| Quick look at the financial statements 13:32 - Dec 28 with 22170 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 12:14 - Dec 29 with 2246 views | Nigeriamark |
| Quick look at the financial statements on 11:42 - Dec 29 by RAFCBLUE |
Given Hill could only recommend to the Board the contracts being proposed for any player, the Board collectively must be complicit in those awards.
From what I see on the Official site at the end of 2017/18 we did the following:
1. Signed Matty Gilliam until June 2020
2. Extended Calvin Andrew to June 2020 from June 2019
3. Signed Aaron Wilbraham until June 2019
4. Signed Harrison McGahey until June 2020
5. Signed Andy Cannon until June 2019
6. Signed Brad Inman until June 2019
7. Signed Danny Adshead until June 2021
Of the above we have since offloaded McGahey, Cannon, Inman and Adshead for combined fees of £500k plus add ons.
Our two biggest earners, Henderson (signed an extended deal in October 2017 to June 2020) and Done (signed for two years in June 2017 and extended for two years to June 2021 by BBM); before the supposed budget increase for Hill.
Hill was a law until himself but to say the Board of the time, which includes two current Board members, did not know the details of things announced on the Official site is unfathomable.
I think when the May 2019 numbers come out they will show we had a significant cost in exiting Hill and Beech which was on top of the £400k budgetary loss we expected.
That’s where the money has gone.
To say our budget woes are solely down to increases the three extended contracts remaining (Wilbraham, Andrew and Morley) doesn’t stack up. |
Your first sentence is spot on when it comes to running a business
Senior management/ directors take the credit or blame collectively. However we have to remember that nothing is guaranteed in business or that all decisions will work. However as long as management are debating plans together, reaching a consensus and driving a common plan then that is good enough for me. Yes we may get relegated or we may have a run at the play-offs but but as long as decisions are made on what is known at the time then you can't ask for more. In football all clubs are in the same boat and yet with perfect plans, 4 will still get relegated and 3 promoted, you just have to give yourself the best chance, and what that is can be debated forever. In fact that's part of the fun of being a fan and having message boards
I don't believe for 1 minute that there is any director who doesn't care for club even if it doesn't seem that way to some and most decisions will be made on what they believe is best for the club. we may have different views, but we don't have the same information or work there day to day | | | |
| Quick look at the financial statements on 12:34 - Dec 29 with 2191 views | fermin |
| Quick look at the financial statements on 11:43 - Dec 29 by TalkingSutty |
One thing that is very noticeable when you look at the matchday programme is the amount of staff the Club now employs compared to several years ago. i’m assuming thats in relation to running the youth academy, if that’s cost effective then fair enough. We have spent a lot of money on the pitch but those costs will be dwarfed if we go down the route of financing a new training complex and maintaining those pitches etc. If we are struggling to make ends meet now then how are we going to keep up with those day to day costs and employing extra staff etc?...Worse case scenario, how will we do that in L2 on gates of 1500? Maybe there are plans for a third party to finance everything for us, they won’t do it for nothing though, there will have to be something in it for them. |
Here are the wages figures from the accounts from YE2012 to YE2018 (I presume it is OK to post this):
Players £1,380,621 £1,072,375 £1,180,849 £1,521,786 £1,709,209 £1,903,641 £2,343,414
Coaching/youth team £573,088 £497,383 £484,872 £610,389 £503,415 £583,204 £748,001
Other £204,824 £229,885 £225,430 £239,798 £245,867 £327,956 £571,896
Total £2,158,533 £1,799,643 £1,891,151 £2,371,973 £2,458,491 £2,814,801 £3,663,311
% spent on players 64% 60% 62% 64% 70% 68% 64%
% on coaching/youth 27% 28% 26% 26% 20% 21% 20%
% on other 9% 13% 12% 10% 10% 12% 16%
While players wages have gone up quite a bit the % of total wages spend is pretty consistent. The thing that jumps out to me is the big increase in other (I presume non-football wages) from 2016 to 2018 as it has more than doubled. I can't find figures for numbers employed in various areas apart from 2018 and 2017 (22 admin and 42 players and coaching in 2018; 21 and 43 in 2017).
