Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
king canary

Accounts released

Recommended Posts

So does someone with some decent financial knowledge fancy explaining what it all means?

Particualrly interested to know a bit more about the wage bill, how much we''ve managed to reduce it by etc etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moxey gets nearly a quarter of a million severance and God knows how much Alex Neil got. And it keeps coming with the boot for Hucks, I hope there''s not another big change coming up soon !On the good side, we made a 2.1 profit in players without too much detriment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="SwindonCanary"]Moxey gets nearly a quarter of a million severance and God knows how much Alex Neil got. And it keeps coming with the boot for Hucks, I hope there''s not another big change coming up soon !On the good side, we made a 2.1 profit in players without too much detriment.  [/quote]Hate to tell you Swindon but Poxey Moxey got just over £700K  severance pay for 7 months work !!!!!!!!!!!!! [:@]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for the link Swindon, had not seen this.They need to sort out the commercial department in my view, and rebuild value into the club and not take local business''s for granted IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Severe cutting at end season. Sell valuable assets, introduce home-grown replacements. Nice on paper, could be dramatically negative on grass. Long term project indeed. Who sustains the losses until operational costs = incoming? What does the playing level look like at that point?

Parma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The most amusing bit is the bit about generous Marcus throwing 6million in the pot every year to keep them going, and how we could possibly cover that shortfall...
15k x £25 x 23 = 8.6 million
27k x £25 x 23 = 15.5 million
I''ve gone for £25 each but I suspect given the demand, our average ticket price will also be higher than theirs. Fag packet maths as it doesn''t take into account corporate etc, however, assuming both clubs charge the same (and chucking them some extra fans to round it up) we will make £6.9mill more from ticket sales.
Oh if only we could play in front of a half empty stadium and have a generous man like Marcus in charge, instead of this full stadium nonsense, then we could avoid the impending embargo etc.
Are they really that dumb or do they just pretend for our amusement?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="kick it off"]The most amusing bit is the bit about generous Marcus throwing 6million in the pot every year to keep them going, and how we could possibly cover that shortfall...
15k x £25 x 23 = 8.6 million
27k x £25 x 23 = 15.5 million
I''ve gone for £25 each but I suspect given the demand, our average ticket price will also be higher than theirs. Fag packet maths as it doesn''t take into account corporate etc, however, assuming both clubs charge the same (and chucking them some extra fans to round it up) we will make £6.9mill more from ticket sales.
Oh if only we could play in front of a half empty stadium and have a generous man like Marcus in charge, instead of this full stadium nonsense, then we could avoid the impending embargo etc.
Are they really that dumb or do they just pretend for our amusement?
[/quote]
Oops - wrong thread - will copy it over to the "outside view" thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For some reason (from this website??) I had the impression that NCFC were going to have a big overdarft at the end of 30/6/17 and that the £10m cash from the sale of Jacob Murphy was clearing that off in one go.

Yet at the 30/6/17 the overdraft was £1.83m (note 18 page 29 of the Annual Report).

BTW. the sale of Jacob Murphy happened after the 30/6/17

(note 30 page 35).

Finally I listened to the first six minutes of Mark Armstrong''s and David Freezer''s so called analysis and wished I hadn''t bothered. Lads stick to your days jobs!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Contingent Liabilities (note 25 page 34) - £23.7m

We were really need a split between how much is related to potential payments to other clubs and how much could be in the form of payments to players / agents etc.

Of the amount that is potentially due to other clubs, there should then be another breakdown between what might be payable if we stay in the Championship (because its related to say the number of appearance a player makes) and how much would be due to other clubs because we won promotion to the Premier League.

How about some transparency on this issue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A big issue is how to cover the costs of:

Klose if his wages are £50k per week plus NIC then we approx £2.75m

Naismith - ditto - £2.75m

Jerome - probably £1m

Jarvis - £1m?

McGovern - ?

Oliveira - ?

Windschut - ?

next season with no parachute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Today’s EDP story gives a pretty good summary and explanation of the accounts. Why turnover is down and why a loss, the money spent – and to be spent – on the staff changes necessitated by the new management structure, and (here mentioned by Parma) the outline of how the make-up of the squad will change in years to come. I don’t see any great surprises, although there is a sad first, in that the section on risk management now has to mention:"Heath & Safety considerations, including terrorism…”Other aspects have been gone over in other threads, such as the pay-offs to Moxey and Neil, with the former eliciting this admirably forthright comment:"Some fool will come along shortly I am sure and tell us it is the going rate.”Well, I would have been that fool if Bethnal had not got there first. This is the reality of football, and business generally. You have to pay top money, with similar severance pay, to attract good candidates, and if they turn out not to be so talented you have to pay them to leave. Annoying as hell, but that is the system. Complaints should be sent to whoever invented capitalism.Those posters blaming the current chairman should bear in mind that McNally (₤1.3m) and Hughton both received large payouts for failure which were negotiated/overseen under Bowkett’s chairmanship, long before Ed Balls joined the board. And Simon Grayson will not be leaving Roker Park empty handed after just 15 league games.

