Money in vs Money out

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




Barney said:
Quite a lot of people myself included were only happy with letting go of Adams and DCL for the kind of fees banded around on the condition that the money be reinvested in the team.

Let's have a look at what we have spent in relation to what we have brought in:



Spendings

O'Connell - 250k
Lavery - 150k
Hussey - 20k
Clarke - 100k
Moore - 350k

£870k

I'd say that was roughly about right.



Brought in:

Adams - £1.75m (most widely reported figure) - 20% sell on clause to Ilkeston = £1.4m
DCL - £1.4m (most widely reported figure)

£2.8m

+ The savings made from the Brayford loan.

So, where's the £1.93m we have left going to go?

On current player wages until it runs out so that McCabe and the Prince don't have to put as much in?


If we'd have reinvested the Adams money already (plenty of time to have done so), and sold Calvert-Lewin earlier, that could well have gone on fees for a couple of top notch instrumental players to get us out of the league. Although since we chose not to reinvest the Adams money, there's nothing to suggest we would have done so with the DCL money either, given the time.


There's January, where it maybe will or will not be spent (answers on a postcard) but for a large chunk of the season at the very least, the results of which will probably decide promotion, it's looking like yet another case of player sales and inadequate reinvestment.
Click to expand...

DCL was reported as £1m.

Simon Moore 'most widely reported figure' was £500k.

Theres £650k back right there.
 
Barney said:
Well, not really as you said about the Adkins pay off, which as it was a decision the board didn't need to take, it's unsuitable to include in this context. You think it's gone until August, that was the point I was making...although not sure on the "until" bit, I think it's gone full stop.
Click to expand...

Not really sure of the point you're making, but seeing as you posted after the August transfer deadline day, Adkins has already gone and therefore the cost of his pay off has been agreed whether you think it was a decision that they needed to take or not...

Again, you asked where the money will be spent, I've included it in my 'analysis'
 
An
joshua thompson said:
Your forgetting sign on fees, agent fees, bonuses... So much more to add than just that 870k, we probably spent around 1.5mil+ on these transfers alone including the free agents even though it does not add up in fees to teams.

I do think this window we have done okay, personally thought brayford would have been better sold rather than loaned out, could have got more for che, and the DCL cash-in was ideal, he hasnt played and wont with our strike force so cash in while we can.

With regards to in-comings, im glad we have utilised free agents for once, always a good way to get key players on a cheaper price, now just for the loanees if needed.

Hope the team starts to gel well, there was signs the the second half against Oxford so hopefully that continues on Sunday and we can get a run going, with regards to a starting team, I think we should push out Hussey and Duffy... they have been shocking so far. And maybe try a new system for the game on sunday with the new incoming players.
Click to expand...
and also the fact we will have only received a % of the reported fees with large amounts of it dependent on appearance etc .... Glad you're not my accountant - bust in the first year!
 
SwissBlade said:
Not really sure of the point you're making, but seeing as you posted after the August transfer deadline day, Adkins has already gone and therefore the cost of his pay off has been agreed whether you think it was a decision that they needed to take or not...

Again, you asked where the money will be spent, I've included it in my 'analysis'
Click to expand...
The point is that the surplus from the Che and DCL money will not be sufficiently reinvested in the team on new players.

You said I haven't factored in the Adkins pay off. I told you why it wasn't factored in on the basis of the context and the fact that it was a decision that didn't need to be taken. If McCabe spends a million on a new yacht, shall we factor that in too?

You also mentioned about paying players off. This is countered by the huge saving in wages overall we have made from last season.

I've no idea what your point is (tbh I couldn't be bothered to read your post), but that's top and bottom of it.
 
SwissBlade said:
Not really sure of the point you're making, but seeing as you posted after the August transfer deadline day, Adkins has already gone and therefore the cost of his pay off has been agreed whether you think it was a decision that they needed to take or not...

Again, you asked where the money will be spent, I've included it in my 'analysis'
Click to expand...
Ah, if only one of us (apart from Sean!) could understand the accounts. :confused:
 
Barney said:
The point is that the surplus from the Che and DCL money will not be sufficiently reinvested in the team on new players.

