Here Are The Accounts.

[Sufyellow 222]

3 hours ago, Branston Pickle said:

You might need to give a timescale - or is this just another vagueness so you can say ‘I was right all along’ as usual.

Well at least 2 of Sara,  Rowe, Sargent and gun will  go as we will at least need 20 plus million again from player sales to run the club, it will probably be more to cover the debt interest.  

[Capt. Pants 4,271]

I don't know what's more concerning; the level of debt (£94m) or the fact Attanasio thought it was a good idea to loan us the money in the first place. Maybe he was convinced by Webber, or more likely, knows damn well when and how NCFC will pay it back.

 

[paddycanary 539]

1 minute ago, MrBunce said:

More like £95m. £80m of that is due to be repaid this season. Some of that will be repaid from parachute payments and transfer fees. Some will need to be refinanced at potentially higher interest rates.

Cheers Mr Bunce.

I think I was deducting the estimated 30m yet to come in parachute payments from the 95m. I'm sure there are transfer-related instalments both in & out to be considered too, but it's certainly an eye-watering figure for a club our size. But looking at our most recent transfer window, I don't think you need to be an accountant to guess that the well is very much dry at the moment.

Promotion won't be happening this season & it's disheartening to think that any player who shows well this season will most likely be touted to the highest bidder next summer.

The Webber era is drawing to a close. Is the club in a better place compared to his arrival? Looking at the current playing staff & these accounts, you'd have to say no imo, infrastructure notwithstanding. He seemed to perform his best work on a budget, pre-Brexit. The club (luckily?) struck gold with the Buendia/Pukki combo. When the boat was pushed out on player wages, we have ended up here. In fairness, the Webber team have brought in good money when flogging player assets, most of whom were already at the club before his arrival.

In a game of peaks & troughs, it looks like we are knee-deep at the moment. 

A few wins on the pitch though...................!

[king canary 7,653]

1 hour ago, Badger said:

Apparently £70 million is a small gamble! How much should we have borrowed - nobody ever say how much is enough.

I know your a stickler for accuracy old pal, so it's worth noting we didn't spent £70m.

£47m on permanent signings, £14m on loan players according to the 22 accounts and thats before you factor in the money coming in from Buendia. 

[hogesar 9,717]

1 hour ago, Sufyellow said:

So I go back to why did he sack Farke and his coaching staff? Webber obviously thought he had bought good players , he failed badly, and blew everything that we had been building,  he should of went then . 

Well you know why because you've answered it yourself fella!

Webber had just spent more money than the club had ever spent in it's history and a lot of the players came with very good reputations in Europe; Rashica, Tzolis, Gilmour and to a lesser extent Sargent were all well knowns. 

Webber thought a new coach could get more out of them (I don't disagree with that thought process) and having just spent such a huge amount of money thought it was a gamble worth taking.

For what it's worth, I didn't want Farke out at the time. 

1 hour ago, Sufyellow said:

No , we don't have new ownership do we. So far they have zero input and the same people running the club . Oh and Delia gets the final say. 

The new owners have equal input into big decisions like who the Sporting Director or next manager should be.

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,227]

1 hour ago, MrBunce said:

A mixed bag of results (same as last year). Let's deal with what seem to be the four big issues: (i) revenue; (ii) costs; (iii) the debt; and (iv) 'investment' in the playing squad. 

TL:DR: Revenue down due to TV £, other money stable, low growth. Wages down a lot, but still too much. More cost cutting coming. Debt nearly £100m, its a lot and will need refinancing or money borrowing. Cost of squad peaked, less money to be invested in future, club reliant on player sales to keep lights on.

Revenue

Headline revenue fell from £134m in 2022 to £75m in 2023(i.e. nearly £60m). £54m of that fall is due to broadcasting revenue falling. The remainder from commercial income falling (principally catering: £6.1m to £4.2m and sponsorship and advertising: £7.4m to £4.3m).

The revenue of the club is dominated by broadcasting revenues (76% in 2022, 64% in 2023). Try as they might, the club just can't seem to get big growth out of the other revenue generators.

Gate receipts were £10m (only slightly down on the last prem season). However, they are marginally lower than the amount generated in 2015 (£10.7m). The options to improve this are limited: (ruinously?) expensive ground expansion and/or increase in ticket prices (in a cost of living crisis).

