Club accounts - 'expert' help needeb

[nutty nigel 7,509]

23 hours ago, essex canary said:

Page 22 Note 7 shows Total Salaries and Wages as £54.4 million.  Page 9 shows Turnover as £33.7 million. Page 1 shows players wages as percentage of turnover as 105%. Therefore players wages equal £35.4 million leaving £19 million for non-playing staff. 

So I found my fag packet down the back of the chair this evening. If say the players wages for last season were 35.4m, and assuming they haven't increased this season,  then had the players taken a 30% wage cut so we didn't furlough staff  the peoples purse stood to lose £398,250 in taxes.

Anyone got a more accurate fag packet? And would the people's purse be better or worse off?

[ricardo 7,341]

1 hour ago, nutty nigel said:

 

Anyone got a more accurate fag packet? And would the people's purse be better or worse off?

My dad swore by Goldflake or Senior Service. 😀

[nutty nigel 7,509]

15 minutes ago, ricardo said:

My dad swore by Goldflake or Senior Service. 😀

Couldn't do many sums on a pack of 5 Woodbines 

[Daz Sparks 1,145]

21 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

Couldn't do many sums on a pack of 5 Woodbines 

if you find anymore old fag packets NN, check out how much they are worth... 

 

https://www.ebay.co.uk/b/King-Size-Collectable-Cigarette-Packets/73563/bn_

 

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 3,777]

2 hours ago, nutty nigel said:

So I found my fag packet down the back of the chair this evening. If say the players wages for last season were 35.4m, and assuming they haven't increased this season,  then had the players taken a 30% wage cut so we didn't furlough staff  the peoples purse stood to lose £398,250 in taxes.

Anyone got a more accurate fag packet? And would the people's purse be better or worse off?

That's a pretty big assumption. They will no doubt have increased, but by how much?

[nutty nigel 7,509]

18 minutes ago, Daz Sparks said:

if you find anymore old fag packets NN, check out how much they are worth... 

 

https://www.ebay.co.uk/b/King-Size-Collectable-Cigarette-Packets/73563/bn_

 

Wow

You didn't used to be able to go anywhere without seeing fag packets. I remember all the old brands like Woodbines and Park drive.

In fact the England world cup squad from 1962 had two players with the same names as brands of cigarettes.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

10 minutes ago, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said:

That's a pretty big assumption. They will no doubt have increased, but by how much?

You'd need one a 20 pack at least to work that out Wacky🙃

Where are the FPAs in their hour of need.....

[essex canary 491]

No Idea what the £398,250 refers to or means. A Times article by Stuart Webber posted on the wall at Colney suggests that this seasons salary budget is £65 million. As a Sky sports subscriber I am delighted if at least some of my money finds its way back to support the NHS though whether the government finds better or worse ways of wasting it than footballers is a matter of conjecture. 

[nutty nigel 7,509]

59 minutes ago, essex canary said:

No Idea what the £398,250 refers to or means. A Times article by Stuart Webber posted on the wall at Colney suggests that this seasons salary budget is £65 million. As a Sky sports subscriber I am delighted if at least some of my money finds its way back to support the NHS though whether the government finds better or worse ways of wasting it than footballers is a matter of conjecture. 

  Not interested in Sky Sports tbh buddy. I did buy a bond though. Wasn't a popular choice on here at the time and posters sneered at the chances of ever getting the bonus that was promised on any promotion to the PL. I used to enjoy the get togethers with other bond holders, many of them just ordinary fans that you'd bump into "following the City over land and sea." Certainly not "money people" except in spending a massive proportion of their money on their beloved Canaries.

My fag packet has ran out of battery, but if the players salaries are 65m then divide by 12, multiply by .3 then multiply by .47 and if my simple maths works you'd know how much the public purse would lose in a month if the players took a 30% wage cut so the club didn't need to furlough any staff. As was suggested.

Take this all with a pinch of salt because at school I only got marks in the times tables for knowing the tune.

We need the FPAs! This place used to be awash with them...

Edited April 17, 2020 by nutty nigel

[essex canary 491]

Delighted to hear that some ordinary fans got a look in on Bonds. Nonetheless as a very very generous contributor to the share issue of 18 years ago I am more than a little bit peeved that shareholders get zero promotion bonus compared to bondholders 25%. Current circumstances demonstrate that shareholders ultimately face more risk. The club currently has a director whom I believe has never bought any significant shares with his own money but then puts the same amount of money in bonds for 17 months compared to my 17 years and draws this huge return whilst the bond scheme gets closed unexpectedly and prematurely. This same director then makes negative judgements upon significant shareholders entitlements. To my mind that is not right but it falls on deaf ears at NCFC. 

