Are we skint?

[TIL 1010 4,721]

Just clarify for me Butler what figures you would like me to post to avoid talking at cross purposes.

[The Butler 0]

[quote user="TIL 1010"]Just clarify for me Butler what figures you would like me to post to avoid talking at cross purposes.[/quote]

You aked me to put a link to figures and you don''t know what about!!

I don''t want you to post any figures Tilly.

Read Lapps and Nuttys posts and work it out, the request was issued to them.

Somehow a topic,yet again, has been sidetracked to an old dig, all I have asked is that they "put up" or "shutup".

I very much doubt it will happen but it''s time this petty stupidity came to an end, don''t you agree?[:D]

[mre2 1]

[quote user="Houston Canary"]Dont most teams operate in the red?

If we did nothing in order to avoid red ink it means we''re setting up for relegation and dont want to risk it while assuming more debt that could actually help us avoid it. Such negative thinking.[/quote]

So the answer is spend more then you have got and not worry about how to pay it back. It would be ok if the club would only need to do it for one season, but they would have to operate at a loss year after year to sustain a top half team.

The only way the club can dramatically increase its turnover to pay back the debt is playing in the CL. That''s highly unlikely and will likely end up as the next Pompey!

[nutty nigel 7,509]

[quote user="The Butler"][quote user="TIL 1010"][quote user="The Butler"]

Now here''s a novel idea for Nutty and Lappin

Now you both have time and all the accounts and your accountancy expertise, why don''t you do as some others have..

Work out the figures for yourselves,then post them on here to prove your point (whatever that is) OR

To have the p taken as you have done to others who have taken the time.

 

[/quote]

Could you post a link to the posts please Butler where these figures to which you are referring have been printed. All I recall seeing were wild assumptions. Mind you the poster we are talking about has been asked a thousand times to clarify the situation. I wonder if he made his views known to his pal Alan Bowkett when he met/meets him. [;)]

[URL=http://media.photobucket.com/user/noramaj/media/album%20%201/Professor_3.gif.html][IMG]http://i367.photobucket.com/albums/oo117/noramaj/album%20%201/Professor_3.gif[/IMG][/URL]

[/quote]

I didn''t say they had been posted in detail on here Tilly.

When any mention was made  accusations soon followed.

I do have the figures and  they are not assumptions, straight from NCFC accounts.NO I am not going to post them on here.

I see Nutty avoids the issue by throwing insults as usual.

I repeat, get the accounts and work it out, then post the figures so you prove the truth of your jibes or admit you are wrong.

Easy, no hassle and no stupid comments.

 

[/quote]

 

You think I was first up with the insults Butler? I find it amazing but not surprising that as soon as there''s a bit of unrest around you suddenly appear back on here stirring the pot. That nasty vindictive side of you towards Delia is never far from the surface is it? In answer to your question in 2010 the amount was 12m : -

 

 

NCFC Media Team:  Another one from the emails we received during the week: Hello Delia,   I''m sure most fans are as pleased as I am that we have won promotion back to the Championship at the first attempt but many fans are still unhappy about last seasons relegation and blame you for all the ills of the club. They write on message boards that the club is a shambles through successive poor managerial appointments and your prudence before ambition policy. They claim you refuse to price the club reasonably and won''t let any investors in if it means losing your majority share. How do you feel when you read these things and what drives you on to carry on spending more and more of your own money knowing some fans feel this way?   Here''s to being Champions on Saturday. Best wishes Eddie. Thursday April 22, 2010 1:21 NCFC Media Team

 

1:24

Delia Smith:  Hi Eddie, thank you, I think this is a really good question and one I want to answer. Just for the record, prudence with ambition was never a policy of mine or Michael''s otherwise we''d be about £12million better off! We have never priced the Club and prior to the Deloitte search we have only had one offer of cash which was for £1! Losing our majority shareholding is not, I repeat not, a problem, if it helps the Football Club. How do I feel and what drives me to carry on? What I assume we both share, and that is a deep love of our football club.

