SAFC annual accounts OUT NOW


Will be Thursday at the earliest. I'm in the NE till then with only a mobile. This needs decent computer access to draft cut/paste etc.
1741706091254.gif
 

Attachments

You must be registered for see attachments list
I can see this new tv deal costing clubs a canny few season ticket renewals/matchday sales to be honest!
Imagine a fair few will have missed a lot of games this season I come off nights Saturday morning 6 am virtually impossible to commit to a season ticket with the amount of early kick offs.
 
How have the Saudis managed it? And Forest, Wolves, Ipswich, Leicester, Birmingham, Wrexham in fact I can’t think of many clubs who haven’t made a loss. How many can you name?

Just because other clubs lose more money than us, it's not a bad thing for SAFC. It's brilliant. For the other clubs, it's lazy ownership, looking for a quick buck, with no thought of the clubs' long-term future in mind to breach FFP/PSR. It's mental to me that anyone's view would be "they lose more money than us, why don't we lose that much?". What business, ever, has operated like that? If that's not your point, why bring it up?

It's worth noting that before I break down each club, it must be noted that for every club you've listed there's another handful that tried similar approaches and failed. It's a risk. Nine times out of ten it doesn't work, and leaves clubs worse off. If you'd like a list of clubs worse off, take a look at The Championship League Table from about 6th down.

Weren't in the same division if you're referring to their 2022/23 PL bankroll when they signed 30 players for almost £200m. Different rules, allowed a much greater loss than Championship clubs, and - ofcourse - had a much higher income stream. If they were relegated that season, and lost just a season of PL income they'd likely have struggled financially to balance the books in any way. They breached the Premier League PSR limit (reportedly by over 50%), and unless they could provide proof that they'll recover those losses, they would have received punishment akin to Everton. They've also likely gambled that the punishment is worth the risk. The reason Everton may have been punished, and NF haven't, may be due to Everton's stadium being under construction and the way they've funded it (so it would be a struggle to find a way to prove they'll be able to fund the losses), where-as Forest are reaping the rewards of the risk with potential European football and the income that brings. Of course, spending big doesn't equate to success, otherwise Manchester United would win the league every season, so they've gotten very lucky.

In Forest's final season in the Championship they went from relegation threatened, to Play-Off winners. They also increased their losses from £15.5m per season to £46.2m - this is a huge breach. If they didn't go up, that would see them potentially punished and unable to invest any further. That would be in a similar fashion to a list of current Championship clubs that have done this tactic, and received the consequences (going from the aforementioned 6th and below): West Brom (Bought ~£15m, Sold £35m), Bristol City (Bought ~£7m, Sold ~£40m since 2020/21), Blackburn Rovers (Bought ~£10m, Sold ~£50m) - I'm not going through every club, but every club is the same. They risked it at one point similar to Forest, it failed, they're stuck. They can't spend money, they can't improve the squad, they have to offer large wages to be attractive to ambitious players that otherwise wouldn't choose them, it's a repeating cycle that is extremely difficult to get out of. Forest would have been in this cycle had they not been promoted, (arguably) if not worse as they had one of the largest losses ever recorded in The Championship - they won narrowly 1-0 in the play-off final.

What Forest have though is unsustainable, their squad won't be able to consistently achieve European football. We've seen with Villa and now Newcastle that spending is limited, even with European football icnome, and so they'll (like Villa and Newcastle) have to sell any of their best players to fund new ones, and overall squad improvement. Especially with the losses Forest record. They're not 'managing' it, it's not successful long term.

Loads of info on Forest - in particular their Championship season - here.

Similar to Forest, and many many other clubs at this level. Risked it. Were rewarded where others weren't. Wolves weren't as successful in The Premier League as Forest, and now find themselves fighting relegation unable to sign players to improve the squad due to PSR.

Pretty much all of their signings are funded by player sales. Since 2020/21 they've sold ~£400m worth of players, and bought ~£430m worth. That's not free spending, or making substantial losses in windows. That's them doing their best to stick to PSR rules. It's worth noting that they have Premier League income, and yet still have to sell before they buy due to their heavy losses.

