ramblur Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 I think in the season before promotion they only lost 250k. They turned a £0.6m profit in 09/10,but this only came about after £3m net player sales.Swansea are one of the few clubs that allocate the full cost/income from players' regs to the P/L account in the year in which they are incurred (i.e. no amortisation).The thing that struck me was the low figure for expenditure other than wages-try comparing this to our own when the accounts come out.The aforementioned derives from:- [url=http://swissramble.blogspot.com/search/label/Swansea%20City]http://swissramble.blogspot.com/search/label/Swansea%20City Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 Looking at the figures in the squad list on wikkipedia for the promotion squad the total spent on it was just over £4m but not all last season the squad was started being put toegether in 2008. I slow build if ever I saw one. Sinclair could (and probably now has) rise to £1m.Moore was undisclosed,but wouldn't have thought he was particularly cheap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smiffy Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 They turned a £0.6m profit in 09/10,but this only came about after £3m net player sales.Swansea are one of the few clubs that allocate the full cost/income from players' regs to the P/L account in the year in which they are incurred (i.e. no amortisation).The thing that struck me was the low figure for expenditure other than wages-try comparing this to our own when the accounts come out.The aforementioned derives from:- [url=http://swissramble.blogspot.com/search/label/Swansea%20City]http://swissramble.b.../Swansea%20City Apart from maybe Seth we tend to lose money when we sell players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sage Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 Apart from maybe Seth we tend to lose money when we sell players. And Delap, Dailly, Saunders, Wright, Rigott, Christie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 Swansea hardly spent millions [url=http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010–11_Swansea_City_A.F.C._season]http://en.m.wikipedi...A.F.C._season . The problem I have with this model is that, for every Swansea,there are several clubs that try (often out of necessity) and fail going down a similar route.As SR says,there's a strong correlation between success and wages-the exceptions probably prove the rule (taken over a period of years) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smiffy Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 And Delap, Dailly, Saunders, Wright, Rigott, Christie Another greedy flucking player Saunders, would not go unless we paid his contract up I believe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bris Vegas Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 I'm pretty sure Swansea made money out of both Martinez moving to Wigan and Sousa moving to Leicester.. Whilst not huge sums, to buy a manager out of a contract you are paying over $1mill in compensation.. Especially at a higher level? But Swansea are a one off.. They've fallen down that route by luck if anything, and whilst an admirable model, clubs could end up going nowhere by doing the same.. I look at Reading and Madejski saying they have needed to balance the books at times during the past 4 years.. That includes selling the likes of Hunt, Sigurdsson, Mills, Doyle, Long, Kitson, Sonko, Bikey, Shorey etc.. All for $4mill+ each... From that lot they made in sales well over $35mill and I don't recall them ever investing big sums back into the squad (more like transfer fees of 500k). I'd like to see if they're making profits or if not (added with the parachute payments) you'd have to wonder where the hell all of that money went.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uttoxram75 Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 We've already sold our souls as regards young players....... [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/15381652]http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/15381652 Football League clubs have voted to abolish the tribunal system that sets fees when clubs cannot agree a transfer for home-grown youth players. The Premier League had threatened to withhold funding for youth development if the Elite Player Performance Plan (EPPP) was not accepted. The new proposals will guarantee clubs more funding for youth football over a guaranteed four-year period. But it could mean clubs receive lower fees for players under the age of 17. “ What frightens me is that a lot of clubs will pull out of having a youth system altogether ” Peterborough director of football Barry Fry A Football League statement read: "Following lengthy consideration, Football League clubs have voted to accept the Premier League's proposals on the Elite Player Performance Plan (EPPP). "The League will now continue discussions with the Premier League on the implementation of the EPPP across professional football." BBC Sport understands the Football League reluctantly advised its members to vote in favour at