 

 

Until I have any reason to doubt the good lady I will take it as gospel.

 

 

 

 

[The Butler 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="The Butler"][quote user="TIL 1010"][quote user="The Butler"]

Now here''s a novel idea for Nutty and Lappin

Now you both have time and all the accounts and your accountancy expertise, why don''t you do as some others have..

Work out the figures for yourselves,then post them on here to prove your point (whatever that is) OR

To have the p taken as you have done to others who have taken the time.

 

[/quote]

Could you post a link to the posts please Butler where these figures to which you are referring have been printed. All I recall seeing were wild assumptions. Mind you the poster we are talking about has been asked a thousand times to clarify the situation. I wonder if he made his views known to his pal Alan Bowkett when he met/meets him. [;)]

[URL=http://media.photobucket.com/user/noramaj/media/album%20%201/Professor_3.gif.html][IMG]http://i367.photobucket.com/albums/oo117/noramaj/album%20%201/Professor_3.gif[/IMG][/URL]

[/quote]

I didn''t say they had been posted in detail on here Tilly.

When any mention was made  accusations soon followed.

I do have the figures and  they are not assumptions, straight from NCFC accounts.NO I am not going to post them on here.

I see Nutty avoids the issue by throwing insults as usual.

I repeat, get the accounts and work it out, then post the figures so you prove the truth of your jibes or admit you are wrong.

Easy, no hassle and no stupid comments.

 

[/quote]

 

You think I was first up with the insults Butler? I find it amazing but not surprising that as soon as there''s a bit of unrest around you suddenly appear back on here stirring the pot. That nasty vindictive side of you towards Delia is never far from the surface is it? In answer to your question in 2010 the amount was 12m : -

 

 

<!--[if !vml]--><!--[endif]--> NCFC Media Team:  Another one from the emails we received during the week: Hello Delia,   I''m sure most fans are as pleased as I am that we have won promotion back to the Championship at the first attempt but many fans are still unhappy about last seasons relegation and blame you for all the ills of the club. They write on message boards that the club is a shambles through successive poor managerial appointments and your prudence before ambition policy. They claim you refuse to price the club reasonably and won''t let any investors in if it means losing your majority share. How do you feel when you read these things and what drives you on to carry on spending more and more of your own money knowing some fans feel this way?   Here''s to being Champions on Saturday. Best wishes Eddie. Thursday April 22, 2010 1:21 NCFC Media Team

 

1:24

<!--[if !vml]--><!--[endif]--> Delia Smith:  Hi Eddie, thank you, I think this is a really good question and one I want to answer. Just for the record, prudence with ambition was never a policy of mine or Michael''s otherwise we''d be about £12million better off! We have never priced the Club and prior to the Deloitte search we have only had one offer of cash which was for £1! Losing our majority shareholding is not, I repeat not, a problem, if it helps the Football Club. How do I feel and what drives me to carry on? What I assume we both share, and that is a deep love of our football club.

 

 

Until I have any reason to doubt the good lady I will take it as gospel.

 

 

 

 

[/quote]

Once again you accuse me,please find a post on this thread when I have started anything or mentioned Delia in any way.

It was the posts by yourself and Lapp that instigated this and again warranted a reply. More polite than yours.

I have not stirred any pot and have no wish to do so.

Don''t twist the truth please.

I will repeat my request, examine the accounts then publish the results.

If you are so certain you are right what harm can it do?

[nutty nigel 7,509]

I''m not going there Butler. Tangie and others spent hours trying to prove Delia lied about her investments. For what reason God alone knows. I''m happy to take her word for it. If you want to see it proved through the accounts then see if you can find Fellas post which caused Tangie and the others to give up. It may still be around but more than likely has been long since removed.

