| Quick look at the financial statements 13:32 - Dec 28 with 21845 views | Nigeriamark |
As I mentioned in another post I have put together some of the data from the financial statements in a table & will give a simple/factual statement as to what they dhow. Clearly what we can do in the future is still a better of opinion but at least this gives a view on what the state of finances are as of end of May 2018. Unfortunately this is the first year where very detailed information is given, but I have looked at the balance sheet for the last 10 years which gives some insights.
I have attempted to explain how to look at these from the point of view of someone who may not be familiar with these documents so sorry if some of the explanations seem obvious
Table 1 - 2017 & 18 full financials
To May 18 To May 17
Gross Rev 5,412,000 6,000,000
Cost of sales -3,830,000 -3,161,000
Admin costs -1,943,000 -1,563,000
Distribution costs -31,000 0
Other income/loss 108,000 133,000
Intrest payable/received -23,000 -45,000
Total Profit/Loss -307,000 1,364,000
Exceptional income 1,429,000 -2,330,000
P/L on normal business -1,736,000 -966,000
Net assets 2,571,000 2,878,000
Table 2 - Exceptional items
2018 2017
Transfer fees 711,000 2,166,000
TV Money 455,000 17,000
Prize money 263,000 147,000
Total. 1, 429,000. 2,330,000
Table 3 - Increase in asset value last 10 years
GBP Assets
to May 18 -307,000 2,571,000
To May 17 1,356,000 2,878,000
to May 16 -419,000 1,522,000
to May 15 1,426,000 1,941,000
to May 14 -65,000 515,000
to May 13 -372,000 580,000
to May 12 353,000 952,000
to May 11 480,000 599,000
to May 10 143,000 119,000
To May 09 -24,000
I have split the next section into 3, How to read financials ( very basic) followed by what I think the Rochdale financials are saying ( mainly factual + some reasonable "guestimates", and finally a brief summary
READING FINANCIALS
Although gross revenue is important, it is not relevant until you take away what you have spent. This gives us the net revenue, which is also called profit or loss. This is the money that if you run at a profit you can put into your bank and if you run at a loss you need to take out of your bank. Many companies will look at this from 2 perspectives:-
1. How the " normal" operation is running - This looks only at income and expenditure that is predictable and occurs every year. This would include gate money, sponsorships, EFL money etc as incomes and Salaries, maintenance etc. This profit loss on normal business is an indication of the general health of the business and if positive means that you are not requiring something that cannot be guaranteed to happen to balance the books
2. Total operation - This is as above but then adds in items that are not guaranteed to happen. For income this could be Transfer fees and sell ons received, Money from drawing a big club in a cup etc. For expenditure this could be a fee paid for a player. If positive and you are running a positive normal operation this would be considered " cream on top" and could be used to fund something not initially planned. If normal business is negative then you would need to use this additional income to cover the loss
Unfortunately we only have exceptional item breakdown for 2018 & 2017 so hard to judge trends
3. Table 3 - Increase/decrease in assets
Although we do not have full financials, we have the asset value over 10 years. In 2009 the club had a negative value but over the last 10 years we have recorded a total of approx 2.6m profit so we stand as of May 2018 with assets of 2.571m. Although this is an average of 260,000 a year, it is not a smooth increase but swings dramatically between + 1.4m and - 400,000. We can estimate below the reason for this
WHAT DO THE FINANCIALS SEEM TO BE SAYING
1. Normal Business. The club has lost about 2.7m over 2017 & 2018 or approx 110,000 per month. Revenue from gates actually increased slightly, but Salaries jumped significantly as did Admin cost. It would seem that as a result of a large transfer/sell in 2017, the club then pushed out the boat on players or other staff
Based on the fact that we have never had massive increases in staff, income, crowds etc I would estimate that we have probably incurred losses on normal business in most if not all of the last 10 years
2. Total Business. After over 110 years of business, we find ourselves with assets of approx 2.6m a figure also earned over the last 10 years. The fact that year end 2015 and 2017 account for more than this amount and the fact that we have full details of 2017 show that the biggest individual factor in getting to where we are is not the way the club runs it's normal business, but its dependence on exceptional items. This is not regular though and it is primarily through these 2 exceptional years ( not sure which transfers or sell ons would be hear). Prize money and TV money is also contributing, but it is the transfers that have got us to where we are. We have still lost money in 4 of the last 9 years even with all the windfalls
3. Assets. These would confirm my above points. Most of the normal business is under our control and the nature of the market we compete in suggest that although I don't have the detail, it is likely to have followed a similar loss making pattern. I would guess that in league 2 the gross revenue and costs were lower but we also did not achieve the same level of income from TV money, transfers etc. As a result we would have been running losses but not 110,000 per month
SUMMARY
1. Rochdale is a loss making club based on normal business and I would estimate probably always have been. In an effort to stay in league 1 we have "pushed out the boat" since the league 2 days, but increases in revenue from ticket sales will probably not have got anywhere near covering this. Sponsorships increased in 2018 but with lack of detailed data before 2017 it is hard to see if this is a trend
2. Unlike earlier years we have been relatively successful in the selling market, but not every year. As a result we have turned normal losses into a profit and our assets have risen. If we are to maintain the squad, level of spending we incur in league 1 we are going to have to "guarantee" a supply of players that we can sell on at a profit ( + try to win cup ties for prize money and a possibility of money spinning ties)
Over the last 5 years we seem to have a set of financials that a lot of EFL clubs would love, but it is dependent on continuing with our "selling club" model. It is not a lack of ambition but a financial imperative, much that it pisses of many fans.