You said I haven't factored in the Adkins pay off. I told you why it wasn't factored in on the basis of the context and the fact that it was a decision that didn't need to be taken. If McCabe spends a million on a new yacht, shall we factor that in too?

You also mentioned about paying players off. This is countered by the huge saving in wages overall we have made from last season.

I've no idea what your point is (tbh I couldn't be bothered to read your post), but that's top and bottom of it.
Click to expand...

Ok so all i was doing was mentioning things which have actually happened whether i agreed that the decision was warranted or not was not relevant:
We've sacked a manager
We've appointed a manager

Because of the latter, we have signed, sold, released and paid off players - Because of all this we have probably balanced the books with sales of DCL and CHE. The sacking of Adkins was therefore quite a relevant actual event.

The point was responding to what you asked in your OP. And as a result the money has been spent from the sales. If you'd read the post, I said that it has left us in a healthy financial position, in respect of the squad.
 
Bartyblade said:
Ah, if only one of us (apart from Sean!) could understand the accounts. :confused:
Click to expand...
Well don't look at me for that! The only thing i know is that the SUFC accounts are a lot clearer than some of the accounts i have to look at for work!
 
SwissBlade said:
Ok so all i was doing was mentioning things which have actually happened whether i agreed that the decision was warranted or not was not relevant:
We've sacked a manager
We've appointed a manager

Because of the latter, we have signed, sold, released and paid off players - Because of all this we have probably balanced the books with sales of DCL and CHE. The sacking of Adkins was therefore quite a relevant actual event.

The point was responding to what you asked in your OP. And as a result the money has been spent from the sales. If you'd read the post, I said that it has left us in a healthy financial position, in respect of the squad.
Click to expand...
I'm not doubting those things happened (they did, unless it was all a dream), or that we have paid financially for them, just that you can't really use it in this context, as the funds lost were as a result of a decision that didn't need to be taken. They chose to sack a manager and appoint a new one, nobody forced it on them.

Also not sure why you are ignoring the saving on wages from last season? This counters the paying off of players as I keep saying.

It's clear we're on separate pages, I think we can just leave it at that.
 
Barney said:
I'm not doubting those things happened (they did, unless it was all a dream), or that we have paid financially for them, just that you can't really use it in this context, as the funds lost were as a result of a decision that didn't need to be taken. They chose to sack a manager and appoint a new one, nobody forced it on them.

Also not sure why you are ignoring the saving on wages from last season? This counters the paying off of players as I keep saying.

It's clear we're on separate pages, I think we can just leave it at that.
Click to expand...

Ok, your point about the manager and the sacking is a crucial one, because without it the summer would have been very different in terms of spending and recouping money.

Not ignoring the savings on wages, however, i thought that this was obvious in my summary that we are now in a healthier position financially, but perhaps it wasn't. Apologies there.

We are in a much healthier position because of all of the decisions taken since the last game of the season until 1st Sept. So, in summary, if we draw a line under the summer, going forward we are in a decent position, which i think keeps everyone from management to owners happy.

Wilder can't say that he's not been supported in his rebuild, true there are improvements to make in January (hopefully not many), but he will be relatively happy with what he has. He's certainly not had the rug pulled from under him. On a similar note, the owners will be happy that Wilder has reduced overall costs (healthier financial position) and by allowing sales of two players, we have recouped money which will also cover some of the costs from the summers activities
 
larkymasher said:
Round and round we go yet again chewing the fat of whats been spent and how much we have got in.

11 new signings have come in. Hammond, Woolford, Adkins, Turnbull, Coaching Staff all had to be paid off. You and me have no idea what costs this involved. its all hearsay.
On the cost of players coming in, again, we have no idea on fees paid. We have no idea on what we actually got in for Adams and DCL. Its all hearsay.

What makes us any different to other clubs that we buy and sell to square up the books. If you honestly believe anyone can make profit out of a L1 club of 6 years standing your are misguided.
Click to expand...

Which is why we are nicely mired in League 1.
Our owners that are trying to balance the books ,they say they will invest when we get to the Championship.
We don't have a wendy type owner so promotion is going to take some time, unless of course McCabe's luck changes.
 
SwissBlade said:
Ok, your point about the manager and the sacking is a crucial one, because without it the summer would have been very different in terms of spending and recouping money.

