SAFC annual accounts OUT NOW


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 aren't covered by player sales. Any sales profits are offset against losses to give the overall accounted figure. A loss.
 
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.
So what happens with WBA next season then? Lost £34m didn’t they?
 
So what happens with WBA next season then? Lost £34m didn’t they?

I believe that The Championship's PSR works similarly to The Premier League's in the way that they'll have to prove (or convince) that they can turn that loss around. In the reply you quoted I pointed out why it might have been that Everton couldn't convince the PL due to the way they financed their ground and that's why they got a points deduction where Forest didn't.

7 months ago, West Brom were placed under an imposed business plan by the EFL as they came forward due to knowing they were going to break the rules. Every single transfer, contract negotiation, and anything else that effects PSR has to be agreed with the EFL before any deal is done. West Brom's owners are arguing that the losses are due to the previous owners' financial mismanagement. The fact their owners came to the EFL in good time will likely see any sanctions as just the former IMO.

It's worth noting that whilst making the massive losses they're making, WBA are selling players on a much higher scale in terms of transfer fees than they are in buying players. This could, and probably will, be one of their arguments as to how they're attempting to fix their finances. Since the 2021/22 season, they've spent roughly £21m on player transfers, whilst selling roughly £38m. This helped keep their losses to £11m in the recording period before this - it's obviously not sustainable though. It's worth noting too that they've decreased their weekly wage bill by over £50k since 2022/23 (Capology) - for reference, ours has increased by almost £100k p/w this season in comparison to last. Yet they're still under imposed plans by the EFL.

TLDR; They're fucked. Promotion or Stoke-Esque midtable years for a while.
 

Back
Top