Annual Report

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

2 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

The annual report of 2021 lists Michael Foulger as holding 98,200 shares and this year 18,200 so looks like MA has purchase 80,000 of his shares and not all.

Wonder if he'd like to leave some to his son? (and other kids, if he has any)

[TIL 1010 4,748]

18 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

Wonder if he'd like to leave some to his son? (and other kids, if he has any)

Yes he has.

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,220]

The timing of transfer payments - particularly the portions paid or received up front - are hugely important in understanding the relative position.

Furthermore Statutory accounts can easily be considered as an 18 month old Polaroid snapshot of events, as opposed to ‘live feed’ Management Accounts. 

Some comparisons can of course be made vs previous (equally outdated) versions of the statutory accounts, though it takes little to distort impressions given.  
 

The Buendia transfer - for example - was made more attractive to us via Villa’s willingness to provide significant up front payments, typical transfer fees are amortised across the length of contracts. Contingent performance liabilities and bonus payments can be significant and must be prepared for, naturally ‘freeing’ fund when not achieved (though of course then you typically do not have performance success and lose in other ways).

Smaller clubs like Norwich thus typically load their contracts and player incentives with very high wage opportunities in the top tier and 50% wage cuts upon relegation. £50k+ to c£25k is a reasonable guide. Top tier Loan players can often be paid more - depending on the up front loan fee percentage of the deal (if there is one). This is all quite sensible. 

Norwich also pushed Buendia’s win into last year and ‘took the hit’ on ‘player trading losses’ this year (again, saying ‘year’ is a little deceptive as selling Buendia upon promotion is odd and loading transfer costs onto a first relegation year ‘sensible’ in terms of presentation, asssuming that Norwich could spread it equally across the lifetime of (say) Sara’s contract. They may choose to do it now, when Premier payments are good, rather be left with it later when parachute payments may be thin or non-existent. 

Thus cash management is key and the Statutory Accounts are not necessarily very reflective of general patterns (which some are trying to attribute).

Norwich’s approach is really quite sensible in that context, though the specific decisions on player trading and how to cut the cake is a different issue. 

Parma

post script: for those that are really interested, it is this ‘multiple scenario planning’ that has seen the club recruit more and more forecasters. 

Edited October 17, 2022 by Parma Ham's gone mouldy

[priceyrice 123]

54 minutes ago, chicken said:

Not sure this is 100% accurate, in that I believe the £15m is for "loan fees". So not just wages, but the fee for the loans too. Fahrman, for example, was rumoured to have cost us £2m though that was cancelled so I am guessing we didn't pay the entire amount but that is an indication.

Roughly speaking, give or take, that loan fee for each plus £40k pw (roughly £2m per year) for each, brings you to around £16m. Obviously that's just extrapolating Fahrmans arrangement and we know that Gilmour, for example, incurred us fees when he wasn't played. We also heard rumours that Williams is on a fair whack at Man Utd. I think you can see what I am getting at though. 
 

Sorry haven't read through the whole thread but re the loan fees I belive this is just the cost if the loan, the wages will be included in the wages figure. This is what the pinkun article suggests and aligns with what I heard before about paying 5m loan fee for Kabak. 

[GMF 744]

37 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

The annual report of 2021 lists Michael Foulger as holding 98,200 shares and this year 18,200 so looks like MA has purchased 80,000 of his shares and not all.

Something doesn’t look right here.

[TIL 1010 4,748]

1 minute ago, GMF said:

Something doesn’t look right here.

I noted that Gary which made me dig out the annual repoirt of 2021 and it clearly states MF as holding 98,200 ordinary shares

[GMF 744]

5 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

I noted that Gary which made me dig out the annual repoirt of 2021 and it clearly states MF as holding 98,200 ordinary shares

MF has had 98,200 for ages, and may well still have had that number at 30 June. Either it’s a typo and both the 2021 and 2022 figures were still 98,200 (especially as I thought the deal still hadn’t happened at year end) or your presumption is correct, but the 2021 figure is wrong in the current accounts. 

Edited October 17, 2022 by GMF
Typo

[shefcanary 2,409]

4 hours ago, A Load of Squit said:

What would the lead time be on 76 page glossy brochure, it must've been produced before Mr Attanasio was confirmed as a Director.

