The budget

[Treeton Blade]

Stick to reading this Sothall

Sure I had one of their pies at Port Vale

 

[BushBlade]

We know that but I can't help thinking you may have opened a can of worms. Might be worth listening to POG tonight

I'd rather nail my dick to my desk than listen to RS.

 

[Sean Thornton]

I'd rather nail my dick to my desk than listen to RS.

Ian formerly Blackpool Blade and Crying Mick the Rawmarsh taxi driving Pig have a lot to answer for!

 

[Sothall_Blade]

Same thing (without looking) I'd say. Look at the Blades Leisure Ltd account to see if they match. I can't because as soon as I find my anorak, I'm going out.

I've found them. Apart from the opening paragraph, the "Group Strategic Report" has simply been cut-and-pasted onto the SUFC Limited accounts.

That's why none of the figures match because they relate to a different company and a different set of accounts.

Given that these are official documents that have been filed with Companies House, I would have thought it quite important but what do I know?


https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/document-api-images-prod/docs/ueEXPSGVzF0vQFx5e3fbk3_sKtLMTxduO8unWa-yIVI/application-pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=ASIAIUAUAOVAHDILSXNA&Expires=1454508521&Signature=qL/SAK6lxwz8hjUR1QhSq99L1oA=&x-amz-security-token=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

 

[GRUMPY BLADE]

So you know the terms of every players contract?

No but Higginbotham extended his own contract, why would that be a one off?

 

[BushBlade]

No but Higginbotham extended his own contract, why would that be a one off?

You'd hope we wouldn't be so stupid as to put the same clause in another contract.


(Thought I'd give you a laugh).

 

[GRUMPY BLADE]

You'd hope we wouldn't be so stupid as to put the same clause in another contract.


(Thought I'd give you a laugh).

But if things are going well it makes sense to have the option to extend a contract, even if a better player is moving on after promotion [take Hopkins leaving Palace for Leeds] both parties gain.

Player gets a bonus/termination fee and selling club get more as the player is under contract.

Just works out poorly when the team or player are not doing too good.

 

[Esablade]

So who's happy at Nigel winning manager of the month for December?
Lol...

 

[BushBlade]

But if things are going well it makes sense to have the option to extend a contract, even if a better player is moving on after promotion [take Hopkins leaving Palace for Leeds] both parties gain.

Player gets a bonus/termination fee and selling club get more as the player is under contract.

Just works out poorly when the team or player are not doing too good.

Agree but not a clause where only the player has a say.

 

[GRUMPY BLADE]

Agree but not a clause where only the player has a say.

I'm not saying only the player has the clause, both parties have the clause.

 

[BushBlade]

No but Higginbotham extended his own contract, why would that be a one off?

I was responding to that ^

 

[Sothall_Blade]

View attachment 15833

http://tinyurl.com/gqhal5m

These are the figures from 2014 but I can't answer your question because I'm not an accountant.
I would love to understand it more though.
It doesn't help that the figures in the description shown on page 3 (e.g. £11.1M Turnover) don't match the "Profit and Loss Account" shown on page 9 (e.g. £10.5M Turnover).
Can anyone explain why they don't match up?

The other problem for the layman is that "Cost of Sales" and "Administrative expenses aren't broken down, so you can't see what they consist of.
The Administrative expenses include "amortisation charge of player registrations" ("£5.5M?) which I think means players losing their value over the course of a contract?
Interest charges aren't the major problem here as they are £0.3M down from £1.0M

I see the pigs have released their latest accounts today for 2015.
Their "administrative expenses" total £1.8M compared with ours which for 2014 were £5.4M. That's a difference of £3.6M.
Even if we are including "Depreciation" and "Amortisation" in our total. Our "administrative expenses" are £2.1M more than theirs.

Can anybody offer a serious suggestion/explanation as to why this might be?

 

[Sean Thornton]

I see the pigs have released their latest accounts today for 2015.
Their "administrative expenses" total £1.8M compared with ours which for 2014 were £5.4M. That's a difference of £3.6M.
Even if we are including "Depreciation" and "Amortisation" in our total. Our "administrative expenses" are £2.1M more than theirs.

Can anybody offer a serious suggestion/explanation as to why this might be?