Things aren't much better on the commercial front, though there is some growth. Commercial income was £17m, down from £21m. This is up from around £13m in 2015. But it's small growth. Catering income was £4.2m which is around the last 15 year average. Commercial and Sponsorship & Advertising clocked in together at £9.6m, this compares to £8.5m in 2019 (1st Farke promotion season). 

Overall, I would say, slightly disappointing. It's good that the club have managed to keep non-broadcast revenues steady post relegation. However, the club continue to do a lacklustre job in growing that revenue.

Costs

Staff costs more than halved from £118m in the prem to £56m. This is impressive cost control. However, two qualifications. First is that the £118m can only be described (fairly!) as a calamitous overspend. The second is that a significant portion of that seasons wage bill would have been to the four loan players signed that season (Gilmour, Kabak, Williams, Normann).

Other employment costs which includes loan player fees was down from an eye-watering £15m to £2m. This would include the fees for Ramsey, Hayden and Marquinhos. I would assume it would also likely include the compensation (if any) to Dean Smith and his staff (the club have not set out compensation amounts for many years now). So in all, this should be seen as a good result.

Amortisation was steady at £23m and likely reflects a peak as the cost of the playing squad is likely to fall over the next year or two.

Staff costs as a percentage of revenue was down from 88% to 75% which is a positive. However, staff costs plus amortisation (a proxy for the total cost of assembling a squad and putting them on the pitch) was once again above 100% (i.e. it cost more to acquire and pay wages than the club brings in). It's above 100% for the third year in a row and fourth time in five years. It highlights again that club is heavily reliant on player trading to balance the books (or not)...

Debt

By my calculations net debt stands at a whopping £94m up from £65m. One of the key questions in the Attanasio thread was whether the money he's put in was to refinance the parachute payment loans or not. The answer is clearly that it was to plug the gap in last years' finances. As at June 2023, the club had borrowed £36.6m in loans plus the £10m from the C Preference shares. On top of this is the £45m in secured loans (on the parachute payments and transfer fees due). In pure cash terms, the club paid out £5m in net interest last year (£6m on an accounting basis). That is a lot, over £100k a week and roughly 8% of revenue.

I would agree with other posters that the disclosures around the loans from Mr Attanasio are inadequate. From what I've pieced together from various sources these loans predominantly accrue interest at 11% and were due for repayment between June 2023 and February 2024. It would seem likely the club will need to refinance all or part of these loans this season, which may incur further costs and result in even higher interest payments.

On a much smaller note, Delia and Wynn Jones loaned the club c.£900k, the purpose of this loan is not disclosed.

Investment in the squad

The total cost of the playing squad stood at £90m in June 2023. As noted above, this likely reflects a high point and subsequent sales (principally Rashica) will see that figure fall. For the first time in many years (since 2018) the club have reported transfer fees received post-year end (for Omobamidele, Aarons, Raschica and Mumba). These total £21.4m. I can't help but feel the club may have been pushed to include this disclosure again given that (as mentioned above) the club will have to sell players in order to keep the lights on.

Last year the club spent £15m on Sara and Nunez. For this season, the club spent £3.4m (with potential add-ons of £2.4m). That would seem to be mostly for Fassnacht (c.£3m) and a small amount for Fisher. The other transfers being reported as freebies.

The club is on the hook for potentially up to £65m in add-ons if conditions are met. However, on the pitch performance would suggest most of this is unlikely to happen.

A short word on the strategic report

As a chartered accountant, I put little value on the strategic reports that accompany financials as they are usually fluff. However, I wanted to draw attention to and comment on the 'club model' on page 14. This shows a 'virtuous circle', clockwise from top left: better on-pitch performance > enhance[d] club and player profile > increase in player and commercial revenues > increase investment in people and facilities > increase player productivity > develop higher quality players and back around. 

When things are going well the perhaps this model works. But as the wise Ricardo will tell you, the fortune of all football clubs rise and fall. Norwich is a club which over the past two years is on the fall. 

