22/23 Accounts and Grumpy Old Man's take.

[Grumpy Old Man]

Does the wage increase not reflect the difference between wages in the 1st division to the championship? .. i note your subjective comment on this yes we are spending more but if the figures are true that we are paying bottom half wage levels how is that competing with your competitors?

This is what I think it untrue, On the basis of the overall wage bill, I'd suggest football wages are at least £15m. In other word, the rumoured £7.7m is exactly what I said it was - total bollocks.

 

[Sea to Shining Sea]

The new deals agreed with the likes of Patterson, Neil, Roberts, Cirkin, Ballard and, I think Hume, will have eaten up any savings made from those you've listed of whom I suspect only Pritchard and Batth were on any sort of sizeable deals. That's before you factor in Dack, Aouchiche and Pembele signing who I imagine are on a fair bit.

I’d be surprised if our wage bill in the next set of accounts is higher than what is shown here. Maybe I’ll be wrong.

 

[molthemackem]

Aye, a little bit irritating overall. Shame we didn't push the boat out last season (recruited in January) and go for promotion big style whereby we could have gained promotion and raked in over £100m if successful or increased the overheads this season if we had failed.

 

[Howard the Duck]

I’d be surprised if our wage bill in the next set of accounts is higher than what is shown here. Maybe I’ll be wrong.

I'd happily bet money on it being so.

My only slight reservation, though I don't think it would make a huge difference, would be dependant on the percentage of Amad's salary we were paying (that also depends on whether it's included in wage costs or in fees paid).

 

[oddbod]

This is what I think it untrue, On the basis of the overall wage bill, I'd suggest football wages are at least £15m. In other word, the rumoured £7.7m is exactly what I said it was - total bollocks.

If you have time GOM perhaps a gander at WBA ,Luton,coventry.HULL accounts would give us a better incline of wage levels for the same time period for our competition ....... i thought stats on the money spent on wages figures were pretty accurate ?

 

[Guinness Guzzler]

Aye, a little bit irritating overall. Shame we didn't push the boat out last season (recruited in January) and go for promotion big style whereby we could have gained promotion and raked in over £100m if successful or increased the overheads this season if we had failed.

One of the key things for me, which ties in with what they've said in meetings, is that we don't have major concerns in terms of FFP (or whatever the fuck the championship equivalent is called).

Given FFP is set as a relatively sustainable level, it suggests that we could be pushing the boat out more if the owners wanted to sensibly speculate. Partly why I think this summer is so key. Apparently we still have plenty of room, so it'll be interesting if we spend a bit more this summer or not. I'm not necessarily advocating pushing it to the limit, but it's unlikely the current approach, untweaked, will work given we aren't exactly unearthing gems who can replace key players. Therefore if we're going to sell Clarke or similar, we really need to be prepared to pay a bit more for some proven quality in addition to spending on more potential (which we're bound to keep doing, and which I don't think anyone minds as long as there's also an eye on the here and now)

If you have time GOM perhaps a gander at WBA ,Luton,coventry.HULL accounts would give us a better incline of wage levels for the same time period for our competition ....... i thought stats on the money spent on wages figures were pretty accurate ?

I didn't specifically look at them, but some other teams around us were:


Huddersfield £21.5m

Swansea £21.2m

Boro £29.6m

Blackburn £25.8m

Bristol city £26m

 

[Sea to Shining Sea]

I'd happily bet money on it being so.

My only slight reservation, though I don't think it would make a huge difference, would be dependant on the percentage of Amad's salary we were paying (that also depends on whether it's included in wage costs or in fees paid).

Yep. Him as well.

 

[3.142]

I'd happily bet money on it being so.

My only slight reservation, though I don't think it would make a huge difference, would be dependant on the percentage of Amad's salary we were paying (that also depends on whether it's included in wage costs or in fees paid).

There may also have been promotion bonuses to pay, which wouldn't repeat. Assume they'd be in there too

 

[Howard the Duck]

There may also have been promotion bonuses to pay, which wouldn't repeat. Assume they'd be in there too

They'd have been in the previous year's accounts.

