Here Are The Accounts.

[Indy 3,332]

3 minutes ago, Badger said:

It will be in the accounts as revenue.

Thanks Badger, But the set is so high! It doesn’t add up! Must just be me, I don’t have full access just bits sent to me! So how have we built up such debt! Doesn’t bode well for next season! 

Edited November 3, 2023 by Indy

[vos 155]

2 hours ago, Capt. Pants said:

So our £27.2m loss is primarily caused by player purchases?

Happy with that, every fan should want that!

Sorry Capt your reasoning is not correct and your ship is in danger of being relegated to the depths. Player purchasers are capital expenditure i.e. IF you had 50 m cash and spent 20m on players then you are just swapping one asset (cash) for another (players). So the true calculation of the loss in millions is quite straightforward as follows:

Income                                                 80

Wages                                                  56

Operating Expenses                          18

Amortisation and Depreciation       26       (includes loss on players sold)

Interest Charges                                  7

Total Outgoings                               107                               

LOSS                                                   27

Any normal business would have to rectify this quickly to continue trading but as we all know football clubs live in a different world.

[king canary 7,695]

Just now, Indy said:

But the set is so high! It doesn’t add up! Must just be me, I don’t have full access just bits sent to me! So how have we built up such debt! Doesn’t bode well for next season! 

My understanding is we already took out a £66m loan against those parachute payments which may explain some of it.

[Indy 3,332]

Just now, king canary said:

My understanding is we already took out a £66m loan against those parachute payments which may explain some of it.

Yes thanks Kingo! But it doesn’t look good for next season and we then need to be in line with the FFP Rules!

[By Hook or Ian crook 923]

41 minutes ago, Capt. Pants said:

So in terms of the headline numbers are these results good or bad? I've scan read Zoe's notes but can't pick out a relevant comment. 

To make a £27.2m pre tax loss on £75.6m turnover is worrying as next year's turnover will be even less?

 Extremely mismanaged. Very concerning indeed. 

[Badger 2,413]

1 minute ago, Indy said:

Thanks Badger, But the set is so high! It doesn’t add up! Must just be me, I don’t have full access just bits sent to me! So how have we built up such debt! Doesn’t bode well for next season! 

Same, I haven't seen the full accounts either. I'm on my phone and my eyesight isn't up to following accounts on it! 😄

[Davidlingfield 64]

Just now, By Hook or Ian crook said:

 Extremely mismanaged. Very concerning indeed. 

But not a surprise, surely??

[By Hook or Ian crook 923]

Just now, Davidlingfield said:

But not a surprise, surely??

Anything but. 

[Badger 2,413]

1 minute ago, By Hook or Ian crook said:

 Extremely mismanaged. Very concerning indeed. 

I think most of the loss is on amortization, rather than an operating loss. Too ambitious in the transfer market, I guess?

 

[Indy 3,332]

2 minutes ago, Badger said:

Same, I haven't seen the full accounts either. I'm on my phone and my eyesight isn't up to following accounts on it! 😄

Yes thanks matey, I’m trying to make sense and project forward from that limited info! It looks worrisome or great for next year depending on your point of view, ( if your MA looks like it will be NCFC bought on the cheap) so it’s a very pivotal season this year! I’m glad I’m just an armchair supporter with an interest! Again thanks for the overview badger appreciated.

[By Hook or Ian crook 923]

You’ll have to bear with me as I’m rounding and making some assumptions…….So we spent a shade under 48 million on wages. That averaged out over the 370 employees would mean an average salary of a share under 130k a year. Of those 370 employees 204 are non football related assume match day related and security. There’s 23 home league games so some fag packet maths would mean those 204 staff earning a total of 470k based on the living wage and them being paid an 8 hour shift for match days. That would leave £47.5 million to be split between 161 football staff at an average of 295k a year or roughly £5600 a week each for 161 people. 

[By Hook or Ian crook 923]

8 minutes ago, Badger said:

I think most of the loss is on amortization, rather than an operating loss. Too ambitious in the transfer market, I guess?

 

Too ambitious? We’ve only brought in Sara and Nunez haven’t we? Two unproven players at this level at the time both massive gambles. 
 

there is absolutely nothing ambitious about the people in charge of our club. We will be getting the old prudence with ambition line out next. 

[Badger 2,413]

4 minutes ago, Indy said:

Yes thanks matey, I’m trying to make sense and project forward from that limited info! It looks worrisome or great for next year depending on your point of view, ( if your MA looks like it will be NCFC bought on the cheap) so it’s a very pivotal season this year! I’m glad I’m just an armchair supporter with an interest! Again thanks for the overview badger appreciated.

From what I have gleaned, we seen to be in the position that I have argued against ever since I've posted on this board. That is, in debt  and dependent upon the goodwill of an owner.

The majority of posters on here have been arguing  for this, so it is surprising to see some now moaning about it!

[Badger 2,413]

3 minutes ago, By Hook or Ian crook said:

 

there is absolutely nothing ambitious about the people in charge of our club. We will be getting the old prudence with ambition line out next. 

