Once the transfer window closes could the chairman


Status
Not open for further replies.
Ellis Short is as bad as the Venkys. He bought the club thinking he could reduce the debt and sell it on for profit. That's what he does. Now he doesn't care. He's getting back what he can and is leaving the club to rot.

I hope he gets bummed by Goofy the next time he's in Disneyland.
 
Here are some numbers from the last 10 years accounts added together

Income £766.5m
Staff Costs £577.2m
Other costs £192.4m
Interest £34.9m
Incoming transfer fees £125.8m
Outgoing transfer fees £309.9m

So, our business costs (staff, other and interest) in that time were £38m than trading income, and on top of that we spent £184.1m more on players than we got by selling them. That is why there is no more money.
Would love to see the outgoing transfer fees section, listed with the players and their costs?

Plus the other costs figure of £190 odd million, a breakdown of what those actually are
 
Fair enough but you just dont commit more exspenses to somthing that is out of control. It just doesnt make sense.
Football is unlike any other business. It’s short fuck up the running off the field that has us in this position also. We are a shambles on and off the pitch.
 
Would love to see the outgoing transfer fees section, listed with the players and their costs?

Plus the other costs figure of £190 odd million, a breakdown of what those actually are

A lot of that is non-cash, like amortisation. You don't get a breakdown but it will cover all the normal overheads you'd expect in any business. For the premises the club has to operate, £19m a year isn't out of line.
 
But the cry babies on here want us to do this again..,
Who wants us to spend big money badly again like? We’ve spent around £1.5m in two windows man, some of those we’ve spent money on in one window left the very next something Bain said wouldn’t happen on his watch, the same mistakes by people short employed are happening again, this must be the least we’ve spent in two windows since the early 90s.
 
A lot of that is non-cash, like amortisation. You don't get a breakdown but it will cover all the normal overheads you'd expect in any business. For the premises the club has to operate, £19m a year isn't out of line.
I enjoy reading your posts and don't doubt them.

I simply can't accept that we cannot spend around £2 million to prevent a second possible relegation

Otherwise the whole point of the club operating is a waste of time and money.
 
Or, they could have gone for a promotion push and filled the stadium.

Newcastle's cost 50 million transfers fee's and probably twice again on wages. Wolves have cost a huge amount.

We wouldn't have filled the stadium for a promotion push but even if we had the increased revenue would not have been 1% of the money those 2 clubs committed.
 
I enjoy reading your posts and don't doubt them.

I simply can't accept that we cannot spend around £2 million to prevent a second possible relegation

Otherwise the whole point of the club operating is a waste of time and money.

The point is to keep the club operating, but also that the owner wants to commit as little more as he can. Let's face it, if I'd lobbed about 15% of all I was worth into something and had nothing but grief to show for it, I'd be very reluctant to send good money after bad. We've partied on the credit cards for a decade, but now the bailiffs are at the door.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nig
Newcastle's cost 50 million transfers fee's and probably twice again on wages. Wolves have cost a huge amount.

We wouldn't have filled the stadium for a promotion push but even if we had the increased revenue would not have been 1% of the money those 2 clubs committed.
That’s ok then what the hell are we complaining about. This really is the sh-t of the sh-t of the sh-t of the shit.
 
The point is to keep the club operating, but also that the owner wants to commit as little more as he can. Let's face it, if I'd lobbed about 15% of all I was worth into something and had nothing but grief to show for it, I'd be very reluctant to send good money after bad. We've partied on the credit cards for a decade, but now the bailiffs are at the door.
If so, then he should close the club down, demolish the stadium, sell off the land and SAFC cease to exist.

That is his logical choice

I'm off for my tea.
 
£500 million in, we have spent £680 million?

What's happening with the £100 million parachute money, the £30 million for Pickford and Christ knows millions saved on those out on loan?

Have a look at the books for the last 5 seasons. We have consistently spent more than we have brought in to the tune of 30 million plus.

The parachute money isn't free cash, its a reduced amount of what we would have received by playing in the premiership. This is the money we pay wages with.

Depending on how much we have reduced the expenses, the Pickford money will either go towards paying costs or debt.

Regardless of funds I still do not see how their couldnt have been a young keeper in the lower leagues that would have been better than steele

I agree, that signing is beyond bizarre.
 