View attachment 16260

I can see where you want to go with this but unless you know which section ( cost of sales/admin) certain cost centres are charged too it's a futile exercise. It was explained at length these breakdowns aren't likely to be available.

The notes to the accounts may give more, (but not particularly detailed )info.

On income of £7.5m more than us, still managed to lose roughly the same amount over two years.

 

[Sothall_Blade]

I can see where you want to go with this but unless you know which section ( cost of sales/admin) certain cost centres are charged too it's a futile exercise. It was explained at length these breakdowns aren't likely to be available.

The notes to the accounts may give more, (but not particularly detailed )info.

On income of £7.5m more than us, still managed to lose roughly the same amount over two years.

Where I want to go with this is to try and understand the difference? Where do you think I want to go with it?
You've said before that I've accused McCabe of taking money out of the club or not putting it in and I have never said that.
I think you're confusing me with one of the many other posters who do suggest that.

As I now understand it, you're saying that one company can class something as "admin expenses" and a different company can class the same expense as "cost of sales"? That seems a bit odd to me as a layman but fair enough, it would explain why there is such a large discrepancy.

Their wage bill of £5M more than us per year would partially explain them earning more and yet losing roughly the same amount. Wouldn't it?

 

[Sean Thornton]

Where I want to go with this is to try and understand the difference? Where do you think I want to go with it?
You've said before that I've accused McCabe of taking money out of the club or not putting it in and I have never said that.
I think you're confusing me with one of the many other posters who do suggest that.

As I now understand it, you're saying that one company can class something as "admin expenses" and a different company can class the same expense as "cost of sales"? That seems a bit odd to me as a layman but fair enough, it would explain why there is such a large discrepancy.

Their wage bill of £5M more than us per year would partially explain them earning more and yet losing roughly the same amount. Wouldn't it?

It depends on how you see the expenses. It makes no difference to the bottom line. As I said though, without having a breakdown of each section it's impossible to tell. Ive tried to make this as clear as I can.

I've only seen the info you've posted which contains no break down of wage costs. How do you know what their wage bill is?

I'd say your point is how can the Grunters run their club much cheaper than us. Otherwise what was it? You've asked a question based on no analysis - because there isn't one from what you've posted - and then yet again made an assumption based on that lack of information. I've given you a reason, not a definitive answer and yet again you ask questions which I keep telling you aren't answerable.

 

[Sothall_Blade]

It depends on how you see the expenses. It makes no difference to the bottom line. As I said though, without having a breakdown of each section it's impossible to tell. Ive tried to make this as clear as I can.

I've only seen the info you've posted which contains no break down of wage costs. How do you know what their wage bill is?

Their latest accounts are available on their official website. I won't link to it!

Their wage bill for all employees (including directors) is £13.4M up from £12.5M last year:-


Our total wage bill for all employees (including directors) was £8.4M in 2014 up from £8.3M the year before.



We had 50 less employees in total which may or may not be significant.

 

[Sothall_Blade]

It depends on how you see the expenses. It makes no difference to the bottom line. As I said though, without having a breakdown of each section it's impossible to tell. Ive tried to make this as clear as I can.

I've only seen the info you've posted which contains no break down of wage costs. How do you know what their wage bill is?

I'd say your point is how can the Grunters run their club much cheaper than us. Otherwise what was it? You've asked a question based on no analysis - because there isn't one from what you've posted - and then yet again made an assumption based on that lack of information. I've given you a reason, not a definitive answer and yet again you ask questions which I keep telling you aren't answerable.

I'm not sure why you are taking this so personally.
I'm asking anyone for opinions / insights / information on a public forum.
I appreciate the information you've provided so far. Thanks.

Yes, I was curious why their admin expenses were so much lower than ours? What's wrong with that?
You've partially explained it via the expenses / cost of sales split. Thanks again.

Yes, I am still curious what our admin expenses and cost of sales are made up of.
Especially so because nobody knows the answers except our club's directors and accountants.
What's wrong with that? Aren't you a little bit curious yourself?

 

[Sean Thornton]

Their latest accounts are available on their official website. I won't link to it!

Their wage bill for all employees (including directors) is £13.4M up from £12.5M last year:-
View attachment 16271

Our total wage bill for all employees (including directors) was £8.4M in 2014 up from £8.3M the year before.

