This 'club being tight' nonsense.


Status
Not open for further replies.
Its a tough one though for Congerton, he has to work with his manager and if his manager recommends a player he has previously worked with then its going to be difficult to go against him. With the benefit of hindsight I wish he did go against him but I can understand him going with the recommendations of his manager.

Plus Poyet was a petulant fanny. If I were to employ a SD then I'd be paying them to be big enough to say no in such circumstances though. If he couldn't spot that Buckley was unlikely to make the step up then something is wrong.
 
Plus Poyet was a petulant fanny. If I were to employ a SD then I'd be paying them to be big enough to say no in such circumstances though. If he couldn't spot that Buckley was unlikely to make the step up then something is wrong.

Maybe Congerton doesn't have as much power as we think?
 
Why would they need to apply them retrospectively? They have already agreed to the framework and what the rules are. It's perfectly possible they could agree the punishment in December for example and apply that to the next set of accounts.
I agree with you to be honest I don't think there will be any this year.


Thinking about it there has to be a decision for how many points will roughly be applied for breaking the rules by a little bit or a lot and the clubs themselves have to agree on this.

If the penalty of 3 points docked was applied to breaking FFP wages by £1000 and everything in between that and £1 Billion pounds then it would simply encourage wealthy clubs who were taken over to smash FFP out of the park if the penalty is the same as for breaking it a little bit. So there is bound to be some sort of discussion amongst the clubs of a sliding scale of points punishments.

Obviously this can't be applied retrospectively because clubs would not have known the sliding scale that applied and so to apply it afterwards could be challenged.

Of course I don't know this but the clubs themselves are going to (maybe/possibly/one dim distant future day) sit down and decide this and they are not likely to retrospectively punish themselves on old guidelines when there is vastly more sums of money to play with after the end of this season.

So in all practical terms you can be so certain as to bet on it that there won't be any retrospective punishment for breaking FFP this season.

It just won't work.
 
Plus Poyet was a petulant fanny. If I were to employ a SD then I'd be paying them to be big enough to say no in such circumstances though. If he couldn't spot that Buckley was unlikely to make the step up then something is wrong.
Every Brighton fan who visited here at that time said he would make the step up. It's easy in retrospect to say he wouldn't, but there wasn't a single supporter on here from there who said he wouldn't.
 
Every Brighton fan who visited here at that time said he would make the step up. It's easy in retrospect to say he wouldn't, but there wasn't a single supporter on here from there who said he wouldn't.

I thought they were on the fence about Buckley but loved Bridcutt? Either way we've spent £5m on two players that are miles short of what's required.
 
A lot of fans are sick after years of turgid football and the reaction to getting spanked by Leicester is predictable if nothing else. We all want to be better and to have better players but the accusations made by so many people that the club, and Short, are being tight are miles wide of the mark. The facts and figures show that. Lots of other clubs are in a much better situation that we are.

From the latest accounts available I've pulled a few stats out for comparison with clubs in and around us.

Let's start and benchmark with Sunderland.
Turnover - £104.4m
Wages - £69.5m
Wages to turnover - 67%
Loss in last accounting period - £17.1m
Net debt - £92.9m

This summer we have sold Wickham for ~£9m and purchased Lens, Kaboul, Coates, Matthews & Vergini. M'Vila has joined on loan and we have Alvarez hanging over us as well. Should Alvarez go through that's a net of ~£16m so far.

Now West Ham.
Turnover - £114.9m. £10.5m more than SAFC.
Wages - £63.9m. £5.6m less than SAFC.
Wages to turnover - 56%. 11% less than SAFC.
Profit in last accounting period - £10.3m. £27.4m swing from SAFC.
Net debt - £73.5m. £19.4m less than SAFC.

Next summer they also move into the Olympic Stadium for an annual rent of a Curly Wurly and a box of TicTacs.

West Brom
Turnover - £86.8m. £17.6m less than SAFC.
Wages - £65.5m. £4m less than SAFC.
Wages to turnover - 75%. 8% more than SAFC.
Profit in last accounting period - £10.8m. £27.9m swing from SAFC.
Net debt - £4.2m. £88.7m less than SAFC.

Quite an interesting one here as they have a smaller turnover but still manage to turn a profit and their net debt is a whopping £88.7 less than ours. They have invested pretty heavily this summer so far but that is likely to be offset when/if Berahino leaves.

Swansea
Turnover - £98.7m. £5.7m less than SAFC
Wages - £63.2m. £6.3m less than SAFC
Wages to turnover - 64%. 3% less than SAFC
Profit in last accounting period - £1.7m. £18.8m swing from SAFC.
Net debt - Is it actually PLUS £0.5m. £93.4m better off than SAFC.

Turnover, wages and WtT ratio are all very similar to SAFC but they have (at the end of the accounting period) no debt and turned a profit. Added to this they'll have the Bony transfer fee sloshing around.