 

 

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="The Butler"]It was the posts by yourself and Lapp that instigated this and again warranted a reply.[/quote]Woah up there Buttles, hold you stop. I have only made one post on this thread and that was in reply to Crafty who mentioned me by name. I''ll reproduce it here so there''s no misunderstanding.....[quote user="lappinitup"]My guess is he''s still trying to find out how much Watling walleted...Or more likely.....he''s still looking for Form 288b. I just hope he hasn''t fell down that Black Hole.[/quote]1. It wasn''t me who claimed Delia was lying when she said she''d put around £12m into the club.....2. Nor was it me who made several calls to Company House in the hope the club could be discredited.....3. And I certainly didn''t claim there was "a black hole" when my figures didn''t tally in my fag packet accounts...because I didn''t do fag packet accounts!...In fact, these were the very things I used to argue about when many on here were trying to run our owners out of town. Now, what is it exactly you want me to do?

[Donkey dangler 0]

It  has taken me quite a while to go through the Accounts and I have worked out the figures to be:

Shares                            £6.7 million

B Preference Shares       £0.3 million

Loans                             £2.1 million

However I believe the loans are being repaid during this season.

 

With the debts paid off and if we can stay up this season, I would expect another load of money to be spent this summer on new players.

We are gradually getting stronger.

 

[Yorkshire Canary 118]

I am quite shocked at the amount spent on wages being given as £50m. That probably means about £40m of that going on the 25 man squad which would be around which would be an average of £30 000 for everyone. I would have thought those sort of levels would have been for the top players.

IF we did go down then the TV cash is down to about £15m with season tickets about £8 or £9m . In short our total income would be roughly half of the current wage bill. I understand that there are relegation clauses in contracts but they would have to be pretty draconian to stop the club very rapidly getting into a significant amount of debt pretty quickly if we were relegated

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="Yorkshire Canary"]I am quite shocked at the amount spent on wages being given as £50m. That probably means about £40m of that going on the 25 man squad which would be around which would be an average of £30 000 for everyone. I would have thought those sort of levels would have been for the top players.

IF we did go down then the TV cash is down to about £15m with season tickets about £8 or £9m . In short our total income would be roughly half of the current wage bill. I understand that there are relegation clauses in contracts but they would have to be pretty draconian to stop the club very rapidly getting into a significant amount of debt pretty quickly if we were relegated[/quote]It works out at 68 per cent of turnover, which is not at all extreme for the Premier League. The figures for all clubs for last season are not available yet, so it is impossible to say exactly how that compares. But that 68 per cent figure, if applied to the season before, would have had us in 14th place in a league table of wages as a percentage of turnover.

[Salopian 1]

We had to attract top performers, or at least very good ones. This will mean a rise in the wages bill. They replaced players on lower wages whom we let go. We seem to have signed extra non-playing staff as well.

Against this our external debt was finally paid off, I hope. I don''t know how much this was, but the interest on it must have been a million or two.

Compared with many other smaller clubs we are doing well financially. If we happened to be relegated we would be in a good position to rebuild our team.

We are due to receive TV money plus position money at the end of the season. At something like £750k per position, a successful run could produce another £2m or £3m from the latter,

We do not have enough money to sign the kind of players looked at by "the big boys", but their collective debt must be £0.5 bn or so. Ours is much lower.

[Indy 3,283]

That is interesting amount, I am behind on this thread, so ask is this the wage for 2012-2013 season?

 

The reason I ask is that this season it has been touted that Elmander is the highest paid player here on around 60K per week if rumours are to be believed. I know the turnover increased but surely signing like RVW, Hooper & Fer demanded higher wages than those departing, so will this years wages go above the 68% of turnover? How much will that leave for the transfer pot and goes a long way to explain the cautious nature of the January transfer window.

 

It says alot about the significant investment into Cat 1 youth status to ensure that our youth system deliver the same type of products which can be seen at Southampton, hopefully.

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="Indy"]

That is interesting amount, I am behind on this thread, so ask is this the wage for 2012-2013 season?