Thursday's meeting at the Bescot Stadium in Walsall. If clubs had opted against the proposals, the annual funding they receive from the Premier League for youth development - over £5m-per-season - would have been withheld. The clubs voted 46 in favour and 22 against, with three no-shows and one abstention - while the Premier League decided in favour of adopting EPPP at a meeting in June. But many in the Football League are concerned the current tribunal system will be replaced by a set of fixed prices. The new tariffs will see a selling club paid £3,000-per-year for every year of a player's development between the ages of nine and 11. The fee per year from 12 to 16 will depend on the selling club's academy status - but ranges between £12,500 and £40,000. Analysis Paul Fletcher BBC Sport “ It will be worth a top-flight club buying several young players for under £100,000 on the basis they can afford for a few to fall by the wayside - as long as some succeed ” Read Paul Fletcher's blog The incoming system will put an end to the type of deal which saw West Ham sign Sam Baldock, 22, from Milton Keynes Dons for £2.5m in August. Chelsea also reportedly paid the same club £1.5m, rising to £2m, for 14-year-old Oluwaseyi Ojo this week. In addition to the sale of Baldock and Ojo, MK Dons have a thriving youth setup and have used seven players from their youth ranks in their first team this season. But boss Karl Robinson, a former member of the Liverpool academy coaching staff, said: "If we lose our youth players for nominal fees how are we going to survive? "I don't think it is fair. Kids develop at a phenomenal rate at the highest level but are these kids going to play in people's first teams at the age of 16 or 17?" Peterborough director Barry Fry reckons many Football League clubs could eventually close their youth academies. He said: "What frightens me is that a lot of clubs will pull out of having a youth system altogether. "Lower league clubs will look at how much it costs to run their academy or school of excellence and think that, if the Premier League can nick their best players for a low price, what is the point of investing in it?" Fry estimates the sale of home-grown players such as Luke Steele to Manchester United in 2002, plus Matthew Etherington and Simon Davies - both to Tottenham in 2000 - generated Peterborough in the region of £6m. But he added: "We would not get anything like that under the new system. Elite Player Performance Plan (EPPP) A new four-tier academy system Set tariffs to replace the tribunal system for the sale of home-grown players End of the 90-minute rule Increased payments to all clubs for youth development Will be introduced from the 2012-2013 season "The Premier League wants everything and they want it for nothing." EPPP will lead to the introduction of a four-tier academy system next season. It will range from category one "super academies" down to category four status, where clubs will pick up 16-year-olds that have been released by other teams. Clubs with category one status will have programmes that vastly increase the contact time with young players, with the aim of ensuring the most-talented youngsters have the best opportunity to fulfil their potential. The new programme will also see the end of the 90-minute rule, which currently states an academy player must live within an hour-and-a-half's drive of the club they play for. The Premier League is keen to stress the new proposals will result in an increased youth development payment for all 92 Premier League and Football League clubs over four years. That money will be gratefully received by Football League clubs due to lost revenue from the latest television deal . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bris Vegas Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 Anyone think Leicester City made a profit during last year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 Anyone think Leicester City made a profit during last year? Massive loss,but they'll have a few chances of making it (with a strong squad) before joining us in the paupers lounge.Not surprised they failed this year-too many to integrate.Expect them to be competitive next year.Leicester only fails when it's finally failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 Just thinking things through. I'm probably way off the mark here, but, the difference between turnover and outgoings is reasonably small, The club have reported a big loss - which I think means that the majority of this loss was on paper (player depreciation etc). Does that mean that there was only a small capital injection needed to keep the club ticking over? If that is the case why did we need the big internal loan? Has some of the previously injected capital been converted into a loan? Have we paid dividends out? I realise the above is only the speculative thought process of a relative financial illiterate, so sorry if I'm completely on the wrong track, but can someone tell my why I'm wrong? Just been looking on the COYR thread and noticed the link to the club's web site.Didn't completely understand your first paragraph originally,but