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

9 hours ago, essex canary said:

Delighted to hear that some ordinary fans got a look in on Bonds. Nonetheless as a very very generous contributor to the share issue of 18 years ago I am more than a little bit peeved that shareholders get zero promotion bonus compared to bondholders 25%. Current circumstances demonstrate that shareholders ultimately face more risk. The club currently has a director whom I believe has never bought any significant shares with his own money but then puts the same amount of money in bonds for 17 months compared to my 17 years and draws this huge return whilst the bond scheme gets closed unexpectedly and prematurely. This same director then makes negative judgements upon significant shareholders entitlements. To my mind that is not right but it falls on deaf ears at NCFC. 

I cannot have been paying attention, essex. Who and what and when and how much?

[lake district canary 4,531]

10 hours ago, essex canary said:

 I am more than a little bit peeved that shareholders get zero promotion bonus compared to bondholders 25%. Current circumstances demonstrate that shareholders ultimately face more risk.

The 25% bonus on promotion was the there because the bond would be cancelled upon promotion and people who had invested for five years would see their investment returned to them perhaps after one or two years with less to show for their five year commitment than their expectation.   Anyhow, the 25% split up over five years was equivalent to 5% x 5 years, so really all the club were doing was ensure that there was something in place to show that people would get the money for a five year investment regardless of when the bond was stopped. 

As a bond holder, my best scenario would have been for us to stay in the championship for five years and get promoted in the fifth year thus getting plenty of interest plus the 25% bonus, but as a fan, obviously wanting to get promoted as soon as possible.   

Complaining because you are a shareholder and take a bigger risk doesn't get any sympathy from me - a bond is a bond and a share is a share and they are different animals.  As a shareholder you can buy or sell shares at any time but a bond holder is tied in for 5 years with no chance of getting that money back for the whole duration.

Anyhow, the main thing for the club was to get investment at a time when borrowing from a bank was not a viable option - and fans who took the risk on the bond - and it could have been a huge risk had we gone down to league 1 and gone into financial meltdown - were rightly rewarded for it.

 

Edited April 18, 2020 by lake district canary

[TIL 1010 4,718]

10 hours ago, essex canary said:

Delighted to hear that some ordinary fans got a look in on Bonds. Nonetheless as a very very generous contributor to the share issue of 18 years ago I am more than a little bit peeved that shareholders get zero promotion bonus compared to bondholders 25%. Current circumstances demonstrate that shareholders ultimately face more risk. The club currently has a director whom I believe has never bought any significant shares with his own money but then puts the same amount of money in bonds for 17 months compared to my 17 years and draws this huge return whilst the bond scheme gets closed unexpectedly and prematurely. This same director then makes negative judgements upon significant shareholders entitlements. To my mind that is not right but it falls on deaf ears at NCFC. 

Ordinary shares do not pay a dividend and never have.

[wcorkcanary 4,329]

1 hour ago, PurpleCanary said:

Delighted to hear that some ordinary fans got a look in on Bonds. Nonetheless as a very very generous contributor to the share issue of 18 years ago I am more than a little bit peeved that shareholders get zero promotion bonus compared to bondholders 25%. Current circumstances demonstrate that shareholders ultimately face more risk. The club currently has a director whom I believe has never bought any significant shares with his own money but then puts the same amount of money in bonds for 17 months compared to my 17 years and draws this huge return whilst the bond scheme gets closed unexpectedly and prematurely. This same director then makes negative judgements upon significant shareholders entitlements. To my mind that is not right but it falls on deaf ears at NCFC. 

 

35 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

Ordinary shares do not pay a dividend and never have.

👍 Gripers gonna gripe

[Badger 2,405]

37 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

Ordinary shares do not pay a dividend and never have.

We were told at the time that there should be no expectation of dividends. We bought the shares because we wanted to, not for financial gain.

[essex canary 491]

To Lake District and TIL. Yes shareholders did sign up for no cash dividend. At the time though there was no sign of intent regarding Bondholders. As a substantial minority shareholder I was not consulted in advance about Bond holding or given any particular priority as befits a loyal customer. Also in 2002 the Share prospectus promised non cash benefits to encourage to retain shares. Now an inheritor holder of 1,000 shares gets only a home membership for their troubles. The Away membership scheme comes across as a way of recovering the excess pay outs on bonds. Fair treatment of all. My opinion is No. 

[Herman 9,711]

4 minutes ago, Badger said:

We were told at the time that there should be no expectation of dividends. We bought the shares because we wanted to, not for financial gain.

This.

I invested fuly in the knowledge I wouldn't get anything back except a financially healthier club.

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

13 minutes ago, wcorkcanary said:

 

👍 Gripers gonna gripe

That quote you've attributed to me was from another poster.

[essex canary 491]

In response to Herman.... and perhaps a healthier football industry which seen through the eyes of our Club has resulted in an increase in Salaries and Wages of 6.6 over the last 18 years compared to 2.1 in gate money yet seeks government handouts at the very first sign of trouble. 

