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.

All this highlights is how badly ran we've been for the last 5 years if clubs like Stoke, Palace and Southampton are in a better financial state than us.

We're constantly chasing our tails and this won't stop until we invest in a few extra quality players picked by someone who knows what he's doing.
 
I disagree


Well you are absolutely wrong.

Go find anything to prove you are right... you won't.

UEFA FFP rules apply to entrants to UEFA competitions. They have no authority to sanction a club that breaks their rules trying to avoid relegation.

The Echo and the Club are certainly not talking about qualifying for Europe when the talk about FFP.
 
Tbf FFP is just another excuse from the club. Total bollocks and a smoke screen.

They'll mention 'health and safety' reasons next for a summer of doing fuck all.

Other clubs are fine, why the fuck are we the only ones man. It takes the Piss
 
Yes there are but....

WTF UEFA penalties could they possibly apply to us. A transfer ban??? I'd take that if we had a squad that made the top six and broke it. Utterly ludicrous claiming this is stopping us purchasing players to save us from another relegation battle. Listen to yourself.


Also get into your head that the Echo and the Club are never talking about this when they talk about it.
They could only apply a transfer ban if we had actually qualified for Europe anyway...

Uefa rules only apply if you are in their competitions...
 
8 pages and still no mention of an obvious element in the room.
People have already discussed the 'new manager' effect in the way that the new bloke wants his own players, thus increasing costs.

BUT: the previous guy got sacked. What does that mean? Well it means we still pay him what we previously agreed but now we pay him (and his sidekicks) to walk away without a job to do, and we have to find extra money from somewhere to pay the next man and his briefly staying team.
 
Really makes you wonder who comes up with decisions like giving Brown an extension. He was injured for ages, ok for a bit, then shit last year. We get the chance to free up some decent wages, and then we sign him back up. f***ing madness.
 
Most of which can be excluded from FFP.



It's often overlooked, but much of the mess we have comes from the large overspend by Drumaville. Of course Short has made mistakes, but God knows where we would be if he hidden come onboard
Short joined in 2008, it's been nearly 7 years since Drumaville left, would love to here why you apportion a large amount of the current mess on them.
 
Well you are absolutely wrong.

Go find anything to prove you are right... you won't.

UEFA FFP rules apply to entrants to UEFA competitions. They have no authority to sanction a club that breaks their rules trying to avoid relegation.

The Echo and the Club are certainly not talking about qualifying for Europe when the talk about FFP.

When we all refer to FFP I pretty much assumed it was the Premier Leagues own FFP rules we were talking about not Europe's.

Of which Ellis was apparently the main driver.
 
Really makes you wonder who comes up with decisions like giving Brown an extension. He was injured for ages, ok for a bit, then shit last year. We get the chance to free up some decent wages, and then we sign him back up. f***ing madness.

I don't think Brown will be on anything near what he was on last year
 
The money men at the club can disect the finer points of ffp for as many hours as they choose to.

The fact is, in the absence of investing heavily, on REAL quality, we are in deep deep shit.

We are being left behind by clubs we should match, and quite possibly outperform.

Not only is is disappointing, and frustrating, it's actually f***ing dull, season on season.
 
8 pages and still no mention of an obvious element in the room.
People have already discussed the 'new manager' effect in the way that the new bloke wants his own players, thus increasing costs.

BUT: the previous guy got sacked. What does that mean? Well it means we still pay him what we previously agreed but now we pay him (and his sidekicks) to walk away without a job to do, and we have to find extra money from somewhere to pay the next man and his briefly staying team.
Element?? I'm sure I typed elephant.
Time to go and lie down in a darkened room.

Wasteful is probability more accurate than tight.
Yep. Hiring and firing - wrong managers, wrong players, probably the wrong tea lady as well. f***ing earl grey with milk and sugar!
 
There are some absolute tradegies at birth on here mind when it comes to understanding even the basic financial problems we have.

Given how much Ellis has bought into SAFC and the fans I'm pretty sure that if it was a simple as spending £50m to finally banish our relegation demons he would have done it.

It's clearly not that simple.
 
Well you are absolutely wrong.

Go find anything to prove you are right... you won't.

UEFA FFP rules apply to entrants to UEFA competitions. They have no authority to sanction a club that breaks their rules trying to avoid relegation.

The Echo and the Club are certainly not talking about qualifying for Europe when the talk about FFP.
They are talking about ffp on all levels though
 
Short joined in 2008, it's been nearly 7 years since Drumaville left, would love to here why you apportion a large amount of the current mess on them.
Just gone 6 actually mate but it's a fact their lack of financial management left a huge mess that saw us making the monster losses we still haven't been able to stem. ..

The Tv cash was a lot less then but the bloody wage bill wasn't. .
It hot to about 87% of turnover at its peak.
 
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.
Evening Margaret.
 
Just gone 6 actually mate but it's a fact their lack of financial management left a huge mess that saw us making the monster losses we still haven't been able to stem. ..

The Tv cash was a lot less then but the bloody wage bill wasn't. .
It hot to about 87% of turnover at its peak.

You want more financial prudence whereas some loons in this thread think we should go shit or bust.
 
Just gone 6 actually mate but it's a fact their lack of financial management left a huge mess that saw us making the monster losses we still haven't been able to stem. ..

The Tv cash was a lot less then but the bloody wage bill wasn't. .
It hot to about 87% of turnover at its peak.
What year was that?

It's the term much I don't agree with. They contributed a small bit, but nothing much apart from an increase in TV money has changed and we haven't improved on the pitch.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top