Interesting financial breakdown

[William Darby 0]

[quote user="The ghost of Michael Theoklitos"]Anyone else find it odd that Sunderland turnover just £2.4m more than us, despite having a ground almost double the size?Is maybe adding seats to Carra not the way forward after all??[/quote]

Convert the Snakepit to a safe standing area would be a start... maybe.

contrary to what McNally has claimed on Tw@tter that standing is illegal, it isn''t. Only providing a seat is the legal bit. A number of clubs in the EPL are for safe standing in principle, but NCFC have''nt said either way, but I suspect by what McNally has claimed above, we can guess his views on it.

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

[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.

[/quote]

 

Purple, I know you have made this point a number of times and, without saying I disagree with your point, I think it is also fair to say that we were not on the inside looking at all the factors on the table in January. McNally probably had a good read on how many millions he was working with to acquire quality strikers, midfielders etc that would be sustainable through next season and beyond. The players that we knew about in January ( Hooper and Graham ) may have been acceptable parts of the equation but not necessarily the best quality that McNally was after. At that point, he may, or may not, have known what it would cost to secure Ricky van Wolfswinkel, never mind what other players may be in his frame.

 Of course, we all know that it was taking a risk not to sign someone who probably could haave scoreded a few more goals but, as we know, there are no guarantees of that occurring with any player. Since moving to Sunderland Graham was spending a fair amount of time on the bench until Fletcher was injured ( and even after ).

So, McNally knew what he knew, more so than what any of us did and, on that basis, he decided to roll the dice his way. Whether or not it was a mistake will be better assessed on how this season and next season ( particularly if we stay up ) plays out in terms of the quality of players we have and the initial and ongoing cost of securing them.

 

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]

[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.

[/quote]

 

Purple, I know you have made this point a number of times and, without saying I disagree with your point, I think it is also fair to say that we were not on the inside looking at all the factors on the table in January. McNally probably had a good read on how many millions he was working with to acquire quality strikers, midfielders etc that would be sustainable through next season and beyond. The players that we knew about in January ( Hooper and Graham ) may have been acceptable parts of the equation but not necessarily the best quality that McNally was after. At that point, he may, or may not, have known what it would cost to secure Ricky van Wolfswinkel, never mind what other players may be in his frame.

 Of course, we all know that it was taking a risk not to sign someone who probably could haave scoreded a few more goals but, as we know, there are no guarantees of that occurring with any player. Since moving to Sunderland Graham was spending a fair amount of time on the bench until Fletcher was injured ( and even after ).

So, McNally knew what he knew, more so than what any of us did and, on that basis, he decided to roll the dice his way. Whether or not it was a mistake will be better assessed on how this season and next season ( particularly if we stay up ) plays out in terms of the quality of players we have and the initial and ongoing cost of securing them.

 

[/quote]

 

That is not really my point, Yankee. I don''t think, from all that went on in January, that there was a coolly assessed decision to hold on to the several million made available by the board. What very much seems to have happened is that it took us far too long (midday on January 31) to realise we were not going to prise Hooper away from Celtic. By the time the penny dropped it was too late to switch to any other targets, strikers or otherwise.

[spudgfsh 0]

Just to point out to anyone who hasn''t read it (I bought the paper this morning) all of the figures are from publicly available sources for the 2011/12 season. expect a few other papers to do similar spreads over the next couple of months (the Grauniad seem to do one every year)

The figures for QPR when released for this season will be MUCH WORSE than those printed here. Remember they brought in 11 players last summer and 5 during January. If Samba''s reported wage packet is anything to go by then their results are going to be apocalyptic reading when released for this/next season.

this is one from a few years back for comparison (the season blackpool were in the premier league)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/competitions/premier-league/9255617/Revealed-the-financial-health-of-the-Premier-League-laid-bare.html

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]

[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.

[/quote]

 

Purple, I know you have made this point a number of times and, without saying I disagree with your point, I think it is also fair to say that we were not on the inside looking at all the factors on the table in January. McNally probably had a good read on how many millions he was working with to acquire quality strikers, midfielders etc that would be sustainable through next season and beyond. The players that we knew about in January ( Hooper and Graham ) may have been acceptable parts of the equation but not necessarily the best quality that McNally was after. At that point, he may, or may not, have known what it would cost to secure Ricky van Wolfswinkel, never mind what other players may be in his frame.