Stoke
Turnover - £98.3m. £6.1m less than SAFC.
Wages - £60.6m. £8.9m less than SAFC.
Wages to turnover - 62%. 5% less than SAFC.
Profit in last accounting period - £3.8m. £20.9m swing from SAFC.
Net debt - £37.8m. £55.1m less than SAFC.

Again, some similar stats for turnover, wages and WtT ratio but they turned a profit and net debt is a lot lower than ours. They've also sold Begovic and N'Zonzi this summer already so that can account for a lot of their investment.

Southampton
Turnover - £106.1m. £1.7m more than SAFC.
Wages - £63.0m. £6.5m less than SAFC.
Wages to turnover - 59%. 8% less than SAFC.
Profit in last accounting period - £33.4m. £50.5m swing from SAFC.
Net debt - £25.1m. £67.8m less than SAFC.

Having sold a lot of players for huge money Southampton turned a big profit and their net debt is a lot, lot less than ours. They've sold Clyne and Schneiderlin in this window as well. Clearly far better placed to invest than we are.

Newcastle
Turnover - £129.7m. £25.3m more than SAFC.
Wages - £78.3m. £8.8m more than SAFC.
Wages to turnover - 60%. 7% less than SAFC.
Profit in last accounting period - £18.7m. £35.8m swing from SAFC.
Net debt - £94.9m. £2m more than SAFC.

Newcastle are a curious one. They have a pretty high turnover compared to competitors but have a lower WtT ratio and turned a pretty big profit last time. Their accounts show £34.1m in cash as well but net debt is slightly higher than ours. From the outside it looks like Ashley is pushing the boat out.

Crystal Palace
Turnover - £90.4m. £14m less than SAFC.
Wages - £45.8m. £23.7m less than SAFC.
Wages to turnover - 51%. 16% less than SAFC.
Profit in last accounting period - £17.9m. £35m swing from SAFC.
Net debt - It is actually PLUS £16.5m. £109.4m better off than SAFC.

Loads of cash reverses, in the red, loads of room on the wage bill. Miles better off to invest than SAFC.

Aston Villa
Turnover - £116.9m. £12.5m more than SAFC.
Wages - £69.3m. £0.2m less than SAFC.
Wages to turnover - 59%. 8% less than the SAFC.
Loss in last accounting period - £3.9m. £13.2m swing from SAFC.
Net debt - £102.0m. £9.1m more than SAFC.

Villa's finances are pretty similar to ours. Massive net debt but they have sold Benteke and Delph this summer which has covered nearly all of their spending.

So, as you can see if you're still reading, we are in a crap position compared to pretty much all of those sides we should be competing with. Years of signing dross and not being to sell many players on has left us a bit stuck now. Hopefully we can pull something out of the bag but it's certainly not a case of us being tight. Our circumstances are just not great. I didn't realise our comparisons were quite so unfavourable to be honest.
Do these figures include managers compo we pay every year?
 
The OPS detail is very interesting....but the crucial point for me is even with the amount of money we have spent (and often wasted) and the high wages turnover %....There is no other option but to keep throwing the dice to try and bring in better players to stave off relegation.
 
The OPS detail is very interesting....but the crucial point for me is even with the amount of money we have spent (and often wasted) and the high wages turnover %....There is no other option but to keep throwing the dice to try and bring in better players to stave off relegation.

There's no doubt we will be trying to bring better players in. We're not really in a position to be chucking tens of millions around on a few players though. If I had to guess I'd say 1 more permanent and a couple of loans.
 
He didn't say that it was transfer fees only and every single club buys players via instalments.........

As for the board only one of them( theres only 5 anyway) is on a large wage and even then its probably well below the PL average for the position..........
Normal accounting practise requires that assets are written off when no longer in existence. Paying for a car that you sold 2 years ago is financially inept. These guys are supposed to be businessmem
 
Normal accounting practise requires that assets are written off when no longer in existence. Paying for a car that you sold 2 years ago is financially inept. These guys are supposed to be businessmem
Erm no that's not how amortisation in football works and the physical payments can be different anyway and continue after you sell a player...
 
Erm no that's not how amortisation in football works and the physical payments can be different anyway and continue after you sell a player...
Well i can't be arsed to look up accounting policy. But if that is how it is done in football, then it's no wonder most clubs finances are a crock of shit. Last time i looked, one of the basic tenets was to match assets and liabilities treatment appropriately to time.
 
Well i can't be arsed to look up accounting policy. But if that is how it is done in football, then it's no wonder most clubs finances are a crock of shit. Last time i looked, one of the basic tenets was to match assets and liabilities treatment appropriately to time.
No must clubs finances are fucked period thanks to the wage bill. .
 
A lot of fans are sick after years of turgid football and the reaction to getting spanked by Leicester is predictable if nothing else. We all want to be better and to have better players but the accusations made by so many people that the club, and Short, are being tight are miles wide of the mark. The facts and figures show that. Lots of other clubs are in a much better situation that we are.