 

[oddbod]

One of the key things for me, which ties in with what they've said in meetings, is that we don't have major concerns in terms of FFP (or whatever the fuck the championship equivalent is called).

Given FFP is set as a relatively sustainable level, it suggests that we could be pushing the boat out more if the owners wanted to sensibly speculate. Partly why I think this summer is so key. Apparently we still have plenty of room, so it'll be interesting if we spend a bit more this summer or not. I'm not necessarily advocating pushing it to the limit, but it's unlikely the current approach, untweaked, will work given we aren't exactly unearthing gems who can replace key players. Therefore if we're going to sell Clarke or similar, we really need to be prepared to pay a bit more for some proven quality in addition to spending on more potential (which we're bound to keep doing, and which I don't think anyone minds as long as there's also an eye on the here and now)

I didn't specifically look at them, but some other teams around us were:


Huddersfield £21.5m

Swansea £21.2m

Boro £29.6m

Blackburn £25.8m

Bristol city £26m

yep as i thought we are far far behind our competition!

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

One of the key things for me, which ties in with what they've said in meetings, is that we don't have major concerns in terms of FFP (or whatever the fuck the championship equivalent is called).

Given FFP is set as a relatively sustainable level, it suggests that we could be pushing the boat out more if the owners wanted to sensibly speculate. Partly why I think this summer is so key. Apparently we still have plenty of room, so it'll be interesting if we spend a bit more this summer or not. I'm not necessarily advocating pushing it to the limit, but it's unlikely the current approach, untweaked, will work given we aren't exactly unearthing gems who can replace key players. Therefore if we're going to sell Clarke or similar, we really need to be prepared to pay a bit more for some proven quality in addition to spending on more potential (which we're bound to keep doing, and which I don't think anyone minds as long as there's also an eye on the here and now)

I didn't specifically look at them, but some other teams around us were:


Huddersfield £21.5m

Swansea £21.2m

Boro £29.6m

Blackburn £25.8m

Bristol city £26m

These are also total wages. We're in the same ballpark as other non-parachute clubs.

 

[3.142]

I'd happily bet money on it being so.

My only slight reservation, though I don't think it would make a huge difference, would be dependant on the percentage of Amad's salary we were paying (that also depends on whether it's included in wage costs or in fees paid).

There may also have been promotion bonuses to pay, which wouldn't repeat.

They'd have been in the previous year's accounts.

Of course!

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

yep as i thought we are far far behind our competition!

The figures GG is quoting are total wages in the accounts, and are this directly comparable to our total wage bill.

 

[Guinness Guzzler]

These are also total wages. We're in the same ballpark as other non-parachute clubs.

Yeah, if we try to estimate the staff costs to remove it'll become a bit of a guess. I'll assume that most clubs spend similar on staff (due to the relatively low wages compared to footballers). So it looks like we were about on par with others as of the accounting period end.

Mind that's always the problem with accounts, I'm a lot more interested with where we're sitting now! There's an established link between wages and league position so it would be good to know whether we're under or over achieving against wages. Certainly aren't majorly over achieving mind, big improvement needed in the summer

 

[englishman abroad]

Here we go. My in depth take on the club’s 22/23 accounts. If you’ve got a low boredom threshold, you might want to move on. This is likely to take a while.

1. Turnover

Increased to £35.5m from £26.1m (36%). All areas of income increased, but the bulk of it came from media receipts, a combination of the far more generous distribution to Championship clubs compared to L1, and out popularity with Sky for live fixture. I suspect we bring in much higher viewing figures than most of the clubs in the division. Gate receipts increased by £1.3m (18.9%), reflecting the 8-10% price increase from 21/22 and increased average gates. However, because of the generous concessions available, and the high percentage of season ticket holders (84% of average attendance), the ticket yield remains low at £12.05 (21/22 £13.40). The comparative is probably misleading, as that will include our share of Wembley receipts for the playoff final.

