Statement from McCabe - Official Site

[Bartleby]

Thats what I call short hand covers all bases in 3 short phrases and perfectly true perhaps we can put this thread to bed now as it's been done to death,it's about be leavers and non-- be leavers, fthe non- be leavers will never beleave, the be leavers do beleave, am I talking shit
there,!!!! anyway!

you been on the sauce already?

 

[Woodwardfan]

Thats what I call short hand covers all bases in 3 short phrases and perfectly true perhaps we can put this thread to bed now as it's been done to death,it's about be leavers and non-- be leavers, fthe non- be leavers will never beleave, the be leavers do beleave, am I talking shit
there,!!!! anyway!

Seems not Finlay, worse luck. Shall I resort to capital letters again? LET'S MOVE ON

 

[1danewhitehouse]

McCabe, was also chairman when we got to the Premier League, or was that justl luck?
The guy has made mistakes, the biggest in my opinion and the one that I disagreed with from the start was appointing Robson. The rest I could understand the reason behind. It is so easy to criticize with hindsight. Everyone was unanimous in their agreement that Adkins was a top appointment, but look how that has turned out. Now the hindsighters are saying he should never have sacked Clough, forgetting how bad the atmosphere was last year

McCabe was plc chairman when we got promoted to the Prem. Dooley was football club chairman. It all went downhill when he went.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

Yeah ok, I think it's fair to say that the club has self funded transfers fees. No real argument with that. Without wanting to sound all McCabe, I'm kind of glad we've done that as it apparently "balances the books"

But it's the wages and running costs of the club which have perhaps been more costly, leading to McCabe splashing out on paying managers off, taking hits on player contracts to get them off the books and paying high wages. Not all of this has come from player sales but also from McCabes pocket.

Exactly how much has come from him versus how he's offset this against other business moves is subject to debate, but he's dipped his hand in when we've haemorrhaged money... Rightly or wrongly

Agreed. Although plenty of that money has been lost due to his atrocious decision making. Backing Robson to the nth degree whilst selling the best players from managers who showed signs of maybe being able to achieve something.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

The benefit of threads like this is that those posters who brazenly quote nonsense, rhetoric and negativity have the chance to learn some facts from posters who know what they're talking about.

I respect those posters above who have challenged Bohemian and Sean Thornton because they will have learned some harsh realities and that's for their benefit and that of anyone who reads it.

What strikes me is the fact that certain posters who constantly breathe negativity and vitriol against the owner and the club don't dare to post on this thread. I wonder why? Come on you slashers, where's your bottle when you're up against people with knowledge?

It’s hard to know who that’s aimed at WWF. I have been very critical of McCabe but have steered clear of accusations that he’s stealing the ground, taking money from the club or that he hasn’t invested. My gripes have been appalling decision making (appointment of managers anf the timing of the sacking of managers, backing the worst manager etc.) and his arrogance at times when addressing the fans (fans don’t know what makes a good manager) as well as being less than entirely honest with the fans (Beattie flu). That coupled with the fact that he has presided over one of the worst periods of our history and blamed luck throughout makes me think that overall, he’s hardly done a bang up job as our chairman. I don’t think he’s some crook trying to rob us or some evil genius. I just think he’s a poor chairman of a football club and also a bit of a prick at times.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

No. The accounts are online (minus the important details, such as transfer activity) for you to read. You can see how much they spend on coffee, Mr Muscle and pies, but not how much Murphy was sold for or how much Hull still owe us (or not) for Maguire. Somewhere in there is a blank box about Bruno Ribiero as well.

WHY CAN'T YOU SEE THIS!

pommpey

I’ve not downloaded the accounts but I seem to recall in the old days there was a section labelled something like “surplus/deficit on player trading” for the year. That would tell us at least where we stand on the net spend on transfer fees?


I think we usually make a surplus on trading but spunk too much on wages and other running costs which sees us make a loss overall.



The separation of football club and parent company with rents and such forth being charged from one to the other probably creates more leeway to manipulate the figures. The accounts give us some information but creative accounting exists and means that we might not get the full picture. For example, there are options regarding items such as depreciation, provision for bad debts etc. as well as internal charging from parent company to subsidiary.