it's crystal clear now-your confusion arises because the article fails to mention £7m+ in admin expenses (by deduction on my part).Players' amortisation is included within direct operating costs,and there's no tax payable (and won't be for ages due to massive accumulated losses),which was the ingenious suggestion of one poster.Tell Amster there's no need for the calculator,just a crystal ball ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CornwallRam Posted April 2, 2012 Share Posted April 2, 2012 You're nowhere near a financially illiterate,Cornwall.When I questioned your £10m guesstimate,your reasoning was sound,but there were far too many unknowns on the operations side.I also suspect that your £8m projected cash injection derived from the following calculation:- 24-(7.7+6.6+1.7) ? Better not tell you where that may have gone awry 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':P' /> I took the opposite approach for my guess-I asked myself the question 'what cash loss does it look like they're funding?' and then added estimates for paper transactions to build up an identikit headline loss.I may well have been a bit lucky in that I probably underestimated the cash loss a little,but this may have been compensated by a mistake on amortisation.You need a bit of luck to get anywhere near the figure,and don't ever let anyone tell you otherwise! In answer to your question,the cash loss is probably about half the headline loss in this particular case. One tip for the future,though.Although players' amortisation (particularly with undisclosed fees) is a difficult nut to crack,depreciation (PP,plant,vehicles,office equipment,F&F etc) is easier,and you can put in a figure (unless something changes radically) of just under £2m for this-c£1.9m from memory only.Therefore,for the benefit of all,whenever a headline loss is declared you can wipe off c£2m straight away. As far as 11/12 goes,I reckon the fall in income has been more than offset by a fall in wages and I already predict a headline loss somewhere in the 6 (as opposed to 7) channel ,and even high 5's wouldn't surprise me.This will bring down the cash shortfall.I expect 12/13 to be at least cash break even ,with a players' wage figure less than most think (I stress,purely my opinion). I can't immediately see why the £6m loan was put in (or at least the extent of it).I believe there would have been a need to provide some net funding for players,along with funding a 11/12 cash loss,but £6m looks a little high to me (mind you,it's all a bit difficult without sight of the actual accounts). Listened to Glick's interview and was rather surprised when he suggested that the £28m investment was half share capital and half loan capital,when £20/21m should be share capital.I also remember Appleby boasting a couple of years ago that it was all equity and that there was no loan capital involved.How things have changed. No dividends/no conversion of equity to loans (pretty sure of that !) Around the end of June last year something seemed to 'snap' in the finances. Earlier, both TG and NC seemed to be confidently expecting a few more signings - with talismanic stikers and midfield generals being high on the agenda. By mid July the statements had become much more cautious. The rumour that I heard is that one or two of the investment group had gotten cold feet about putting any more cash in. I also heard a rumour that one of the big fish investors had 'pulled out' although I was assured that this merely meant that he was no longer involved in the boardroom, but his investment still remained. This is more abstract thought than a realistic hypothesis, but what would the accounts look like if one or two of the investment group decided they wanted to take their money out? Is it possible (and this is a genuine question because I really don't know) that the club, through one level of ownership, could take out a loan to buy back the shares of the departing investors? Or, in a smilar vien, is it possible that it would be impossible for a departing investor to actually take their money out, so they accepted having their shares turned into a loan? In this scenario it could ensure that they would be repaid when the club could afford to and would absent the formmer investor from future cash calls? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted April 2, 2012 Share Posted April 2, 2012 Around the end of June last year something seemed to 'snap' in the finances. Earlier, both TG and NC seemed to be confidently expecting a few more signings - with talismanic stikers and midfield generals being high on the agenda. By mid July the statements had become much more cautious. The rumour that I heard is that one or two of the investment group had gotten cold feet about putting any more cash in. I also heard a rumour that one of the big fish investors had 'pulled out' although I was assured that this merely meant that he was no longer involved in the boardroom, but his investment still remained. This is more abstract thought than a realistic hypothesis, but what would the accounts look like if one or two of the investment group decided