My final comments would be based on "appetite for risk". You can take my data and moving forward justify any course of action based on your personal appetite for risk. For example:-
1. We could buy players in January or hand money back to fans with lower cup tie tickets and justify this by saying we believe we will continue to be successful in identifying and selling on talent
2. We could manage with what we have ( or free transfers) and maximise ticket prizes with the justification that transfers could dry up and we need to take a less risky policy in terms of what we spend.
That is why for example no-one is actually wrong if they say the Newcastle tickets should be 22 or 27 GBP. It depends on what you believe in terms of where we are now, what the future holds ( which no-one knows), and what your personal risk profile is
Clearly like everyone else I have a view of what we should do going forward, but in the interest of trying to make this factual view of the numbers I won't be the first to comment
This email is long enough but happy to answer any questions. For some of the more detailed numbers (. salaries etc 2017 & 18) , I have added a link at the bottom
1 question I would like to know is what "Admin" includes as it is a large amount & has increased. If I have this info I could probably do a better analysis but at this stage I have assumed it is part of normal business
https://s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/document-api-images-live.ch.gov.uk/docs/wfryK
[Post edited 28 Dec 2019 13:35]
|  | | |  |
| Quick look at the financial statements on 23:00 - Jan 2 with 2650 views | tony_roch975 |
| Quick look at the financial statements on 20:56 - Jan 2 by TalkingSutty |
I agree with your last paragraph but I’m not suggesting taking a gamble on better players, i’m suggesting we carry on doing what has proven to be successful over the last ten years or so, going back to Lambert, Murray etc etc. As you rightly say, constantly look to recycle the squad and get rid of the dead wood. We have a blueprint that works, sign players on free transfers and improve them to sell on. It’s easier said than done but there is no reason why we can’t continue to do it. Cut out the old players who will be some of our highest earners and utilise the wages saved to bring in a younger replacement in the hope of selling them for big bucks.
Your second paragraph suggests we need to raise a million pound through player sales every season to operate as we are now. In other words we are losing £1 million/ season if we don’t? If I’ve got that wrong I apologise, I’ve never heard that £1 million figure quoted before. Neither selling a player or making money in the Cup is guaranteed but we normally do a bit of both. I’m actually glad that juggling the financial balls is so precarious because it backs up my theory that we can’t afford to purchase and fund our own training complex, we couldn’t afford it now as a L1 Club so it would be practically impossible in L2 with the loss of funding and low attendances. We are struggling to make ends meet as it is and we’ve never had as much money coming into the Club in our history as we have now. |
as you say TS "we’ve never had as much money coming into the Club in our history as we have now" yet "we are struggling to make ends meet" - and there in a nutshell is our (and most EFL clubs') dilemma. Lower league football is no longer viable without either risking the very existence of a club on an outside investor, or a greater share of the Premier League cake or Government subsidy. |  |
| |
| Quick look at the financial statements on 23:05 - Jan 2 with 2626 views | judd |
| Quick look at the financial statements on 23:00 - Jan 2 by tony_roch975 |
as you say TS "we’ve never had as much money coming into the Club in our history as we have now" yet "we are struggling to make ends meet" - and there in a nutshell is our (and most EFL clubs') dilemma. Lower league football is no longer viable without either risking the very existence of a club on an outside investor, or a greater share of the Premier League cake or Government subsidy. |
But what has changed in our model that was heralded by so many other clubs? That is the nub. |  |
| |
| Quick look at the financial statements on 00:03 - Jan 3 with 2536 views | tony_roch975 |
| Quick look at the financial statements on 23:05 - Jan 2 by judd |
But what has changed in our model that was heralded by so many other clubs? That is the nub. |
nothing (we're still nearer to breaking even than most could dream of and our Academy is the envy of many) - it's just that all costs have risen faster than income, especially player wages which have increased by 1500% in 20 yrs. [Post edited 3 Jan 2020 0:04]
| |
| |
| Quick look at the financial statements on 01:39 - Jan 3 with 2492 views | kiwidale |
| Quick look at the financial statements on 00:03 - Jan 3 by tony_roch975 |
nothing (we're still nearer to breaking even than most could dream of and our Academy is the envy of many) - it's just that all costs have risen faster than income, especially player wages which have increased by 1500% in 20 yrs. [Post edited 3 Jan 2020 0:04]
|
I'm not sure if your figures are right but nice for some a 1500% increase in salary over 20 years. The problem is player wages as the income goes up so does a players/agents demands, if the share of the FA pool was to increase by 50% so would players wages. Ask the players at Bury or Bolton if they cared if the club went bust they only cared once the payments stopped, some of them are still trying to get blood out of a a stone. Do you think that Hill cares about our financial problems? [Post edited 3 Jan 2020 1:45]
| |
| This is not the time for bickering.