Not ignoring the savings on wages, however, i thought that this was obvious in my summary that we are now in a healthier position financially, but perhaps it wasn't. Apologies there.

We are in a much healthier position because of all of the decisions taken since the last game of the season until 1st Sept. So, in summary, if we draw a line under the summer, going forward we are in a decent position, which i think keeps everyone from management to owners happy.

Wilder can't say that he's not been supported in his rebuild, true there are improvements to make in January (hopefully not many), but he will be relatively happy with what he has. He's certainly not had the rug pulled from under him. On a similar note, the owners will be happy that Wilder has reduced overall costs (healthier financial position) and by allowing sales of two players, we have recouped money which will also cover some of the costs from the summers activities
Click to expand...
Ok so your point is basically that the club is in a healthier financial position. Ok, accept that and it is most likely very true.

*Disclaimer to all* - Figures used are guesses to illustrate a point (please do not melt your penis over them)


I'll go into a bit of detail:


15/16 season

If the 5 new players we got in were on £7k p/w average, £1.82m over a season.

Add on the Sharp fee and that's £2.32m.

Then you have to factor in the rest of the bloated squads wages - I'd say they were on an average of £4k p/w average x remaining 27 squad members = £5.61m

= £7.93m



We sold Murphy for £1.75m so take that off gets you £6.18m

We could have reinvested that on new players to bring total spend back up to £7.93m but we chose not to.




Now, this season:

12 new players with a wage of roughly £4k p/w = £2,496,000 + £870k in fees = £3,366,000

Remaining 11 players with an average wage of £4k p/w = £2,288,000

= £5,654,000


Sold Che + DCL for £2.8m so take that off gets you £2.85m

Could have reinvested that to take it back up to £5.65m but again chose not to.


Losses

15/16 - £7.93m to £6.18m after selling Murphy.

16/17 - £5.65m to £2.85m after selling DCL and Che.




£2.85m is a big jump down from £6.18m so when you say the club is in a healthier position you're bang right.

I'm saying we should have reinvested this season to take the £2.85 to the £5.65m as then we'd still be making less of a loss than the previous year, and that's not reinvesting the previous year and reinvesting this year. If we'd have reinvested the previous year as well, It'd be more than £2m less as you can see from the figures above.



All these figures are guesses so could all be totally wrong, but I'd say it's there or thereabouts.

I now welcome the many messages from those holding accounts data saying I'm talking a load of bollocks. :)
 



Toronto Blade said:
Which is why we are nicely mired in League 1.
Our owners that are trying to balance the books ,they say they will invest when we get to the Championship.
We don't have a wendy type owner so promotion is going to take some time, unless of course McCabe's luck changes.
Click to expand...
But don't forget that we've been wondering for years how it is that clubs with much smaller budgets than ours can somehow gain promotion.
Now WE'RE trying it, everyone's up in arms about not splashing the cash!
It'd be hilarious if not for the underlying nastiness. :(
 
Jim Phipps... Via Twitter...

"The funds from Jamie's move will be invested directly into the first team"

Kevin mcabe, Fans forum...

"The money raised from the Murphy sale went towards player wages and loan fees"

They're saving thier own money and selling anything they can in order to just, and I mean just keep us coming... Sell talent, buy cheap, drive the wage bill down to the floor, underachieve, sack manager, blackmail fans with early bird deals on season tickets, wait for a level of income to be achieved and repeat...

This process had been in place since Robson almost broke KMC, and only relegation to the fourth will see a fans revolt or any sort of change, unless we've been beaten so hard for so long we now don't really care enough....

We've been stitched up like a kipper, and what a great job he's done on. Some fans who still defend him....
 
Barney said:
Ok so your point is basically that the club is in a healthier financial position. Ok, accept that and it is most likely very true.

*Disclaimer to all* - Figures used are guesses to illustrate a point (please do not melt your penis over them)


I'll go into a bit of detail:


15/16 season

If the 5 new players we got in were on £7k p/w average, £1.82m over a season.

Add on the Sharp fee and that's £2.32m.

Then you have to factor in the rest of the bloated squads wages - I'd say they were on an average of £4k p/w average x remaining 27 squad members = £5.61m

= £7.93m



We sold Murphy for £1.75m so take that off gets you £6.18m

We could have reinvested that on new players to bring total spend back up to £7.93m but we chose not to.