[essex canary 491]

That meant 6.6 fold and 2.1 fold. 

[Badger 2,405]

3 minutes ago, essex canary said:

In response to Herman.... and perhaps a healthier football industry which seen through the eyes of our Club has resulted in an increase in Salaries and Wages of 6.6 over the last 18 years compared to 2.1 in gate money yet seeks government handouts at the very first sign of trouble. 

There are two dimensions to this.

1. Are you suggesting that we should have spent far less on players and their wages in previous years? I may be wrong but can't recall you saying this - it would certainly be a minority view. Most of those outraged that we have taken up the govt's scheme suggested that we should be spending much more?

2. You are opposed to the govt.'s job retention scheme and don't think that businesses should accept the money to try to avert an economic disaster, following on from a medical crisis. You are perfectly entitled to this view, which is towards the very right of the political spectrum, but most moderate people, of all political persuasions and none, feel that protecting peoples' livelihoods and the UK economy moving forwards is a sensible thing to do. The real problem is that the uptake of the scheme will be too low, not too high!

[Herman 9,711]

8 minutes ago, essex canary said:

In response to Herman.... and perhaps a healthier football industry which seen through the eyes of our Club has resulted in an increase in Salaries and Wages of 6.6 over the last 18 years compared to 2.1 in gate money yet seeks government handouts at the very first sign of trouble. 

This is much bigger than "the first sign of trouble". We've had a few of them and is now why we are on our self funding model.

[essex canary 491]

Is it working well? I think we all accept that NCFC face a very big challenge in terms of the Premier League and we all want to see them succeed. Nonetheless our wage spend last season was still £13 million greater than Sheffield United. If we compare this season and last with Burnleys most recent comparator seasons in the Champ and Prem the turnover is the same yet we planned to spend £20 million more on wages. I am not saying we are doing badly but there is scope for saying that we could do better albeit it is very very challenging. On a wider canvass what I would really like to hear is a loudhailer call from Letsbee Avenue saying something like let's cap all footballer salaries at £1 million per year and redistribute the games monies to avoid furloughing at any football clubs operating in national leagues. 

[Badger 2,405]

4 minutes ago, essex canary said:

what I would really like to hear is a loudhailer call from Letsbee Avenue saying something like let's cap all footballer salaries at £1 million per year and redistribute the games monies to avoid furloughing at any football clubs operating in national leagues. 

1. How likely do you think it is that any owner is any of the major football leagues will start such a campaign?

2. Do you think that it should apply to all businesses or only football? Should all the businesses with high salary and wages do the same - entertainment/ top end of banking and industry etc?

[wcorkcanary 4,329]

38 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

That quote you've attributed to me was from another poster.

Yes, apologies,  not quite sure how that happened.  Will try to correct. 

[lake district canary 4,531]

49 minutes ago, essex canary said:

The Away membership scheme comes across as a way of recovering the excess pay outs on bonds.

Don't know how you work that one out. There was no excess payout on the canary bond - and while the away membership scheme seems like a money making exercise, if you could attribute that to anything, it was to make up a shortfall in income due to the reduction in price of away teams's supporters and home casual supporters.

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

12 minutes ago, wcorkcanary said:

Yes, apologies,  not quite sure how that happened.  Will try to correct. 

No need to try to correct. No-one would remotely believe I had broken the happy-clapper habit of a lifetime and criticised the club's hierarchy...😍

[wcorkcanary 4,329]

3 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

Don't know how you work that one out. There was no excess payout on the canary bond - and while the away membership scheme seems like a money making exercise, if you could attribute that to anything, it was to make up a shortfall in income due to the reduction in price of away teams's supporters and home casual supporters.

Well nullified Lakeyo.  Let's not confuse our apples and oranges. The Bond scheme was a successful  ( in my eyes anyway) one off fundraiser...for a specific purpose.   Shouldnt be lumped in with general finances imo.  I didnt like the membership scheme  anyway and due to family commitments wasnt gonna see enough games to make joining worthwhile,  had it stayed a reasonable price I would have joined as usual. No spare cash for bond scheme  but would've if I could've. 

[wcorkcanary 4,329]

3 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

No need to try to correct. No-one would remotely believe I had broken the happy-clapper habit of a lifetime and criticised the club's hierarchy...😍

Good point , by now most are aware which mast our colours are nailed to.

[essex canary 491]

In response to Lake District why should the clubs most loyal supporters, the Away supporters be obliged to make up shortfalls arising from home casuals and other teams away supporters? 

In response to Badger furloughing is clearly vital to organisations with low and medium earners. It will eventually cost the government and taxpayer millions and risk a severe economic depression which is why I believe those organisations or industries that could potentially have scope to avoid it should take a socially responsible decision to do so.