Jump to content
Note to existing users - password reset is required Read more... ×
Sign in to follow this  
BroadstairsR

Interesting financial breakdown

Recommended Posts

 

of the finances for all PL teams in the Times today.

 

 photo over_zps02d74a92.jpg

 photo turover2_zpse5e03674.jpg

 photo TO3_zps8e66a4b4.jpg

 

A very healthy outlook for NCFC, especially as the debt will be paid off soon.

 

Our wages to T/O percentage is the lowest in the whole league and only rivalled by Manchester United with their massive turnover.

 

Two others of interest:

 

 photo QPR_zps80728a99.jpg

  

To show the whole league would take all day unfortunately.

 

It was, however difficult to discern just where these figures came from even from reading the relevant article, which will need magnifying.

 

 photo Article_zps25f97e9e.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[URL=http://s1063.photobucket.com/user/roysome2/media/Lasttry_zps17ca77d7.jpg.html][IMG]http://i1063.photobucket.com/albums/t515/roysome2/Lasttry_zps17ca77d7.jpg[/IMG][/URL]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting stuff!And with financial fair play rules starting next season, it appears our prudent approach will stand us in good stead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks.  I''d be interested in the figures for Southampton and Reading too.  I''ll try and have a look at the paper.

 

I am so glad QPR are going down thus proving the game isn''t totally dominated by football.

 

I thought the FFP rules are only relevant to European competitions ?  Is there any domestic sanction ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Third go:

Circle-graph:

Dark green = matchday

Mid-green = broadcasting

Light green = commercial.

 

A bit of a cock up on the catering front (mine, not the Club''s) as the Times is not always the easiest to copy from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Its Character Forming"]

Thanks.  I''d be interested in the figures for Southampton and Reading too.  I''ll try and have a look at the paper.

 

I am so glad QPR are going down thus proving the game isn''t totally dominated by football.

 

I thought the FFP rules are only relevant to European competitions ?  Is there any domestic sanction ?

[/quote]Sam Allardyce was on SSN last night bleating that because of the new rules it looks like he won''t be able to sign Andy Carroll from Liverpool on a permanent deal.So, without actually knowing myself, I am assuming so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good point Morty, I didn''t know this (from the FA website in February).  I can understand the bit about losses but don''t know what the short-term cost control thing actually means :

Long-Term Sustainability Regulation

From the 2013/14 season Premier League clubs cannot make a loss in excess of £105m aggregated across seasons 2013/14, 2014/15 and 2015/16.

Any club that makes a loss up to that limit will be subject to a tighter regulatory regime that includes:

- Secure owner funding for three years ahead- Increased future financial information over the next three seasons.

Short-Term Cost Control Measure

Premier League clubs are restricted in terms the amount of increased PL Central Funds that can be used to increase current player wage costs to the tune of:

2013/14: £4m2014/14: £8m2015/16: £12m

The Short Term Cost Control measure applies only to clubs with a player wage bill in excess of £52m in 2013/14, £56m in 2014/15 and £60m in 2015/16.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Its Character Forming"]

Good point Morty, I didn''t know this (from the FA website in February).  I can understand the bit about losses but don''t know what the short-term cost control thing actually means :

Long-Term Sustainability Regulation

From the 2013/14 season Premier League clubs cannot make a loss in excess of £105m aggregated across seasons 2013/14, 2014/15 and 2015/16.

Any club that makes a loss up to that limit will be subject to a tighter regulatory regime that includes:

- Secure owner funding for three years ahead- Increased future financial information over the next three seasons.

Short-Term Cost Control Measure

Premier League clubs are restricted in terms the amount of increased PL Central Funds that can be used to increase current player wage costs to the tune of:

2013/14: £4m2014/14: £8m2015/16: £12m

The Short Term Cost Control measure applies only to clubs with a player wage bill in excess of £52m in 2013/14, £56m in 2014/15 and £60m in 2015/16.