(At a tangent, my understanding is that the board very nearly switched to the new management structure when McNally left, but for whatever reason – perhaps they were not sure who the sporting director would be, or they couldn’t prise him away from wherever – they put that off).Moving on, a while ago one poster kept claiming he knew – for a fact! – that the board had budgeted not to get promotion this last season. As to that then, because it also has a current relevance:This question splits into money spent on transfers and on wages. For the former, in the summer of 2016 we kept all the top players except Redmond, and got rid of van Wolfswinkel and Odidja-Ofoe, and brought in Canos, McGovern, Pritchard and Oliveira, spending ₤12.6m with potential extra payments of ₤9m. So roughly we probably shelled out as much as we received, despite relegation.In January, with promotion looking not that likely and another season in the Championship looming, we offloaded high-earners Brady and Olsson for good money, some of which went on Wildschut and the loan of Dijks.As for wages, our staff costs last season were ₤55.1m, compared with ₤48.5m in the Championship in 2014-15. The potentially more significant figure is player wages, and last season that was ₤37.65m, as against the not much lower ₤34.9m in 2014-15.The explanation for that closeness, despite general wage inflation, almost certainly lies in the change in the parachute payment system, to our disadvantage. In that year back in the Championship in 2014-15 we knew we had four years of payments coming - ₤25m, then ₤20m, then ₤10m, then ₤10m. So we could – literally – afford to keep wages reasonably high in the first season because if we didn’t go straight back up we would have three more seasons in which to cut the bill. This last season, with only two years of payments (even though the first was ₤41m) we probably had to start trimming, albeit not savagely.In summary, far from budgeting not to get back up, the figures show the directors kept as many players as possible (with summer transfers dealings balanced), including several high earners, to give the club as good a chance as possible – within financial reason – of promotion.Which brings us on to this season, and the argument that the club should in this summer’s window have taken “a calculated gamble” to get promoted before the parachute payments ended, which can only mean keeping/acquiring more high-earners. The trouble with the “calculated gamble” mantra is that it is a contradiction in terms. The moment you do the calculations you scrub the idea.The club, despite that ₤41m of parachute payments, and being prudent with transfers and wages, including selling two high-earners in the winter, has made a ₤2.7m loss.  This season the parachute money falls by (I think) not far short of ₤10m.  The notion that the club should at least have kept its wage bill as it was, despite what is bound to be reduced income, cannot be justified. And not only because of this season, but because of next season, when income will drop by tens of millions.I am not remotely comparing us with QPR in terms of imbecilic profligacy or the scale of the problem, but the basic danger is the same – a club being lumbered with high-earners it can no longer afford (if it ever could) who either refuse to budge or have to be sold at rock-bottom prices. So the wage-bill trimming had to start last season, if modestly, and be carried on more sharply this, to try to avoid a big loss, and a fire sale next summer. Like it or not, the club is run on a self-sufficiency model, without great dollops of largesse from the owners. Unless that philosophy is dumped losses have to be minimal. And preparations made for sharply reduced circumstances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It''s clear to see why we have embarked on the Webbolution.

High calibre players and eye catching transfer window moves aren''t going to be possible after this season.

If we want to go up we''ll have to do it through culture, togetherness, unity, moneyball signings and the academy. In a league moving every year towards being a foreign billionaire''s playground that could be a noble but naive philosophy ... as the Wolves game exposed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paint whatever picture you like regarding investment/non investment the real damage was done to this Club by failing to invest in the right/or even any suitably qualified personnel in the Summer window immediately after promotion. This was totally due to a Board that were ''unfit for purpose'' and a Manager whose inexperience (despite promotion) was fully exposed. We got what we deserved with boys trying to do men''s jobs and our Club, as you would expect will suffer the consequences for years to come.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A fairly stark warning fro Kieran Maguire on the pinkun today.

“The summer won’t be nice for the directors because they either have to sell off players or have got to underwrite an investment of £20m or £30m to compete.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So it''s all Bowkett and McNally''s fault and Ed Balls is left to clean up their mess. I''ve missed you Derby, through the disappointment of two successive home defeats there''s a small glow in my heart now I know you''re ok 😘

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kingo, that equation doesn''t make sense to me. Is he saying that we have the players to compete now? But that any players we have next season won''t be able to compete?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks Purple, good analysis.

You could say that we took the "calculated gamble" last season by keeping Naismith, Klose, Bassong, Mulumbu, Howson et al, but they and others underperformed.

Sadly, the vultures will be circling if we don''t make the playoffs and gain promotion - Maddison, Pritchard, Klose and Murphy could all be targets. But if that''s the model going forward, we have to accept it and hope that the evolution of the club gets us up over a slightly longer timescale.

My worry is that many of our fans don''t have the patience to accept that, some are already restless with the current home form and style of play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Derby Canary"]Paint whatever picture you like regarding investment/non investment the real damage was done to this Club by failing to invest in the right/or even any suitably qualified personnel in the Summer window immediately after promotion. This was totally due to a Board that were ''unfit for purpose'' and a Manager whose inexperience (despite promotion) was fully exposed. We got what we deserved with boys trying to do men''s jobs and our Club, as you would expect will suffer the consequences for years to come.[/quote]Let me get this absolutely straight. Neil should have been sacked as soon as he got us promoted? And the board was unfit for purpose for not doing so?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Woodman"]Thanks Purple, good analysis.

