SAFC annual accounts OUT NOW


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?
They’re all in their limits. Their limits are far greater than ours, cos they make shit loads more.

Birmingham and Wrexham are playing by different rules. A loophole that’s now been shut.

Wolves can’t spend, mags can’t and neither can Leicester. Add Man U to that. As I pointed out big losses can’t be tolerated by any club now and certainly can’t be bankrolled by a wealthy owner.

Every club makes losses. I’ve never claimed they’re making profits but the days of owners pumping money in like short did are dead.

I’m not sure why you don’t understand that.
No back tracking here babes.

It’s not your money why do people get tetchy….
Literally the first sentence
But you OP contradicts your 2nd post. That’s why quite a few have pulled you up on it. Make your mind up.
 
Last edited:
They’re all in their limits. Their limits are far greater than ours, cos they make shit loads more.

Birmingham and Wrexham are playing by different rules. A loophole that’s now been shut.

Wolves can’t spend, mags can’t and neither can Leicester. Add Man U to that. As I pointed out big losses can’t be tolerated by any club now and certainly can’t be bankrolled by a wealthy owner.

Every club makes losses. I’ve never claimed they’re making profits but the days of owners pumping money in like short did are dead.

I’m not sure why you don’t understand that.

But you OP contradicts your 2nd post. That’s why quite a few have pulled you up on it. Make your mind up.

No contradiction

I’m saying why the fuck do people care, it’s not your money…
Those liking it must be on the same wavelength..
You must stay off the Spice up in the Blyth drug dens
 
They’re all in their limits. Their limits are far greater than ours, cos they make shit loads more.

Birmingham and Wrexham are playing by different rules. A loophole that’s now been shut.

Wolves can’t spend, mags can’t and neither can Leicester. Add Man U to that. As I pointed out big losses can’t be tolerated by any club now and certainly can’t be bankrolled by a wealthy owner.

Every club makes losses. I’ve never claimed they’re making profits but the days of owners pumping money in like short did are dead.

I’m not sure why you don’t understand that.

But you OP contradicts your 2nd post. That’s why quite a few have pulled you up on it. Make your mind up.
You condescending shit. Brum and Wrexham are/will still spend. You really think mags and Man U won’t spend this summer. How did Ipswich manage it? You said clubs can’t make losses and still spend, then say they are doing it within limits. Please make your mind up.
 
I mean there's fuck all we can do about it if the club decided to, but spending recklessly is what sent us to L1 ultimately.

Exactly, in not advocating neither just saying I don’t see why people get so wound up over it
You condescending shit. Brum and Wrexham are/will still spend. You really think mags and Man U won’t spend this summer. How did Ipswich manage it? You said clubs can’t make losses and still spend, then say they are doing it within limits. Please make your mind up.

He’s an antagonist, I’ve hoyed the bore on ignore
 

1. Financial Position and Key Highlights

  • Revenue Growth: The company’s turnover increased from £35.54M in 2023 to £38.15M in 2024, driven by improvements in sponsorship, television/media, and retail merchandising.
  • Operating Loss: The company reported a loss of £8.64M (2023: £8.93M), despite an increase in revenue. This was influenced by:
    • Higher staff costs (£30.59M vs. £25.61M).
    • Increased amortization of player contracts (£3.98M vs. £2.71M).
    • Significant profit on disposal of players (£8.81M vs. £0.3M), helping offset operating expenses.

2. Major Revenue Streams

Revenue Source2024 (£'000)2023 (£'000)% Change
Gate Receipts11,64110,726+8.5%
Television & Media10,44310,083+3.6%
Sponsorship & Royalties2,3911,620+47.6%
Conference, Banqueting, Catering8,7138,429+3.4%
Retail & Merchandising2,9972,721+10.1%
Other1,9671,964~0%

3. Expenses and Costs

  • Staff costs increased significantly (£30.59M vs. £25.61M), possibly due to new player signings or increased wages.
  • Depreciation increased to £2.15M (2023: £1.85M).
  • Bank loan interest payments appeared in 2024 (£626,000 vs. £0 in 2023), suggesting the company took on debt.