 Of course, we all know that it was taking a risk not to sign someone who probably could haave scoreded a few more goals but, as we know, there are no guarantees of that occurring with any player. Since moving to Sunderland Graham was spending a fair amount of time on the bench until Fletcher was injured ( and even after ).

So, McNally knew what he knew, more so than what any of us did and, on that basis, he decided to roll the dice his way. Whether or not it was a mistake will be better assessed on how this season and next season ( particularly if we stay up ) plays out in terms of the quality of players we have and the initial and ongoing cost of securing them.

 

[/quote]

 

That is not really my point, Yankee. I don''t think, from all that went on in January, that there was a coolly assessed decision to hold on to the several million made available by the board. What very much seems to have happened is that it took us far too long (midday on January 31) to realise we were not going to prise Hooper away from Celtic. By the time the penny dropped it was too late to switch to any other targets, strikers or otherwise.

[/quote]

That''s precisely the point I''m reacting to Purple. You ( we ) may think all we like but we don''t know whether the decision was coolly assessed because we were not in the shoes of the man who had to make the call. We may only cast an opinion on whether a mistake was made but we cannot conclusively say it was a mistake. As I pointed out previously, even if we did "strengthen" in January ( as others did to no avail ) that would have guaranteed nothing. Further, if high-priced acquisitions did not achieve the result that we were after, in hindsight, like other clubs may well have realised by now, we might well have have spent the several million the board made available acquiring players that were not up to the quality we were really seeking but now have to live with those decisions into next season and beyond. This subject is open game for opinion from all quarters but, like most things on this forum, it''s opinion, not fact, and sometimes, not even good judgment when we are not in possession of all the facts.   

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]

[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.

[/quote]

 

Purple, I know you have made this point a number of times and, without saying I disagree with your point, I think it is also fair to say that we were not on the inside looking at all the factors on the table in January. McNally probably had a good read on how many millions he was working with to acquire quality strikers, midfielders etc that would be sustainable through next season and beyond. The players that we knew about in January ( Hooper and Graham ) may have been acceptable parts of the equation but not necessarily the best quality that McNally was after. At that point, he may, or may not, have known what it would cost to secure Ricky van Wolfswinkel, never mind what other players may be in his frame.

 Of course, we all know that it was taking a risk not to sign someone who probably could haave scoreded a few more goals but, as we know, there are no guarantees of that occurring with any player. Since moving to Sunderland Graham was spending a fair amount of time on the bench until Fletcher was injured ( and even after ).

So, McNally knew what he knew, more so than what any of us did and, on that basis, he decided to roll the dice his way. Whether or not it was a mistake will be better assessed on how this season and next season ( particularly if we stay up ) plays out in terms of the quality of players we have and the initial and ongoing cost of securing them.

 

[/quote]

 

That is not really my point, Yankee. I don''t think, from all that went on in January, that there was a coolly assessed decision to hold on to the several million made available by the board. What very much seems to have happened is that it took us far too long (midday on January 31) to realise we were not going to prise Hooper away from Celtic. By the time the penny dropped it was too late to switch to any other targets, strikers or otherwise.

[/quote]

That''s precisely the point I''m reacting to Purple. You ( we ) may think all we like but we don''t know whether the decision was coolly assessed because we were not in the shoes of the man who had to make the call. We may only cast an opinion on whether a mistake was made but we cannot conclusively say it was a mistake. As I pointed out previously, even if we did "strengthen" in January ( as others did to no avail ) that would have guaranteed nothing. Further, if high-priced acquisitions did not achieve the result that we were after, in hindsight, like other clubs may well have realised by now, we might well have have spent the several million the board made available acquiring players that were not up to the quality we were really seeking but now have to live with those decisions into next season and beyond. This subject is open game for opinion from all quarters but, like most things on this forum, it''s opinion, not fact, and sometimes, not even good judgment when we are not in possession of all the facts.   