There's an easy argument that they might be struggling so much due to excessive wages that come from how much they were paying during those two seasons in The Championship. If you're paying players in The Championship that much, upon promotion, established Premier League players coming in will want just as much, if not more. They're not good enough. Cycle repeats. We literally saw this at SAFC first hand.

An article on Wolves' financial situation here.

Not sure why they're here. They haven't released their accounts for their season(s) in The Championship, or Premier League. Their net spend in The Championship is minimal. What are you going off to mention them being big spenders/managing at this level with heavy losses?

Literally going to court due to their FFP/PSR irregularities. They're not 'managing', and they're certainly not an example of what we should be like. Enough said.

Different rules. Pointless even mentioning them.

TLDR: They're not managing. A football club at Championship level can only lose £13m per season. Period.
 
Literally nobody has? Certainly not the club! Feel free to prove me wrong by providing quotes of those who have.

People have mentioned other clubs sailing close to the limits but not us.

You were allowed lose £39M over 3 seasons. We have lost £5M, £9M and £8M. £22M. There are certain things that don't count towards the loss figures too. The figures aren't up for debate. We have loads of wriggle room and nobody can say anything else!
Im rather busy keith but im not making it up.
 
Lost £8M. There'll still be some saying the shareholders are milking the club.
They are... putting little of their own money in while most of the transfer fees we've received have not been respent on players. They are here to make money at the end of the day and these accounts never tell the true story of a club's finances (look how Ashley got fooled when he bought Newcastle that had hidden debt), lots of very clever tactics and movement of money around and money borrowed from a web of companies, some owned by the owners.

These owners now own some very expensive assets despite putting very little of their own money in, they just loaned themselves money from their other companies and will take a hefty profit when they sell up, likely leaving the debt on the club for the next owners.

I just don't trust them at all, KLD has proven he is prepared to lie to us when he told us he owned more of the club than he did, while Sartori has had allegations of financial fraud against him and been in a high court case for misleading investors, along with lots of other reports of dodgy dealings in his own country.

It's all smoke and mirrors but one things for sure, when the dust settles and these owners leave, they'll be taking a hefty profit for minimal investment and SAFC will be saddled with their debt.
 
They are... putting little of their own money in while most of the transfer fees we've received have not been respent on players. They are here to make money at the end of the day and these accounts never tell the true story of a club's finances (look how Ashley got fooled when he bought Newcastle that had hidden debt), lots of very clever tactics and movement of money around and money borrowed from a web of companies, some owned by the owners.

These owners now own some very expensive assets despite putting very little of their own money in, they just loaned themselves money from their other companies and will take a hefty profit when they sell up, likely leaving the debt on the club for the next owners.

I just don't trust them at all, KLD has proven he is prepared to lie to us when he told us he owned more of the club than he did, while Sartori has had allegations of financial fraud against him and been in a high court case for misleading investors, along with lots of other reports of dodgy dealings in his own country.

It's all smoke and mirrors but one things for sure, when the dust settles and these owners leave, they'll be taking a hefty profit for minimal investment and SAFC will be saddled with their debt.
As a club we have lost £22M on the last 3 sets of accounts. Those losses have to be covered.
 
the last accounts, and various other times posters have claimed the club are spending as much as allowed which is rediculous.

@Grumpy Old Man may have felt that was the case but i appolgise if im thinking of someone else.
I think the club have waffled about it too despite in no danger of approaching it.
I can’t recall anyone saying we’re near the limit mind.
 
Just because other clubs lose more money than us, it's not a bad thing for SAFC. It's brilliant. For the other clubs, it's lazy ownership, looking for a quick buck, with no thought of the clubs' long-term future in mind to breach FFP/PSR. It's mental to me that anyone's view would be "they lose more money than us, why don't we lose that much?". What business, ever, has operated like that? If that's not your point, why bring it up?

It's worth noting that before I break down each club, it must be noted that for every club you've listed there's another handful that tried similar approaches and failed. It's a risk. Nine times out of ten it doesn't work, and leaves clubs worse off. If you'd like a list of clubs worse off, take a look at The Championship League Table from about 6th down.

