Our money tree and the MASSIVE money tree

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?




I remain amazed by the criticism this guy gets from some Blades fans for increasing spending, buying good players, keeping other good players and seeing the Pigs improve season on season as a result (annoyingly).

McCabe hasn't gone more than 12 months without cutting spending or selling out best players in more than a decade. I hope he shows the same commitment as the tuna baron has so far if we go up.
 
Here are our last published accounts, to end June 2016:
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/00061564/filing-history

Our loss was £10.4M (rounded down) on revenue of £10.6m.

Note 8: Our wages bill was £10m, up from £8.5m - the wage bill was very slightly less than our revenue (£10.6m). It's easy to see then why the big loss.

Intangible assets were down from £3.1m to £2m which included disposals of £1.5m (additions of £689k). This is the value of the 1st team squad. Note 13 suggests we made £1.8m profit on sales of players.

Look under the Notes to the Accounts and Creditors (19) and you'll see £4.3m owed to group undertakings. This is part of our total debt of £7.9m and as this includes the £4.3m owed to a member of the group isn't as bad as it sounds. The external debt (the one that could be called in) is about £3.6m.

Note 12: £43m of unrelieved tax losses remain available to offset against future taxable trading profits - so it's going to be a long time before we have to pay any corporation tax.

Note 4 : The Revenue figure doesn't seem to include sales of players. I think this is because these fees are amortised as debtors on the balance sheet rather than appearing on the profit and loss account, but I'm not sure. As you can see Matchday revenue was £7.8m and about 70% of total revenue. With the increase in gates this season, the next accounts should see a reasonable rise in overall revenue as a result.
 
itsinyerblood said:
Agree with much of that graf. I tend to be addicted on the 'lesser' teams, mainly because I like to watch those players who shine amongst lesser mortals. It tells me that there's enough talent floating between clubs - WBA's Brunt, ex-Wendy I know, but a decent player all the same - that if the financial will is there there are players who could be had that enable a club to have the quality they'll need. By the time we get there there'll be a different set of players, but the same issues will exist.

I agree that the Championship does offer reasonable football, but being one step away from the Premiership will eventually be too much to resist. Of course the getting there is the problem. We've struggled for six seasons in this division, so no holding of breath when we're in the Championship, it may take longer than any of us can imagine if our ambition is to get promoted.
Click to expand...

Of course it's human nature to keep wanting to progress. We've ossified for 6 years in Div. One but it looks like those dark days are coming to an end. However, getting to the PL shouldn't be the 'be all and end all' - it's just that bit more within reach than when you're stuck in Div. One.

To re-use the 'Lottery' analogy - I think most United fans wouldn't know what to do with success if it came to us. No criticism, we know our place in the natural order of things. Nowt wrong with that.
 
GaryHamsonsLeftBootLace said:
Here are our last published accounts, to end June 2016:
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/00061564/filing-history

Our loss was £10.4M (rounded down) on revenue of £10.6m.

Note 8: Our wages bill was £10m, up from £8.5m - the wage bill was very slightly less than our revenue (£10.6m). It's easy to see then why the big loss.

Intangible assets were down from £3.1m to £2m which included disposals of £1.5m (additions of £689k). This is the value of the 1st team squad. Note 13 suggests we made £1.8m profit on sales of players.

Look under the Notes to the Accounts and Creditors (19) and you'll see £4.3m owed to group undertakings. This is part of our total debt of £7.9m and as this includes the £4.3m owed to a member of the group isn't as bad as it sounds. The external debt (the one that could be called in) is about £3.6m.

Note 12: £43m of unrelieved tax losses remain available to offset against future taxable trading profits - so it's going to be a long time before we have to pay any corporation tax.

Note 4 : The Revenue figure doesn't seem to include sales of players. I think this is because these fees are amortised as debtors on the balance sheet rather than appearing on the profit and loss account, but I'm not sure. As you can see Matchday revenue was £7.8m and about 70% of total revenue. With the increase in gates this season, the next accounts should see a reasonable rise in overall revenue as a result.
Click to expand...


Intangible assets isn't the value of the squad. It's the value of transfer fees incurred written off ( amortised) over the length of the players contracts. The opening balance adjusted for player sales and incomings. No other value is placed on the playing squad.

Profits/losses on players are dealt with separately from Revenue as you say.
 
grafikhaus said:
Of course it's human nature to keep wanting to progress. We've ossified for 6 years in Div. One but it looks like those dark days are coming to an end. However, getting to the PL shouldn't be the 'be all and end all' - it's just that bit more within reach than when you're stuck in Div. One.