And so the 'virtuous circle' can become a vicious one. Worse on-pitch performance has led to reduced club and player profile this has led to a reduction in player values (think Aarons, Cantwell etc.) and commercial revenues (see above). This will, aside from bringing the beggar bowl to Mr Attanasio a reduction in the amount the club can invest in people and facilities. That may then reduce player productivity and the ability to develop quality players. 

I'm not saying the model is broken. What I will say is that all strategic models need to have contingencies for when things go wrong. The club will need to adapt to its new position (from a club on the rise to a club on the mend). Being somewhat churlish, the club really need to stop wasting time and get on with things.

Excellent Mr Bunce.

Attanasio knows all this. What’s he thinking?

Parma

[hogesar 9,717]

2 hours ago, Monty13 said:

We didn’t just fail at PL level though did we?

We had an ambition to be a top 26 club and we were achieving it and progressing as a club.

Two Championship title wins, the most valuable squad we’ve likely ever had in the modern era, secure finances, an attractive and recognisable playing style, a good manager, improving facilities etc. etc.

Maintaining a cycle of winning the Championship (or promotion) would have been incredibly hard, achieving PL safety even more so. However how far we’ve fallen so quickly is not understandable IMO.

It's not that difficult to understand and many clubs have done the same but fallen further, quicker.

Not that it's an accolade or anything.

[MrBunce 245]

3 hours ago, paddycanary said:

Cheers Mr Bunce.

I think I was deducting the estimated 30m yet to come in parachute payments from the 95m. I'm sure there are transfer-related instalments both in & out to be considered too, but it's certainly an eye-watering figure for a club our size. But looking at our most recent transfer window, I don't think you need to be an accountant to guess that the well is very much dry at the moment.

Promotion won't be happening this season & it's disheartening to think that any player who shows well this season will most likely be touted to the highest bidder next summer.

The Webber era is drawing to a close. Is the club in a better place compared to his arrival? Looking at the current playing staff & these accounts, you'd have to say no imo, infrastructure notwithstanding. He seemed to perform his best work on a budget, pre-Brexit. The club (luckily?) struck gold with the Buendia/Pukki combo. When the boat was pushed out on player wages, we have ended up here. In fairness, the Webber team have brought in good money when flogging player assets, most of whom were already at the club before his arrival.

In a game of peaks & troughs, it looks like we are knee-deep at the moment. 

A few wins on the pitch though...................!

I think that's fair. The budget is going to be very tight this season. You've got the c.£30m in parachute payments going to the lender (pretty much all of it). Another £8m of transfer receipts that will be going out the door. Plus interest on the remaining loans.

On the Webber era, leaving aside the on-pitch success (and failure) there has been a lot more investment in Colney and the training facilities. That is a feather in the cap. But we shouldn't forget that it was the fans that dipped in to their pockets to fund it.

He's had a good record of developing and getting money for our academy players. However, then I think we left a lot on the table when it comes to say Cantwell and Aarons. 

I don't know whether it's 77 players he's signed (mentioned earlier in the thread). However, there are only three players he's signed that we've sold for a profit: Buendia, Omobamidele and Marley Watkins. There's always going to be many players you won't make money on but I think to only make substantial profits on two transfers must be considered poor business. [ @chicken pointed out some mistakes on this - see their post below] 

That's reflected in the financials. I personally think the club is in a significantly worse position financially, though I'm sure others would disagree.

Edited November 4, 2023 by MrBunce
Edit to highlight correction

[Badger 2,407]

14 minutes ago, king canary said:

I know your a stickler for accuracy old pal, so it's worth noting we didn't spent £70m.

£47m on permanent signings, £14m on loan players according to the 22 accounts and thats before you factor in the money coming in from Buendia. 

Obviously we spent a lot more than £70 million! More to the point, according to Mr Bunce we spent £95 million more than we had coming in.

The results show that this wasn't the way to Premier League prosperity that we were promised. In fact, it was a way of leading us into a mess as most financially literate people predicted.

[Monty13 2,241]

36 minutes ago, hogesar said:

It's not that difficult to understand and many clubs have done the same but fallen further, quicker.

Not that it's an accolade or anything.

Sorry I should have been clearer, it’s understandable. That doesn’t mean as supporters we should show understanding, quite the opposite in fact IMO.

[Indy 3,310]

2 hours ago, nutty nigel said:

Thank you @MrBunce Been waiting for that. You're a star.

