Financial Mumbo-Jumbo

[BushBlade]

The fact that the owners have pumped millions in, IN CASH, does rather give the game away as to whether the losses are genuine.

The historical tax losses are carried forward not set off in some sort of "barrack room accountant" tax fiddle to get tax back elsewhere either.

Anyone who looks at the Lane and Academy, sees the set up, number of employees and rather obvious associated costs and can't see where £6m quid goes every year is pretty dim to be frank.

Why does it always seem you’re contradicting me or trying for an argument?

 

[BushBlade]

Am I missing something here? The whole point of the OP is that we are spunking all our money on wages (just like everyone else) and therefore losing a fortune. Why are people still questioning why we're losing money?

Mainly because of a wind up wanker shitposting every day and the inability of other posters to ignore him.

 

[Sean Thornton]

Again, I'm not an accountant and maybe someone who knows better can confirm/correct this, but as I understand it, the writing down of a player's value over the length of his contract is not something taken into account in the incomings/outgoings of the finances, but rather that is in the company assets valuation. A decrease in his value is not an outgoing, nor a cost. In the same way that the computers that the ticketing office use are bought - and counted as a cost - decrease in value but are not counted as a cost again the following year just because they've decreased, and are then either sold off when they are replaced, in which case their sale price is added to the income, or binned and their asset value to the company written off to zero.

If a player signs for £4m over 4 years it's written offf - amortised - at £1m per year. That £1m is expenditure and written off against income each year until written odd to zero. If the player is sold after two years for £10m the profit is charged to the P&L reducing losses ( or increasing profits) ln this example, the profit is £8m in the year of the sale. £10m less the remaining value on the balance sheet of £2m.

Other interpretations of this scenario - i.e. Weers McCabe put munneh - are available but will be wrong.

 

[Bladesman]

I said I would pay more as the recipient of the old bastard's discount and got thraped for it on here. I have now decided that I want to pay nothing as all property is theft and until the capitalist dog McCabe reveals who owns the freehold, who sabotaged the fax machine, the precise location of Woolhouse, Jacob Esan, Tyler Durden an t 'wereabouts o t'muneh, he's gerrin nowt.

beightonblade owned the freehold and then he sold it on to Crab Industries. The Crab

 

[BushBlade]

Again, I'm not an accountant and maybe someone who knows better can confirm/correct this, but as I understand it, the writing down of a player's value over the length of his contract is not something taken into account in the incomings/outgoings of the finances, but rather that is in the company assets valuation. A decrease in his value is not an outgoing, nor a cost. In the same way that the computers that the ticketing office use are bought - and counted as a cost - decrease in value but are not counted as a cost again the following year just because they've decreased, and are then either sold off when they are replaced, in which case their sale price is added to the income, or binned and their asset value to the company written off to zero.

Tbh, I don’t care. I’m done with this thread. I come on here to discuss football, not fucking accounts, they bore me rigid.

 

[Sean Thornton]

Why does it always seem you’re contradicting me or trying for an argument?

It's actually agreeing with you. You've had this paranoia before remember? You need to look at the post again, there's no contradiction, the opposite in fact, particularly the last paragraph.

Don't look out of the curtains ffs, someone may be walking past.

 

[Sean Thornton]

Tbh, I don’t care. I’m done with this thread. I come on here to discuss football, not fucking accounts, they bore me rigid.

 

[Hamburg Blade]

If a player signs for £4m over 4 years it's written offf - amortised - at £1m per year. That £1m is expenditure and written off against income each year until written odd to zero. If the player is sold after two years for £10m the profit is charged to the P&L reducing losses ( or increasing profits) ln this example, the profit is £8m in the year of the sale. £10m less the remaining value on the balance sheet of £2m.

Other interpretations of this scenario - i.e. Weers McCabe put munneh - are available but will be wrong.

Was mid post, have had to revise it! So what I wrote in post 116 isn't true - or does it mean that the cost was initially not booked in full and instead spread over the period of the contract? Otherwise, to me, it looks like the cost is entered twice. Once when you buy the player and again when you write his value down. In your example, I don't understand how the profit is in reality (as opposed to on paper) £8m, if you paid £4m for him and sold him for £10m. You might be slowly writing the expenditure off, but in reality £4m has left your bank account.

