Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
sgncfc

Top 26

Recommended Posts

On 08/02/2020 at 14:41, king canary said:

Middlesbrough 

Another great owner - you really can't fault Steve Gibson. Middlesbrough born and bred – he fits into the category of fan owner. As far as I can see the currently Club owes him about 90 million and he has money converted  money into shares for another £90 million over the years. Their net debt currently stands at 101 million, but most is owed to Gibson who does not charge them for it. they also owe £56 million in transfer fees (£29 net.)

Ironically some of the fans are still not happy at Gibson - according to the local press "many fans are asking if the chairman still has the funds and appetite to invest." (https://www.gazettelive.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/steve-gibsons-1m-month-makes-17167426 The same article points out, however, that he is probably subsidising them about a million pounds a month and has been for the last 10 year! Again he is hindered in what he can give by FFP rules and is having to impose big cuts despite the huge subsidy. 

What I find astonishing is that Gibson is reportedly "only" worth £210 million (Sunday Times Rich List). 

1. How long can this subsidy continue? The Price of Football article on Middlesborough's 17-18 accounts is titled "Babylon's Burning!"

2. What would an investor owner do?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://financialfootballnews.com/burnley-2019-finances-predicted-dyches-europa-nightmare/

According to that Burnleys wages were 82m in the year up to July 2018. Some good charts on that link too. 

finishes with 

"Then taking into account the lack of sales in 2019 and hence a much lower profit in player sales, profit are likely to fall by a further £23m to around £3m, a £42m drop. 

These drops in profitability may be a common theme of 2019 for most mid-table Premier League clubs with the costs of competing in the top flight rising considerably. Clubs look like only recording profits currently based on player sales rather than underlying financial stability."

I can live with our lack of spending, I don't see any accusations of money being taken out of the club so if the money Is going to be used for investment in long term, be it infrastructure or youth then I can't have any complaints. Burnley are riding the wave right now and fair play to them but the time will one day come when they sit in a position similar to where Stoke or Huddersfield are right now and they'll have to quickly adjust too a much smaller scale in terms of turnover and wages which I guess will be their own "transition" 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/02/2020 at 17:00, Badger said:

Sorry Kenny, but that's the trouble of using a website like Transfermarket. They may act as a useful guide and as an objective site and have their uses but of course, they are essentially guesses and rumour of limited accuracy. The figures I gave you are from Burnley's published accounts - if they were inaccurate, they would be committing fraud.

What the accounts show is that Burnley have been very frugal with their money. The limitation that they have is that they are not up-to-date. We do do not yet have figures for 18-19, let alone 19-20, however, there is no reason to assume that they have abandoned previous frugality.

It is precisely because they have  made a profit from transfers in previous years they were sitting with a big cash pile and may have felt able to spend more subsequently. They made a before tax profit of £27.3 million in 2016-17 and £45.1 million 2017-2018 - this is simply fact, unless they are committing fraud for the perverse reason that they wish to pay more tax!! 😀 A large part of this profit came from player trading (about £32 million) but it is also because they kept good control of wages.

I would be very happy if we were able to emulate Burnley's frugality, because you have seen the benefits that it can bring if we look to the medium term rather than the short term.

 

The chairman confirmed they have spent £87.5m since being in the premiership and spent close to £40m when in the championship. I would be happy if we also spent WISELY as Burnley seem to have. The current "model" is not fit for purpose if you want to stay in the premiership for any amount of time. Staying in the premiership also gives you a far better chance to improve infrastructure, academies' community work as the amount of cash you get is so much bigger. It makes financial sense.

Edited by Kenny Foggo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Kenny Foggo said:

The chairman confirmed they have spent £87.5m since being in the premiership and spent close to £40m when in the championship. I would be happy if we also spent WISELY as Burnley seem to have. The current "model" is not fit for purpose if you want to stay in the premiership for any amount of time. Staying in the premiership also gives you a far better chance to improve infrastructure, academies' community work as the amount of cash you get is so much bigger. It makes financial sense.

He said they'd had a net spend of £87.5m in the last six seasons, presumanbly including this one, since he was speaking after the summer window closed. That works out at a bit under £15m a season and includes one season back in the Championship. I can't see any mention of having spent nearly £40m in that Championship season, either separately, as you imply, or as part of the £87.5m.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

He said they'd had a net spend of £87.5m in the last six seasons, presumanbly including this one, since he was speaking after the summer window closed. That works out at a bit under £15m a season and includes one season back in the Championship. I can't see any mention of having spent nearly £40m in that Championship season, either separately, as you imply, or as part of the £87.5m.

It's all online.. check it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PurpleCanary said:

I am going on the interview you quoted.