|
| |
| Quick look at the financial statements on 06:17 - Jan 3 with 2459 views | TalkingSutty |
| Quick look at the financial statements on 23:05 - Jan 2 by judd |
But what has changed in our model that was heralded by so many other clubs? That is the nub. |
My point exactly. All of a sudden there seems to be a groundswell of opinion that the Club is in financial meltdown but when you look at the extra money we have been generating I dont see how that can be the case. I realise Hill overspent but the increase in his budget must have been agreed at Boardroom level so the current Directors have also got to shoulder some of the blame for that. Nobody knows the details of the pay off to Hill and Beech but I don’t think it was the full amount of the contract they had owing.
The extra money we have brought in since the start of this year through our cup exploits/ television revenue and transfer dealings will have covered all those extra expenses. The wage bill hasn’t suddenly spiralled out of control, in fact we were told that the budget would be brought back in to line this season and looking at the makeup of the squad that’s whats happened, the squad is a lot smaller and padded out with youth players who will be on low wages. Anyway, it’s up to the shareholders to analyse the finances, I’m sure plenty are taking note of the extra revenue we have managed to generate. I just don’t see what has suddenly changed at the Club because we haven’t signed a load of high profile players on big wages or appointed an expensive management team. To be honest I don’t like the idea that one of the Club Directors is also the CEO, that’s not a personal attack on David Bottomley i just don’t think it’s a healthy set up. It’s not a normal situation at a football club and it’s an appointment that will always generate suspicion from fans, it would do at any football club. The CEO should be an outside appointment and preferably somebody with a proven track record in that line of work. [Post edited 3 Jan 2020 6:52]
|  | | |
| Quick look at the financial statements on 07:28 - Jan 3 with 2431 views | nordenblue |
| Quick look at the financial statements on 06:17 - Jan 3 by TalkingSutty |
My point exactly. All of a sudden there seems to be a groundswell of opinion that the Club is in financial meltdown but when you look at the extra money we have been generating I dont see how that can be the case. I realise Hill overspent but the increase in his budget must have been agreed at Boardroom level so the current Directors have also got to shoulder some of the blame for that. Nobody knows the details of the pay off to Hill and Beech but I don’t think it was the full amount of the contract they had owing.
The extra money we have brought in since the start of this year through our cup exploits/ television revenue and transfer dealings will have covered all those extra expenses. The wage bill hasn’t suddenly spiralled out of control, in fact we were told that the budget would be brought back in to line this season and looking at the makeup of the squad that’s whats happened, the squad is a lot smaller and padded out with youth players who will be on low wages. Anyway, it’s up to the shareholders to analyse the finances, I’m sure plenty are taking note of the extra revenue we have managed to generate. I just don’t see what has suddenly changed at the Club because we haven’t signed a load of high profile players on big wages or appointed an expensive management team. To be honest I don’t like the idea that one of the Club Directors is also the CEO, that’s not a personal attack on David Bottomley i just don’t think it’s a healthy set up. It’s not a normal situation at a football club and it’s an appointment that will always generate suspicion from fans, it would do at any football club. The CEO should be an outside appointment and preferably somebody with a proven track record in that line of work. [Post edited 3 Jan 2020 6:52]
|
Spot on TS and a very good post yet again, there seems to be a fair few holes in this financial "mess" situation we're apparently now trying to sort out...on the surface something doesn't quite add up or we're only getting part of the story at least.. | | | |
| Quick look at the financial statements on 07:53 - Jan 3 with 2405 views | D_Alien |
| Quick look at the financial statements on 07:28 - Jan 3 by nordenblue |
Spot on TS and a very good post yet again, there seems to be a fair few holes in this financial "mess" situation we're apparently now trying to sort out...on the surface something doesn't quite add up or we're only getting part of the story at least.. |
What will interest me at the forum a week on Monday won't just be what is presented, but how its presented and by whom
TS' point about the unease around the CEO role needs to be addressed by the club, otherwise the context in which club finances are presented and discussed will remain unhealthy, irrespective of the balance sheet
That role was engineered, so we are right to ask what else is being engineered away from the public gaze. Will the forum allay these suspicions, or will it add to them? |  |
| |
| Quick look at the financial statements on 08:40 - Jan 3 with 2364 views | Nigeriamark |
| Quick look at the financial statements on 07:28 - Jan 3 by nordenblue |