Now, this season:

12 new players with a wage of roughly £4k p/w = £2,496,000 + £870k in fees = £3,366,000

Remaining 11 players with an average wage of £4k p/w = £2,288,000

= £5,654,000


Sold Che + DCL for £2.8m so take that off gets you £2.85m

Could have reinvested that to take it back up to £5.65m but again chose not to.


Losses

15/16 - £7.93m to £6.18m after selling Murphy.

16/17 - £5.65m to £2.85m after selling DCL and Che.




£2.85m is a big jump down from £6.18m so when you say the club is in a healthier position you're bang right.

I'm saying we should have reinvested this season to take the £2.85 to the £5.65m as then we'd still be making less of a loss than the previous year, and that's not reinvesting the previous year and reinvesting this year. If we'd have reinvested the previous year as well, It'd be more than £2m less as you can see from the figures above.

All these figures are guesses so could all be totally wrong, but I'd say it's there or thereabouts.

I now welcome the many messages from those holding accounts data saying I'm talking a load of bollocks. :)
Click to expand...

Right, now i'm starting to understand the point you were getting at. I'm not going to get into the details of the figures as its one of those things with no real answer until we see the accounts for the year, but even then it can be taken with a pinch of salt. Its a great question, we're making a loss anyway, so why not run at a higher loss and guantee success? I think thats what you're saying

I think there are a number of issues:

- Turnover - Despite decent gates, sponsorship will be lower and without cup runs, we will not be increasing our revenue.
- The Owners aren't Money pits - At some point they will want to start seeing a return on their investments.
- Mitigation against relegation to L2 - Unlikely, but if we got relegated, we'd be even more fooked!
- Player contracts - Most contracts are 3 years, so you look at the 3 year plan. On 2.85 Milllon thats 8.55 Million, on 5.65, thats 16.95 Million - Almost double. Again, who pays for this?
- Ratios/ Leverage - someone with accounting knowledge will know this, but i think we would also affect our leverage with a bigger loss.

I assume that it comes down to risk v reward. The owners and Wilder will have probably looked at what we need to get up. I think they may also be accepting that we could still take two years to get out of this division (as per Phipps comments last season about further transfer windows). Spending the extra money on players like Hammond v Fleck doesn't guarantee promotion, so there will have been a more sensible cap put on the budget, which will in turn affect the losses

If that makes any sense...
 
Tezza1889 said:
Jim Phipps... Via Twitter...

"The funds from Jamie's move will be invested directly into the first team"

Kevin mcabe, Fans forum...

"The money raised from the Murphy sale went towards player wages and loan fees"

They're saving thier own money and selling anything they can in order to just, and I mean just keep us coming... Sell talent, buy cheap, drive the wage bill down to the floor, underachieve, sack manager, blackmail fans with early bird deals on season tickets, wait for a level of income to be achieved and repeat...

This process had been in place since Robson almost broke KMC, and only relegation to the fourth will see a fans revolt or any sort of change, unless we've been beaten so hard for so long we now don't really care enough....

We've been stitched up like a kipper, and what a great job he's done on. Some fans who still defend him....
Click to expand...

..and of course the only thing that can change this course of diminishing returns in this race to the bottom, is a change of 'luck' or Wilder turning out to be the best manager in England!
My money is on the latter...

UTB!
 
Toronto Blade said:
Which is why we are nicely mired in League 1.
Our owners that are trying to balance the books ,they say they will invest when we get to the Championship.
We don't have a wendy type owner so promotion is going to take some time, unless of course McCabe's luck changes.
Click to expand...
Wendy only spent big money when in the championship. They were run on a break even basis when in L1.
 
Tezza1889 said:
Jim Phipps... Via Twitter...

"The funds from Jamie's move will be invested directly into the first team"

Kevin mcabe, Fans forum...

"The money raised from the Murphy sale went towards player wages and loan fees"

They're saving thier own money and selling anything they can in order to just, and I mean just keep us coming... Sell talent, buy cheap, drive the wage bill down to the floor, underachieve, sack manager, blackmail fans with early bird deals on season tickets, wait for a level of income to be achieved and repeat...