they wanted to take their money out? Is it possible (and this is a genuine question because I really don't know) that the club, through one level of ownership, could take out a loan to buy back the shares of the departing investors? Or, in a smilar vien, is it possible that it would be impossible for a departing investor to actually take their money out, so they accepted having their shares turned into a loan? In this scenario it could ensure that they would be repaid when the club could afford to and would absent the formmer investor from future cash calls? Hi Cornwall,I started the day rather relieved that the accounts weren't yet available (I feel dreadfull),then I saw your post! I honestly don't feel up to answering your second paragraph,but will return to it sometime.In all honesty I think that something rather unspectacular is spawning various theories.The interest free loan merely makes it easy to effect easy withdrawal/s should circumstances allow in future,as opposed to capital reductions (especially with the ownership structure we have).This loan involves the introduction of an asset into DCFC (cash) and a liability (creditor-loan).Any future part/full withdrawals would just involve equal reductions of both-no mess.The loan is said to have no repayment schedule,which I suspect was said to try and reassure fans.The (unmentioned) flip side to this would appear to be that,in the absence of a schedule,it could be withdrawn in full or in part at any time-in other words at call.I'll be interested to see how it's designated in the accounts. The investors don't hold individual shares in DCFC,their holdings are in the parent company GS Derby Partners LLC.It appears that AA has proxy (on his and the others' behalf) holdings in GS Derby UK and Gellaw.Starting with the parent company,each company down the line now wholly owns (with the departure of AP) the next one,ending with DCFC.Now I know it doesn't answer your question,but it gives me time to have a kip whilst you're thinking about it! Your first paragraph appears to me to be a conveniently cobbled together,plausible excuse for a lack of complete (to do what it said on the tin) recruitment last summer.We should all start watching repeats of things like "Yes Minister". Sorry I couldn't be more help-not particularly looking forward to answering your questions when I'm better tbf! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jayram Posted April 2, 2012 Share Posted April 2, 2012 death of the championship.. will be even more polarised than the premier league. Agreed. Its £12 million a year for 4 years so after a couple of years we will almost certainly have a mini-Premier League in the Championship, with clubs like ours struggling to break through. Glick thinks the clubs coming down will have financial issues to deal with but most will have put clauses into their players contracts stipulating that their wages will decrease if relegated, asWBA have done previously, so don't think we can rely on that. Its profoundly depressing to think that we could get left behind and turn into the Championship equivelant of Bolton or Wigan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexxxxx Posted April 2, 2012 Share Posted April 2, 2012 Agreed. Its £12 million a year for 4 years so after a couple of years we will almost certainly have a mini-Premier League in the Championship, with clubs like ours struggling to break through. Glick thinks the clubs coming down will have financial issues to deal with but most will have put clauses into their players contracts stipulating that their wages will decrease if relegated, asWBA have done previously, so don't think we can rely on that. Its profoundly depressing to think that we could get left behind and turn into the Championship equivelant of Bolton or Wigan. basically the championship will become a premier league carousel waiting room. tragic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jourdan Posted April 2, 2012 Share Posted April 2, 2012 I don't profess to be particularly clued up when it comes to the financial goings-on at the club. But after reading the recent accounts article in the DET, it makes grim reading from every perspective and made me question how can people be so relaxed at our stunted progress in the second tier? Clearly from a footballing and financial perspective, promotion to the Premier League should be our aim every year. It has just made me second guess the club's strategy as we look set for another year of trimming the squad and the wage bill. I look at the squad and wonder how are we expected to retain our key players, reduce the wage bill AND move forward all at once. It just seems that after this year's marginal improvement has come as a result of the most significant investment during Clough's tenure, it would make sense to continue investing and improving the team to make that final push, not retreating back into our shell with a great risk of going backwards. The wage bill stands at £9m ahead of a summer of further trimming. I look at the squad and ask myself who are the expendable players there? The squad is generally full of mediocre players