 

[Barney]

Thats what I call short hand covers all bases in 3 short phrases and perfectly true perhaps we can put this thread to bed now as it's been done to death,it's about be leavers and non-- be leavers, fthe non- be leavers will never beleave, the be leavers do beleave, am I talking shit
there,!!!! anyway!

Viper Rooms with McNulty?

 

[pommpey]

I think we usually make a surplus on trading but spunk too much on wages and other running costs which sees us make a loss overall.

The separation of football club and parent company with rents and such forth being charged from one to the other probably creates more leeway to manipulate the figures.

The accounts give us some information but creative accounting exists and means that we might not get the full picture.

For example, there are options regarding items such as depreciation, provision for bad debts etc. as well as internal charging from parent company to subsidiary.

Does our resident, ITK expert have anything to add to this?

pommpey

 

[Jan Age]

All I ask for is honesty and transparency... is that so much to ask?

I don't want 55 word answers when one will do.

Is there money to be spent on player purchases and/or loans? Yes/No
Was this money available during the January transfer window? Yes/No
Does the fact that we are running at a loss mean we need to continually sell our best players in order to generate funds for player purchases/loans? Yes/No
Will Nigel Adkins be backed in the summer to overhaul the squad? Yes/No
Would we have spent a similar amount on players/loan fees/wages etc. had we not benefited from player sales, cup runs etc? Yes/No
Are you and the Prince willing to engage the fans in on-going discussion about the future direction of the club? Yes/No

And before anyone signposts me to McCabe's interview, all of the questions were answered with a politicians spin and a bit of aggression (which wasn't needed)

 

[pommpey]

All I ask for is honesty and transparency... is that so much to ask?

I don't want 55 word answers when one will do.

Is there money to be spent on player purchases and/or loans? Yes/No
Was this money available during the January transfer window? Yes/No
Does the fact that we are running at a loss mean we need to continually sell our best players in order to generate funds for player purchases/loans? Yes/No
Will Nigel Adkins be backed in the summer to overhaul the squad? Yes/No
Would we have spent a similar amount on players/loan fees/wages etc. had we not benefited from player sales, cup runs etc? Yes/No
Are you and the Prince willing to engage the fans in on-going discussion about the future direction of the club? Yes/No

And before anyone signposts me to McCabe's interview, all of the questions were answered with a politicians spin and a bit of aggression (which wasn't needed)

You forgot:

Should I renew my season ticket? Yes/No

pommpey

 

[Sean Thornton]

Does our resident, ITK expert have anything to add to this?

pommpey

Yep.

The first quote is wrong.

Expenditure in one company is shown as income in the other and vice versa.

As I've said and you can't comprehend there is no breakdown of admin costs since there was a Plc with the relevant filing requirements. So there is no full picture to be had, just totals. You can look yourself but it might be like looking under the bed for bogeymen. You may not like what you find.

As for the last quote, all of a sudden these are important to you when earlier you didn't give a monkeys about running costs? you're all over the place.


Hulse has definitely affected your pulse.

 

[Balham]

I’ve not downloaded the accounts but I seem to recall in the old days there was a section labelled something like “surplus/deficit on player trading” for the year. That would tell us at least where we stand on the net spend on transfer fees?

I think we usually make a surplus on trading but spunk too much on wages and other running costs which sees us make a loss overall.

I mentioned that above (can't find the link atm). It only relates to incoming transfers and then only to the variance between a player's book value and what we sold them for.

Example 1: Michael Higdon
Signed for £150k + £50k signing on fee in July 2014. Initial book value and charge to cost of sales £200k. Two year contract.
The June 2015 accounts would show a book value of £100k with £100k charged to amortisation (depreciation for intangible assets) as he was half way through his contract.
Jan 2016 we release him. His book value at disposal would be around £50k (approx 6 months at £100k a year). This will show in the accounts as a £50k loss on disposal.