But he hadn’t referenced any black or white swans, how do you understand all that from mr bounce without the swans? 😂😂👍

[Indy 3,310]

1 hour ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

Excellent Mr Bunce.

Attanasio knows all this. What’s he thinking?

Parma

Indeed some of us pretty much foresaw what MA was thinking, think this might just reinforce that thinking! 
That said what was Webber thinking getting us into this position? Then again he is mr 90% so you get what you pay for I suppose!

[Badger 2,407]

1 hour ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

Excellent Mr Bunce.

Attanasio knows all this. What’s he thinking?

Parma

I imagine he's thinking that he has managed to get a sizeable sports club for a remarkably low price, which in time could see his share price purchases covered by the interest he is charging the club on the loans he gave them.

I'm sure that some on here will hope that he will use his bargain basement purchase price as a justification for another spending spree which will guarantee our Premier league status - but I fear that he is smarter than that!

[By Hook or Ian crook 917]

3 minutes ago, Badger said:

I imagine he's thinking that he has managed to get a sizeable sports club for a remarkably low price, which in time could see his share price purchases covered by the interest he is charging the club on the loans he gave them.

I'm sure that some on here will hope that he will use his bargain basement purchase price as a justification for another spending spree which will guarantee our Premier league status - but I fear that he is smarter than that!

It’s much more likely he will only be the custodian of our club until he gets a suitable price for it from someone with more money. 

[nutty nigel 7,566]

20 minutes ago, Indy said:

But he hadn’t referenced any black or white swans, how do you understand all that from mr bounce without the swans? 😂😂👍

Mr Bunce is a talented PUP. Easy to understand. Arrdee will be well proud.

🙃

[PurpleCanary 5,578]

2 hours ago, Sufyellow said:

No , we don't have new ownership do we. So far they have zero input and the same people running the club . Oh and Delia gets the final say. 

Three things wrong in only 28 words. I think that’s a pink un record. Congratulations!

[Indy 3,310]

10 minutes ago, Badger said:

I imagine he's thinking that he has managed to get a sizeable sports club for a remarkably low price, which in time could see his share price purchases covered by the interest he is charging the club on the loans he gave them.

I'm sure that some on here will hope that he will use his bargain basement purchase price as a justification for another spending spree which will guarantee our Premier league status - but I fear that he is smarter than that!

At present, but everyone isn’t considering the FFP issue about to hit us! We must adjust or we we could be a spot of bother!

[nutty nigel 7,566]

8 minutes ago, Indy said:

At present, but everyone isn’t considering the FFP issue about to hit us! We must adjust or we we could be a spot of bother!

I'm not convinced about that. It doesn't seem an issue from 2022/3  accounts. 2023/24 we also have parachute payments. 24/25 I have no idea. But people may say we could be in league two by then... 

[essex canary 504]

5 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

I'm not convinced about that. It doesn't seem an issue from 2022/3  accounts. 2023/24 we also have parachute payments. 24/25 I have no idea. But people may say we could be in league two by then... 

Amortisation is difficult to swallow.

[Branston Pickle 3,675]

1 hour ago, MrBunce said:

On the Webber era, leaving aside the on-pitch success (and failure) there has been a lot more investment in Colney and the training facilities. That is a feather in the cap. But we shouldn't forget that it was the fans that dipped in to their pockets to fund it.

I don't know whether it's 77 players he's signed (mentioned earlier in the thread). However, there are only three players he's signed that we've sold for a profit: Buendia, Omobamidele and Marley Watkins. There's always going to be many players you won't make money on but I think to only make substantial profits on two transfers must be considered poor business.

Good analysis, but I’m not sure about the bit in bold.  The club did ‘borrow’ the funds but paid it back with interest when promoted, so the club did pay for it in reality. 

The other thing on the 77 transfers is difficult to comment on without context/comparison. In the modern game with players being released/running contracts down, it’s difficult to know; it obviously feels a crappy stat but you need to consider the fact that the current squad (Incl u18/21s) is also presumably included in the total. 