This process had been in place since Robson almost broke KMC, and only relegation to the fourth will see a fans revolt or any sort of change, unless we've been beaten so hard for so long we now don't really care enough....

We've been stitched up like a kipper, and what a great job he's done on. Some fans who still defend him....
Click to expand...

Yeah, the wage bill is REALLY on the floor!
'cos we all know that players are happy to play for nowt.
You've got a brain and a pair of feet, if you don't like it don't go or buy a season ticket - absolutely your choice and then you can save YOUR own money.
 
SwissBlade said:
Right, now i'm starting to understand the point you were getting at. I'm not going to get into the details of the figures as its one of those things with no real answer until we see the accounts for the year, but even then it can be taken with a pinch of salt. Its a great question, we're making a loss anyway, so why not run at a higher loss and guantee success? I think thats what you're saying

I think there are a number of issues:

- Turnover - Despite decent gates, sponsorship will be lower and without cup runs, we will not be increasing our revenue.
- The Owners aren't Money pits - At some point they will want to start seeing a return on their investments.
- Mitigation against relegation to L2 - Unlikely, but if we got relegated, we'd be even more fooked!
- Player contracts - Most contracts are 3 years, so you look at the 3 year plan. On 2.85 Milllon thats 8.55 Million, on 5.65, thats 16.95 Million - Almost double. Again, who pays for this?
- Ratios/ Leverage - someone with accounting knowledge will know this, but i think we would also affect our leverage with a bigger loss.

I assume that it comes down to risk v reward. The owners and Wilder will have probably looked at what we need to get up. I think they may also be accepting that we could still take two years to get out of this division (as per Phipps comments last season about further transfer windows). Spending the extra money on players like Hammond v Fleck doesn't guarantee promotion, so there will have been a more sensible cap put on the budget, which will in turn affect the losses

If that makes any sense...
Click to expand...
Yep, see what you're saying. And yes that is what I was saying.

I am one who thinks that we should have just gone for it this season, with the squad as bare as it was after Wilder announced the released list, it was the best opportunity really. If we don't get up this year, it will cost us a lot more in the long run than the extra money we could have spent this year to near enough guarantee promotion and we'd end up losing a lot more.

What we're doing is a very risky strategy, even more so than the "go for it" method , because as you say, those players we have brought in are on 2 and 3 year deals, if they aren't up to it, that's another 2 to 3 years at the least we're stuck with players not good enough for league one promotion, so then the reality is we're not likely to get promotion for another 2 to 3 years. In the long run this is far less of a financially viable route and we'd end up losing a lot more.
 
Barney said:
Yep, see what you're saying. And yes that is what I was saying.

I am one who thinks that we should have just gone for it this season, with the squad as bare as it was after Wilder announced the released list, it was the best opportunity really. If we don't get up this year, it will cost us a lot more in the long run than the extra money we could have spent this year to near enough guarantee promotion and we'd end up losing a lot more.

What we're doing is a very risky strategy, even more so than the "go for it" method , because as you say, those players we have brought in are on 2 and 3 year deals, if they aren't up to it, that's another 2 to 3 years at the least we're stuck with players not good enough for league one promotion, so then the reality is we're not likely to get promotion for another 2 to 3 years. In the long run this is far less of a financially viable route and we'd end up losing a lot more.
Click to expand...


...don't worry Barney ...someone will be along shortly to tell you 'it's not your money', 'how long can he keep putting into the club;, 'if you want to buy him out phone him up...he's very approachable and open to offer's'....just ask 'his little helper', Princey...
 
I think the money was there but wilder chose not to spend it on players that he might see as being only marginally better than what he has.

We're people on here really ok with spending up to 1m on Morgan or Webster, players who near 30 or over it haven't played much championship football. That type of purchase wouldn't be a change on what clough and Adkins were doing with players on high wages.

I don't know much about the lad from wolves but he won't play there again with the money and played over half their games in the championship last year, is still only 22 and a rough diamond. Exactly the type of player we should be signing.

Morsy ok would be good but Wigan were quick to move on from him when they got to the championship and Barnsley only took him on loan.

