd tickets are being posted ? How do you upgrade a ticket from under 21 to adult ? Will i be able to still park on the Orange car park next season ? Who do i speak to about putting my uncle''s 50th birthday on the scoreboard on Saturday ? What time do the coaches leave for........ ? Would it not be easier for customer services to have a Twitter account to deal with such mundane enquires as unbelievably Mr McNally answers these people by telling them who to contact ? Talk about wasting a very busy mans time !! Do i need a tin hat for posting this ? [:P] [/quote] Mr. Tilson, if I were in McNally''s position I would quickly ascertain that a Twitter account is simply another form of communication in today''s world, have a smart young thing on the payroll set up an account in my name and have that person field the questions from all and sundry ( only bringing the ones to me that have a genuine ounce of in-depth thought behind them ), take the plaudits for being responsive to the fans while spending almost zero of my personal time at all. But that''s just me. You don''t think Mr. McNally thinks like that do you? [;)] [/quote] I''d give it to his daughter

[quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="TIL 1010"] Having been encouraged by others to join Twitter which i hasten to add i am more more of an observer than a participant i have taken to ''Following'' David McNally.Now if some of you think there are idiots on Canary Call here is a flavour of the stupid questions that get asked of a CEO on circa £1 million a year. Can you tell me when the Man Utd tickets are being posted ? How do you upgrade a ticket from under 21 to adult ? Will i be able to still park on the Orange car park next season ? Who do i speak to about putting my uncle''s 50th birthday on the scoreboard on Saturday ? What time do the coaches leave for........ ? Would it not be easier for customer services to have a Twitter account to deal with such mundane enquires as unbelievably Mr McNally answers these people by telling them who to contact ? Talk about wasting a very busy mans time !! Do i need a tin hat for posting this ? [:P] [/quote] Mr. Tilson, if I were in McNally''s position I would quickly ascertain that a Twitter account is simply another form of communication in today''s world, [b]have a smart young thing on the payroll set up an account in my name and have that person field the questions from all and sundry[/b] ( only bringing the ones to me that have a genuine ounce of in-depth thought behind them ), take the plaudits for being responsive to the fans while spending almost zero of my personal time at all. But that''s just me. You don''t think Mr. McNally thinks like that do you? [;)] [/quote] I''d give it to his daughter ;)

Anyone else think that Bunn was looking real quality yesterday? I have had my doubts as to whether Bunn could really steer us to safety - perhaps I''ve been sheltered by the luxury of Ruddy, and I had 93 flashbacks when Ruddy got injured. There have been games where he has looked like he''s been lacking a bit of experience, but yesterday he seemed to come of age. OK, he gave away a very cheap penalty, but then recovered to save it when it wasn''t a bad penalty. I think he might be giving Ruddy a very good run for his money...

Fulham (H) W Everton (H) D Man Utd (A) L Southampton (H) W Sunderland (A) D Wigan (A) D Swansea (H) W - really? Michu is a slippery little player. Arsenal (A) L Reading (H) W Stoke (A) L Aston Villa (H) W West Brom (H) D Man City (A) L Other than that, I think you might be right, assuming we can score. OK, looking yesterday we got a whole load of opportunities, but the West Ham keeper was on fire. But how many other premiership teams have brilliant goal keepers.

I''m going to reserve judgment until we see Saturday''s game at QPR. I think that''s the crunch game for me. If QPR can actually get a team working together, we have more problems. At the minute there is only really one space left in the drop space - QPR and Villa have clearly sewn the other two up. I haven''t been impressed with Villa''s transfer activity, so that leaves QPR. They''ve been busy, but they have previously struggled to gel their multi-million pound retirees into a team. Can Harry do it this time?