The accounts 2016/17 - some thoughts


Status
Not open for further replies.
Not really. The new owners will be very aware of the commitments they are taking on. We have to assume that they have formulated their plans to accommodate this.
Of course they will have.
That makes their decision to press ahead taking us over even more laudable.
And, contrary to what many think, they 100pc certainly aren't getting the club for nowt.
 
There is a huge amount of room for funneling money out of the company there. The staffing costs, coupled with recent release of information showing a strangely high percentage of females in the top band (given that the assumption should have been that the top band should have been mainly made up of male player staff) indicates something creative may have gone on here. The missing £6 million is other operating costs could be another £6 million getting funneled out.
£6m when you have spent a quarter billion of your own cash and still putting in to run the club along with potential fraud charges if you do something illegal. I dont think so.

Also why is it strange about the large percentage of females? Unless you are hiding under a rock we are seeing a huge change in corporate Britain about the attitude towards high level women
 
£6m when you have spent a quarter billion of your own cash and still putting in to run the club along with potential fraud charges if you do something illegal. I dont think so.

£6 million this year, on one section of the accounts. Over the threads (many which have now gone) there has been many observations about where a bit of odds money has gone here and there. And then there are the many, many strange transfers we have done, including two of the strangest transfers in the history of professional football. I think there needs to be a general investigation to see if football is being used to cover bartering on other deals around the world.

Also why is it strange about the large percentage of females? Unless you are hiding under a rock we are seeing a huge change in corporate Britain about the attitude towards high level women

I started a thread on this when I noticed it. It is strange because our top earners should be mainly male, because our top earners are in theory male professional footballers. So when 12% of the top band are show to be females, that means they are most likely executives in the company and not playing staff. But we do not have an abundance of female executives as far as I am aware, so even if we say that there is a 1:1 ration of female to male executives, that would mean that executive pay equates to at least 24% of our top paid staff, which would imply that there is a lot of money going out of the club in executive pay. Then you have to consider, say there are 3 female executives in the top band, that means there must be around 28 males on a the top quartile of pay, which if you are saying there are 3 male executives leaves 25 players on the top band of pay. But we know that there is probably not a 1:1 ratio of females to males. I would guess that it is more likely at least 1:3, which would indicate that potentially at least a third of the big money at the club is going straight out in executive pay.
 
£6 million this year, on one section of the accounts. Over the threads (many which have now gone) there has been many observations about where a bit of odds money has gone here and there. And then there are the many, many strange transfers we have done, including two of the strangest transfers in the history of professional football. I think there needs to be a general investigation to see if football is being used to cover bartering on other deals around the world.



I started a thread on this when I noticed it. It is strange because our top earners should be mainly male, because our top earners are in theory male professional footballers. So when 12% of the top band are show to be females, that means they are most likely executives in the company and not playing staff. But we do not have an abundance of female executives as far as I am aware, so even if we say that there is a 1:1 ration of female to male executives, that would mean that executive pay equates to at least 24% of our top paid staff, which would imply that there is a lot of money going out of the club in executive pay. Then you have to consider, say there are 3 female executives in the top band, that means there must be around 28 males on a the top quartile of pay, which if you are saying there are 3 male executives leaves 25 players on the top band of pay. But we know that there is probably not a 1:1 ratio of females to males. I would guess that it is more likely at least 1:3, which would indicate that potentially at least a third of the big money at the club is going straight out in executive pay.
A man running a multi million dollar fund is not going to cycle £6m here and there through a football club, for so many reasons!

I have not looked at the numbers however do the footballers actually count in those numbers as even though they are wages there are some strange accounting rules for football clubs so not sure how it works
 
£6 million this year, on one section of the accounts. Over the threads (many which have now gone) there has been many observations about where a bit of odds money has gone here and there. And then there are the many, many strange transfers we have done, including two of the strangest transfers in the history of professional football. I think there needs to be a general investigation to see if football is being used to cover bartering on other deals around the world.



I started a thread on this when I noticed it. It is strange because our top earners should be mainly male, because our top earners are in theory male professional footballers. So when 12% of the top band are show to be females, that means they are most likely executives in the company and not playing staff. But we do not have an abundance of female executives as far as I am aware, so even if we say that there is a 1:1 ration of female to male executives, that would mean that executive pay equates to at least 24% of our top paid staff, which would imply that there is a lot of money going out of the club in executive pay. Then you have to consider, say there are 3 female executives in the top band, that means there must be around 28 males on a the top quartile of pay, which if you are saying there are 3 male executives leaves 25 players on the top band of pay. But we know that there is probably not a 1:1 ratio of females to males. I would guess that it is more likely at least 1:3, which would indicate that potentially at least a third of the big money at the club is going straight out in executive pay.

What's more likely is that the top quartile by number, which is what this is, encompasses a huge range in salaries. There are around 75 employees in the top quartile, but the vat majority of staff are on comparatively low wages. Without knowing the salary boundaries for each quartile, it's hard to gauge. Given that academy and age group players are unlikely even to be on as much as £5k/week, it's probably a reasonable assumption that there are only 20-30 employees earning over £250k per year. One of those is clearly Angela Lowes who is the only other paid director, and (by deducting Bain's salary) is on around £390k. It's entirely plausible that employees like Louise Wanless and the head of change management (can't remember her name, but she was at the first RAWA meeting with Bain) will fall into that top 75, with the lower end of the band well down into the middle management range of salaries.
 
I find it bizarre that new owners have to continually pay for the bad purchases of the previous regime. But I suppose it’s just the way it is...

The irony of it all though, fresh start but with baggage.
 
I find it bizarre that new owners have to continually pay for the bad purchases of the previous regime. But I suppose it’s just the way it is...

The irony of it all though, fresh start but with baggage.

They take over the company and all of the assets and liabilities that come with it, unless specifically negotiated in the sale and purchase agreement.

So although they take over the baggage of the liabilities from the previous regime, they’re also taking over the cash balances, rights to future cash flows that come from the debtors and investments, and the ownership of the stadium too.
 
There is a huge amount of room for funneling money out of the company there. The staffing costs, coupled with recent release of information showing a strangely high percentage of females in the top band (given that the assumption should have been that the top band should have been mainly made up of male player staff) indicates something creative may have gone on here. The missing £6 million is other operating costs could be another £6 million getting funneled out.
Have you ever considered it is the tinfoil industry that is actually behind conspiracies?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top