Example 2: Jamie Murphy
Signed for £300k + £50k signing on fee in January 2013. Initial book value and charge to cost of sales £350k, three-and-a-half year contracl
June 2013 accounts: £300k asset, £50k charge to amortisation
June 2014 accounts: £200k asset, £100k charge to amortisation
Jan 2015 signs a 2 year contract extension with a signing on fee of £100k. New book value £250k, new term 2.5 years
Jun 2015 accounts: £200k asset, £100k charge to amortisation, £100k charge to cost of sales
Aug 2015: sold to Brighton for £2m. Book value = £192k therefore a profit on disposal (surplus on player trading) of just over £1.8m

**NB I've made the numbers up but they're ballpark.
**NB "home grown" players show as huge surplus as their book value is virtually nil

 

[Sean Thornton]

I mentioned that above (can't find the link atm). It only relates to incoming transfers and then only to the variance between a player's book value and what we sold them for.

Example 1: Michael Higdon
Signed for £150k + £50k signing on fee in July 2014. Initial book value and charge to cost of sales £200k. Two year contract.
The June 2015 accounts would show a book value of £100k with £100k charged to amortisation (depreciation for intangible assets) as he was half way through his contract.
Jan 2016 we release him. His book value at disposal would be around £50k (approx 6 months at £100k a year). This will show in the accounts as a £50k loss on disposal.

Example 2: Jamie Murphy
Signed for £300k + £50k signing on fee in January 2013. Initial book value and charge to cost of sales £350k, three-and-a-half year contracl
June 2013 accounts: £300k asset, £50k charge to amortisation
June 2014 accounts: £200k asset, £100k charge to amortisation
Jan 2015 signs a 2 year contract extension with a signing on fee of £100k. New book value £250k, new term 2.5 years
Jun 2015 accounts: £200k asset, £100k charge to amortisation, £100k charge to cost of sales
Aug 2015: sold to Brighton for £2m. Book value = £192k therefore a profit on disposal (surplus on player trading) of just over £1.8m

**NB I've made the numbers up but they're ballpark.
**NB "home grown" players show as huge surplus as their book value is virtually nil

Profit on Murphy of £1.8m. Has McCabe had it?

Now written in stone for ever more.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

Yep.

The first quote is wrong.

Expenditure in one company is shown as income in the other and vice versa.

As I've said and you can't comprehend there is no breakdown of admin costs since there was a Plc with the relevant filing requirements. So there is no full picture to be had, just totals. You can look yourself but it might be like looking under the bed for bogeymen. You may not like what you find.

As for the last quote, all of a sudden these are important to you when earlier you didn't give a monkeys about running costs? you're all over the place.


Hulse has definitely affected your pulse.

So we don't usually make a surplus on player trading? Are you sure?

I've not studied the accounts but seem to recall over the years most media summaries of our figures suggest we make a loss of say £6million amount but reduced by a surplus from player trading of say £1.5mil bringing the net loss down to £4.5mil. Feel convinced I've seen that sort of story reported a fair few times (thinking when we wold Beattie, the Kyles, Lowton, Blackman etc.). I accept that might not have been the case in the year we bought Brayford or from 2005-2007

 

[Sean Thornton]

So we don't usually make a surplus on player trading? Are you sure?

I've not studied the accounts but seem to recall over the years most media summaries of our figures suggest we make a loss of say £6million amount but reduced by a surplus from player trading of say £1.5mil bringing the net loss down to £4.5mil. Feel convinced I've seen that sort of story reported a fair few times (thinking when we wold Beattie, the Kyles, Lowton, Blackman etc.). I accept that might not have been the case in the year we bought Brayford or from 2005-2007

Turnover and cost of sales are more than player trading. Cost of sales includes football wages and wage related costs Dane. Balham has gone into detail on how player trading works. I'm not nor ever have said we've made a loss on players. I've quoted the accounts figures.

For four years in a row, football related costs were MORE than turnover. Trading is turnover less cost of sales (before the running costs which apparently don't matter) we lost money for for years, if we sold the crack Pommpeys on for example, we paid more for it than we sold it for. Ie a gross loss.

We aren't talking about the same thing but it'll make someone moist.

 

[pommpey]

So we don't usually make a surplus on player trading? Are you sure?

I've not studied the accounts but seem to recall over the years most media summaries of our figures suggest we make a loss of say £6million amount but reduced by a surplus from player trading of say £1.5mil bringing the net loss down to £4.5mil. Feel convinced I've seen that sort of story reported a fair few times (thinking when we wold Beattie, the Kyles, Lowton, Blackman etc.). I accept that might not have been the case in the year we bought Brayford or from 2005-2007

I think he has got the order of things arse about face. I'm not going to make eight pages of forum dialogue about it though.

