This 'club being tight' nonsense.


Status
Not open for further replies.
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.

So not tight, just poorly managed? Why are we paying vast amount of wages for so many average players?
 
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.
Great post with good points, I agree mate we've spent alot of money on shite over the years and it's coming back to haunt us. If only we could wipe the whole slate clean :lol:
 
Isn't the majority of debt owed to Ellis Short in the shape of shares though?

If not, we are a right shit state

I'm not sure but it would be interesting to find out and if it is the case what it actually means? I doubt Short would be wanting to continually add to the amount.
 
Isn't the majority of debt owed to Ellis Short in the shape of shares though?

If not, we are a right shit state
Yep most of his was converted into equity a while ago............there may be a small bit of that £90 odd million still owed to him but the majority of it is bank finance.............
 
Nope the £150 million or so of his has all been converted into equity...........there may be a small bit of that £90 odd million still owed to him but the majority of it is bank finance.............

What does the converting to equity mean? He's written it off basically?
 
FFP does not matter, it's irrelevant.

These figures, sorry reading as they are don't make a shiny shit of difference either.

The bottom line is Short has fucked up repeatedly and this season if he wants to remain for the big money deal then he has to spend.

There simply is no two ways about this.... Regardless of any figures.
A lot of it is down to shorts mismanagement how much will be down to managers coaching staffs he keeps sacking or the whole de fanti bollocks and the money he wasted. It's not sunderland afc alone who accumulated this debt it's people the owner has put in charge something people seem to wash over.
 
What does the converting to equity mean? He's written it off basically?
No it means he cant get it back until he sells the club.............its a bit of a smoke and mirrors trick that takes debt off the books........of course if the sale price is less than whats been converted than hes looking at a loss.............

This is why FFP regulations that allow accumulated losses of £105 million over three seasons if the owner injects cash which again must be converted into equity doesn't mean as folk keep thinking on here he will just do as hes more than likely kissing that money goodbye.........

Jesus. How have we managed that? We're fucked if we go down with a quarter of a billion debt
We haven't got a quarter of a billion debt though that's the point of it..............he cant get it until the club is sold but its obviously the reason hes reluctant to pour more of his own cash down the hole........

Like Ashley he'd be wanting it back when the club was sold i hunk.
Ashleys isn't converted into equity though.............he physically paid around £13o million for the club and theres an interest free loan of £129 million in their books.........
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top