To re-use the 'Lottery' analogy - I think most United fans wouldn't know what to do with success if it came to us. No criticism, we know our place in the natural order of things. Nowt wrong with that.
Click to expand...

There isn't mate, partially agree with that. Perhaps it's me, 'knowing my place' never sat easily with me, but then I can be dogged and bloodyminded, not always the most sensible of attitudes but there you go. Over time it's obvious who has the muscle to achieve success, and unless an Abramovich appears out of the blue we should live within our means. Completely right and I hope we never stray from this approach. Of course, wouldn't we all love to see a few quality players join us, but these can be had if you have decent scouting in place. And when we finally get to the Prem, then no doubt we'll buy players at the market rate because we have no option.
 
I should coco said:
I know that plenty on here think 'we pay our fair share through the gate' but here is a classic example of the madhouse that is football economics:

"In accounts published this morning, Sheffield Wednesday made a loss of £9.8m, up from £4.5m. Operating losses rose from £3.9m to £9.7m over the same period.

However, turnover for the year rose by £7.1m to £22m due to reaching the play off final at Wembley, an increase in the average league attendance from 21,997 to 22,641 and improved revenue generated by the commercial activities of the club."

https://www.insidermedia.com/inside...ire_news_tracker&utm_medium=top_story_article

They have gone for the 'shit or bust' option of promotion at all costs. I wouldn't expect our tunover to be as high as theirs (lower ticket prices) but our wage bill will certainly be lower, even if we buy two or three more players.

We will still end up with a loss but it's likely to be in the low single figure millions rather than £10m at the Massive. As always, they are bigger than us in all they do........
Click to expand...

I think our turnover last accounts was £10m+

In their next accounts, I wonder how they break down the 3 year ST revenue? Do they include the lot into said accounts or divide it by 3?
 
Revolution said:
I remain amazed by the criticism this guy gets from some Blades fans for increasing spending, buying good players, keeping other good players and seeing the Pigs improve season on season as a result (annoyingly).

McCabe hasn't gone more than 12 months without cutting spending or selling out best players in more than a decade. I hope he shows the same commitment as the tuna baron has so far if we go up.
Click to expand...

Rev

You don't seem to get that Tunaman is just taking a gamble. Big players and high wages guarantee nothing other than increased costs. Yes they have improved but they missed out last year and may well do again. There is NOTHING sustainable about this gamble, Some rich Thai who almost certainly had never heard of Wendy before, decides he will chuck in say £50-£80m on the gamble of going up. Bully for them all if they do, but what happens when they don't or his money/enthusiasm runs out?

Presumably then he will try to get back all he can, by having a fire sale of players and the ground. Whatever is left will be a shell with only the crap higher paid players that no-one else wanted and presumably looking for a ground to rent?

It may not be as bad as that and maybe he just walks away and gifts the ground to a Pigs Trust. They still face moving from a wage bill of £30m to something sustainable like £15m, overnight.

Do you genuinely think McCabe should be taking this kind of gamble with our beloved club?
 
I should coco said:
Rev

You don't seem to get that Tunaman is just taking a gamble. Big players and high wages guarantee nothing other than increased costs. Yes they have improved but they missed out last year and may well do again. There is NOTHING sustainable about this gamble, Some rich Thai who almost certainly had never heard of Wendy before, decides he will chuck in say £50-£80m on the gamble of going up. Bully for them all if they do, but what happens when they don't or his money/enthusiasm runs out?

Presumably then he will try to get back all he can, by having a fire sale of players and the ground. Whatever is left will be a shell with only the crap higher paid players that no-one else wanted and presumably looking for a ground to rent?

It may not be as bad as that and maybe he just walks away and gifts the ground to a Pigs Trust. They still face moving from a wage bill of £30m to something sustainable like £15m, overnight.

Do you genuinely think McCabe should be taking this kind of gamble with our beloved club?
Click to expand...

It's not a gamble if he keeps chucking money in.

And if (god forbid) they go up, it's very sustainable.

"What happens when the money runs out?" Sounds like "just wait until the co-op pull the plug and Wednesday go bust". How did that work out?
 
Alfreton14Blade said:
Yeah, you're probably right. But grossly overspending doesn't guarantee success either, just makes it more likely & raises expectations accordingly.

Vital to the Burnley/Saints/Blades way though is having the right manager, not only good in himself, but the right fit for the club & its ethos too. And, in Southampton's case, the ability & wherewithal to pick another right manager when the initial one leaves. Maybe, add Swansea to the list too (until recently - although with Clement, they seem to have found the right fit again.)
Click to expand...
Saints have the advantage of the money invested in their academy when they were last in the PL, which has paid huge dividends, and the investment of their billionaire former owner to get them back up.