Spot on TS and a very good post yet again, there seems to be a fair few holes in this financial "mess" situation we're apparently now trying to sort out...on the surface something doesn't quite add up or we're only getting part of the story at least.. |
Nobody's saying the financials are a mess. They have done well recently in terms of total business but less well in terms of normal business ( without transfers, TV money etc). Easy to pick a year where transfers & TV money will be good but because the normal business is worsening there will need to be more and more transfers required to fill the gap
The point is that in 2017/18 we decided to increase the level of risk and yet we came very close to going down which would have been a financial disaster. This risk is built on regular transfers and if the transfers dry up and based on the higher outgoings in the last couple of years then we will be in a mess in the future ( same if we get relegated). 2019/20 looks like being a good year but what about future years or the 2018/19 end of year? Who is our next big transfer or sell on? Also this reduction in salaries this year, how much is it by? | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Quick look at the financial statements on 09:15 - Jan 3 with 2320 views | TalkingSutty |
| Quick look at the financial statements on 08:40 - Jan 3 by Nigeriamark |
Nobody's saying the financials are a mess. They have done well recently in terms of total business but less well in terms of normal business ( without transfers, TV money etc). Easy to pick a year where transfers & TV money will be good but because the normal business is worsening there will need to be more and more transfers required to fill the gap
The point is that in 2017/18 we decided to increase the level of risk and yet we came very close to going down which would have been a financial disaster. This risk is built on regular transfers and if the transfers dry up and based on the higher outgoings in the last couple of years then we will be in a mess in the future ( same if we get relegated). 2019/20 looks like being a good year but what about future years or the 2018/19 end of year? Who is our next big transfer or sell on? Also this reduction in salaries this year, how much is it by? |
You’re right in what you are saying but you’ve been a fan long enough to know that this has always been the case, we’ve always had to sell players to try to balance the books and I don’t see any reason why that should suddenly come to a stop. Every Club has to do the same thing.
The manager is paid a salary and part of his job spec is to try to improve the team and identify new players who we can recruit and hopefully sell on for a profit further down the line. None of us know what will happen from one season to the next but that’s never been any different. You have to speculate to accumulate without going daft and we’ve been excellent at that. Every Club in the lower divisions is in the same boat, financially we are better off than most of them, we aren’t servicing massive debts and paying obscene wages. The biggest gamble of all is to stop investing in the first team, you end up losing games,fans,staff and eventually the Club.
If you are a glass half empty man then you would never take a punt, never carry a manageable debt and probably potter around at non league level but breaking even every season. Taking a calculated risk on players has proven to be very successful for us, we are playing at our highest level ever, reclaimed our Stadium and just had a fantastic last decade on the pitch. It’s not an accident or luck that we have generated so much income in the FA Cup over the last 4 or 5 years or acquired players and sold them on for millions of pounds. That happened because it was a blueprint that the Club took a risk on, we landed on our feet with Keith Hill but we also backed him financially and recruited well. We probably made a financial loss on each of those years but that loss proved to be cost effective when you look at where our Club is now and the finances that manageable debt generated through player sales and winning cup ties as a result of the quality on the pitch. [Post edited 3 Jan 2020 9:34]
| | | |
| Quick look at the financial statements on 09:51 - Jan 3 with 2252 views | Nigeriamark |
| Quick look at the financial statements on 09:15 - Jan 3 by TalkingSutty |
You’re right in what you are saying but you’ve been a fan long enough to know that this has always been the case, we’ve always had to sell players to try to balance the books and I don’t see any reason why that should suddenly come to a stop. Every Club has to do the same thing.
The manager is paid a salary and part of his job spec is to try to improve the team and identify new players who we can recruit and hopefully sell on for a profit further down the line. None of us know what will happen from one season to the next but that’s never been any different. You have to speculate to accumulate without going daft and we’ve been excellent at that. Every Club in the lower divisions is in the same boat, financially we are better off than most of them, we aren’t servicing massive debts and paying obscene wages. The biggest gamble of all is to stop investing in the first team, you end up losing games,fans,staff and eventually the Club.