Thr basic layout would have been in place with the design company and the finance and marketing teams before the year-end, including all the comparative numbers in place, all the accounting policies, plus placeholders for the various narrative reports with the various images slotted in. I'm assuming when the management accounts were produced in July, the narrative reports were first drafted then. However, until the audit was complete, I doubt these were shared widely, probably just between the executive board, senior finance and marketing managers. Only when the numbers were audited and signed off verbally by the auditors would the report be shared more widely, I would expect only in the middle of last week earliest. From my experience Board sign off of such things is usually done on the hoof and a constant source of frustration to those non-exec directors who will have next to no say in them!

So I expect Attanasio probably only got to see them over the weekend!

[shefcanary 2,409]

2 hours ago, king canary said:

Really struggle to get my head around this number.

I'm assuming it is more than just player wages but £118m seems absurdly high all things considered.

And people still question where all the money goes! 🤦‍♂️

[TIL 1010 4,748]

20 minutes ago, GMF said:

MF has had 98,200 for ages, and may well still have had that number at 30 June. Either it’s a typo and both the 2021 and 2022 figures were still 98,200 (especially as I thought the deal still hadn’t happened at year end) or your presumption is correct, but the 2021 figure is wrong in the current accounts. 

Not disagreeing with any of that Gary but my assumption was based on him being up for re appointment at the AGM .

[shefcanary 2,409]

1 hour ago, Petriix said:

They really should be paid on performance though. Previously we structured our contracts with a heavy emphasis on bonuses over basic wages. 

If we had stayed up, the performance bonuses would probably have increased that £91m salary figure to £125m (i'm expecting an average bonus payment for staying up as £1m per player / coach - you may mock but that is the ball park at the moment). That is what the EPL has brought us to! These accounts are another nail in the coffin of our support wanting promotion. 

[shefcanary 2,409]

1 hour ago, PurpleCanary said:

Just to add, total wage costs as a percentage of turnover were 88 per cent, against 116 per cent in the Championship season.

Purp's, the comparative did include promotional bonuses (pure speculation on my part but expect those to have been around £20m), which would have knocked the percentage back down towards the 70% mark the EFL is targeting as a maximum and which the club stated they were budgeting to.  

[GMF 744]

5 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

Not disagreeing with any of that Gary but my assumption was based on him being up for re appointment at the AGM .

They have to retire and be reappointed by rotation and it’s obviously MF’s turn this year, even though he’s already given us a heads up that he’s off next summer. His shareholding is almost irrelevant in that respect, but you would at least hope that the club would get it right! 

[Petriix 2,835]

1 hour ago, chicken said:

Yes. He does. If you are claiming we paid over the odds for rubbish players, you need to establish what the odds were. As in, comparables. Petriix claimed they were on "high wages" - that needs to be evidenced or everyone has to just assume it to be wrong and just another BS hyperbole post failing to understand how modern football works.

Asking for empirical evidence for a simple (subjective) inference is pretty ridiculous but let me spell it out for you:

Objectively our wage budget is somewhere above the lowest in the Premier League. I'm led to believe that the lowest was around the £60M mark with at least 5 clubs below our reported £90M. Figures for this aren't totally reliable as many wildly different numbers are thrown around (just do a quick Google).

Subjectively, having an average Premier League wage budget is somewhat incredible given our poor outcome. Objectively we came bottom of the league. Subjectively our players were the worst in the league.

Average Premier League wages are 'high'. I was under the impression that we were offering way below typical Premier League wages. I was clearly wrong about that and I find it highly alarming. I don't see what's so hard to comprehend about that or what evidence would add to the debate.

For added clarity: I'm very much of the opinion that we shouldn't be spending anywhere near what other clubs do. We shouldn't be ripping up our system, selling our best players or sacking our manager. 

We seem to have blown the things that set us apart from everyone else. That's immensely disappointing, especially in the context of our failures on the pitch. 

[shefcanary 2,409]

35 minutes ago, GMF said:

MF has had 98,200 for ages, and may well still have had that number at 30 June. Either it’s a typo and both the 2021 and 2022 figures were still 98,200 (especially as I thought the deal still hadn’t happened at year end) or your presumption is correct, but the 2021 figure is wrong in the current accounts. 

Could it be that the 80,000 were in the control of the family trust, not Foulger himself?

[GMF 744]

12 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

Could it be that the 80,000 were in the control of the family trust, not Foulger himself?