[/quote]I have no idea what all that means either lol!But Sam was pretty sure that the new rules make the deal impossible.So I am assuming its something to do with the relation between Carrols wages, and West Ham''s turnover, or their debt.And it pleases me greatly that our club has seen this coming and tightened up its finances, we could really gain from this new ruling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Its Character Forming"]

Thanks.  I''d be interested in the figures for Southampton and Reading too.  I''ll try and have a look at the paper.

 

I am so glad QPR are going down thus proving the game isn''t totally dominated by football.

 

I thought the FFP rules are only relevant to European competitions ?  Is there any domestic sanction ?

[/quote]

 

Very briefly and very roughly, domestically PL clubs are limited to  a total loss over three years of £105m. If a club''s wage bill is over a certain limit (between £50m and £60m a year) then it will be limited to an increase in that bill per annum of only £4m. The UEFA rules, which are different, apply to any Pl clubs wanting to play in Europe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What this all actually adds up to is a big pat on the back for David Mcnally and the board.I fa supposed "bigger" club than Norwich such as West Ham are now saying they can''t afford to sign players, and we can, then it shows we have gone about things in the right way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree, it''s very good news that our club is financially in such a good position.

 

Basically it limits how much money a rich owner can pour into the club, like Chelsea or Man City.  Although a loss of £105m over 3 years will still allow for a fair amount !  I think Man City were trying to get around this when they signed the sponsorship deal for their stadium with their owner.

 

It does mean clubs with more football revenue will have their dominance entrenched, with the Champions League and Sky money being crucial, plus clubs like Man U that can get in more revenue from merchandising.

 

But the West Ham example is a good one - with attendances not much above ours, and a similar profile for merchandising I''d have thought, it means they will find it harder to outspend us.

 

I can see a scenario where a "big" club that expects Champions League revenue, misses out one year and goes into a downward spiral because of this (no parachute payments for the CL!).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What West Ham are saying is that they have potential subsidies from their benefactors which will enable them to spend at least 105m more than us over the next 3 years. PL FFP is a complete misnomer - it should be called financial non fair play status quo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is West Ham''s breakdown for those unable to get the link:-

 

 

 photo Spam_zps090793a0.jpg

 

Every aspect shows our own up for the health that it is, particularly the wages to turnover ratio which will be important when adhering to FFP rules when they become fully uimplemented.

 

It also highlights the increasing pressures on Championship sides who have no such major input from broadcasting but need to invest quite heavily in players and higher earners if they are to stand any chance of  coming up.

 

Last week the ITFC books showed all this by highlighting a wages/turnover ratio of over 100% and a massive loss for the year which was largely due to a failed investment in high earners such as Jimmy Bullard.

 

The gap gets wider and we just need to hang on in there by whatever means possible.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="T"]What West Ham are saying is that they have potential subsidies from their benefactors which will enable them to spend at least 105m more than us over the next 3 years. PL FFP is a complete misnomer - it should be called financial non fair play status quo.[/quote]

 

I was going to post something similar! These limits do not create anything like a level playing field. At a sort-of tangent, The Guardian is reporting that QPR have taken out a £15m loan with Barclays. This is a first for the regime there, and looks odd, given how much money the Mittals in particular have. It might (or might not) be a sign that they have decided to stop bankrolling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="morty"]What this all actually adds up to is a big pat on the back for David Mcnally and the board.I fa supposed "bigger" club than Norwich such as West Ham are now saying they can''t afford to sign players, and we can, then it shows we have gone about things in the right way.

[/quote]

I would caveat that by saying a big pat on the back for Mcnally and gthe board IF we stay up. It could be argued that by having the lowest wages as a % of turnover ration we are placing ourselves at a disadvantage. Its obviously a balance though. The next month will show if they have got the balance spot on or perhaps should have taken a bit more of a calculated risk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

[quote user="T"]What West Ham are saying is that they have potential subsidies from their benefactors which will enable them to spend at least 105m more than us over the next 3 years. PL FFP is a complete misnomer - it should be called financial non fair play status quo.[/quote]

 

I was going to post something similar! These limits do not create anything like a level playing field. At a sort-of tangent, The Guardian is reporting that QPR have taken out a £15m loan with Barclays. This is a first for the regime there, and looks odd, given how much money the Mittals in particular have. It might (or might not) be a sign that they have decided to stop bankrolling.