I'm not alluding McCabe has squirrelled cash away nefariously and anyone thinking about it should consider that notion carefully. I'm saying he has upped the value of his owned assets - the real estate, etc, whilst allowing the club to fester. Why invest in a Premier League pitch, when your staff are div one? It's like buying a Chippendale antique piece of furniture and parking it in a room with a leaky roof.

Meanwhile, we will never know what transactions take place regarding player sales and purchases, because they say we won't.

pommpey

 

[pommpey]

Turnover and cost of sales are more than player trading. Cost of sales includes football wages and wage related costs Dane. Balham has gone into detail on how player trading works. I'm not nor ever have said we've made a loss on players. I've quoted the accounts figures.

For four years in a row, football related costs were MORE than turnover. Trading is turnover less cost of sales (before the running costs which apparently don't matter) we lost money for for years, if we sold the crack Pommpeys on for example, we paid more for it than we sold it for. Ie a gross loss.

We aren't talking about the same thing but it'll make someone moist.

As said, I am unconcerned (not 'it doesn't matter') about the day to day running costs of the club. Now we have scratched the surface a little and learn that the Murphy money is gone (without much to show for it except wages) we are now starting to see exactly which pully is driving which wheel. The bottom line is we have lost a gifted (at this level at least) attacking left winger whose contribution last season was significant and whose absence this season is evident. If you think that, in 'cost value' is okay to be shielded from our eyes and we have to make do with Woolford, then we are truly fucked. You and McCabe are indeed the same person, or at least you are working for him.

And then there's eight million, plus last season's cup run money and small bits from a failed playoff attempt.

pommpey

 

[Balham]

And then there's eight million, plus last season's cup run money and small bits from a failed playoff attempt.

This I wholeheartedly agree with. Some will have gone on paying off Herr Clough; the rest has been spent paying average players inflated salaries.

 

[Sean Thornton]

As said, I am unconcerned (not 'it doesn't matter') about the day to day running costs of the club. Now we have scratched the surface a little and learn that the Murphy money is gone (without much to show for it except wages) we are now starting to see exactly which pully is driving which wheel. The bottom line is we have lost a gifted (at this level at least) attacking left winger whose contribution last season was significant and whose absence this season is evident. If you think that, in 'cost value' is okay to be shielded from our eyes and we have to make do with Woolford, then we are truly fucked.

And then there's eight million, plus last season's cup run money and small bits from a failed playoff attempt.

pommpey

Trying to be sensible now, it's McCabes fault. Bad decision after bad decision. I don't dispute that. Never have. Following PL relegation and Robson drinking the family wine cellar he has STILL been unable to stop the rot. We continue to lose money and as you say it's now £8m a season. So on the increase despite a shockingly poor squad.

I've said for months, when we didn't immediately spend the Murhy cash on transfers it will go towards wages, costs etc. it's no surprise to me that it's finally been admitted.

More or less, we are singing from the same hymn sheet. We just go about it in different ways. The club losing money in the past is far less worrying than what may happen in the future.

 

[SwissBlade]

Agreed. Although plenty of that money has been lost due to his atrocious decision making. Backing Robson to the nth degree whilst selling the best players from managers who showed signs of maybe being able to achieve something.

Yeah, no denying that, but its like a farmer buying a Ferrari and using it to drive around his fields - its completely useless for the task, far too expensive to run and unnecessary. But the farmer can go down the pub in his shit up Ferrari and boast about when he moves to London and becomes a stock broker, he's already got his Ferrari...

 

[1danewhitehouse]

Turnover and cost of sales are more than player trading. Cost of sales includes football wages and wage related costs Dane. Balham has gone into detail on how player trading works. I'm not nor ever have said we've made a loss on players. I've quoted the accounts figures.

For four years in a row, football related costs were MORE than turnover. Trading is turnover less cost of sales (before the running costs which apparently don't matter) we lost money for for years, if we sold the crack Pommpeys on for example, we paid more for it than we sold it for. Ie a gross loss.

We aren't talking about the same thing but it'll make someone moist.