If you are a glass half empty man then you would never take a punt, never carry a manageable debt and probably potter around at non league level but breaking even every season. Taking a calculated risk on players has proven to be very successful for us, we are playing at our highest level ever, reclaimed our Stadium and just had a fantastic last decade on the pitch. It’s not an accident or luck that we have generated so much income in the FA Cup over the last 4 or 5 years or acquired players and sold them on for millions of pounds. That happened because it was a blueprint that the Club took a risk on, we landed on our feet with Keith Hill but we also backed him financially and recruited well. We probably made a financial loss on each of those years but that loss proved to be cost effective when you look at where our Club is now and the finances that manageable debt generated through player sales and winning cup ties as a result of the quality on the pitch. [Post edited 3 Jan 2020 9:34]
|
In a roundabout way we are probably saying the same thing. I talked about 2 types of profit in my original post
1. Profit on Normal operations ( I.e the day to day income and expenditure) - also called general health check of a company
2. Total profit ( The above + Transfers and TV money etc)
Most businesses in markets similar to ours ( not just football) have to make the first at least break even as they don't have many upsides. However football teams like us do. I agree we should run the normal business at a loss because over a number of years we should get some prize money, transfers or TV money. You mentioned yourself that you had heard of a sum of 400k per year in losses. I would agree with that, but in YE 2017 it was almost 970k and in 2018 it was 1.74m which is quite a jump. That is over 100k per month over the last 2 years ( and I don't think YE 2018 will be that much different but we will know for certain in 3 months)
This increase in losses in 2018 means quite simply that no matter how well we have done in the transfer market before, we now have to do even better moving forward because in just 1 year we have added over 800k in normal expenditure.
With assets of 2.6m it would only take 2 years of low transfer activity and lack of TV money to put us into the Bury situation. That is too marginal for me but may be OK for you. There are no wrong or right answers here, it just depends on your appetite for risk. I agree we should be taking some risk but the 2018 numbers look to be too high risk, and some salary cuts are not going to make that up unless it is literally half the squad
Good debate though
PS - The numbers I quote above are in the statement that I posted the link to, I haven't made them up. The total profit numbers are the last line on page 8, The exceptional items ( I have taken transfers, TV money, Prize money) are on page 18, although you have to separate them out from other items. To get to the profit of normal operations you have to deduct the numbers on page 18 from the numbers on page 8 for the 2 years the data is available [Post edited 3 Jan 2020 9:57]
| | | |
| Quick look at the financial statements on 10:01 - Jan 3 with 2233 views | SuddenLad |
Which is why selling players like Adshead for £300k is/was a ridiculous thing to do. If we are going to sell our talent, we should at least get a fair and equitable price at the outset, rather than be entirely dependent on future sales. All this 'undisclosed' nonsense only breeds more suspicion as well.
There is a need for more openness and less 'cloak and dagger' nonsense. As has been pointed out elsewhere, anyone visiting a newspaper website or club website of the purchasing club can often find out the terms of transfer fees. Secrecy is pointless when the only party willing to stay tight-lipped is RAFC. |  |
| “It is easier to fool people, than to convince them that they have been fooled†|
| |
| Quick look at the financial statements on 10:08 - Jan 3 with 2217 views | fermin |
It will be interesting to see the 2019 figures - not sure why it takes them so long after the financial year end to produce them as it can't be that complicated for a relatively small company.
I was going to post this earlier but as the discussion has moved back to this area here are figures from the accounts from YE2012 to YE2018 extracted by a non-accountant (sorry for the formatting):
Turnover £3,540,097 £2,269,656 £2,717,101 £4,942,625 £3,183,113 £5,793,162 £5,412,319
including
Gate receipts £792,413 £573,037 £807,184 £903,551 £841,975 £942,547 £1,008,962
Transfers £985,715 £228,725 £163,431 £1,804,625 £104,750 £2,165,772 £710,820
Sponsorship/donations £102,782 £162,539 £153,829 £169,373 £185,969 £211,625 £348,055
Development Assocn £205,698 £199,997 £171,282 £165,301 £158,142 £151,058 £142,308
League/FA Pool £1,048,829 £720,772 £654,619 £985,962 £1,086,569 £1,423,284 £1,450,192
TV fees £3,712 £2,970 £19,720 £2,970 £112,220 £16,500 £454,500
Prize money £7,000 £5,000 £124,500 £281,250 £31,000 £147,385 £262,500
[The League Pool figure varies a bit and is significant but I am not sure how it is calculated. More relevant to the recent discussion is that the total of 'exceptional' items like transfers, TV fees and prize money varies from £236k in YE2013 to £2.3m in YE2017 - average of £1m but actual figures are clearly very volatile.]