[/quote]But surely it is a small step towards making it a slightly more level playing field?(I accept the playing field will truly never be level)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Jim Smith"][quote user="morty"]What this all actually adds up to is a big pat on the back for David Mcnally and the board.I fa supposed "bigger" club than Norwich such as West Ham are now saying they can''t afford to sign players, and we can, then it shows we have gone about things in the right way.

[/quote]

I would caveat that by saying a big pat on the back for Mcnally and gthe board IF we stay up. It could be argued that by having the lowest wages as a % of turnover ration we are placing ourselves at a disadvantage. Its obviously a balance though. The next month will show if they have got the balance spot on or perhaps should have taken a bit more of a calculated risk.[/quote]Even if we don''t go up we are in an extremely good financial position.I would have confidence in being able to afford to keep our bigger players were we relegated, if they want to stay obviously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Jim Smith"][quote user="morty"]What this all actually adds up to is a big pat on the back for David Mcnally and the board.I fa supposed "bigger" club than Norwich such as West Ham are now saying they can''t afford to sign players, and we can, then it shows we have gone about things in the right way.

[/quote]

I would caveat that by saying a big pat on the back for Mcnally and gthe board IF we stay up. It could be argued that by having the lowest wages as a % of turnover ration we are placing ourselves at a disadvantage. Its obviously a balance though. The next month will show if they have got the balance spot on or perhaps should have taken a bit more of a calculated risk.[/quote]

 

Jim, we would need to be in the boardroom to  know, but I wouldn''t blame McNally for relegation if we have erred on the side of caution over player wages, unless we have been absurdly cautious. The mistake, and this applies whether we stay up or not, was in not spending the money made available in January on players whose transfer fees AND wages we could afford in order to strengthen a squad already showing signs of  creaking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="morty"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]

[quote user="T"]What West Ham are saying is that they have potential subsidies from their benefactors which will enable them to spend at least 105m more than us over the next 3 years. PL FFP is a complete misnomer - it should be called financial non fair play status quo.[/quote]

 

I was going to post something similar! These limits do not create anything like a level playing field. At a sort-of tangent, The Guardian is reporting that QPR have taken out a £15m loan with Barclays. This is a first for the regime there, and looks odd, given how much money the Mittals in particular have. It might (or might not) be a sign that they have decided to stop bankrolling.

[/quote]But surely it is a small step towards making it a slightly more level playing field?(I accept the playing field will truly never be level)[/quote]

 

Yes. A small step...[:D]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Its Character Forming"]

Agree, it''s very good news that our club is financially in such a good position.

 

Basically it limits how much money a rich owner can pour into the club, like Chelsea or Man City. 

[/quote]

How do you arrive at this conclusion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are of course ways of complying with the rules like the huge deal for etihad naming the stadium. Some are good for the game.

Al Fayed at Fulham has got round the debt rule by changing his £220 million debt into shares. That leaves Fulham with a much stronger balance sheet and means that the club has the money and his investment is now shares

Expect to see more of these kinds of deals eg at QPR. The owner becomes that and not a lender who can walk away and call in his debt.

Good news for club stability

I wonder if Marcus Evans is paying attention?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Rock The Boat"][quote user="Its Character Forming"]

Agree, it''s very good news that our club is financially in such a good position.

Basically it limits how much money a rich owner can pour into the club, like Chelsea or Man City. 

[/quote]

How do you arrive at this conclusion?

[/quote]

 

If the owner puts in masses of money, it limits how much money the club can spend on wages/transfer fees, since if the club spends more than its income, it will have a loss, which can''t exceed £105m over the 3 year period.

 

OK as has been pointed out there are ways around it and still allows a loss over £30m per season.  But at least its a step in the right direction and if it results in Sam having less money to spend at West Ham, that has to be a good thing.

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  

×