If they continue to follow their policy they will inevitable get relegated because you can't just keep finding players who are good enough or bring them through the academy. At some point they will sign players who aren't good enough and then they will have to either spend more to sign good players and make a loss, or go down.

It's still the best policy for a club like Saints, it's probably their only policy since the previous owner died but it's easy to get wrong. They've done it well, which makes it look easy, but it isn't and it isn't sustainable in the long term.

Similarly, it's just a matter of time for Swansea and Burnley.
 
Revolution said:
It's not a gamble if he keeps chucking money in.
Click to expand...

You put the 'if' in there yourself. That is the gamble. What about when Daddy Tuna says stop wasting money on that lot and get your net back out and catch some fish?

Revolution said:
And if (god forbid) they go up
Click to expand...

Doesn't even bear thinking about.......
 
I should coco said:
Rev

You don't seem to get that Tunaman is just taking a gamble. Big players and high wages guarantee nothing other than increased costs. Yes they have improved but they missed out last year and may well do again. There is NOTHING sustainable about this gamble, Some rich Thai who almost certainly had never heard of Wendy before, decides he will chuck in say £50-£80m on the gamble of going up. Bully for them all if they do, but what happens when they don't or his money/enthusiasm runs out?

Presumably then he will try to get back all he can, by having a fire sale of players and the ground. Whatever is left will be a shell with only the crap higher paid players that no-one else wanted and presumably looking for a ground to rent?

It may not be as bad as that and maybe he just walks away and gifts the ground to a Pigs Trust. They still face moving from a wage bill of £30m to something sustainable like £15m, overnight.

Do you genuinely think McCabe should be taking this kind of gamble with our beloved club?
Click to expand...
It depends if Tunaman sees it as a gamble or an investment though. If he accepts it's a gamble he'll do what we all do when we lose a bet; shrug our shoulders and pay up. If he sees it as an investment and cries when it doesn't pay out, then they could be in bother.
 



BushBlade said:
Saints have the advantage of the money invested in their academy when they were last in the PL, which has paid huge dividends, and the investment of their billionaire former owner to get them back up.

If they continue to follow their policy they will inevitable get relegated because you can't just keep finding players who are good enough or bring them through the academy. At some point they will sign players who aren't good enough and then they will have to either spend more to sign good players and make a loss, or go down.

It's still the best policy for a club like Saints, it's probably their only policy since the previous owner died but it's easy to get wrong. They've done it well, which makes it look easy, but it isn't and it isn't sustainable in the long term.

Similarly, it's just a matter of time for Swansea and Burnley.
Click to expand...

That's no doubt true. But, if it means being a yo-yo club between Champ/Prem (yo-yoing involving extended stays in one or both of the divisions), then I'd reckon that's success. West Brom probably also fall into this type of template.

Got to say I'd be more than happy if that was our fate.

Like you say though, Southampton were admittedly rocket-boosted, financially, to get propelled into their current position.
 
Alfreton14Blade said:
That's no doubt true. But, if it means being a yo-yo club between Champ/Prem (yo-yoing involving extended stays in one or both of the divisions), then I'd reckon that's success. West Brom probably also fall into this type of template.

Got to say I'd be more than happy if that was our fate.

Like you say though, Southampton were admittedly rocket-boosted, financially, to get propelled into their current position.
Click to expand...
Without a billionaire owner, being a 'West Brom' is probably the best we can hope for. Until the bubble bursts, which it will eventually but fuck knows when.
 
UnitedBlade said:
Because you are allowed to make a loss of up to £13M a year for 3 years (i.e. A max of £39M).

The regulations change again next year but I bet the thresholds increase. So rich blokes can chuck £40M into a gamble of getting into the Premier League. Fine if you get there and you then have the massive cushion of £100M parachute payments. Not good if they fail and piss off leaving supporters with a ruined club.

Wednesday are fine if they keep qualifying for playoffs or god forbid get promoted but not fine if they start failing.

Wages went up 44% and are 90% of turnover. Chansiri's "loans" are up to £17M. Will be a worry if he has another couple of years of this.

Let's hope he fucks it up.
Click to expand...

I didn't realise this was the case. I thought wages etc. (football expenditure) had to be no more than 60-65% of turnover.
 
I should coco said:
You put the 'if' in there yourself. That is the gamble. What about when Daddy Tuna says stop wasting money on that lot and get your net back out and catch some fish?
Click to expand...