On a separate note I think those average wage figures from earlier on are a bit misleading even assuming they are correct. Hypothetically, we could have 10 players on way above our average and 10 on peanuts whereas Doncaster, say, could have 30 players all on their average salary (lower than ours), but with a much higher wage bill. From a squad point of view Doncaster would have a much better strength in depth and hence likely to be more competitive. |  | | |
| Quick look at the financial statements on 12:40 - Dec 29 with 2163 views | RAFCBLUE |
| Quick look at the financial statements on 12:14 - Dec 29 by Nigeriamark |
Your first sentence is spot on when it comes to running a business
Senior management/ directors take the credit or blame collectively. However we have to remember that nothing is guaranteed in business or that all decisions will work. However as long as management are debating plans together, reaching a consensus and driving a common plan then that is good enough for me. Yes we may get relegated or we may have a run at the play-offs but but as long as decisions are made on what is known at the time then you can't ask for more. In football all clubs are in the same boat and yet with perfect plans, 4 will still get relegated and 3 promoted, you just have to give yourself the best chance, and what that is can be debated forever. In fact that's part of the fun of being a fan and having message boards
I don't believe for 1 minute that there is any director who doesn't care for club even if it doesn't seem that way to some and most decisions will be made on what they believe is best for the club. we may have different views, but we don't have the same information or work there day to day |
I think that anyone and everyone involved with RAFC cares.
What I’m not accepting of is the “I have it on good authority” stuff which paints this situation as non-collective when bad times come. Watching Rochdale is not a joy at times and many have seen more bad than good.
https://www.rochdaleafc.co.uk/news/2015/july/new-director-welcomed-onto-dale-boa
The Board in July 2015 was Chris Dunphy, Andrew Kelly, Bill Goodwin, Paul Hazlehurst, Jim Marsh, Graham Rawlinson, David Bottomley and Associate Director John Smallwood.
The stated net assets of May 2015 were £1.94m (from the OP).
The board now is Andrew Kilpatrick, David Bottomley, Andrew Kelly, Tony Pockney, Graham Rawlinson and Associate Director John Smallwood.
In that four and half years, we have had League 1 football throughout and only Andrew Kilpatrick and Tony Pockney are new.
If the stated assets are £1.94m or greater as at May 2019 then the Board have done magnificently to deliver League 1 football and break even over 4 years.
And if that’s true, then there isn’t really a money problem here.
If the net assets are less than £1.94m in July 2015 then, quite rightly, an explanation will be sought for the loss.
What is more pressing in the medium term is the succession planning of the Board.
Bottomley is 60 at the end of the season, Kelly will be 77, Kilpatrick will be 58, Pockney 55 and Rawlinson 65.
Where the club is in 5 years and at the end of the next decade depends on the younger blood they get onto the Board to advise and learn.
David Kirkpatrick and Graham Morris did that brilliantly getting a 30 year old Chris Dunphy on the Board in 1980.
Let us never be complacent that there are a lot of wealthy people who are Rochdale fans and a lot of expertise available that should be brought in to learn.
That’s what will sustain the club in the town over the next 25 to 50 years. |  |
| |
| Quick look at the financial statements on 12:44 - Dec 29 with 2144 views | TalkingSutty |
| Quick look at the financial statements on 12:34 - Dec 29 by fermin |
Here are the wages figures from the accounts from YE2012 to YE2018 (I presume it is OK to post this):
Players £1,380,621 £1,072,375 £1,180,849 £1,521,786 £1,709,209 £1,903,641 £2,343,414
Coaching/youth team £573,088 £497,383 £484,872 £610,389 £503,415 £583,204 £748,001
Other £204,824 £229,885 £225,430 £239,798 £245,867 £327,956 £571,896
Total £2,158,533 £1,799,643 £1,891,151 £2,371,973 £2,458,491 £2,814,801 £3,663,311
% spent on players 64% 60% 62% 64% 70% 68% 64%
% on coaching/youth 27% 28% 26% 26% 20% 21% 20%
% on other 9% 13% 12% 10% 10% 12% 16%
While players wages have gone up quite a bit the % of total wages spend is pretty consistent. The thing that jumps out to me is the big increase in other (I presume non-football wages) from 2016 to 2018 as it has more than doubled. I can't find figures for numbers employed in various areas apart from 2018 and 2017 (22 admin and 42 players and coaching in 2018; 21 and 43 in 2017).