for this level and padded out with untried youngsters. I don't see much room for manoevre. How many high earners could we shift? Green, Croft, Buxton and Roberts are out of contract. Addison and Maguire are out of favour. Three of those have figured prominently in the first team this season and rate them or not, the majority would need replacing especially with our injury history. You could get rid of Severn, Atkins, Deeney, Jones, Connolly, Cole, Witham and Doyle, who are all out of contract and no-one would bat an eyelid. But I doubt it is worth talking up more cuts to the wage bill when referring to players nowhere and never likely to be near the first team. So it makes me wonder whether we are set to see prospects like Bennett and Hughes and key players like Shackell, Fielding and Brayford auctioned off to diminish the need for the club's owners to keep plugging holes and meeting costs millions at a time? Again, three of those players would need replacing and puts our chances of progress in jeopardy. Are we are as ahead of the game and prepared for the FFP as everyone seems to suggest? Next season will be most telling of all. But significant losses, reduced turnover, attendances and gate receipts down and only on the verge of breaking the top 10 of the second tier after three years of trying would suggest that we might be advocating a better way but not necessarily reaping the benefits and might have to wait a long while to do so. It would seem to me that the club's owners have this ambition of the club being on an even keel and self-sufficient off the pitch but we need to be in the Premier League and receiving this level of income stream to realise this. I don't think this will happen in this division, never mind League One, which is where we are in danger of heading next season if this summer's transfer window is misjudged. Big year for the Clough and GSE tenure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curb Posted April 2, 2012 Share Posted April 2, 2012 Are we are as ahead of the game and prepared for the FFP as everyone seems to suggest? No, just skint. Good post BTW, there are more questions than answers ATM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davenportram Posted April 2, 2012 Share Posted April 2, 2012 Don't forget the wage culling people are talking about won't be seen until the accounts are published in 2014. This loss and any loss in the next years accounts still include all or some of Savage, Pearson, Bywater Commons, Green, Leacock, Varney to name a few. Yes there was a loss plugged by the owners, snd at least it was plugged. Income dropped by £11m, loss rose by £5m. Some serious cost cutting in place before the effects of the above players leaving is realised. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davenportram Posted April 2, 2012 Share Posted April 2, 2012 Players wages to be saved from the summer Addison - who will go I think Maguire possibly Several low earning goal keepers potentially. Green - all or part of . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chesapeake Posted April 2, 2012 Share Posted April 2, 2012 Don't forget the wage culling people are talking about won't be seen until the accounts are published in 2014. This loss and any loss in the next years accounts still include all or some of Savage, Pearson, Bywater Commons, Green, Leacock, Varney to name a few. Yes there was a loss plugged by the owners, snd at least it was plugged. Income dropped by £11m, loss rose by £5m. Some serious cost cutting in place before the effects of the above players leaving is realised. . The big problem is the Gate income the biggest income stream the club now has. To put it into perspective 5.5 million, do the maths that is less than £10 per head, about £11 if you add the VAT. I remember Keith Loring going on the moan in probably 15 years ago stating they generated £14 per head. Leeds United on gates 1500 more than ours generated £12.7 million, Forest over 7 million. Glick is pulling in far less than he should his ticketing policies do not work. I'm no businessman but it is cheaper for some to watch Matlock Town or Belper Town than Derby County. That can surely not be right the product of second tier football is cheapened. Some ideas to up income, easy as eating your tea. 1. Cheap North East corner tickets, bring into line with rest of ground. Originally done to placate Normanton Enders at BBG, now not relevant. 2. Stop free under 12 tickets £75 or £100 if you want a junior ST right up to 16. The older teenagers more important they are more likely to keep coming. 3. Scrap Group-on and all free and discount tickets. They have proven not to work to get people to come back and pay full price. 4. Drop the match to match prices to a level that people will pay, £20 worked for the Leeds and West Ham matches. A premium could be kept for Forest where demand is proven. The current ticketing policies are a shambles and the figures prove they don't work. There is millions of income to be had if it is put right. If Forest can do 7m, we should be able to minimum match them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.