[/quote]

 

 

Yankee, I don''t want to prolong this but my view is based on all the available facts. To be brief, Bowkett and McNally spent the autumn saying everything would be done to ensure survival. That translates as money for team strengthening. We made several million available. Probably close to £10m because we made bids of £7m each for Hooper and RVW, and we almost certainly offered £2m for Curtis Davies. And these are only the offers we know about - there may have been others. And our last - the fourth or fifth - bid for Hooper was on transfer deadline day. But all we spent was the few hundred thousand already shelled out for Becchio.Now there may be facts not in the public domain that counteract my view, but based on what is known we fully intended to spend really quite a lot of money - the board would not made so much available if Hughton hadn''t said it was necessary - but didn''t. Nothing in what is known suggests that the way it turned out was a deliberate plan based on a cool assessment of our position. Everything suggests we knew we needed to strengthen but mishandled the process.

[im spartacus canary 0]

fascinating stuff

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]

[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.

[/quote]

 

Purple, I know you have made this point a number of times and, without saying I disagree with your point, I think it is also fair to say that we were not on the inside looking at all the factors on the table in January. McNally probably had a good read on how many millions he was working with to acquire quality strikers, midfielders etc that would be sustainable through next season and beyond. The players that we knew about in January ( Hooper and Graham ) may have been acceptable parts of the equation but not necessarily the best quality that McNally was after. At that point, he may, or may not, have known what it would cost to secure Ricky van Wolfswinkel, never mind what other players may be in his frame.

 Of course, we all know that it was taking a risk not to sign someone who probably could haave scoreded a few more goals but, as we know, there are no guarantees of that occurring with any player. Since moving to Sunderland Graham was spending a fair amount of time on the bench until Fletcher was injured ( and even after ).

So, McNally knew what he knew, more so than what any of us did and, on that basis, he decided to roll the dice his way. Whether or not it was a mistake will be better assessed on how this season and next season ( particularly if we stay up ) plays out in terms of the quality of players we have and the initial and ongoing cost of securing them.

 

[/quote]

 

That is not really my point, Yankee. I don''t think, from all that went on in January, that there was a coolly assessed decision to hold on to the several million made available by the board. What very much seems to have happened is that it took us far too long (midday on January 31) to realise we were not going to prise Hooper away from Celtic. By the time the penny dropped it was too late to switch to any other targets, strikers or otherwise.

[/quote]

That''s precisely the point I''m reacting to Purple. You ( we ) may think all we like but we don''t know whether the decision was coolly assessed because we were not in the shoes of the man who had to make the call. We may only cast an opinion on whether a mistake was made but we cannot conclusively say it was a mistake. As I pointed out previously, even if we did "strengthen" in January ( as others did to no avail ) that would have guaranteed nothing. Further, if high-priced acquisitions did not achieve the result that we were after, in hindsight, like other clubs may well have realised by now, we might well have have spent the several million the board made available acquiring players that were not up to the quality we were really seeking but now have to live with those decisions into next season and beyond. This subject is open game for opinion from all quarters but, like most things on this forum, it''s opinion, not fact, and sometimes, not even good judgment when we are not in possession of all the facts.   

[/quote]

 

 

Yankee, I don''t want to prolong this but my view is based on all the available facts. To be brief, Bowkett and McNally spent the autumn saying everything would be done to ensure survival. That translates as money for team strengthening. We made several million available. Probably close to £10m because we made bids of £7m each for Hooper and RVW, and we almost certainly offered £2m for Curtis Davies. And these are only the offers we know about - there may have been others. And our last - the fourth or fifth - bid for Hooper was on transfer deadline day. But all we spent was the few hundred thousand already shelled out for Becchio.

Now there may be facts not in the public domain that counteract my view, but based on what is known we fully intended to spend really quite a lot of money - the board would not made so much available if Hughton hadn''t said it was necessary - but didn''t. Nothing in what is known suggests that the way it turned out was a deliberate plan based on a cool assessment of our position. Everything suggests we knew we needed to strengthen but mishandled the process.