 

[BushBlade]

It's actually agreeing with you. You've had this paranoia before remember? You need to look at the post again, there's no contradiction, the opposite in fact, particularly the last paragraph.

Don't look out of the curtains ffs, someone may be walking past.

It’s the way you tell ‘em.

 

[SouthEssexBlade]

It's actually agreeing with you. You've had this paranoia before remember? You need to look at the post again, there's no contradiction, the opposite in fact, particularly the last paragraph.

Don't look out of the curtains ffs, someone may be walking past.

That will be me.

 

[BushBlade]

View attachment 49631

Seriously, I just can’t be doing with it. I just answered a question, I can do without being cross examined, I usually get paid for answering questions that begin with ‘I’m not an expert but I think you’re wrong’.

 

[Killamarshblades]

Do you reckon this club would last with zero fans turning up?

If the answer is no as I think it will be then us as fans who pay a relatively large amount of money to follow our side should know why we’re spunking £10.3M on something no one knows nothing about.

No. But neither would Sainsbury's if we didnt go and buy our food there...there is literally no difference!

 

[Sean Thornton]

Was mid post, have had to revise it! So what I wrote in post 116 isn't true - or does it mean that the cost was initially not booked in full and instead spread over the period of the contract? Otherwise, to me, it looks like the cost is entered twice. Once when you buy the player and again when you write his value down. In your example, I don't understand how the profit is in reality (as opposed to on paper) £8m, if you paid £4m for him and sold him for £10m. You might be slowly writing the expenditure off, but in reality £4m has left your bank account.

The initial fee doesn't go against profits. It goes to intangible assets on the balance sheet and is written off over the length of the contract.
You're mixing up cash flow and profit and loss. You've spent £4m yes.you then write off two million over two years meaning the players balance sheet worth is now £2m. If you sell for £10m then the profit is £8m.

Cash flow wise you've made six million in cash but that's not how player transactions are accounted for.

 

[Sean Thornton]

Seriously, I just can’t be doing with it. I just answered a question, I can do without being cross examined, I usually get paid for answering questions that begin with ‘I’m not an expert but I think you’re wrong’.

I didn't do any of that though.

 

[BushBlade]

I didn't do any of that though.

That’s why I replied to someone else and not you.

 

[wizadry]

The fact that the owners have pumped millions in, IN CASH, does rather give the game away as to whether the losses are genuine.

The historical tax losses are carried forward not set off in some sort of "barrack room accountant" tax fiddle to get tax back elsewhere either.

Anyone who looks at the Lane and Academy, sees the set up, number of employees and rather obvious associated costs and can't see where £6m quid goes every year is pretty dim to be frank.

I’m not dim mate, I’m just curious without delving too deep into it why we’re losing £10.3M.

Anyway, where’s the other £4.3M gone then?

 

[wizadry]

Other than curiosity though, what does it matter? It won’t stop me supporting the Blades if I find out they’re using Yorkshire Gold when they could be buying Happy Shopper teabags.

I know the wagebill and our income and just basic maths is enough to understand that we also buy players and pay signing on fees. I’m not really interested in things like what business rates we pay for the Lane and Shirecliffe.

It’s pretty obvious KM was taking a yearly hit or he wouldn’t have brought Prince Andrex in.

Exactly, I’m just intrigued that’s all, otherwise why would me, you or anyone even open the thread?

 

[wizadry]

No. But neither would Sainsbury's if we didnt go and buy our food there...there is literally no difference!

As I said above, I’m intrigued more than looking for a tussle regards something I’m not very clued up on.

 

[BushBlade]

Exactly, I’m just intrigued that’s all, otherwise why would me, you or anyone even open the thread?

I opened it to take my mind off work whilst I had lunch but I’m wishing now I hadn’t bothered.

 

[Sean Thornton]

I’m not dim mate, I’m just curious without delving too deep into it why we’re losing £10.3M.

Anyway, where’s the other £4.3M gone then?

