SAFC annual accounts OUT NOW


Little tricky to work out the sales and buys from the exact dates that form the 23/24 financial year. (01 August 2023 to 31 July 2024.) But it does make you think we're only about 1 sale from breaking even that year, and a year on, we have a lot more saleable players on the books.
Certainly heading in the right direction.

Will be interesting to see how this current year, ending 31 July 2025 works out with the £18m or so for the Clarke sale. And also if these things are booked in one lump, or spread over 3-4 years?
If so, there could be a time lag before we see real benefits.
The sale is booked in one lump sum for profit and loss reasons, even if the cash is received over several years.

This is different to incoming transfers where the cost is spread over the length of the contract, regardless of whether the actual cash is paid in a lump sum or spread out.

But we didn't get £18m for Clarke we got £15m, and depending on which reports you choose to believe Spurs will get somewhere between 20% and 40% of that.

And it's not like however much we actually ended up with for Clarke it was a one off event that will lift profits by exactly that amount. These accounts will include the profit we made on Ross Stewart. Let's say we made a £9m profit on Stewart and a £12m profit on Clarke - that's an increase in profit on player sales of only £3m in the next accounts (which will likely be more than cancelled out by increased spending anyway).
 
I think we all need to understand that as long as we are in this league, without parachute payment money, we will always sell someone for decent money to fund out season moving forward.
To be honest without the parachute payment money, what the club has done over the last couple of years (blip last season with Beale), the ownership model and business model is pretty sound
 
Biggest thing I can see from my skim is the massive revaluation done on the SOL putting it at over £300 Million, less depreciation adjusted, works out £80 million increase in asset value. This will help the secure some very large loans against the company if required.
 
Lost £8M. There'll still be some saying the shareholders are milking the club.
There will be lots of people on Facebook pages - who have absolutely zero knowledge or experience in management of a large company, nor any accounting or financial expertise - shouting about KLD 'pocketing cash' and not spending 🙄
 
There will be lots of people on Facebook pages - who have absolutely zero knowledge or experience in management of a large company, nor any accounting or financial expertise - shouting about KLD 'pocketing cash' and not spending 🙄
There's people on here who claim these accounts the club released are fiddled and fake.
 
Biggest thing I can see from my skim is the massive revaluation done on the SOL putting it at over £300 Million, less depreciation adjusted, works out £80 million increase in asset value. This will help the secure some very large loans against the company if required.
Worth the money for the new lighting system then.
 
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.
 
There will be lots of people on Facebook pages - who have absolutely zero knowledge or experience in management of a large company, nor any accounting or financial expertise - shouting about KLD 'pocketing cash' and not spending 🙄
People are stupid. Stupid people never realise they’re stupid.
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.
Nice summary. It’s effectively what Chelsea have done, until they were forced to cap it at 5 years
 
Last edited:
Donno why people don't understand why its important.

Want to sign good players? Being financially sound is how that happens.

I never said it wasn’t.
Cos it’s not possible to bank roll a club and have big losses like you could in the past. Get with the times.

Who’s asking for big losses?

You might want to read what I said again, or I’ll paraphrase for you, ‘stop moaning if we don’t spend big money, it’s not yours money’
Another embarrassing post by yourself

Bank of wank speaking rubbish again
 
Last edited:

Back
Top