Yeah I get what you're saying re turnover and costs of sales etc. But that would include gate receipts, tv money, sponsorship etc. v wages, signing on fees, agent fees, managers, coaching staff etc. But I seem to recall in the past that there was a section or note to the accounts that specifically covered surplus/deficit on player trading. Perhaps this was before the split with blades leisure etc. Is that not the case?

 

[Woodwardfan]

We have moved away a large number of players this past few weeks so the ongoing losses will have been reduced and there might be headroom in the figures for a loan signing perhaps. I think the £8m is for the season to date, not even a full season!

 

[Jon Bon]

Yeah, no denying that, but its like a farmer buying a Ferrari and using it to drive around his fields - its completely useless for the task, far too expensive to run and unnecessary.

Or someone who isn't a hairdresser buying a Range Rover Sport. Just saying like.....

 

[Sean Thornton]

Yeah I get what you're saying re turnover and costs of sales etc. But that would include gate receipts, tv money, sponsorship etc. v wages, signing on fees, agent fees, managers, coaching staff etc. But I seem to recall in the past that there was a section or note to the accounts that specifically covered surplus/deficit on player trading. Perhaps this was before the split with blades leisure etc. Is that not the case?

That wasn't what the discussion was. There's little in detail other than totals since the Plc group accounts. Players, as Balham has shown, are treated as intangible assets, not trading items when working out profits and losses.
If turnover is £10m and we spend £15m on wages and other football related costs we've still made a loss " trading". Profit on player sales of say £4m just reduce that same as admin costs increase it.

Look at the 2013 accounts, Profit and Loss Account where cost of sales is more than turnover. We traded at a loss.
Further down is a profit on disposal if fixed assets figure. Note 8 gives a split of that figure. Not in detail but there is a figure for profit on player sales which will have been calculated as per Balhams post.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

That wasn't what the discussion was. There's little in detail other than totals since the Plc group accounts. Players, as Balham has shown, are treated as intangible assets, not trading items when working out profits and losses.
If turnover is £10m and we spend £15m on wages and other football related costs we've still made a loss " trading". Profit on player sales of say £4m just reduce that same as admin costs increase it.

Look at the 2013 accounts, Profit and Loss Account where cost of sales is more than turnover. We traded at a loss.
Further down is a profit on disposal if fixed assets figure. Note 8 gives a split of that figure. Not in detail but there is a figure for profit on player sales which will have been calculated as per Balhams post.

Yeah I get that it wasn't exactly what your discussion was about, just something I remembered seeing that I thought was relevant to the discussion. I had assumed though that profits on player trading were a case of transfer fees received - transfer fees paid before I had seen Balham's post. Below are a couple of the articles I was talking about.

http://www.thestar.co.uk/sport/foot...-revealed-in-latest-set-of-accounts-1-6261916

http://www.thestar.co.uk/sport/foot...us-blades-aim-to-be-self-sufficient-1-5148506

 

[derryblade]

Cash-conscious Blades aim to be self-sufficient

That was another plan that had no longevity, 3/4 years down the line again we have average players on stupid money according to KM. He says he has made mistakes, will learn from those mistakes but this is an example of in reality he doesn't and wont.

 

[PokerBlade]

So money isn't the issue, that's something I guess.

However, it means the problem is systemic. The fact is that even in the run up to our promotion to the Prem, wasting money was our forte. Does anyone remember the list of "forwards" that Warnock signed over the years? It amounted to something like 40 Ten Heuvels. In that promotion season we had the wonderful signings of Akinbiyi and Horsfield for around a combined £3m.

When we went up, this policy continued. Nicky Butt was available on a free but outside our supposed wage structure. Instead we ended up with the likes of David Sommeil, Mamadou Seck, Lie Tie, Luton Shelton, (those are the first four that come to mind) sat on the wage bill, some for a couple of seasons, not playing football. We spent a lot of money in the Prem and we spent most of it poorly.

Then we had the fun of Robson. I'm not going into details with that but all we had to show for him was Beattie. Then on to Blackwell, who spent money, did alright (awful to watch but with decent results), and got sacked 3 games into the season for losing to the run away champions of that year. Then the manager carousel has brought us such delights as Weir and Adams, all of whom brought in new players and few of them good enough.

As long as we've had McCabe we've been treated to the promise of financial stability all while pissing money up the wall and making shocking footballing decisions.