Edited November 4, 2023 by Branston Pickle

[chicken 2,640]

23 hours ago, Davidlingfield said:

You have to love a set of accounts, audited by a p*ss pot audit firm - a cursory glance and you see:

1. In investments note, no mention of subsidiaries actually being liquidated even though it happened in August.

2. “Short term loan” of £39m in creditors<one year with absolutely no explanation in the notes, with same on shareholder/director loan of £37m. So £76m of short term debt not considered material enough to have an explanation.

Maybe there is an explanation elsewhere but that isn’t the point - accounts are meant to be user friendly.

My recommendation would be to cut the bullsh*t in the first part of the accounts and focus on providing a set of Financial Statements that comply with Accounting Standards, are factually correct and provide the reader with some useful information.

These accounts really do sum up the current malaise at the Club!

 

Two queries more than anything else. 

1st, the "August" you bring up, is that Aug '22 or Aug '23. Correct me if I am wrong but these accounts don't cover the period that Aug '23 sits in, those will be in the next report. Again, if you mean, Aug '22 I apologise, but your comment isn't clear.

"User friendly" - if the detail is elsewhere, it doesn't make it not user friendly. It means that the figures etc are in one place so you can have a point of reference to look into more detail elsewhere whilst also having a set of accounts that can be seen "at a glance".

We do know some of the info. Such as MA loaning the club money which I presume is the £37m. The other £39m seems to relate to the loan against known future income - so parachute payments and existing player sales instalments.

I doubt that info wouldn't be elsewhere in the report as we already know it.

[nutty nigel 7,566]

3 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Amortisation is difficult to swallow.

I guess you're saying it's possible the accounts have been manipulated in order to avoid FFP penalties?

[Indy 3,310]

32 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

Mr Bunce is a talented PUP. Easy to understand. Arrdee will be well proud.

🙃

Indeed he is and like you well respected young Nutty, we are lucky to have some fantastic posters mainly Ricardo, GMF, Sheffield & Parma all really knowledgeable and great reads! 

[MrBunce 245]

26 minutes ago, Branston Pickle said:

Good analysis, but I’m not sure about the bit in bold.  The club did ‘borrow’ the funds but paid it back with interest when promoted, so the club did pay for it in reality. 

The other thing on the 77 transfers is difficult to comment on without context/comparison. In the modern game with players being released/running contracts down, it’s difficult to know; it obviously feels a crappy stat but you need to consider the fact that the current squad (Incl u18/21s) is also presumably included in the total. 

I appreciate the riposte. I wasn't saying the club didn't pay for the works (apologies on the double negative), rather the funding came from fans via the Canaries Bond. Whether the work would have happened with alternative funding, I can't say. However, I do recall the club being pretty strapped for cash at the time. I bring it up as I do feel that Norwich fans have time and time again shown they'll back the club with their support through thick and thin in so many ways, including financially. I'm really proud of that. 

On the transfers, it's been discussed a lot of times over various threads so I don't want to relitigate that too much. I think there was a general consensus that the closest comparators in terms of business model were Brentford and Brighton. Two clubs that were competitors of ours for some years. (I'm sorry in advance to the person I'm pinching this off, but I can't remember who it was [see edit below]) It was pointed out that what we were doing was innovative 5 years ago but the world of football has massively caught up. Almost all clubs use sophisticated data analysis today. It's not clear to me how well the club have continued to innovate to keep ahead of the game. 

[edit: the poster in question is @repman and his excellent post in Parma's state of the nation thread]

Edited November 4, 2023 by MrBunce
To give credit where it's due

[Branston Pickle 3,675]

1 minute ago, MrBunce said:

I appreciate the riposte. I wasn't saying the club didn't pay for the works (apologies on the double negative), rather the funding came from fans via the Canaries Bond. Whether the work would have happened with alternative funding, I can't say. However, I do recall the club being pretty strapped for cash at the time. I bring it up as I do feel that Norwich fans have time and time again shown they'll back the club with their support through thick and thin in so many ways, including financially. I'm really proud of that. 

On the transfers, it's been discussed a lot of times over various threads so I don't want to relitigate that too much. I think there was a general consensus that the closest comparators in terms of business model were Brentford and Brighton. Two clubs that were competitors of ours some years. (I'm sorry in advance to the person I'm pinching this off, but I can't remember who it was) It was pointed out that what we were doing was innovative 5 years ago but the world of football has massively caught up. Almost all clubs use sophisticated data analysis today. It's not clear to me how well the club have continued to innovate to keep ahead of the game. 