Possibly, but they’ve always been careful to previously refer to MF having control of the beneficial interest in the 98,200 shares (the voting rights) rather than the full legal rights.

Of course, your comment could also still be true but you would have thought that there might be an explanation, no? 

[shefcanary 2,409]

Just now, GMF said:

Possibly, but they’ve always been careful to previously refer to MF having control of the beneficial interest in the 98,200 shares (the voting rights) rather than the full legal rights.

Of course, your comment could also still be true but you would have thought that there might be an explanation, no? 

Yeah, one suspects either last year's accounts were wrong, or this year's are, but for whatever reason the numbers are printed without explanation. It's bad form of the auditors - something for the AGM?

[Badger 2,405]

2 hours ago, shefcanary said:

And people still question where all the money goes! 🤦‍♂️

Yes, but it is a well-known "fact" that we only pay a pittance in wages - cf all the threads on this last year 🤷‍♂️

[Badger 2,405]

2 hours ago, Petriix said:

Objectively our wage budget is somewhere above the lowest in the Premier League. I'm led to believe that the lowest was around the £60M mark with at least 5 clubs below our reported £90M. Figures for this aren't totally reliable as many wildly different numbers are thrown around (just do a quick Google).

In addition, I think that it is pretty likely that the wagers would have been higher if we had stayed up - there was almost certainly performance related bonuses.

[hogesar 9,674]

I think at the very least we can put to bed the idea that fans who in previous years claimed they would be happy if we just 'showed a bit of ambition' and 'spent a bit more' and 'took a bit of a risk' - most certainly would not be happy.

[Davidlingfield 63]

27 minutes ago, Badger said:

Yes, but it is a well-known "fact" that we only pay a pittance in wages - cf all the threads on this last year 🤷‍♂️

Not a pittance to Zoe Webber/Ward. £200k not bad for 3 and a half months.

I shudder to think how much her husband earns?

[ricardo 7,395]

11 minutes ago, hogesar said:

I think at the very least we can put to bed the idea that fans who in previous years claimed they would be happy if we just 'showed a bit of ambition' and 'spent a bit more' and 'took a bit of a risk' - most certainly would not be 

They would be happy if the risk paid off but would quietly disappear if it didn't.

[hogesar 9,674]

8 minutes ago, ricardo said:

They would be happy if the risk paid off but would quietly disappear if it didn't.

I think we would all be happy if the risk paid off though!

[essex canary 496]

5 hours ago, TIL 1010 said:

Page 26 states ' The club is committed to a robust consultative process with its supporters '.

I can think of someone who will be along to disagree with that. 😂

 

It stated that last year too.

It is just a question of when a 'commitment" becomes a 'reality'? 

Perhaps the 12th. of never?

 

[sgncfc 1,228]

Changing the subject slightly, what's all this about "donating your shareholder dividend to the CSF"? What dividend? Are they planning to pay a dividend to us mere mortals?

[essex canary 496]

23 minutes ago, sgncfc said:

Changing the subject slightly, what's all this about "donating your shareholder dividend to the CSF"? What dividend? Are they planning to pay a dividend to us mere mortals?

When the Club has got a £45 million loan outstanding at the year end to more or less cover the INCREASE in wages paid out in the year.

Maybe Liz Truss has been engaged as a financial adviser?

[essex canary 496]

1 hour ago, Davidlingfield said:

Not a pittance to Zoe Webber/Ward. £200k not bad for 3 and a half months.

I shudder to think how much her husband earns?

Do we know if this is the 3.5 month figure? If so I agree that this is madness.

[Davidlingfield 63]

3 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Do we know if this is the 3.5 month figure? If so I agree that this is madness.

Yep - appointed as Director on 18th March 2022 so from then until 30th June 2022

[essex canary 496]

2 minutes ago, Davidlingfield said:

Yep - appointed as Director on 18th March 2022 so from then until 30th June 2022

A reasonable assumption but perhaps Note 7 should explicitly clarify though it doesn't.

[Davidlingfield 63]

1 minute ago, essex canary said:

A reasonable assumption but perhaps Note 7 should explicitly clarify though it doesn't.

It’s not an assumption - it is fact. She is the only executive director and requirement is to report earnings whilst a director. So it is definitely period from 18th March - 30 June only.