View attachment 16272

We had 50 less employees in total which may or may not be significant.

Again, no breakdown for comparison but a division higher you'd expect a higher wage bill just as you'd expect more income.

 

[Sothall_Blade]

Again, no breakdown for comparison but a division higher you'd expect a higher wage bill just as you'd expect more income.

Yes, I know that obviously. I was responding to your comment that they had lost roughly the same as us on income of £7.5M more (over 2 years)
Their wage bill was roughly £10M more by the look of it (over 2 years). I would expect them to have lost £2.5M more than us, not roughly the same.

On income of £7.5m more than us, still managed to lose roughly the same amount over two years.

 

[Sean Thornton]

I'm not sure why you are taking this so personally.
I'm asking anyone for opinions / insights / information on a public forum.
I appreciate the information you've provided so far. Thanks.

Yes, I was curious why their admin expenses were so much lower than ours? What's wrong with that?
You've partially explained it via the expenses / cost of sales split. Thanks again.

Yes, I am still curious what our admin expenses and cost of sales are made up of.
Especially so because nobody knows the answers except our club's directors and accountants.
What's wrong with that? Aren't you a little bit curious yourself?

It's not personal, give over, but you effectively ask the same questions time after time and ignore the facts that the breakdowns required to answer them aren't there.

Interested? Yes, but I'm sure the Auditor has done his job properly so the bottom line of continuing losses is of more importance to me than how much we spent on paper clips or pay offs to the Belgian Mafia to keep McCabe safe.

I think you're looking for some smoking gun as if the club are trying to hide something. All of this is normal practice, look at similar sized businesses on Companies House and you'll see exactly the same sort of info in much the same format.

This isn't like the Kennedy Assasination or the Moon Landings conspiracies. It's rank bad management caused by poor decision making, relying on idiots and cheap options.

 

[Sean Thornton]

Yes, I know that obviously. I was responding to your comment that they had lost roughly the same as us on income of £7.5M more (over 2 years)
Their wage bill was roughly £10M more by the look of it (over 2 years). I would expect them to have lost £2.5M more than us, not roughly the same.

Why would you expect that? Where's the correlation? It's not like buying a tin of beans. There no fixed profit percentage and in any event, , you don't have the detail. (I'm gonna trademark that)

 

[blade too long]

if we cannot survive on average gates of 20k then how come other teams can do it with less and prosper at the same time?

as Ive said before
have a big ground you incur big costs
its not rocket science
all our bills will be bigger
more lighting more gatemen more stewards more police , ,
sif you own a 2 bed bungalow your costs are far cheaper than a 5 bedroom house

 

[wizadry]

I think it's fair to say that we could go on for days on end asking questions regarding the accounts but we'll never find some things out, I'm very curious myself as to why our admin costs are significantly more than the Wendies but know for a fact that we won't ever find out why and why we are being run so poorly. We must start cutting these costs but there's only the people in charge who know what these costs are that can do something about it.

 

[Sean Thornton]

Now I know what that bird on the Fast Show feels like when she comes up with the answer and get ignored, then some other fucker says exactly the same thing

 

[wizadry]

Now I know what that bird on the Fast Show feels like when she comes up with the answer and get ignored, then some other fucker says exactly the same thing

Sorry Sean, is that directed at me and have i missed something? If I have I do apologise.

 

[Sean Thornton]

Sorry Sean, is that directed at me and have i missed something? If I have I do apologise.

No just a reply to your post Wizardry. I've been saying much the same for some time ( it seems like years) it was a friendly jibe at Sothall, or Curious George as I shall now think of him

No need to apologise for anything.

 

[Sothall_Blade]

No just a reply to your post Wizardry. I've been saying much the same for some time ( it seems like years) it was a friendly jibe at Sothall, or Curious George as I shall now think of him

No need to apologise for anything.

My reason for revisiting the thread was the new information contained within SWFC Accounts about their admin expenses being much lower than ours.
We are frequently told that the reason we are losing so much money is that we’re a big club with big expenses to match.
Take your own “People wouldn’t believe how much it costs us to insure the ground” comment as one example.
Well Wednesday’s ground is bigger than ours and their insurance bill will be similar.

Others think that the cost of running our Academy is the cause of our financial problems and we should shut it down.
Well Wednesday also run a category 2 Academy similar to ours with similar costs.