Weren't in the same division if you're referring to their 2022/23 PL bankroll when they signed 30 players for almost £200m. Different rules, allowed a much greater loss than Championship clubs, and - ofcourse - had a much higher income stream. If they were relegated that season, and lost just a season of PL income they'd likely have struggled financially to balance the books in any way. They breached the Premier League PSR limit (reportedly by over 50%), and unless they could provide proof that they'll recover those losses, they would have received punishment akin to Everton. They've also likely gambled that the punishment is worth the risk. The reason Everton may have been punished, and NF haven't, may be due to Everton's stadium being under construction and the way they've funded it (so it would be a struggle to find a way to prove they'll be able to fund the losses), where-as Forest are reaping the rewards of the risk with potential European football and the income that brings. Of course, spending big doesn't equate to success, otherwise Manchester United would win the league every season, so they've gotten very lucky.

In Forest's final season in the Championship they went from relegation threatened, to Play-Off winners. They also increased their losses from £15.5m per season to £46.2m - this is a huge breach. If they didn't go up, that would see them potentially punished and unable to invest any further. That would be in a similar fashion to a list of current Championship clubs that have done this tactic, and received the consequences (going from the aforementioned 6th and below): West Brom (Bought ~£15m, Sold £35m), Bristol City (Bought ~£7m, Sold ~£40m since 2020/21), Blackburn Rovers (Bought ~£10m, Sold ~£50m) - I'm not going through every club, but every club is the same. They risked it at one point similar to Forest, it failed, they're stuck. They can't spend money, they can't improve the squad, they have to offer large wages to be attractive to ambitious players that otherwise wouldn't choose them, it's a repeating cycle that is extremely difficult to get out of. Forest would have been in this cycle had they not been promoted, (arguably) if not worse as they had one of the largest losses ever recorded in The Championship - they won narrowly 1-0 in the play-off final.

What Forest have though is unsustainable, their squad won't be able to consistently achieve European football. We've seen with Villa and now Newcastle that spending is limited, even with European football icnome, and so they'll (like Villa and Newcastle) have to sell any of their best players to fund new ones, and overall squad improvement. Especially with the losses Forest record. They're not 'managing' it, it's not successful long term.

Loads of info on Forest - in particular their Championship season - here.

Similar to Forest, and many many other clubs at this level. Risked it. Were rewarded where others weren't. Wolves weren't as successful in The Premier League as Forest, and now find themselves fighting relegation unable to sign players to improve the squad due to PSR.

Pretty much all of their signings are funded by player sales. Since 2020/21 they've sold ~£400m worth of players, and bought ~£430m worth. That's not free spending, or making substantial losses in windows. That's them doing their best to stick to PSR rules. It's worth noting that they have Premier League income, and yet still have to sell before they buy due to their heavy losses.

There's an easy argument that they might be struggling so much due to excessive wages that come from how much they were paying during those two seasons in The Championship. If you're paying players in The Championship that much, upon promotion, established Premier League players coming in will want just as much, if not more. They're not good enough. Cycle repeats. We literally saw this at SAFC first hand.

An article on Wolves' financial situation here.

Not sure why they're here. They haven't released their accounts for their season(s) in The Championship, or Premier League. Their net spend in The Championship is minimal. What are you going off to mention them being big spenders/managing at this level with heavy losses?

Literally going to court due to their FFP/PSR irregularities. They're not 'managing', and they're certainly not an example of what we should be like. Enough said.

Different rules. Pointless even mentioning them.

TLDR: They're not managing. A football club at Championship level can only lose £13m per season. Period.
You’ve spectacularly missed my point. Which is a shame given the amount of effort you’ve put into a reply.
 