I actually took your post as wondering what the admin expenses were.

Gross loss. £1.7m
Player amortisation. £2.0m
Asset depreciation. £0.6m

It's all there other than the spend on paper clips etc

 

[Sean Thornton]

I didn't do any of that though.

.

 

[wizadry]

I actually took your post as wondering what the admin expenses were.

Gross loss. £1.7m
Player amortisation. £2.0m
Asset depreciation. £0.6m

It's all there other than the spend on paper clips etc

That can’t be right? The fucker adds up.

 

[Houston_Blade]

Tbh, I don’t care. I’m done with this thread. I come on here to discuss football, not fucking accounts, they bore me rigid.

Me to and I’m an accountant (or was, I just pay the annual fee now and don’t bother with the actual work).

 

[Sean Thornton]

It is a thread about the accounts........

 

[wizadry]

As a matter of interest Sean Thornton , does any of the information from MobileBlade post not correlate with the wages of the £19M? Figure I’ve seen quoted?

 

[wizadry]

I opened it to take my mind off work whilst I had lunch but I’m wishing now I hadn’t bothered.

That’ll teach ya!

I still hope you enjoyed your dinner though over all the money been discussed, it makes you nearly choke as it is.

 

[Sean Thornton]

As a matter of interest Sean Thornton , does any of the information from MobileBlade post not correlate with the wages of the £19M? Figure I’ve seen quoted?

No. As he says, the detail is in the accounts.

 

[Topplayersleave]

You say the cost of running Bramall Lane on match days must be profitable, but by saying that you are doubling up on the takings for the day because the income from the day is already included in the £20m income in the accounts.
People are making the same mistake with things like club shop sales. Yes, the shop may be profitable, each item may be being sold at a profit, but that profit is already accounted for in the income, an income that is being used almost entirely to pay for wages. That leaves the costs of buying goods, operating the shop, operating the Lane on match day, etc, to fall into the overall costs.
I'm not an accountant and would also love to see a breakdown of costs, but not because I think there's something dodgy about it.
We've been quoted the cost for policing on another thread, I can't remember it, plus there must be various other fixed costs to running a football club that I can't think of. For example, is the stewarding outsourced? If it is, the stewards won't be part of the wage bill, the company's invoices will be part of the costs.
etc. etc.

Ok let's break down what I said because it's all getting jumbled up in white noise, answering somebody's posts about something that has already been cleared up starts all over again because somebody else questions it.

Our turnover is £20 million apparently and wages are £19 million

I questioned where the £11 million costs are that enable us to lose £10 million a year, and was told that our club employs a number of non footballing people who all get paid, but this is accounted for in the £19 million wage bill. You can't count it twice, once in the wage bill and once to explain the loss making column.

However, I was assured that we lose £10.3 million and I've accepted it from people who probably know better than me.
I find it hard to believe, but if that's what it is, that's what it is

The costs (losses) just seemed to be a little high when I first considered it, but I've been told it is correct, so that's it as far as I'm concerned

 

[Topplayersleave]

Am I missing something here? The whole point of the OP is that we are spunking all our money on wages (just like everyone else) and therefore losing a fortune. Why are people still questioning why we're losing money?

Nobody's questioning the losing money bit, it's just the amount that originally seemed very high (going on for a million every month)
Players wages are killing football clubs and is said to be the major contributor to lossmaking enterprises, ours is £19 million, but then there is another amount of £11 million (almost 60% the size of the wage bill) contributing to our losses of over £10 million.

It just seemed a little high, but as I've said, I've been told it's correct and accepted it

 

[Fanny magnet]

Nobody's questioning the losing money bit, it's just the amount that originally seemed very high (going on for a million every month)
Players wages are killing football clubs and is said to be the major contributor to lossmaking enterprises, ours is £19 million, but then there is another amount of £11 million (almost 60% the size of the wage bill) contributing to our losses of over £10 million.

It just seemed a little high, but as I've said, I've been told it's correct and accepted it

If we were losing 5 to 8 million in league one with a wage bill a fraction of the one now it's not really hard to fathom where the losses are from is it ?