Back to the first point: money. Yes, we've had it, we've got more of it, but where's the hope that we'll finally start using it well? Because we're still making the same mistakes over and over.

 

[SwissBlade]

Or someone who isn't a hairdresser buying a Range Rover Sport. Just saying like.....

Fair point.

 

[Woodwardfan]

Cash-conscious Blades aim to be self-sufficient

That was another plan that had no longevity, 3/4 years down the line again we have average players on stupid money according to KM. He says he has made mistakes, will learn from those mistakes but this is an example of in reality he doesn't and wont.

But the prince joined us within months of that statement, as you may well know it changed things drastically. "Game changing " was a loose term but in fact it was. The path set out just before was oblivion for a couple of years and hopefully a slow build up of a young, talented squad.

I for one was up for it at the time. I for one don't think Weir was doing any better or worse than could be expected at the time. I for one suggest we might not be in better shape now than we would have been if the prince had not joined us. Maybe doing a Burton, a Southend or a Gillingham, or a Coventry or a Walsall.

No, I'm not mad. Just think about it.

 

[Kevincarterversion2.0]

That’s half the story.


Appoints Robson- Fans furious and bemused.


Claims Beattie has flu and sells him off.


Chucks Kyle Walker into a BOGOF deal for Naughton.


Sacks Blackwell 2 games into the season


Appoints Wilson to the fans’ ire again before saying fans don’t know what to look for in a manager (after he chose Robson!- Meanwhile, the fans’ preferred choice goes on to win the champions league whilst we fail to get promoted).


Promises that we’ll finish the window stronger than we started it before replacing Nick Blackman with Jonathan Forte.


Sacks Wilson with nobody to come in and save the season in the hope that new manager syndrome can save us from his January screw-job.


Sells McDonald to a promotion rival but announces “game-changing” “think Liverpool” investment just as the transfer window closes.


Expectations are huge after the “investment” and the run Clough took us on. All we need is to retian the players from that run and add a quality striker. We lose 3 of the best players of that team (selling off our prized asset again) and add Michael Higdon up front. We sign loads of players but none of a calibre that you wouldn’t have expected us to sign before the “investment”.


Then, sweet mother of god, we sign John Brayford. Finally, we have spent money on a player to suggest we are serious about getting out of this league.

Tie Murphy down to a new contract. Board member says only way teams can take him from us is on a video game.


Sack clough, appoint adkins and immediately sell our best player (murphy) again whilst having the mouthpiece saying it wasn’t motivated by finance and all funds will be reinvested into the team.


Fail to land targets in August but suggest it’s all hunky dory because we have a good squad.


January comes round, it’s clear the squad is not good enough. Remove a few squad players and bring in nobody leaving us with little chance of even making the top 6.


Come on the radio to tell everyone it’s all down to bad luck whilst also issuing a very public statement to the entire championship that if they want any of our players, there is not a damn thing we can do to stop them from taking them regardless of whether they’ve just signed a new contract.



I don’t think he’s quite the pantomime villain some paint him to be but at the same time, he has done so much wrong and shown naivety, arrogance and contempt for us as a fan-base on numerous occasions whilst leading the club to possibly it’s worst ever period.

Excellent summary and excellent final paragraph. When you look at that record, its nothing short of dreadful. For this club to really change, it needs a clean sweep - with all the losers and failures being removed. Before that happens, I can't see things really improving, unless we fluke it in the play offs, and there really is investment to come in - on the proviso that we are in the Championship.

Most of these interviews included the usual tripe from Kev - quick to blame other factors, rather then his own decisions - although in the Alan B interview I think he finally admitted sacking Wilson was a mistake. I grow tired of hearing stuff about player contracts being too big - well you are the owner, Kev, you must have sanctioned them. I have no sympathy when he bangs on about "I've put £90m in" - that is what happens when you get involved in a football club - it comes with the territory. Also, its all relative - all of us fans have devoted a significant number of our money/wages into supporting the club. In the Rob Staton interview he seemed to imply that putting money in has not worked, so we wont put more money in, but not putting any more money in is not exactly going to bring success. He is open to offers - good, but Im not sure people would be interested in a club that really has no assets, as the assets are in his hands.

No surprise he has emerged right now - its not far off season tickets going on sale.