On a separate note I think those average wage figures from earlier on are a bit misleading even assuming they are correct. Hypothetically, we could have 10 players on way above our average and 10 on peanuts whereas Doncaster, say, could have 30 players all on their average salary (lower than ours), but with a much higher wage bill. From a squad point of view Doncaster would have a much better strength in depth and hence likely to be more competitive. |
Excellent, very informative post that, cheers. |  | | |
| Quick look at the financial statements on 13:01 - Dec 29 with 2108 views | judd |
| Quick look at the financial statements on 12:40 - Dec 29 by RAFCBLUE |
I think that anyone and everyone involved with RAFC cares.
What I’m not accepting of is the “I have it on good authority” stuff which paints this situation as non-collective when bad times come. Watching Rochdale is not a joy at times and many have seen more bad than good.
https://www.rochdaleafc.co.uk/news/2015/july/new-director-welcomed-onto-dale-boa
The Board in July 2015 was Chris Dunphy, Andrew Kelly, Bill Goodwin, Paul Hazlehurst, Jim Marsh, Graham Rawlinson, David Bottomley and Associate Director John Smallwood.
The stated net assets of May 2015 were £1.94m (from the OP).
The board now is Andrew Kilpatrick, David Bottomley, Andrew Kelly, Tony Pockney, Graham Rawlinson and Associate Director John Smallwood.
In that four and half years, we have had League 1 football throughout and only Andrew Kilpatrick and Tony Pockney are new.
If the stated assets are £1.94m or greater as at May 2019 then the Board have done magnificently to deliver League 1 football and break even over 4 years.
And if that’s true, then there isn’t really a money problem here.
If the net assets are less than £1.94m in July 2015 then, quite rightly, an explanation will be sought for the loss.
What is more pressing in the medium term is the succession planning of the Board.
Bottomley is 60 at the end of the season, Kelly will be 77, Kilpatrick will be 58, Pockney 55 and Rawlinson 65.
Where the club is in 5 years and at the end of the next decade depends on the younger blood they get onto the Board to advise and learn.
David Kirkpatrick and Graham Morris did that brilliantly getting a 30 year old Chris Dunphy on the Board in 1980.
Let us never be complacent that there are a lot of wealthy people who are Rochdale fans and a lot of expertise available that should be brought in to learn.
That’s what will sustain the club in the town over the next 25 to 50 years. |
That biography at the link makes for an interesting read. |  |
| |
| Quick look at the financial statements on 13:18 - Dec 29 with 2078 views | fitzochris |
| Quick look at the financial statements on 12:40 - Dec 29 by RAFCBLUE |
I think that anyone and everyone involved with RAFC cares.
What I’m not accepting of is the “I have it on good authority” stuff which paints this situation as non-collective when bad times come. Watching Rochdale is not a joy at times and many have seen more bad than good.
https://www.rochdaleafc.co.uk/news/2015/july/new-director-welcomed-onto-dale-boa
The Board in July 2015 was Chris Dunphy, Andrew Kelly, Bill Goodwin, Paul Hazlehurst, Jim Marsh, Graham Rawlinson, David Bottomley and Associate Director John Smallwood.
The stated net assets of May 2015 were £1.94m (from the OP).
The board now is Andrew Kilpatrick, David Bottomley, Andrew Kelly, Tony Pockney, Graham Rawlinson and Associate Director John Smallwood.
In that four and half years, we have had League 1 football throughout and only Andrew Kilpatrick and Tony Pockney are new.
If the stated assets are £1.94m or greater as at May 2019 then the Board have done magnificently to deliver League 1 football and break even over 4 years.
And if that’s true, then there isn’t really a money problem here.
If the net assets are less than £1.94m in July 2015 then, quite rightly, an explanation will be sought for the loss.
What is more pressing in the medium term is the succession planning of the Board.
Bottomley is 60 at the end of the season, Kelly will be 77, Kilpatrick will be 58, Pockney 55 and Rawlinson 65.