So when a club in the same city of a similar size and a similar infrastructure to ours has much lower admin expenses than ours, it’s perfectly valid to question why this is.
You’ve given your usual answer which is that nobody knows the details, so don’t bother querying or discussing it.
Well nobody knows why we haven’t been able to sign an adequate replacement for Maguire after two years but it doesn’t stop people discussing it.

Why can’t the club give more details about the costs of running The Academy?
Has it previously paid for itself through players being sold? How does EPP impact on that going forward?
Even if that sort of detail isn’t in the official accounts, there is nothing stopping them explaining the financial benefits or otherwise of persisting with it.

If someone goes on the radio and says “I’ve put £90M in already and we’re going to lose another £8M this year”, the obvious response of at least some curious people is “Wow! How did you manage that? Please do tell us more”

 

[Sean Thornton]

I haven't said don't bother asking, ive said the answers arent available. Two different things.

I've given you a reason why the admin expense totals could be different, so as usual you ask another question which can't be answered.

work yourself up all you want but the accounts are in line with the filing requirements and as a non shareholder you legally have no right to further information.

As frustrating as that is as a fan, that's the reality.

As for the amount invested, that's up to you whether you believe it or not . The accounts give the picture overall for anyone who wants it.

The Pigs have a Community Trust set up btw. The notes to the accounts have stated that expenses relating to that have been recharged, which could be another reason
Why admin costs are lower. And no, I don't know how much or what they are because it doesn't say.

If you can't work out why we haven't signed a replacement for Maguire it's no wonder you can't grasp the fact the answers to your questions aren't there.

Write to the club, write to McCabe and HRH or Jim. They publish the info they are required to. If they want to give more detail then they will but bearing in mind the vague figures thrown about over the years you're naive if you think you'll ever get any detailed info.

As I've said before, more worrying as a fan is the fact we are unable to stem losses and get out of L1 rather than the Pigs spend less on copier paper than we do.

Your original question about a breakdown of admin expenses was a reasonable one and one which you say people will be curious about. (Your comparison with Wendy's is also understandable with without actual comparisons isn't really relevant) however
After being told the info you require isn't out there all you are doing is asking the same question time and time again just changing the particular cost heading. You may think it's insightful, it's not. It's waffle, pretty much like Jims tweets.

 

[wizadry]

I haven't said don't bother asking, ive said the answers arent available. Two different things.

I've given you a reason why the admin expense totals could be different, so as usual you ask another question which can't be answered.

work yourself up all you want but the accounts are in line with the filing requirements and as a non shareholder you legally have no right to further information.

As frustrating as that is as a fan, that's the reality.

As for the amount invested, that's up to you whether you believe it or not . The accounts give the picture overall for anyone who wants it.

The Pigs have a Community Trust set up btw. The notes to the accounts have stated that expenses relating to that have been recharged, which could be another reason
Why admin costs are lower. And no, I don't know how much or what they are because it doesn't say.

If you can't work out why we haven't signed a replacement for Maguire it's no wonder you can't grasp the fact the answers to your questions aren't there.

Write to the club, write to McCabe and HRH or Jim. They publish the info they are required to. If they want to give more detail then they will but bearing in mind the vague figures thrown about over the years you're naive if you think you'll ever get any detailed info.

As I've said before, more worrying as a fan is the fact we are unable to stem losses and get out of L1 rather than the Pigs spend less on copier paper than we do.

Your original question about a breakdown of admin expenses was a reasonable one and one which you say people will be curious about. (Your comparison with Wendy's is also understandable with without actual comparisons isn't really relevant) however
After being told the info you require isn't out there all you are doing is asking the same question time and time again just changing the particular cost heading. You may think it's insightful, it's not. It's waffle, pretty much like Jims tweets.

So what you're trying to say is we're going to have to be curious forever?

 

[raul]

I think it's fair to say that we could go on for days on end asking questions regarding the accounts but we'll never find some things out, I'm very curious myself as to why our admin costs are significantly more than the Wendies but know for a fact that we won't ever find out why and why we are being run so poorly. We must start cutting these costs but there's only the people in charge who know what these costs are that can do something about it.

Nice work Wiz, thanks for clearing it all up.