It's clear that we could be doing much better on sponsorship and other commercial deals, and hopefully this is something that Bruce will be addressing as we move forward.

2. Wages

Increased to £25.6m from £16.3m (57%). Despite howls to the contrary, there’s nothing here to suggest we’re pennypinching in comparison to our rivals. Whilst some of the increase is down to the extra 40 admin staff, and a massive increase in matchday numbers, much of which will be down to the reopening of the PC, the bulk of the increase will be going to the football staff. It’d impossible to be precise, but I’d be amazed if less than two thirds of the wage bill is football related (around £16m).

3. Other operating costs

Essentially, the reason why we lose money despite our income being among the highest in the division. These are the non-wage overheads that reflect the cost of running PL infrastructure om Championship income. They might look high, but the perennial complaints about the condition of the stadium etc, suggests we aren’t spending enough. Which is a bit scary, when you think about it.

4. Player trading

This is a bit of a pain in the arse, to be honest, because out year end falls bang in the middle of the transfer window. If anyone from the club is reading this, for fuck’s sake follow the norm and change to 30 June.

So what we have here is the purchases in the accounts reflect Wilson. Ekwah, Lihadji, Anderson, Triantis, Bellingham, Seelt and Dack. Disposals reflect Xhemajli, Dunne, Winchester and Dajaku – and possibly Lihadji.

Those purchases amounted to £7.8m in total. What’s perhaps more interesting is that the contingent liabilities note discloses potential addons of £24.6m. up from £4.5m the year before, which suggests we’re offering an awful lot of jam tomorrow in our dealings.

5. Cash flow

It’s interesting to see that we were actually generating cash at the operating level. The cash shortfall that the owners covered was in respect of investment in fixed assets and transfers. This is actually encouraging, as it suggests we are actually sustainable at the operational level, and are only relying on the owners for capital spend.

6. Balance sheet

Pretty uncontentious. The bank account was in the black, and there’s no immediate suggestion of any difficulty.

Only one number is baffling me, and that a figure of £693k disclosed as assets under construction. The only thing I can think of is that it related to the new entry systems, which may not have been completed by then.

7. FFP

Given that academy and womens’ costs are excluded, it’s likely that our FFP loss is probably closer to £3-4m than the accounting loss. There’s therefore no immediate cause for concern



8. Conclusion

While the loss is a bit irritating, it’s more a reflection of the difficulties of making ends meet in this division and trying to be competitive at the same time. Overall I’m fairly happy.

Thanks Grumps

 

[Blyth]

yep as i thought we are far far behind our competition!

No we’re not. I know your desperately hoping we’re spending less but these figures don’t show that

 

[3.142]

Yes.

I don’t have the accounts in front of me, but the potential liability can still be disclosed £24m sounds like an awful lot on less than £8m of transfer fees.

None of the £24m are recorded as liabilities so they must all be deemed unlikely. Would be interesting to know if that includes promotion to the premier league!

It's a lot though - maybe things like Jobe getting a certain number of caps for England.

 

[Lonz]

None of the £24m are recorded as liabilities so they must all be deemed unlikely. Would be interesting to know if that includes promotion to the premier league!

It's a lot though - maybe things like Jobe getting a certain number of caps for England.

They are included in other creditors if I remember correctly. I don’t have them in front of me.

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

They are included in other creditors if I remember correctly. I don’t have them in front of me.

Contingent liabilities aren't in the accounts numbers at all. A contingent liability represents a potential future liability that isn't concrete. Hence only disclosed by way of note.

 

[oddbod]

The figures GG is quoting are total wages in the accounts, and are this directly comparable to our total wage bill.

Lets see in the summer if were competitive in our wage structure who we can attract if were paying top ten wages players we should be able to attract some established players at championship level even if it end of contract frees and pay them the going rate in wages for the level...... i cannot wait!GOM appears to say we are competitive as the figures prove it !..lets see how it plays out in the real world!as it hasn't gone so good over the last year or so has it?