Don't judge him by McCabe's standards until he's given reason to do so.
 
I should coco said:
As Sean says, the element relating to future seasons would be held back from this year's accounts (accrued) to count as turnover next year.
From a cash flow point of view however the club can spend the money and they do not have to hold it over. Thus, if they go bust you are another unsecured creditor.

In the same way, paying £9m for a player on a 3 year deal, only £3m is charged as an expense to the profit and loss account.
Click to expand...

But it's potentially storing up a huge cash flow problem in the coming seasons, not sure what % of the season ticket income will already have been banked but we can only hope it's been spunked.
 
itsinyerblood said:
The overall consensus by those who are damned by their S6 loyalties seems to be overly enthusiastic joy at spending what they consider mega amounts on the likes of Rhodes. Good luck to 'em I say, as luck they'll need. There appears to be no balance when it comes to decision making, at least by their supporters, it's all about spending because they can. As anyone with an ounce of fiscal literacy will know, the likelihood of this returning to bite their arses is high. Look at Bolton, their stay at the top table meant they accrued wages, fees, and whatever other financial outlay that goes with attempting to compete, and now this financial weight is dragging the trotters on a downwards spiral that they will struggle to adjust to.

I want United to be a successful team, but at any cost? No thank you, it's not worth the front (another cute term for arrogance) that brings you to the Premiership in the first place. By all means I hope that long-term we do strive to clinch a Premiership place, but only after we've done careful planning with a squad that's good enough and the awareness of what's ahead.
Click to expand...

Don't worry, they don't need luck. Once the bubble bursts, they will consolidate all of their debts in one one manageble debt with the Co-op bank who in turn will write the fucker off once again at the expense of pensioners and honest businesses.
 
Revolution said:
I remain amazed by the criticism this guy gets from some Blades fans for increasing spending, buying good players, keeping other good players and seeing the Pigs improve season on season as a result (annoyingly).

McCabe hasn't gone more than 12 months without cutting spending or selling out best players in more than a decade. I hope he shows the same commitment as the tuna baron has so far if we go up.
Click to expand...

So are you in the camp where

If it meant more income then let's change the kit and dump the red and white stripes
Also do you agree to increase prices to £40 at BL next year?
Come on if the Chairman is being ambitious then the fans need to show ambition too.
How about if we changed the name from Bramall Lane to the Hauling stadium?
Would you accept this if it meant we gave in to greedy agents and bought a group of talented but expensive mercenaries.
 
Last edited:
Sheffsteel said:
So are you in the camp where

If it mean more money then let's change the kit and dump the red and white stripes
Also do you agree to increase prices to £40 at BL next year?
Come on if the Chairman is being ambitious then the fans need to show ambition too.
How about if we changed the name from Bramall Lane to the Hauling stadium?
Click to expand...

We had a white kit last season. Did you miss it?

I don't care what the ground is called.

If money goes in the team price increases are justified.
 
Don't know if there's any truth in this or not, but was told that this season is shit or bust for them. Chansiri wants up this season and hence why Rhodes was brought in

Not the end of the world for them next season if they don't go up, but it would be the end of the big spending
 



1danewhitehouse said:
I didn't realise this was the case. I thought wages etc. (football expenditure) had to be no more than 60-65% of turnover.
Click to expand...
As Sean says wages are controlled for L1 and L2 under SCMP - I think that means Salary Cost Management protocol.

The PL and the Championship are governed by FFP - Financial Fair Play. This tends to reference the maximum losses they can make. They are intending to align the PL and the Championship next season.

It's meant to prevent unscrupulous owners from running up too much debt and jeopardising clubs especially if money is borrowed. But the thresholds still seem to be going up and up. There doesn't seem to be a will to address the powerful clubs although it's those further down that could overstretch spectacularly.

The crunch will come if TV money starts to decline but the greedy players still demand more. The fallout will be very nasty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Beating the press
2
Replies
49
Views
4K
Sothall_Blade
Sothall_Blade
Coolblade
A few observations from the stats (Wilder/Selles)
Replies
5
Views
601
Gin&Juice
Gin&Juice
C
MOTD2 Tonight
2
Replies
48
Views
6K
Tony_Kaufman
Tony_Kaufman
ekke287
All out attack or ten behind the ball, a loss is a loss.
2
Replies
39
Views
3K
Finn Keane o' Balmaqueen
Finn Keane o' Balmaqueen
Deadbat
Deadbat's Season Review / School Report 23-24 - Part 1: Season summary and stats
Replies
11
Views
2K
Pollingtonblade
P

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Back
Top Bottom