 

The reason I ask is that this season it has been touted that Elmander is the highest paid player here on around 60K per week if rumours are to be believed. I know the turnover increased but surely signing like RVW, Hooper & Fer demanded higher wages than those departing, so will this years wages go above the 68% of turnover? How much will that leave for the transfer pot and goes a long way to explain the cautious nature of the January transfer window.

 

It says alot about the significant investment into Cat 1 youth status to ensure that our youth system deliver the same type of products which can be seen at Southampton, hopefully.

[/quote]£50m was the wage bill (strictly speaking "all staff costs" but it is the relevant figure to compare with other clubs) for 2012-13. Turnover for this season should be getting close to £100m. So, for the sake of argument, a sizeable increase in wages to around £70m would still see the percentage of turnover figure staying roughly the same as in 2012-13.

[Indy 3,283]

I see that Purple thanks, but we also spent 24 million on player which will come out of that and with an increase in wages, I wonder if the club will splash out the same 24 million again, should we stay up.

 

What a nice change to be talking about 24 million and 70 million instead of 1million being a huge amount a few seasons ago, we are lucky and should be thanksful to the board & MacNally for what they have and continue to achieve.

[plan b 0]

as a side note, probably more relevant than how much money we can spend, rather being able to spend, is that this week a report was published that said that, under the new financial fair play rules, only 4 clubs in the premiership would qualify to play in Europe, Arsenal, Swansea and us.

* i forget the other one.

[chicken 0]

It very much depends.

We didn''t sign that many players last summer and of those that we did how many would really be on a lot more money?

Redmond won''t be one of the higher earners at this point. It''d be interesting to know what Hooper and Wolfswinkel are on - but I bet it is not as much as you think.

Perhaps not even as much as Holt was before he left.

[mrs miggins 0]

i think salamander is our top earner

[yellow4life 0]

They have stuck with hughton because there is a clause in his contract, it states if we fall into the Bottom three at any time we can sack him for very little. Out of bottom three would be a good few million.

[morty 0]

[quote user="yellow4life"]They have stuck with hughton because there is a clause in his contract, it states if we fall into the Bottom three at any time we can sack him for very little. Out of bottom three would be a good few million.[/quote]Yeah this rumour has been going round for ages.I call "plop" on this one though, who on earth would sign a contract with such a clause in it?

[Indy 3,283]

[quote user="morty"][quote user="yellow4life"]They have stuck with hughton because there is a clause in his contract, it states if we fall into the Bottom three at any time we can sack him for very little. Out of bottom three would be a good few million.[/quote]

Yeah this rumour has been going round for ages.

I call "plop" on this one though, who on earth would sign a contract with such a clause in it?
[/quote]

 

Althoug I am with you on my opinon of this, who would sign it, well if you get the offered a large enough contract you would sign wouldn''t you? What do you thnik Hughton was on at Brum? 30K a week, here he will be on double that? Might not be as far fetched as we think, but like I said don''t think so!

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="yellow4life"]They have stuck with hughton because there is a clause in his contract, it states if we fall into the Bottom three at any time we can sack him for very little. Out of bottom three would be a good few million.[/quote]Having signed up to specifically tell us that, I feel sure you will be happy to tell us when you actually saw the contract and who showed it to you.

[GPs Beard 0]

[quote user="morty"][quote user="yellow4life"]They have stuck with hughton because there is a clause in his contract, it states if we fall into the Bottom three at any time we can sack him for very little. Out of bottom three would be a good few million.[/quote]

Yeah this rumour has been going round for ages.

I call "plop" on this one though, who on earth would sign a contract with such a clause in it?
[/quote]

 

I think CH is on a contract of around £3m for 3 years. This was the leap of faith shown by the board (or what was required at the time) when we got CH, as opposed to the rolling contracts of previous managers. If he get the sack , he gets paid up. it equates to £20k per week, low in comparison with many of the players . I cant imagine many premier managers on much less. I can''t imagine a "bottom three" clause , it would need too many caveats , such as after how many games would it apply?