[/quote]

 

Purple, neither do I wish to prolong it but your last post requires a response. In the past, I have always admired your input because you have always tried to caution others in separating fact from opinion. My response to you initially had nothing to do with your OPINION. It was your statement that a mistake was made, as if this was a fact, rather than stating this was your view/opinion. That was what I reacted to. You subsequently, in reacting to me, changed your input to make it more opinion based. Your opinion, therefore, may be close to reality or it may be a mile away, but it is not a FACT that a mistake was made or, indeed, neither is it a fact that the whole situation was mishandled. On this last point, I grant you that you prefaced your input with "everything suggests."

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="YankeeCanary"]

Purple, neither do I wish to prolong it but your last post requires a response. In the past, I have always admired your input because you have always tried to caution others in separating fact from opinion. My response to you initially had nothing to do with your OPINION. It was your statement that a mistake was made, as if this was a fact, rather than stating this was your view/opinion. That was what I reacted to. You subsequently, in reacting to me, changed your input to make it more opinion based. Your opinion, therefore, may be close to reality or it may be a mile away, but it is not a FACT that a mistake was made or, indeed, neither is it a fact that the whole situation was mishandled. On this last point, I grant you that you prefaced your input with "everything suggests."

[/quote]Yankee, you are right that I don''t know for an absolute fact that we mishandled (which is the word I normally use) the transfer window. I should have made it clear (as I have in the past) that it is my opinion rather than certain knowledge. But it is - as sometimes with my posts on financial matters - an opinion based on a clear-eyed assessment of the facts. And in this case the facts really do all point one way.

[Yellow and Green 334]

I really don''t think you can blame the board too much here.

Contrary to speculation from some, we tried to get RVW pretty much the whole of January but Sporting wouldn''t budge from the 20 million Euro asking price (which we obviously didn''t have).

The reason we got RVW is because Sporting''s President stepped down in March and didn''t want to leave the club as it was (owing players money) and agreed to selling him for half the price.

If we stay up, I think we''ve done pretty well out of the situation and they certainly did their best with our limited resources.

In relation to the OP, the club is now debt free - apart from Delia and Michael Foulger''s interest free loan (which they haven''t asked for a penny back yet). The last payment was made the week before the Swansea game.

[Cerberus 0]

I am not sure if this is old news or not, but the ''Gruniad'' have published their analysis of each club. Unlike The Times, they dont have a pay wall.http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2013/apr/18/premier-league-finances-club-by-club

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="Louis Cyphre"]I am not sure if this is old news or not, but the ''Gruniad'' have published their analysis of each club. Unlike The Times, they dont have a pay wall.http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2013/apr/18/premier-league-finances-club-by-club[/quote]

 

The piece on us is wrong. We didn''t pay off all our external debt in the last financial year. At the end of it we still owed around £11m. It also doesn''t mention that Foulger is owed £1.4m as well as the £2.1m owing to Smith and Jones.

[T 190]

Thanks for Guardian link. Confirms that we were the second best performing club last year in terms of position/points compared to wages which is still the case for this year.

There was an 82% correlation between the wage bill and points achieved last season demonstrating once again that the wage bill is the key driver of a teams performance.

Theere was a 98% correlation between the 2010/11 and 2011/12 wage bills. Therfore applying this analysis to 2012/13 suggests Hughton is still the second most financially effective manager in the premier league. It may not be pretty but it is effective.  

[Cerberus 0]

T,Agreed, and if we stay up, lets hope that we can increase the quality of the side following our now (external strcutured) debt free position.

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="Louis Cyphre"]Agreed, and if we stay up, lets hope that we can increase the quality of the side following our now (external strcutured) debt free position.[/quote]Surely that''s already underway with the signing of RVW....

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

[quote user="Louis Cyphre"]I am not sure if this is old news or not, but the ''Gruniad'' have published their analysis of each club. Unlike The Times, they dont have a pay wall.http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2013/apr/18/premier-league-finances-club-by-club[/quote]

 

The piece on us is wrong. We didn''t pay off all our external debt in the last financial year. At the end of it we still owed around £11m. It also doesn''t mention that Foulger is owed £1.4m as well as the £2.1m owing to Smith and Jones.

[/quote]One unintenionally hilarious quote in that Guardian piece, from PL chief executive Richard Scudamore, who has presided over the selling of English football to the highest-bidding oligarch and oïl mogul, praising Swansea, where the fans have a 20 per cent stake and choose a director, as "probably the ideal ownership model".