I don't want to get into an extended dialogue about it, but the reason we find ourselves in debt if because we paid too much in wages, and spend too much on transfers.

Gambled on staying up? Going for it? It is what many posters have argued for!

[Indy 3,332]

2 minutes ago, Badger said:

From what I have gleaned, we seen to be in the position that I have argued against ever since I've posted on this board. That is, in debt  and dependent upon the goodwill of an owner.

The majority of posters on here have been arguing  for this, so it is surprising to see some now moaning about it!

Trouble with that is look at the squad! I sort of support the argument for that good willl to build on our younger better players, we needed this four seasons ago when we had Buendia and Skipp, has we had the chance of keeping Buendia and buying in Skipp the premier season who knows now it’s just firefighting with an really poor old squad! 

[Capt. Pants 4,318]

13 minutes ago, vos said:

Sorry Capt your reasoning is not correct and your ship is in danger of being relegated to the depths. Player purchasers are capital expenditure i.e. IF you had 50 m cash and spent 20m on players then you are just swapping one asset (cash) for another (players). So the true calculation of the loss in millions is quite straightforward as follows:

Income                                                 80

Wages                                                  56

Operating Expenses                          18

Amortisation and Depreciation       26       (includes loss on players sold)

Interest Charges                                  7

Total Outgoings                               107                               

LOSS                                                   27

Any normal business would have to rectify this quickly to continue trading but as we all know football clubs live in a different world.

Thanks Vos, I never have understood amortisation and just latched onto the term 'player trading'.

I guess you could blame Webber for the loss then as his responsibility is player trading 😀Although if he/we sell Sara and Rowe before June 24 it may help for next year.

 

 

[Badger 2,413]

1 minute ago, Indy said:

Trouble with that is look at the squad! I sort of support the argument for that good willl to build on our younger better players, we needed this four seasons ago when we had Buendia and Skipp, has we had the chance of keeping Buendia and buying in Skipp the premier season who knows now it’s just firefighting with an really poor old squad! 

I suspect that this year (last premier season) is where a lot of the debt stems from. 

[Channon’s Windmill 343]

3 hours ago, king canary said:

I think those make sense. The expectation is we'll get more from Omo and Aarons based on clauses I think.

Does suggest the idea we recouped most of our spend on Rashica wasn't strictly true.

Hope it’s not based on Omos appearances for Forrest. Has he actually made the bench yet?

[Channon’s Windmill 343]

2 hours ago, Capt. Pants said:

That presumably includes Smith, Shakey, Wagner and Buhler and Webber as well?

The food outlay for the first two would have been significant.

[Badger 2,413]

1 minute ago, Channon’s Windmill said:

Hope it’s not based on Omos appearances for Forrest. Has he actually made the bench yet?

He hardly played for us either!

[Capt. Pants 4,318]

4 minutes ago, Badger said:

I don't want to get into an extended dialogue about it, but the reason we find ourselves in debt if because we paid too much in wages, and spend too much on transfers.

Gambled on staying up? Going for it? It is what many posters have argued for!

Indeed. If you stop thinking as an accountant then as a fan you can't moan too much. 

[Indy 3,332]

2 minutes ago, Badger said:

I suspect that this year (last premier season) is where a lot of the debt stems from. 

I can’t see that, more the first championship season. We realigned the premier season before last summer. But who knows!

[Bert 236]

Would be good to get a properly qualified accountant to give us some comments on the results rather than the back of a fag packet efforts so far 

[nutty nigel 7,656]

An accountant would know what's in the last two financial reports.

[essex canary 515]

4 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

An accountant would know what's in the last two financial reports.

The real damage was done the previous year in spending £118 million on Wages and £50 million on new players. The amortisation hit on the latter and the summer sales deferred to next year's accounts are why rhe £27 million deficit looks bad. At least the wages now down to £56 million looks encouraging.

[nutty nigel 7,656]

Just now, essex canary said:

The real damage was done the previous year in spending £118 million on Wages and £50 million on new players. The amortisation hit on the latter and the summer sales deferred to next year's accounts are why rhe £27 million deficit looks bad. At least the wages now down to £56 million looks encouraging.

Thank you.

27m rings a bell from last year for some reason. Or perhaps it's tinnitus...

[Badger 2,413]

3 minutes ago, essex canary said:

 

At least the wages now down to £56 million looks encouraging.

I don't want to be negative but in the last non-parachute year we weren't saddled with debt. 

[nutty nigel 7,656]

These accounts aren't from the last season of parachute payments.

[essex canary 515]

1 minute ago, Badger said:

I don't want to be negative but in the last non-parachute year we weren't saddled with debt. 

That is why there is damage. As others have implied there isn't any way of paying off MA other than selling any prized assets we have left. The only positivity is that we can get Wages down to more realistic Championship levels.

[essex canary 515]

1 minute ago, nutty nigel said:

These accounts aren't from the last season of parachute payments.

Correct. That is this season. I believe at 45% of PL income level relative to 55% in these accounts.