This 'club being tight' nonsense.


Status
Not open for further replies.
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.........


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........


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.........
So pretty much the same then?.
 
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.........

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........

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.........

So Short has basically just given us £150m and has no hope of getting it back?
 
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're stuck now because we kept on signing dross upon dross and still are. There's little to excuse at what's gone on here. What's the point in crowing that we have been the premiership for x number of seasons when the truth is there's been little or no entertainment in that time. Going home after yet another home defeat is no fun. The kids have no heroes to hang their hats on as I did as a kid.
 
We're stuck now because we kept on signing dross upon dross and still are. There's little to excuse at what's gone on here. What's the oint in crowing that we have been the premiership for x number of seasons when the truth is there's been little or no entertainment in that time. Going home after yet another home defeat is no fun. The kids have no heroes to hang their hats on as I did as a kid.

Exactly.


Waste is the root cause, very very simple.

Mind, that's what you get for trusting Charlatans with such amounts.

Charlatans cannot spend what they are not given.
 
I'd suggest Short makes alot of Arab friends very very quickly.
 
We're stuck now because we kept on signing dross upon dross and still are. There's little to excuse at what's gone on here. What's the point in crowing that we have been the premiership for x number of seasons when the truth is there's been little or no entertainment in that time. Going home after yet another home defeat is no fun. The kids have no heroes to hang their hats on as I did as a kid.

I wouldn't disagree with much of what you've said. It wasn't that point I was making though. I get the impression some think Short is Scrooge McDuck sitting on a pile of gold bars refusing to let Advocaat sign Ronaldo. That isn't the case at all.
 
Interesting post. A few potential points come out of it

- the more we can increase our turnover the better
- it's not just about getting rid of the "deadwood" (Roberge, Buckley etc) for next to nothing and saving on their wages. It could also be about being prepared to sell one or two of our more attractive players for fees if they don't fit into the manager's system (such as Wickham and who else - Rodwell / Giacherrini?). The sales of players we didn't even want to sell, namely Bent, Henderson, Gyan and Mignolet were obviously important in terms of revenue, we just didn't invest as well as we should have.
- we can't afford to go down, so we are in a position where we need to either strengthen, which involves more outlay, or over-achieve.

I know we've signed some average players and we had a big blip on Saturday, but I reckon that if Advocaat stays with us for a year or two, he represents our best chance of stabilising and consolidating. It would have been a bigger struggle for anyone coming in again.
 
On the subject of Short, into hedge funds in a big way, fingers in many pies (so we are told). Just how big is SAFC in his overall business, is it a play thing? Is it a nice little earner, handy place to puts debts (I have no idea), dear to his heart, or a minion, just another business?
 
Our main problem seems to be not unearthing any genuine talent that we can utilise for a few seasons then sell on at a healthy profit. We buy dross then give it away for nowt to get it off the wage bill which ultimately makes us even worse off, it's like someone standing in a hole digging while another fella behind him is filling it with shit.
 
So pretty much the same then?.
No there are differences and reasons for doing it...............a loan could be subject to repayment at any time but converting to equity means he couldn't just walk away as he cant get his money back until the club is sold..........It also takes debt off the books giving the scope to borrow from other sources........which was have in the last couple of years...............

Is that on top of what he paid for the club in the first place? How much did he pay for it?
As far as its possible to ascertain this figure or around it is the total its cost him..............

Fat Boy up the roads in up to another £100 million more............
 
Our main problem seems to be not unearthing any genuine talent that we can utilise for a few seasons then sell on at a healthy profit. We buy dross then give it away for nowt to get it off the wage bill which ultimately makes us even worse off, it's like someone standing in a hole digging while another fella behind him is filling it with shit.

Whisper it quietly but I think we could take a leaf out of the barcodes' book in that respect.
 
I wouldn't disagree with much of what you've said. It wasn't that point I was making though. I get the impression some think Short is Scrooge McDuck sitting on a pile of gold bars refusing to let Advocaat sign Ronaldo. That isn't the case at all.
Sunder fans are so low in expectation that they would be less surprised to see Ronnie Ronald (the whistling yodeller) than Ronaldo, they have come expect sh-t and are never disapointed. Check out the redundancy party on Boys From the Blackstuff (you tube) to see Ronnie Ronould(can't remember the spelling. It'll give you a laugh and show you a bit of thatcher's Britain.
 
As far as its possible to ascertain this figure or around it is the total its cost him..............

Fat Boy up the roads in up to another £100 million more............

I can't see either wanting to leave just yet with the new TV deal and the amount NBC have just paid as well.

Sunder fans are so low in expectation that they would be less surprised to see Ronnie Ronald (the whistling yodeller) than Ronaldo, they have come expect sh-t and are never disapointed. Check out the redundancy party on Boys From the Blackstuff (you tube) to see Ronnie Ronould(can't remember the spelling. It'll give you a laugh and show you a bit of thatcher's Britain.

I think we're just desperate for something to look forward to after a good 3 seasons of really awful football.
 
I can't see either wanting to leave just yet with the new TV deal and the amount NBC have just paid as well.
I think both would be off like a shot if they could break even................

Shortsd had sod all back and little or no chance of anything significant and Ashley although folk bang on about they turning a profit is in much the same boat............
 
I think both would be off like a shot if they could break even................

Shortsd had sod all back and little or no chance of anything significant and Ashley although folk bang on about they turning a profit is in much the same boat............

Can't see them breaking even any time soon.

One of the main reasons out wage level is high is the large amount of other employees we have such as the academy and the Foundation

The Foundation is a completely different entity, isn't it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top