From the latest accounts available I've pulled a few stats out for comparison with clubs in and around us.

Let's start and benchmark with Sunderland.
Turnover - £104.4m
Wages - £69.5m
Wages to turnover - 67%
Loss in last accounting period - £17.1m
Net debt - £92.9m

This summer we have sold Wickham for ~£9m and purchased Lens, Kaboul, Coates, Matthews & Vergini. M'Vila has joined on loan and we have Alvarez hanging over us as well. Should Alvarez go through that's a net of ~£16m so far.

Now West Ham.
Turnover - £114.9m. £10.5m more than SAFC.
Wages - £63.9m. £5.6m less than SAFC.
Wages to turnover - 56%. 11% less than SAFC.
Profit in last accounting period - £10.3m. £27.4m swing from SAFC.
Net debt - £73.5m. £19.4m less than SAFC.

Next summer they also move into the Olympic Stadium for an annual rent of a Curly Wurly and a box of TicTacs.

West Brom
Turnover - £86.8m. £17.6m less than SAFC.
Wages - £65.5m. £4m less than SAFC.
Wages to turnover - 75%. 8% more than SAFC.
Profit in last accounting period - £10.8m. £27.9m swing from SAFC.
Net debt - £4.2m. £88.7m less than SAFC.

Quite an interesting one here as they have a smaller turnover but still manage to turn a profit and their net debt is a whopping £88.7 less than ours. They have invested pretty heavily this summer so far but that is likely to be offset when/if Berahino leaves.

Swansea
Turnover - £98.7m. £5.7m less than SAFC
Wages - £63.2m. £6.3m less than SAFC
Wages to turnover - 64%. 3% less than SAFC
Profit in last accounting period - £1.7m. £18.8m swing from SAFC.
Net debt - Is it actually PLUS £0.5m. £93.4m better off than SAFC.

Turnover, wages and WtT ratio are all very similar to SAFC but they have (at the end of the accounting period) no debt and turned a profit. Added to this they'll have the Bony transfer fee sloshing around.

Stoke
Turnover - £98.3m. £6.1m less than SAFC.
Wages - £60.6m. £8.9m less than SAFC.
Wages to turnover - 62%. 5% less than SAFC.
Profit in last accounting period - £3.8m. £20.9m swing from SAFC.
Net debt - £37.8m. £55.1m less than SAFC.

Again, some similar stats for turnover, wages and WtT ratio but they turned a profit and net debt is a lot lower than ours. They've also sold Begovic and N'Zonzi this summer already so that can account for a lot of their investment.

Southampton
Turnover - £106.1m. £1.7m more than SAFC.
Wages - £63.0m. £6.5m less than SAFC.
Wages to turnover - 59%. 8% less than SAFC.
Profit in last accounting period - £33.4m. £50.5m swing from SAFC.
Net debt - £25.1m. £67.8m less than SAFC.

Having sold a lot of players for huge money Southampton turned a big profit and their net debt is a lot, lot less than ours. They've sold Clyne and Schneiderlin in this window as well. Clearly far better placed to invest than we are.

Newcastle
Turnover - £129.7m. £25.3m more than SAFC.
Wages - £78.3m. £8.8m more than SAFC.
Wages to turnover - 60%. 7% less than SAFC.
Profit in last accounting period - £18.7m. £35.8m swing from SAFC.
Net debt - £94.9m. £2m more than SAFC.

Newcastle are a curious one. They have a pretty high turnover compared to competitors but have a lower WtT ratio and turned a pretty big profit last time. Their accounts show £34.1m in cash as well but net debt is slightly higher than ours. From the outside it looks like Ashley is pushing the boat out.

Crystal Palace
Turnover - £90.4m. £14m less than SAFC.
Wages - £45.8m. £23.7m less than SAFC.
Wages to turnover - 51%. 16% less than SAFC.
Profit in last accounting period - £17.9m. £35m swing from SAFC.
Net debt - It is actually PLUS £16.5m. £109.4m better off than SAFC.

Loads of cash reverses, in the red, loads of room on the wage bill. Miles better off to invest than SAFC.

Aston Villa
Turnover - £116.9m. £12.5m more than SAFC.
Wages - £69.3m. £0.2m less than SAFC.
Wages to turnover - 59%. 8% less than the SAFC.
Loss in last accounting period - £3.9m. £13.2m swing from SAFC.
Net debt - £102.0m. £9.1m more than SAFC.

Villa's finances are pretty similar to ours. Massive net debt but they have sold Benteke and Delph this summer which has covered nearly all of their spending.

So, as you can see if you're still reading, we are in a crap position compared to pretty much all of those sides we should be competing with. Years of signing dross and not being to sell many players on has left us a bit stuck now. Hopefully we can pull something out of the bag but it's certainly not a case of us being tight. Our circumstances are just not great. I didn't realise our comparisons were quite so unfavourable to be honest.
We really are shoddily run. Absolutely clueless.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top