Financial results out


Status
Not open for further replies.
These figures seem atrocious :confused:

We sold Jordan Henderson for a £16m profit on disposal and managed to post a loss for the year.

We will have recognised that entire £16m profit in the P&L; and the Darren Bent sale, regardless of how much cash we have received. However these results probably include only about £50k in lieu of Connor Wickham ammortisation.

We are living beyond our means folks.

Next year we'll be fine as long as we sell another Jack Colback for £24m. Then we'll break even.
 
Am nee accountant like most on here but surely increased turnover and less operating loss is a good thing or at least better than the previous year?
 
Am nee accountant like most on here but surely increased turnover and less operating loss is a good thing or at least better than the previous year?

Exactly. It won't happen overnight, simply because football doesn't think it needs to, but gradual improvement year-on-year is more than welcome.
 
Re: Financial results announced

42 million?

Very similiar to the Mags results, putting the house in order after a period of unsustainable losses. The y/e 2012 results will be better and the 2013 results are the key ones where we should see a jump in commercial revenue.

They reported a bottom line profit after player trading of £30m+, it looks like we are reporting a bottom line loss of £7.8m.

They reported an operating loss of £4m, we are reporting an operating loss of £31.2m.

How is that similar?

Next year we'll be fine as long as we sell another Jack Colback for £24m. Then we'll break even.

Or Sess. :cry:
 
you can over analyse these things but it would appear to be going in the right direction with a slight degree of caution attached.

The 20% increase in turnover is encouraging and should be improved further next year so that is probably the best part of the release. Wages to turnover (although not segregated out) would be an assumption but it still looks high at this point and wouldn't be surprised if it's still between 70-80%.

The important thing for the club would seem to be to generate some stability. Not have so many players coming during the summer and continue to generate additional income.
 
Are all of these summer concerts much of a money spinner? Genuinely don't know.
 
It seems that our wage bill has risen, but the losses are smaller because of transfer fees received.

If we have a zero net spend next year, our losses will be around £30m.

Give MON some money to spend and the losses will become astronomical.
 
Last edited:
Will Bruce's pay off be included?

He won't have got that much, it's a popular misconception that people get their full contract paid up in full.

Maybe £500,000 - £1,000,000 at most
 
I look at it like this.

If you sell say Jordan Henderson for £15m and buy O'Shea, Brown and Gardner for £10m, football fans and pundits will say 'wow, what a great bit of business, bringing in three players and making a £5m profit'.

So (if you ignore the fees and commissions to players and agents which are likely to more than wipe out this profit), your bottom line will look better that year.

But you've also replaced a player probably on about £1m a year with players on about £10m a year between them.

So your operating profit (or loss) is going to look a lot worse that year, and for the next three years.

Obviously a lot more players were bought and sold, that is just to demonstrate how headline profit can have risen while operating profit and costs got worse. It also shows why phrases like 'zero net spend' with regards to transfer fees are worthless, as you can have a zero net spend and actually increase costs massively - ie a zero net spend can actually be significant financial backing.
 
Last edited:
I look at it like this.

If you sell say Jordan Henderson for £15m and buy O'Shea, Brown and Gardner for £10m, football fans and pundits will say 'wow, what a great bit of business, bringing in three players and making a £5m profit'.

So (if you ignore the fees and commissions to players and agents which are likely to more than wipe out this profit), your bottom line will look better that year.

But you've also replaced a player probably on about £1m a year with players on about £10m a year between them.

So your operating profit (or loss) is going to look a lot worse that year, and for the next three years.

Obviously a lot more players were bought and sold, that is just to demonstrate how headline profit can have risen while operating profit and costs got worse. It also shows why phrases like 'zero net spend' with regards to transfer fees are worthless, as you can have a zero net spend and actually increase costs massively - ie a zero net spend can actually be significant financial backing.

And the £15m income will come through all in one go, whereas the £10m spend on the three replacements will be spread across their contracts in the accounts (i think).
 
Ashley In!! said:
And the £15m income will come through all in one go, whereas the £10m spend on the three replacements will be spread across their contracts in the accounts (i think).

No, £10m a year, for three or four years.

So your £5m 'profit' will probably cost you about £30m all in.

Though at a guess the trio of O'Shea, Brown and Gardner will probably be on about £8m a year between them rather than £10m.
 
Last edited:
No, £10m a year, for three or four years.

So your £5m 'profit' will probably cost you about £30m all in.

Though at a guess the trio of O'Shea, Brown and Gardner will probably be on about £8m a year between them rather than £10m.

I mean the transfer fees will be put through the accounts over the length of the contract, if we spend £10m on transfers all on say players with 5 year deals, then the cost going through the accounts for transfer fees will be £2m per year.

I appreciate your point about the wages though.
 
In summary, it's not as shit a set of financial results as last year but still shit nonetheless.
 
And the £15m income will come through all in one go, whereas the £10m spend on the three replacements will be spread across their contracts in the accounts (i think).

Yes. Any income (less any outstanding "worth" the players has) gets taken in the year it's received. The transfer amounts of players signed is spread over the length of their contracts.
 
Re: Financial results announced

They reported a bottom line profit after player trading of £30m+, it looks like we are reporting a bottom line loss of £7.8m.

They reported an operating loss of £4m, we are reporting an operating loss of £31.2m.

How is that similar?

As in the next sentance of my post, we are both putting the house in order after living beyond our means for years.

The loss of £30m includes amortisation of £29m which is just a balance sheet object and would onlu hurt the club if it was being valued for sale, or if it needed to raise finance, neither of which is true.

And the £15m income will come through all in one go, whereas the £10m spend on the three replacements will be spread across their contracts in the accounts (i think).

You think wrong.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top