TRANSFER RECORD 16/17
Income/Expenditure Arrivals/Departures Fee
Overall balance £-39.96m
Income 21 £1.08m
Expenditure 22 £41.04m

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Kenny Foggo said:
TRANSFER RECORD 16/17
Income/Expenditure Arrivals/Departures Fee
Overall balance £-39.96m
Income 21 £1.08m
Expenditure 22 £41.04m

I don't know if those figures are right but it is not relevant to your claim because that is a Premier League season, not one in the Championship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a tough season. We needed some good fortune but got nothing but injury bad luck. 

But the Club and supporters have admirably kept their heads and will benefit from that stoicism in the long run. 

It will be hard to let young talent go because we are like a family but priority goes to the Club and its mantra and methods. 

Because of our yo-yo history and the likelihood that will continue I hope we invest further in infrastructure. We need a 32000 plus stadium to move towards our potential and serve the Club's social role by ensuring it is turning fewer away. 

How many Naismiths make a new City stand? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ramrod said:

How many Naismiths make a new City stand

Well , if the Naismisths get the job of making a new City Stand I expect they'll start well, then down tools, Pi$$ off to another job elsewhere, while saying theyd build the City stand for nothing if they were just allowed to get on with the job. During this time , Naismiths the Builders will spend most of their time wandering around berating the junior bricklayers for not passing the bricks the way they like them passed.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, wcorkcanary said:

Well , if the Naismisths get the job of making a new City Stand I expect they'll start well, then down tools, Pi$$ off to another job elsewhere, while saying theyd build the City stand for nothing if they were just allowed to get on with the job. During this time , Naismiths the Builders will spend most of their time wandering around berating the junior bricklayers for not passing the bricks the way they like them passed.

Decent attempt at comedy writing there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Hillhead said:

Burnley are riding the wave right now and fair play to them but the time will one day come when they sit in a position similar to where Stoke or Huddersfield are right now and they'll have to quickly adjust too a much smaller scale in terms of turnover and wages which I guess will be their own "transition" 

I agree that in the medium term, Burnley are likely to have a difficult season and will probably be relegated at some stage in the next few years. Howevr, they are better prepared to face this than most clubs because they have never over-spent - as far as I can see they have insisted upon making a profit each year. This means that they do not have external debt to worry about, nor, I believe, will they owe huge sums on player transfers.

They will have to make their own transition, as you say, but with sensible relegation reductions, which I imagine they have, this should be a far less painful process for them than for some who have over-spent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

I don't know if those figures are right but it is not relevant to your claim because that is a Premier League season, not one in the Championship.

They are not right - they come from Transfermarket. The accounts, which I mentioned in the link show that they made a profit of just over a million from transfer activity during the year. Obviously the overall figure is complicated by player amortisation, but I decided not to go through that as I thought that complicating the picture further is not a good idea until more basic principles are agreed/ established. 

Kenny is right in saying that they have spent quite significantly in the transfer market, but have always managed to maintain an overall profit whilst doing so. There is every reason to suppose that we would be able to do likewise if keep control of our spending.

Edited by Badger
Added a short paragraph
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 08/02/2020 at 14:41, king canary said:

Fulham

Owned by Shahid Khan, Khan's net worth is $7.9 billion. He is ranked 61st in the Forbes 400 list of richest Americans, and is overall the 224th wealthiest person in the world. Khan has the sort of wealth that makes owning a football club a reasonable risk/ hobby. He is in a position to lose a few hundred million and it nor hurt too much.

This is fortunate because he has lost over a hundred million not taking into account the spending in their year in the PL + any subsequent adjustments to their new position. So far, Khan has stood by the club and as far as I can see turned debt into equity as well as giving Fulham money - he has given over £199 million up to the end of June 2017. This is on top of an estimated purchase price of between £150-200 million. Of course, there has been well publicised spending subsequent to this, so it is not unreasonable to assume that his ownership of Fulham has cost him in the region of £500 million so far.

He has other bigger sporting interests - reprtedly paying $760 for the NFL Jackson Jaguars as well as being the lead investor in All Elite Wrestling.  

Despite his huge wealth, Khan has not brought much success to Fulham. However, to be fair, Fulham enjoyed consistent Premier league membership and some European success under their previous rich owner Mohamed Al-Fayed. Fulham of course have the West London cachet and have also have a more illustrious history than ourselves. Nevertheless, I think that I would conclude that Fulham have benefited from rich ownership. I think that you would have to put Khan into the category of investor owner, not quite so sure about how to categorise Al-Fayed, although he made quite a lot of money from his ownership. As Al-Fayed is "only" worth a billion or so, I doubt he would have been able to be as generous as Khan has.

I would agree with you on this one KC. As long as Khan retains interest, Fulham have an owner with deep pockets. I would add the caveat that if they fail to get promotion this year, FFP may start to cause them problems. We will have more idea when more up-to-date accounts are published. 

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...