I understand why some people find the finances boring, but its absolutely fundamental to how we will perform as a football club on the pitch and although the cautious steady approach may mean we miss opportunities it also means we are more likely to avoid absolute calamities and systematically improve over time. The fact that our natural competitors such as Norwich, WBA, Boro aren't doing the same means they are going to fall off a cliff edge like Hull have done and will not be able to sustain promotion challenges. Bloody parachute payments are always going to be an issue, but we should be starting seasons as 3rd/4th promotion favourites and eventually that should pay-off as promotion. There are of course examples of more gung-ho approaches paying off like Ipswich and Sheff Utd, but its a risky strategy with more chance of failure. I think these are a decent set of accounts, are in line with 'the model' and represent a picture of an improving football club on the up. I was disappointed with a lack of activity this Jan. I think the optimal strategy knows when to risk a little and whilst last Jan felt like a definite no, this Jan felt like we should have gambled a bit more than we did. And obviously I wish we would stop taking injured players on loan. But overall this is a positive set of results.
It's worth highlighting how player transfers are calculated for the purposes of the accounts.

Let's say you sign a player for £10m on a 5-year contract.

In your profit and loss accounts it *does not matter* whether you pay that £10m in one lump sump, over 2 years, 5 years or whatever, the cost is calculated the same way in your accounts - it is spread over the length of the contract.

So every year for the next 5 years that player is a "loss" of £2m in the accounts. After 1 year you've "lost" £2m, after 2 years you've lost £4m and so on. If his contract simply runs down then at the end of the 5 years you've lost the £10m you paid.

If you sell that player, the profit or loss is calculated based on his value at that time, using the same calculation.

So if we sell our £10m signing who had a 5-year contract after 3 years, his value at that point is £4m - his value dropped by £2m every year for 3 years so he's now worth £4m.

That means if we now sell him for £7m, which is £3m less than what we paid for him, in that year's accounts the transfer will still represent a "profit" of £3m.

Of course while the transfer is a £3m profit in that particular year, there are still 3 years worth of £2m losses, so overall it does show as a £3m loss when you add up the accounts for each year.

This is why clubs are so keen to sell academy players - because they haven't paid a fee for them, whatever they get is pure profit.
Thanks H. That's how I thought it worked. I'm not an accountant but it seems like thats a lot like depreciation of capital assets like say a computer? (maybe exactly the same). The one thing that strikes me is that this isn't going to reflect the true value of playing capital until its sold, especially where it is fundamentally part of the strategy of the club to buy players and develop them. So for example, Clarke. What did we buy him for? £800k on a 4 yr contract. So 2 years in his listed value is £400k but that's clearly not his real value. Where would he be listed in these accounts? tangible assets? So if thats correct, the usual accounting conventions aren't going to give a realistic valuation of the largest part of our assets. I mean it can work both ways. What did we buy Rusyn for? £2m? I doubt he is worth anywhere near that now even after taking into consideration the usual calculation. But overall, for a club that develops players, that conventional way of measuring value could be quite wrong?
 
Last edited:
As a club we have lost £22M on the last 3 sets of accounts. Those losses have to be covered.

Indeed they do. At present, it’s via debt to the owners and player sales. It’ll be interesting to see if / when that debt will be converted by the owners.

What I think we’re lacking from the owners is an outline of where they want the club to be and what their ambitions are. There was a plan to be back in the top flight within five years. Then what?

Is there a plan for further investment? For further development of infrastructure to modernise the club going into the second quarter of this century?

Just something to be a bit more enthusiastic about beyond sustainability and development of players to be sold.
 
They are... putting little of their own money in while most of the transfer fees we've received have not been respent on players. They are here to make money at the end of the day and these accounts never tell the true story of a club's finances (look how Ashley got fooled when he bought Newcastle that had hidden debt), lots of very clever tactics and movement of money around and money borrowed from a web of companies, some owned by the owners.

These owners now own some very expensive assets despite putting very little of their own money in, they just loaned themselves money from their other companies and will take a hefty profit when they sell up, likely leaving the debt on the club for the next owners.

I just don't trust them at all, KLD has proven he is prepared to lie to us when he told us he owned more of the club than he did, while Sartori has had allegations of financial fraud against him and been in a high court case for misleading investors, along with lots of other reports of dodgy dealings in his own country.

It's all smoke and mirrors but one things for sure, when the dust settles and these owners leave, they'll be taking a hefty profit for minimal investment and SAFC will be saddled with their debt.
What a load of bollox!
 

Back
Top