Cost of sales £2,388,950 £1,897,571 £2,026,587 £2,630,276 £2,782,946 £3,029,178 £3,829,714
including
Wages of players £1,380,621 £1,072,375 £1,180,849 £1,521,786 £1,709,209 £1,903,641 £2,343,414
Social security for players £102,381 £94,796 £104,402 £134,624 £150,406 £181,542 £227,418
Coaching staff and youth £573,088 £497,383 £484,872 £610,389 £503,415 £583,204 £748,001
Other Expenditure £853,359 £801,825 £844,179 £972,777 £902,475 £1,102,274 £1,943,331
including
Ground rent £132,378 £129,286 £141,198 £104,595 £92,051 £96,000 £0
Pitch maintenance £205,660 (YE2018)
Staff wages £204,824 £229,885 £225,430 £239,798 £245,867 £327,956 £571,896
Travel £195,631 £185,107 £224,221 £244,860 £183,213 £251,022 £318,519
Net loss/Profit £349,991 -£375,208 -£104,332 £1,391,126 -£447,201 £1,356,083 -£306,604
I am not sure what the following items actually mean or how relevant they are to the net loss/profit figures in particular, but perhaps someone can explain:
Retained earnings £1,210,305 (2015) £763,104 £2,118,937 £1,814,331
Current Assets (inc cash) £1,101,152 £588,560 £617,504 £2,025,698 £1,205,460 £2,921,941 £2,128,188
Net current assets £549,976 £185,260 £76,630 £1,277,954 £616,837 £2,354,021 £1,208,764
My suspicion is that we are not in financial meltdown (pending publication of the 2019 accounts), but are just being prudent in our expenditure to avoid going into meltdown in the future eg when we get relegated as it will happen at some point sooner or later in my opinion. The unknown is how this season's windfalls relates to the club's pre-existing financial situation ie how much needs to be set aside and how much can be spent. |  | | |
| Quick look at the financial statements on 10:18 - Jan 3 with 2197 views | Nigeriamark |
| Quick look at the financial statements on 10:08 - Jan 3 by fermin |
It will be interesting to see the 2019 figures - not sure why it takes them so long after the financial year end to produce them as it can't be that complicated for a relatively small company.
I was going to post this earlier but as the discussion has moved back to this area here are figures from the accounts from YE2012 to YE2018 extracted by a non-accountant (sorry for the formatting):
Turnover £3,540,097 £2,269,656 £2,717,101 £4,942,625 £3,183,113 £5,793,162 £5,412,319
including
Gate receipts £792,413 £573,037 £807,184 £903,551 £841,975 £942,547 £1,008,962
Transfers £985,715 £228,725 £163,431 £1,804,625 £104,750 £2,165,772 £710,820
Sponsorship/donations £102,782 £162,539 £153,829 £169,373 £185,969 £211,625 £348,055
Development Assocn £205,698 £199,997 £171,282 £165,301 £158,142 £151,058 £142,308
League/FA Pool £1,048,829 £720,772 £654,619 £985,962 £1,086,569 £1,423,284 £1,450,192
TV fees £3,712 £2,970 £19,720 £2,970 £112,220 £16,500 £454,500
Prize money £7,000 £5,000 £124,500 £281,250 £31,000 £147,385 £262,500
[The League Pool figure varies a bit and is significant but I am not sure how it is calculated. More relevant to the recent discussion is that the total of 'exceptional' items like transfers, TV fees and prize money varies from £236k in YE2013 to £2.3m in YE2017 - average of £1m but actual figures are clearly very volatile.]
Cost of sales £2,388,950 £1,897,571 £2,026,587 £2,630,276 £2,782,946 £3,029,178 £3,829,714
including
Wages of players £1,380,621 £1,072,375 £1,180,849 £1,521,786 £1,709,209 £1,903,641 £2,343,414
Social security for players £102,381 £94,796 £104,402 £134,624 £150,406 £181,542 £227,418
Coaching staff and youth £573,088 £497,383 £484,872 £610,389 £503,415 £583,204 £748,001
Other Expenditure £853,359 £801,825 £844,179 £972,777 £902,475 £1,102,274 £1,943,331
including
Ground rent £132,378 £129,286 £141,198 £104,595 £92,051 £96,000 £0
Pitch maintenance £205,660 (YE2018)
Staff wages £204,824 £229,885 £225,430 £239,798 £245,867 £327,956 £571,896
Travel £195,631 £185,107 £224,221 £244,860 £183,213 £251,022 £318,519
Net loss/Profit £349,991 -£375,208 -£104,332 £1,391,126 -£447,201 £1,356,083 -£306,604
I am not sure what the following items actually mean or how relevant they are to the net loss/profit figures in particular, but perhaps someone can explain:
Retained earnings £1,210,305 (2015) £763,104 £2,118,937 £1,814,331
Current Assets (inc cash) £1,101,152 £588,560 £617,504 £2,025,698 £1,205,460 £2,921,941 £2,128,188
Net current assets £549,976 £185,260 £76,630 £1,277,954 £616,837 £2,354,021 £1,208,764
My suspicion is that we are not in financial meltdown (pending publication of the 2019 accounts), but are just being prudent in our expenditure to avoid going into meltdown in the future eg when we get relegated as it will happen at some point sooner or later in my opinion. The unknown is how this season's windfalls relates to the club's pre-existing financial situation ie how much needs to be set aside and how much can be spent. |
You can produce financial statements within a couple of weeks from the end of a financial year & some big businesses even produce statements for internal use every quarter or at times every month. However not releasing numbers to the general public seems to be common to many businesses, I assume because a lot of companies know that a lot of people won't know how to read them which can lead to misinterpretations, conspiracies etc so prefer to leave it until they are submitted.