Have a look at the books for the last 5 seasons. We have consistently spent more than we have brought in to the tune of 30 million plus.

The parachute money isn't free cash, its a reduced amount of what we would have received by playing in the premiership. This is the money we pay wages with.

Depending on how much we have reduced the expenses, the Pickford money will either go towards paying costs or debt.
The op is a question of what the owner thinks are the best interests of the club.

I gave four points, I would like an answer to

Again, in what way is Mr Short and Mr Bain acting in a way that is the best interest of SAFC?

We spent a season in the bottom three, we have now spent around 5 months again in the bottom three of a division.

If those situations are appropriate and in safcs best interests, then what could be in the worst interest for Safc and it's fans?
 
Point stands. We have received £500 million.

I do not believe we have spent around £680million

If so, could someone breakdown the exact fee spent and received for ten years.

The figures for TV are known, around £25 million a season which equates to £250 million

Attendances average 40000 which equates to around £20 million a season = £200 million over ten years.

At least £50 million in ten years of merchandise and sponsorship

That's my £500 million figure

Anyone work out the £680 million we've spent


See this.

I'm nowhere near financially savvy enough to get into the detail you are after but let's just take a basic look at players wages over the last 10 years, first team squad only. If you say we have an average squad size of 22 players each year, average out that those players have been getting 35k per week (seems conservative), so you basically have 35k x 22 players x 52 weeks x 10 years. Total outlay on first team wages alone = 400 million+. I would hazard a guess that transfer fees, other running costs, other wages and debt might get that 280 mil you are looking for
 
Because I'm not stupid enough to think that I could make money from owning SAFC!

Yea that's a fair comment and maybe he was daft thinking he could make money from a football club.

So now he has learned his lesson and wishes his loss to be as reduced as possible, seems sensible to me.

Stepping away from his personal losses from the club, it's more important that the club is not saddled with further financial commitment. We cant take any more or we will sink even quicker.

Out of control of who.....the person in control?

The club is out of control, financially speaking.

So the person in control has been giving more out than he's been getting in?



All happening under the nose of the person in control?

Yes.

Correct.

Great management! By the way....who has been in control of the club's management?

This isn't me sticking up for Short or saying he has done a good job. Purely my thoughts on the situation we find ourselves in now.
 
Last edited:
One issue that stands out is the value of our assets, in other words our players.

Cannot remember a single player we have signed in the past few years, we either got our money
back or made a profit.

The money wasted on poor signings has crippled us.

Along with the managerial merry go round, its no surprise we are financially crippled.
 
The point is to keep the club operating, but also that the owner wants to commit as little more as he can. Let's face it, if I'd lobbed about 15% of all I was worth into something and had nothing but grief to show for it, I'd be very reluctant to send good money after bad. We've partied on the credit cards for a decade, but now the bailiffs are at the door.


Wasn't much of a party either to be fair.
Was glad we stopped being a yo yo club but avoiding relegation by the skin of our teeth for so many seasons wasn't as much fun as winning the Championship :D
 
Football is unlike any other business. It’s short fuck up the running off the field that has us in this position also. We are a shambles on and off the pitch.

In some senses, but money coming in and money going out is universal. I'm not saying he isn't responsible for our plight. Just that under no circumstances should he make it any worse.

This is our club, we have to suffer the consequences of some pretty incompetent people. But at least for the moment we still have a club.
 
Wasn't much of a party either to be fair.
Was glad we stopped being a yo yo club but avoiding relegation by the skin of our teeth for so many seasons wasn't as much fun as winning the Championship :D

We'd probably been better off money wise, and had a lot more fun, if we'd accepted the odd relegation as an occupational hazard rather than throwing silly money on players to cling on like grim death.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nig
The op is a question of what the owner thinks are the best interests of the club.

I gave four points, I would like an answer to

Again, in what way is Mr Short and Mr Bain acting in a way that is the best interest of SAFC?

We spent a season in the bottom three, we have now spent around 5 months again in the bottom three of a division.

If those situations are appropriate and in safcs best interests, then what could be in the worst interest for Safc and it's fans?

I attempted to answer them, Stephen.

Would it be better if we were 40 million more in debt and losing more money per year but at the other end of the division? I don't think so, we have to pay up eventually.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top