Bringing these types of players in on high wages would have done nothing a dressing room recovering from having the likes of Hammond and Sammon in it so why risk it for a biscuit?

Yeh of course I would of liked us to find a couple of good young nuggets but don't spend someone else's money when you're not sure
 
Esablade said:
...don't worry Barney ...someone will be along shortly to tell you 'it's not your money', 'how long can he keep putting into the club;, 'if you want to buy him out phone him up...he's very approachable and open to offer's'....just ask 'his little helper', Princey...
Click to expand...

I am here to do exactly that. Someone calculate mccabes worth and then how much Sheffield United has cost him. We will then take barneys worth and take away the same percantage of expense away from him. Deal?
 
sheffielder said:
I am here to do exactly that. Someone calculate mccabes worth and then how much Sheffield United has cost him. We will then take barneys worth and take away the same percantage of expense away from him. Deal?
Click to expand...

Go for it...
 
sheffielder said:
I think the money was there but wilder chose not to spend it on players that he might see as being only marginally better than what he has.

We're people on here really ok with spending up to 1m on Morgan or Webster, players who near 30 or over it haven't played much championship football. That type of purchase wouldn't be a change on what clough and Adkins were doing with players on high wages.

I don't know much about the lad from wolves but he won't play there again with the money and played over half their games in the championship last year, is still only 22 and a rough diamond. Exactly the type of player we should be signing.

Morsy ok would be good but Wigan were quick to move on from him when they got to the championship and Barnsley only took him on loan.

Bringing these types of players in on high wages would have done nothing a dressing room recovering from having the likes of Hammond and Sammon in it so why risk it for a biscuit?

Yeh of course I would of liked us to find a couple of good young nuggets but don't spend someone else's money when you're not sure
Click to expand...
If Mitchell is as good as they say he'll find us a couple of nuggets.

I think the priorities were
1. Cut the wage bill dramatically.
2. Cut it some more.
3. Bring in some transfer fees to cover the cost of the new signings and the difference between our income and expenditure leading to;
Break even.
4. Keep at break even so that;
A) Any further player sales can actually fund replacements and not just go towards our losses.
B) Any cup run money can be used to strengthen.

Then, it depends on what happens this season. We have a few out of contract at the end so, in the unlikely event of us going up, we have plenty of room in the wage bill to bring in some championship players, or, if we don't, to add a couple of first teamers to build on this season as well as a couple of small punts on some lower league/non-league players.
 
sheffielder said:
I am here to do exactly that. Someone calculate mccabes worth and then how much Sheffield United has cost him. We will then take barneys worth and take away the same percantage of expense away from him. Deal?
Click to expand...
I hope you're going to give me the option of backing out and cutting my losses in this hypothetical scenario, at all the times McCabe had the chance to do so.

A good investor knows when to invest in a good business. A great investor knows when to get the hell out of a failing one.

A bit like "attack wins you games, defence wins you championships."
 
Last edited:
Barney said:
I hope you're going to give me the option of backing out and cutting my losses in this hypothetical scenario, at all the times McCabe had the chance to do so.

A good investor knows when to invest in a good business. A great investor knows when to get the hell out of a failing one.

A bit like "attack wins you games, defence wins you championships."
Click to expand...

But dont forget football clubs are not run on a normal business model otherwise 80% of the clubs in the Football League would have gone to the wall
How does McCabe get out ?
Is there a long queue to buy him out ?
I think not
 



If McCabe really wants to sell up. He would have to include the ground in any sale. The ground, not the club is the real nugget. Nobody will purchase this club for silly money while its haemorrhaging money left right and centre and floundering in league 1. Hence his decision to sell half for a quid. Even for a quid the Prince must feel he's been robbed​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Fjortoft's Aeroplane
  • Poll Poll
Donating money - Pigs or Blades?
Replies
24
Views
2K
Chimpan-A
Chimpan-A
derfblade.3
Agents fees......mind boggling.
Replies
2
Views
733
JOEYDEE
JOEYDEE
Younger Dryas Blade
History maker
Replies
5
Views
806
FINUK
F
VictoryBlade
I'm only thinking out loud, but
Replies
28
Views
2K
Edgar Allan Poo
Edgar Allan Poo
Plymouthblade
Yanks out
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
Terry Poole
T

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