It is also very easy to do forecasts on the current year ( or even a couple of years in advance)that a club could chose to release. For example although this financial year doesn't finish until next May, the club could do a set of financials based on what they currently know. Again I am sure they already have this for internal use but like most businesses choose to not let the public know | | | |
| Quick look at the financial statements on 12:52 - Jan 3 with 2086 views | TalkingSutty |
| Quick look at the financial statements on 09:51 - Jan 3 by Nigeriamark |
In a roundabout way we are probably saying the same thing. I talked about 2 types of profit in my original post
1. Profit on Normal operations ( I.e the day to day income and expenditure) - also called general health check of a company
2. Total profit ( The above + Transfers and TV money etc)
Most businesses in markets similar to ours ( not just football) have to make the first at least break even as they don't have many upsides. However football teams like us do. I agree we should run the normal business at a loss because over a number of years we should get some prize money, transfers or TV money. You mentioned yourself that you had heard of a sum of 400k per year in losses. I would agree with that, but in YE 2017 it was almost 970k and in 2018 it was 1.74m which is quite a jump. That is over 100k per month over the last 2 years ( and I don't think YE 2018 will be that much different but we will know for certain in 3 months)
This increase in losses in 2018 means quite simply that no matter how well we have done in the transfer market before, we now have to do even better moving forward because in just 1 year we have added over 800k in normal expenditure.
With assets of 2.6m it would only take 2 years of low transfer activity and lack of TV money to put us into the Bury situation. That is too marginal for me but may be OK for you. There are no wrong or right answers here, it just depends on your appetite for risk. I agree we should be taking some risk but the 2018 numbers look to be too high risk, and some salary cuts are not going to make that up unless it is literally half the squad
Good debate though
PS - The numbers I quote above are in the statement that I posted the link to, I haven't made them up. The total profit numbers are the last line on page 8, The exceptional items ( I have taken transfers, TV money, Prize money) are on page 18, although you have to separate them out from other items. To get to the profit of normal operations you have to deduct the numbers on page 18 from the numbers on page 8 for the 2 years the data is available [Post edited 3 Jan 2020 9:57]
|
I think we are saying the same thing, it’s a difficult juggling act and balancing the finances is very hit and miss. If the Club was run like a normal business then we would probably struggle to survive in L2 but Football Clubs don’t operate like normal businesses, there can big rewards if you take a risk and any outlay can be recouped very quickly with profit. There has to be a calculated risk and an acceptance that some seasons we won’t sell a player or generate Cup monies but then the year after we will do well and that will even the finances up a little. There are not many seasons when we don’t sell a player or two. Not investing in the first team means very quickly you have no saleable assets, so you have to keep recycling the first team in the hope of finding a gem, we’ve been very successful at doing that. I don’t mean bringing kids in from the youth team,they are a extra bonus.