Oh, I wasn’t disagreeing - we definitely used the Bond to fund the work as we were ‘poor’, on very generous terms (so much so most ‘fans’ didn’t actually get a chance!)

[chicken 2,640]

1 hour ago, MrBunce said:

I think that's fair. The budget is going to be very tight this season. You've got the c.£30m in parachute payments going to the lender (pretty much all of it). Another £8m of transfer receipts that will be going out the door. Plus interest on the remaining loans.

On the Webber era, leaving aside the on-pitch success (and failure) there has been a lot more investment in Colney and the training facilities. That is a feather in the cap. But we shouldn't forget that it was the fans that dipped in to their pockets to fund it.

He's had a good record of developing and getting money for our academy players. However, then I think we left a lot on the table when it comes to say Cantwell and Aarons. 

I don't know whether it's 77 players he's signed (mentioned earlier in the thread). However, there are only three players he's signed that we've sold for a profit: Buendia, Omobamidele and Marley Watkins. There's always going to be many players you won't make money on but I think to only make substantial profits on two transfers must be considered poor business.

That's reflected in the financials. I personally think the club is in a significantly worse position financially, though I'm sure others would disagree.

This is inaccurate IMHO. Especially if you are only considering the price paid and price received.

You missed off Mumba, for starters, who was signed for less than we received for him. Not only this, but he was also loaned out which would have generated further funds. In other cases we may not actually know whether a player was sold for a profit owing to the way in which exact transfer fees are never really disclosed. Sometimes we get give an amount, but are not told whether it is all up front, incl add ons or excluding them etc.

So for example, Bashiri, who was also sent out on loan and then a fee received, may also have landed us money collectively. Matthew Dennis is another example, signed in 2020, loaned out and then sold. 

You also miss off Krul, who we signed on a free, and received a fee for. Zimmermann was also signed on a free and brought in a fee for his transfer. Soto was also signed on a free and sold. Omotoye was another signed at 18 and later sold on. 

Equally, it doesn't account for players not being sold for a profit owing to having been signed in their prime and allowed to leave for little or free but their on the pitch performances contributed to a greater income than their sales would likely raise. Players that would fit that catgory:
- Pukki, signed for free, left for free having been fired us to promotion twice and double figures twice in the premier league. Left age 33. 
- Hanley, one of the first signings for £3m, despite detractors, has been more of an asset than other players we have signed for more than double his fee both prior to and after he signed. Current squad and age 31.
- Vrancic, his contribution to the first two seasons under Farke, esp considering his fee, cannot be underestimated. Even the third he was able to contribute though less of a role. Left when age 32.

Ultimately I think that "profit" needs to be better quantified. If you mean a large sum, then sure. I would also argue though, that the sums we tend to sell for, if we sell 12 U18-23 players for £400k after signing them for free then we are arguably making as much profit, or even more than players we signed, paid bigger wages for and then sold on later for say, £11m.
 

[Sufyellow 222]

2 hours ago, hogesar said:

Well you know why because you've answered it yourself fella!

Webber had just spent more money than the club had ever spent in it's history and a lot of the players came with very good reputations in Europe; Rashica, Tzolis, Gilmour and to a lesser extent Sargent were all well knowns. 

Webber thought a new coach could get more out of them (I don't disagree with that thought process) and having just spent such a huge amount of money thought it was a gamble worth taking.

For what it's worth, I didn't want Farke out at the time. 

The new owners have equal input into big decisions like who the Sporting Director or next manager should be.

Any one with a footballing brain could  see webber bought kids , nowhere near premier league ready. They were all bought for future sales not to keep us up.  He had a manager and coaching team that knew how to get the best out of youngsters, but ditched the plan thinking he had signed better players,  obviously he was badly wrong. I would love to know if it was really true that farke wanted 3 prem ready players,  but Webber decided he wanted more. So no I didn't answer my own question,  and however you spin it , Webber failed so badly,  and now we pay the price. 

[MrBunce 245]

7 minutes ago, chicken said:

This is inaccurate IMHO. Especially if you are only considering the price paid and price received.