You could say that we took the "calculated gamble" last season by keeping Naismith, Klose, Bassong, Mulumbu, Howson et al, but they and others underperformed.

Sadly, the vultures will be circling if we don''t make the playoffs and gain promotion - Maddison, Pritchard, Klose and Murphy could all be targets. But if that''s the model going forward, we have to accept it and hope that the evolution of the club gets us up over a slightly longer timescale.

My worry is that many of our fans don''t have the patience to accept that, some are already restless with the current home form and style of play.[/quote]Those players will be target regardless of our status.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

Moving on, a while ago one poster kept claiming he knew – for a fact! – that the board had budgeted not to get promotion this last season. As to that then, because it also has a current relevance:

As for wages, our staff costs last season were ₤55.1m, compared with ₤48.5m in the Championship in 2014-15. The potentially more significant figure is player wages, and last season that was ₤37.65m, as against the not much lower ₤34.9m in 2014-15.The explanation for that closeness, despite general wage inflation, almost certainly lies in the change in the parachute payment system, to our disadvantage. In that year back in the Championship in 2014-15 we knew we had four years of payments coming - ₤25m, then ₤20m, then ₤10m, then ₤10m. So we could – literally – afford to keep wages reasonably high in the first season because if we didn’t go straight back up we would have three more seasons in which to cut the bill. This last season, with only two years of payments (even though the first was ₤41m) we probably had to start trimming, albeit not savagely.In summary, far from budgeting not to get back up, the figures show the directors kept as many players as possible (with summer transfers dealings balanced), including several high earners, to give the club as good a chance as possible – within financial reason – of promotion.[/quote]

If the Liverpool University expert is right about this:Mr Maguire said Norwich’s £55m wage bill for the year to June 30 was

the second-highest ever reported in the Championship, with only Queens

Park Rangers paying more, during their promotion-winning 2014 campaign.“Their wage bill last season was probably twice that of the

average club in the Championship so to not get into the play-offs is a

real blow,” he said. “I would expect that to be beaten by Newcastle

United and Aston Villa when they publish their accounts...that only emphasises that the directors, far from budgeting not to go back up, if anything erred on the side of ambition in trying to get promotion. It would also underline the need for cutting the wage bill this season, in preparation for a parachute-paymentless season in the Championship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well reports are suggesting we''ve trimmed a good £10m off the wage bill, along with making a profit on transfer fees.

My question is next season is it ''sell to buy'' or ''sell to get by?''

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quite clearly we will have two business plans for next season depending on the outcome of this season. Many things will already be implemented. Just because these accounts just dropped through my letterbox yesterday doesn''t mean they are new to Stone and Webber. They have been aware of the clubs position from day one. There is now a long term view in everything we do where as in the PL years we kept throwing money at the present in a short term view. Something it''s very difficult not to do and something a lot of posters on here would say we didn''t do enough of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="TCCANARY"][quote user="Woodman"]Thanks Purple, good analysis.

You could say that we took the "calculated gamble" last season by keeping Naismith, Klose, Bassong, Mulumbu, Howson et al, but they and others underperformed.

Sadly, the vultures will be circling if we don''t make the playoffs and gain promotion - Maddison, Pritchard, Klose and Murphy could all be targets. But if that''s the model going forward, we have to accept it and hope that the evolution of the club gets us up over a slightly longer timescale.

My worry is that many of our fans don''t have the patience to accept that, some are already restless with the current home form and style of play.[/quote]Those players will be target regardless of our status.

[/quote]

Yes, but its a lot easier to keep them if we''re in the Premiership.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Woodman"][quote user="TCCANARY"][quote user="Woodman"]Thanks Purple, good analysis.

You could say that we took the "calculated gamble" last season by keeping Naismith, Klose, Bassong, Mulumbu, Howson et al, but they and others underperformed.

Sadly, the vultures will be circling if we don''t make the playoffs and gain promotion - Maddison, Pritchard, Klose and Murphy could all be targets. But if that''s the model going forward, we have to accept it and hope that the evolution of the club gets us up over a slightly longer timescale.

My worry is that many of our fans don''t have the patience to accept that, some are already restless with the current home form and style of play.[/quote]Those players will be target regardless of our status.

[/quote]

Yes, but its a lot easier to keep them if we''re in the Premiership.[/quote]It would also be a lot easier to get players in to replace them if we were in the Premiership.Players come and go, sometimes you can replace the ones you''ve lost with better ones, sometimes you miss out on better players because you keep the ones you''ve already got.Worrying about players being targets for other clubs is wasted, they''ll always be targets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We will be the new Ipswich but even poorer , these owners were always taking us back to league one it was just a case of when . They still talk about promotion back to he prem utterly laughable when the team cannot win a home match even against the likes of Burton .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Time to go Delia"]We will be the new Ipswich but even poorer[/quote]To do that we''d have to give our stadium and Colney away and then rent them back. Even you aren''t daft enough to believe that will ever happen.....

Share this post


Link to post
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
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...