Norman Smurthwaite at Port Vale came up with a novel idea, stop recruiting senior players and just replace them with kids from the youth team and pay them £350 a week, they bombed straight out of L1 and nearly went out of the Football league, half of their fans stopped attending games and the Club almost folded,it was on its knees. By all means introduce a few youth players if they are capable but the key is to keep recycling a portion of the team and replacing them with senior players who are capable of playing at the required level and then hopefully being sold on for a profit. If the current Boardroom think they can run the Club like a ‘normal’ business without an element of loss/ debt, then I think they could but I’d be surprised if we remained in the Football League. Past Chairman and Directors have shown the way forward, the blueprint works a treat but you have to be prepared to walk a financial tightrope from time to time and speculate to accumulate within reason. | | | |
| Quick look at the financial statements on 13:56 - Jan 3 with 1991 views | RaymondJohn |
It was not a free draw for agents . It was a agents bonus " a sum of money added to a persons wage as a reward for good performance above and beyond regular task "
The problem was it had become just a your turn next week type of thing whilst using the members money Collected in all weathers just to give away ? | | | |
| Quick look at the financial statements on 14:02 - Jan 3 with 1971 views | TalkingSutty |
| Quick look at the financial statements on 13:56 - Jan 3 by RaymondJohn |
It was not a free draw for agents . It was a agents bonus " a sum of money added to a persons wage as a reward for good performance above and beyond regular task "
The problem was it had become just a your turn next week type of thing whilst using the members money Collected in all weathers just to give away ? |
Raymond...you forgot to take your medication again! | | | |
| Quick look at the financial statements (n/t) on 14:16 - Jan 3 with 1936 views | TalkingSutty |
| Quick look at the financial statements on 13:56 - Jan 3 by RaymondJohn |
It was not a free draw for agents . It was a agents bonus " a sum of money added to a persons wage as a reward for good performance above and beyond regular task "
The problem was it had become just a your turn next week type of thing whilst using the members money Collected in all weathers just to give away ? |
| | | |
| Quick look at the financial statements on 16:06 - Jan 3 with 1862 views | 442Dale |
| Quick look at the financial statements on 13:56 - Jan 3 by RaymondJohn |
It was not a free draw for agents . It was a agents bonus " a sum of money added to a persons wage as a reward for good performance above and beyond regular task "
The problem was it had become just a your turn next week type of thing whilst using the members money Collected in all weathers just to give away ? |
It wasn’t an agents draw? |  |
| |
| Quick look at the financial statements on 18:07 - Jan 3 with 1772 views | judd |
| Quick look at the financial statements on 13:56 - Jan 3 by RaymondJohn |
It was not a free draw for agents . It was a agents bonus " a sum of money added to a persons wage as a reward for good performance above and beyond regular task "
The problem was it had become just a your turn next week type of thing whilst using the members money Collected in all weathers just to give away ? |
Mere semantics. The point being made on a thread about club financials is that £1040 per annum is being saved instead of paying it to agents.
Such petty savings ring alarm bells. | |
| |
| Quick look at the financial statements on 18:38 - Jan 3 with 1721 views | RaymondJohn |
who exactly in the club decided on this saving Judd??
Before we jump on th DB wagon it was NOT him | | | |
| Quick look at the financial statements on 18:40 - Jan 3 with 1714 views | dawlishdale |
| Quick look at the financial statements on 18:38 - Jan 3 by RaymondJohn |
who exactly in the club decided on this saving Judd??
Before we jump on th DB wagon it was NOT him |
Who decided to re-vamp the Golden Gamble? I know a couple of ticket sellers, and they both report much lower sales this year. | | | |
| Quick look at the financial statements on 18:40 - Jan 3 with 1714 views | judd |
| Quick look at the financial statements on 18:38 - Jan 3 by RaymondJohn |
who exactly in the club decided on this saving Judd??
Before we jump on th DB wagon it was NOT him |
The letter came from the board of directors Ray. | |
| |
| Quick look at the financial statements on 18:51 - Jan 3 with 1673 views | Thacks_Rabbits |
| Quick look at the financial statements on 18:07 - Jan 3 by judd |
Mere semantics. The point being made on a thread about club financials is that £1040 per annum is being saved instead of paying it to agents.
Such petty savings ring alarm bells. |
Makes me wonder Judd if this is all down to KH overspending and maybe a settlement being made on his alleged 10% of sell on fees! Some of which we know and some we may not.
Have we had to settle the Dawson/Hogan/Cannon etc deals with Hill in order to get arrange a mutual settlement and is the cost the reason CD ended up going, all his hard work over the years going in a payment to hill - it will come out eventually and maybe that is why we are short term skint, having to pay hill and beech over a million up front to get rid.
I am only guessing and hill would have got his rumoured 10% anyway so maybe it’s just short term cash flow having to get him out! |  |
| |
| Quick look at the financial statements on 19:00 - Jan 3 with 1647 views | judd |
| Quick look at the financial statements on 18:51 - Jan 3 by Thacks_Rabbits |
Makes me wonder Judd if this is all down to KH overspending and maybe a settlement being made on his alleged 10% of sell on fees! Some of which we know and some we may not.
Have we had to settle the Dawson/Hogan/Cannon etc deals with Hill in order to get arrange a mutual settlement and is the cost the reason CD ended up going, all his hard work over the years going in a payment to hill - it will come out eventually and maybe that is why we are short term skint, having to pay hill and beech over a million up front to get rid.
I am only guessing and hill would have got his rumoured 10% anyway so maybe it’s just short term cash flow having to get him out! |
I do not think Hill cost us beyond being paid his monthly salary until he took another job. I have no confirmation of this, it is based on reading up on other managers contracts and how termination is dealt with.
The letter from the board of directors mentions economy or efficiency savings (words to that effect) throughout the club. I would be interested to know if we have cut back on complimentary tickets and entertaining of guests. | |
| |
| Quick look at the financial statements on 22:13 - Jan 3 with 1551 views | judd |
It would be interesting to know what the pitch has cost us these past couple of seasons. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