You missed off Mumba, for starters, who was signed for less than we received for him. Not only this, but he was also loaned out which would have generated further funds. In other cases we may not actually know whether a player was sold for a profit owing to the way in which exact transfer fees are never really disclosed. Sometimes we get give an amount, but are not told whether it is all up front, incl add ons or excluding them etc.

So for example, Bashiri, who was also sent out on loan and then a fee received, may also have landed us money collectively. Matthew Dennis is another example, signed in 2020, loaned out and then sold. 

You also miss off Krul, who we signed on a free, and received a fee for. Zimmermann was also signed on a free and brought in a fee for his transfer. Soto was also signed on a free and sold. Omotoye was another signed at 18 and later sold on. 

Equally, it doesn't account for players not being sold for a profit owing to having been signed in their prime and allowed to leave for little or free but their on the pitch performances contributed to a greater income than their sales would likely raise. Players that would fit that catgory:
- Pukki, signed for free, left for free having been fired us to promotion twice and double figures twice in the premier league. Left age 33. 
- Hanley, one of the first signings for £3m, despite detractors, has been more of an asset than other players we have signed for more than double his fee both prior to and after he signed. Current squad and age 31.
- Vrancic, his contribution to the first two seasons under Farke, esp considering his fee, cannot be underestimated. Even the third he was able to contribute though less of a role. Left when age 32.

Ultimately I think that "profit" needs to be better quantified. If you mean a large sum, then sure. I would also argue though, that the sums we tend to sell for, if we sell 12 U18-23 players for £400k after signing them for free then we are arguably making as much profit, or even more than players we signed, paid bigger wages for and then sold on later for say, £11m.
 

Thank you calling out that Mumba clanger Chicken! Oh dear. 

But if you'll indulge me being a tad sneaky though, the rest kind of emphasise my point. We're really getting into chicken feed (!) on some of those transfers. I'm pretty sure Dennis for example was a freebie. Though Bushiri was, I recall, an absolute screw up by Hibs who didn't want him but played him too many times and then had to sign him! 

The rest is a fair comment. I made a similar post a few years ago (so really I'm just cheekily reusing old content). I made the same point - that players like Vrancic and Stiepermann etc have been invaluable. 

But. BUT. It is fair to be harsh here. That's because the club's model is predicated on making significant money from player trading. It's been repeated over and over again. Including in this set of accounts! Yet, the record is definitely mixed financially. So I think it is fair to ask - is the model working? 

[Badger 2,407]

1 hour ago, By Hook or Ian crook said:

It’s much more likely he will only be the custodian of our club until he gets a suitable price for it from someone with more money. 

I know he's rumoured to be worth only about £500 million but he has set up an Investment Capital Group managing assets of over $26 billion, so I suspect he has access to capital if he wanted to risk it on a football club if he wanted to risk it. But yes, a quick profit is just as likely.

[chicken 2,640]

2 hours ago, MrBunce said:

What's reflected in the financials. I personally think the club is in a significantly worse position financially, though I'm sure others would disagree.

I think this is debatable really. When Webber arrived we were essentially held at ransom financially, particularly by the wage packages handed to players like Naismith, which in turn forced us to "reset".

One of the two loans is accounted for and has essentially been used as a "forward" or "advance" of known income, this prior to the sales of players last summer, so does not include fees raised there. But parachute payments and previous player sales installments.

The other loan is from MA we believe - which is strange because if you look across these boards, it is exactly what people have been demanding a new owner should be able to do which is stump up the money. Whether this will also be against future player sales or whether this will be used in someway to leverage ownership at a later date who knows, but I think people can at least put down the stick that says that MA wont invest in the club or will back out at any minute.

Equally, at that point we had struggled to sign players like Alderwerald and Halle reportedly due to the 'facilities'. Folks like to consider them as unrelated to the performances on the pitch, however, things like player recruitment and even player rehabilitation ahead of schedule may well be down to those too. Whilst they don't appear as such on a financial sheet I don't think they can be ignored. Especially when we have seen a number of 16-20yr olds signed for free, developed by us and then sold on - even if for £100k or so.

Again, it is building a reputation for players such as the Man City striker to be brought in on. Along with Sainz and other younger, up-coming players - throw Nunez and Sara into that hat too.