Jump to content

Q&A with SM and SR...


TroyDyer

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 326
  • Created
  • Last Reply

You had to click a link on the email to a specific page but the link is now down probably due to either the event bring full or too late to register 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

....and you think keogh is poo.....you're barking mate, absolutely barking.

Biased is more accurate description.....thus unable to re-assess

Link to comment
Share on other sites

​I don't believe that for one second. Who in their right mind would be in favour of goal music? Madness

​House of Fun?

 

Suggs singing about his Chelsea away days at Millwall is that what we wanna here at the IPro…….I think not.

Welcome to the House of Fun
Now I've come of age
Welcome to the lion's den
Temptation's on his way
Welcome to the House of (Fun)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

£4 million is an awful lot, especially considering that this relates to last year! When you consider the new signings/loans this year plus the new contracts I reckon we could be looking at the same increase in the next set of accounts!

​Don't see how that could be true, as I'm sure SR (in his report on 13/14) said he expected this year's loss to be in the same region,and I don't think it could be that much more,whilst still complying with FFP.

I've had a look at some likely changes between 13/14 and 14/15 and have come up with the following:-

On the expenditure side,and ignoring any wage increases,interest payable will be £1m higher (a £500k+ credit will change to a c£500k charge) ; amortisation is likely to rise by well over £1m ; a £635k profit on player sales is likely to reduce to something small,if anything (this isn't expenditure increase,but income reduction).

On the other side of the coin,the £867 compo won't be repeated (again decreased expenditure rather than a change in income,as will be the next item) ; impairment charge of £581k  may not be repeated;match day income will have increased,along with cup income ,though impossible to calculate; commercial etc income may have increased,although 13/14 already features the ipro deal;TV&central distribution will fall,unless we're again beaten finalists (and I don't see how SR could have included this in his forecast),

All of this comes without even considering any signing on fees and possible loan fees.It looks to me like the expenditure side already holds sway,without even considering any wage increases.If only we knew the net youth development costs I'd have a better idea on this,but my guess is that we'd be able to make a headline loss of around £8.5m,whilst still complying with FFP for 14/15.

Ironically,the loss would likely increase more should we be promoted because of bonuses,however these are excluded from the FFP calculation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

​Don't see how that could be true, as I'm sure SR (in his report on 13/14) said he expected this year's loss to be in the same region,and I don't think it could be that much more,whilst still complying with FFP.

I've had a look at some likely changes between 13/14 and 14/15 and have come up with the following:-

On the expenditure side,and ignoring any wage increases,interest payable will be £1m higher (a £500k+ credit will change to a c£500k charge) ; amortisation is likely to rise by well over £1m ; a £635k profit on player sales is likely to reduce to something small,if anything (this isn't expenditure increase,but income reduction).

On the other side of the coin,the £867 compo won't be repeated (again decreased expenditure rather than a change in income,as will be the next item) ; impairment charge of £581k  may not be repeated;match day income will have increased,along with cup income ,though impossible to calculate; commercial etc income may have increased,although 13/14 already features the ipro deal;TV&central distribution will fall,unless we're again beaten finalists (and I don't see how SR could have included this in his forecast),

All of this comes without even considering any signing on fees and possible loan fees.It looks to me like the expenditure side already holds sway,without even considering any wage increases.If only we knew the net youth development costs I'd have a better idea on this,but my guess is that we'd be able to make a headline loss of around £8.5m,whilst still complying with FFP for 14/15.

Ironically,the loss would likely increase more should we be promoted because of bonuses,however these are excluded from the FFP calculation. 

​Ignoring what Rush has said re future losses, Best, Bent, Ince, Lingard, Albentosa plus improved contracts...it's hard to see how this will equate to anything less than £80k per week

Link to comment
Share on other sites

​Ignoring what Rush has said re future losses, Best, Bent, Ince, Lingard, Albentosa plus improved contracts...it's hard to see how this will equate to anything less than £80k per week

​Those you mention are only half year wages,though it must be said there are others you've missed out,with the odd departure to partially offset.

Although a lot of what I said in my post was incalcuable,the interest/amortisation elements look pretty secure.Therefore,if you add this £2m+ to your proposed £4m wages increase,our 13/14 loss has already shot up to £13m+ for the current year,even without any of the other possible adverse changes I suggested.That's a hell of a clawback to be made on the increased income side to enable us to comply with FFP.

We were at the forefront of those championing the principle of FFP at the outset,and I seem to remember SR saying something along the lines that he wanted the club to be associated with doing the right things (following the debacle of the fan on the pitch v gumps) ,so I don't think non compliance with FFP would sit happily with this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting to see that a proposed further £4m increase in wages for 14/15 would take us within £2/3m of our 08/09 figure,which we spent years trying to hack back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm, just watched McClaren on EMT, he was asked the direct question "Will you rule out your links to Newcastle" ?

He didn't, just answered with a lot of guff about concentrating on this job etc.

I'd have a bit more respect for him if was less vague. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...