 

I also understand that Hooper is the highest salaried player, but that is ignoring the loan players - I should think those on "champions league" money would be more?

 

Are we skint? No. Are we prepared to spend money? Sounds as if we were in Jan but couldn''t attract players in.

 

But we mustn''t confuse debt with being skint. Man Utd have a large debt. Debt is only a problem when you have to pay it off and you can''t. Teams will operate in the Prem with significant debt without issue. BUT it does become an issue if you get relegated. As Bolton and Blackburn are learning this year, and Wolves the year before.  

[yellow4life 0]

That''s exactly my thoughts, but this came from an ex player, who still is very much involved with the club.

[GPs Beard 0]

[quote user="chicken"]It very much depends. We didn''t sign that many players last summer and of those that we did how many would really be on a lot more money? Redmond won''t be one of the higher earners at this point. It''d be interesting to know what Hooper and Wolfswinkel are on - but I bet it is not as much as you think. Perhaps not even as much as Holt was before he left.[/quote]

 

I''m going for Holt on 20k when he left, and Hooper on £40k.

[yellow4life 0]

No I signed up a couple of years ago, but lost interest in all the brainless comments. Just signed in to share what I heard. I''m sure you ain''t full of it face to face are you :)

[littleyellowbirdie 2,510]

[quote user="Le Juge"]The 2013 accounts show wages and salary costs of £50.8m, up £14m on the year previous.

Turnover was just £74.7m, up just 0.58% on the year prior.

£50.8m on wages and salaries against a turnover of £74.7m.

Operating profit of just £883,000 (down from £16.6m).

Cash down 29% year on year.

The clubs net worth is given at just £3m.

Could it be that the club just didn''t have the money to spend in this window, and that is why they have stuck with Hughton?

He''d need a pay off, a new manager would want a nice big salary and money to spend, and would undoubtedly cast some players on the scrap heap.

Is it a possibility that we have to consider?[/quote]I think you''re misreading it slightly. "Footballing costs" would include transfer fees and salaries, not just salaries.

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="yellow4life"]No I signed up a couple of years ago, but lost interest in all the brainless comments. Just signed in to share what I heard. I''m sure you ain''t full of it face to face are you :)[/quote]I''m not having a go at you but your first post did state Hughton''s contract details as fact, then your second changed it slightly to a rumour from an ex player. I would still question the validity of ex players getting to see the current managers contract details. And yes, I would still ask those same questions to your face.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,510]

[quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="yellow4life"]No I signed up a couple of years ago, but lost interest in all the brainless comments. Just signed in to share what I heard. I''m sure you ain''t full of it face to face are you :)[/quote]I''m not having a go at you but your first post did state Hughton''s contract details as fact, then your second changed it slightly to a rumour from an ex player. I would still question the validity of ex players getting to see the current managers contract details. And yes, I would still ask those same questions to your face.[/quote]Personally, I don''t interpret the club''s fiscal caution as negativity as such. Debts come at a premium and make less of your future revenue available to go into the football because it has to go into servicing the debt. Once this season is over, any revenue (which goes up dramatically this year because of Premier League TV rights) is available for squad upgrades and stadium upgrades. What money there has been beyond paying off the debts has all gone into players. Grounds have been put on hold and, with safe-standing on the horizon, I think that''s a very canny move as that will allow capacity increases for much less money.It should also be considered that spending doesn''t guarantee success (QPR highlight this in no uncertain terms), nor does being a bit more conservative guarantee failure. The board is playing the long game in my opinion.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

[quote user="Donkey dangler"]

It  has taken me quite a while to go through the Accounts and I have worked out the figures to be:

Shares                            £6.7 million

B Preference Shares       £0.3 million

Loans                             £2.1 million

However I believe the loans are being repaid during this season.

 

[/quote]

 

What are these figures in reply to?

 

 

[yellow4life 0]

Good. Well either way I''m passing on what I know, and in his defence everything he''s said this season has been spot on.