4. Player Contracts and Transfers

  • Player contract amortization (cost of contracts spread over time) increased to £3.98M (2023: £2.71M).
  • Profit from player sales increased significantly to £8.81M (2023: £0.3M).
  • Trade creditors for player acquisitions rose to £3.48M (2023: £2.94M).
  • Future transfer commitments rose to £4.77M (2023: £3.76M).

5. Financial Commitments and Liabilities

  • Short-term creditors increased to £54.37M(2023: £43.51M), due to:
    • Bank overdraft (£8.24M vs. £0M).
    • Increased parent company funding (£19.82M vs. £18.05M).
    • Higher accruals and deferred income (£17.11M vs. £17.34M).
  • Long-term creditors jumped to £19.26M (2023: £8.18M), including deferred taxation (£14.49M vs. £4.41M).

6. Investment and Asset Valuation

  • Stadium of Light revaluation increased net book value to £300.90M (from £91.16M).
  • Total tangible assets rose significantly to £338.52M (2023: £125.28M) due to revaluations.
  • Investment in subsidiaries remained constant at £1.08M.

7. Pensions and Defined Benefit Scheme

  • The club is part of the Football League Pension Scheme, with a £118.19M notional deficit (2023: £92.90M).
  • Total pension obligations rose to £137,000 (2023: £101,000).

8. Contingent Liabilities

  • Maximum contingent liability related to future player payments was £29.60M (2023: £24.69M).
  • Payments depend on player/team performance and third-party contractual obligations.

9. Related Party Transactions

  • Parent company Mercator Investments injected £19.82M (2023: £18.05M) in shareholder funding, with plans to convert this into equity.
  • The company provided services worth £29,317 to its charity, The Foundation of Light.

10. Ultimate Controlling Party

  • Mercator Investments Limited (Cayman Islands) controls the company, with K. Louis-Dreyfus as the ultimate controlling party.

Overall Assessment

  • Financial Stability: Revenue grew, but losses remain substantial.
  • Investment and Asset Strength: The Stadium of Light’s revaluation strengthened the balance sheet.
  • Debt and Liquidity Concerns: Rising short-term and long-term liabilities indicate higher debt reliance.
  • Player Trading: Transfer profits improved financial performance.
  • Parent Support: Mercator Investments continues to support the club, likely converting debt into equity.
The re-evaluation of the stadium is interesting, the changed the analysis method and come up with 300m. Increasing the value of the club for future investors!
So is that the stadium valued at 300m? If so how the hell can it jump from 91m to 300m?
 
Lost £8M. There'll still be some saying the shareholders are milking the club.

Operating loss before player amortisation and profit on player sales is £13 million:

Gross profit 35 less Operating expenses (48) = (13) = broadly cash operating losses.

Then player amortisation of (4), making losses of £17 million before player sales of £9 million to reduce the reported loss to 8 million.
 
Operating loss before player amortisation and profit on player sales is £13 million:

Gross profit 35 less Operating expenses (48) = (13) = broadly cash operating losses.

Then player amortisation of (4), making losses of £17 million before player sales of £9 million to reduce the reported loss to 8 million.
It's still a loss which means they aren't taking anything out of the club.
 
So is that the stadium valued at 300m? If so how the hell can it jump from 91m to 300m?

I'm purely guessing here but maybe they're now valuing it at how much it would cost to build a new one on a new site rather than how much they could sell it for?

Can't see any other justification for £300m since there's absolutely no way it could be sold for that much - can't think there's many other people or companies that would be looking to buy a 48,000 capacity football stadium in Sunderland? Beyond that they'd be looking at selling the land to a housing developer to who the stadium would be a liability and something they'd have to pay to knock down and clear!
 
I'm purely guessing here but maybe they're now valuing it at how much it would cost to build a new one on a new site rather than how much they could sell it for?

Can't see any other justification for £300m since there's absolutely no way it could be sold for that much - can't think there's many other people or companies that would be looking to buy a 48,000 capacity football stadium in Sunderland? Beyond that they'd be looking at selling the land to a housing developer to who the stadium would be a liability and something they'd have to pay to knock down and clear!
I see it says it can attract investors. I am thinking is it because it hasn’t been valued in years? Property costs, inflation etc and that is the new value?
 

Back
Top