Where the club is in 5 years and at the end of the next decade depends on the younger blood they get onto the Board to advise and learn.
David Kirkpatrick and Graham Morris did that brilliantly getting a 30 year old Chris Dunphy on the Board in 1980.
Let us never be complacent that there are a lot of wealthy people who are Rochdale fans and a lot of expertise available that should be brought in to learn.
That’s what will sustain the club in the town over the next 25 to 50 years. |
Behave yourself, will you? TS and others do have it “on good authority” in that they have spoken to directors old and new. What other authority is there? Yes, this has generated two sides to the same story, but don’t start belittling those who have bothered to get off their backside and speak to the people involved rather than post essays on here solely informed by the accounts or hearsay. |  |
| |
| Quick look at the financial statements on 13:23 - Dec 29 with 2067 views | tony_roch975 |
| Quick look at the financial statements on 11:04 - Dec 29 by Nigeriamark |
Read my OP. I did not say we lose 1.8m EVERY season. However in 2017 - 2018 we did lose this amount on Normal business but made some of this up on exceptional items
Those figures are now 20 months old. the 2018/19 season has gone which will have been budgeted by the old management. Although new management took over part of the way during that year they are unlikely to have influenced the P&L that much so I would imagine another loss on normal business. I have no idea what exceptional items will hit in that year so I don't know what the loss/profit for the total business will be. This will be available in March and with 3 years of detailed data you can take what I have done and start to add in trends
2019 - 20 will be the first full set of figures for the new management, but we don't get those numbers until March 2021. I believe the Accrington Chairman is the only one of the 72 EFL clubs who gives fans an advance look. May be worth asking for at the next Forum, although there may be reasons for not doing so. It is also possible for businesses to give a forecast in advance i.e half way through a season ( i.e Now) draw up an estimate on how the year will finish and why. They would allow them to factor in the MUFC and Newcastle money + any known incomes from transfers ( & TV, Prize money). This then allows a 4 year detailed analysis of trends which becomes more significant |
yes, that's standard business practice and forecasting like that is essential for forward strategic planning - another must for the Club. |  |
| |
| Quick look at the financial statements on 15:19 - Dec 29 with 1976 views | Ninco |
It's always been my view that in football, money earns money. If you don't speculate on good players, you lose more games, then people stop going to watch us. That then means less money from programme sales, bar sales, souvenirs, half time draw etc. I would imagine that attendance figures affects sponsorship money as well.
We have now won one league game in six, and that form is relegation form. If we go down, that will surely affect us financially.
All I see whenever I go to Rochdale is the cheap option. We look for a manager and see someone with virtually no experience, same with the coaching staff. We see a subs bench made up from youth team players. If we try the cheap option and it works, as it did when we made Hill up to a manager, then go with it, but for me, BBM isn't having the same effect. At what point do the board realise that? If they already realise, at what point do they do something about it? I for one am sick of defeat after defeat and want to get back to looking forward to watching football at Rochdale. Do we really have to go back to the 'Rochdale Division' before we can win games, or is it worth the gamble that a little bit of investment may just be what we need to get us winning again and may just keep us up. It all comes down to what ambition the board have, and up to now, I don't see any ambition to take the club anywhere other than backwards. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Quick look at the financial statements on 15:26 - Dec 29 with 1955 views | RAFCBLUE |
| Quick look at the financial statements on 13:18 - Dec 29 by fitzochris |
Behave yourself, will you? TS and others do have it “on good authority” in that they have spoken to directors old and new. What other authority is there? Yes, this has generated two sides to the same story, but don’t start belittling those who have bothered to get off their backside and speak to the people involved rather than post essays on here solely informed by the accounts or hearsay. |
At best, you can only speculate on what conversations I may have had with any of the same people.
What I will say is that you’ll know that we have a CEO who has an open door policy and will give time to people like TS, me and others and who is additionally and now very proactively and publicly seeking new financial investment in RAFC.
To answer your question, the only authority I’m actually interested in is the audited accounts to May 2019 and what they say about the true audited financial position of the club.
They are due to be sent to me and all other shareholders in the next 8 weeks and will show the tale of the 2018/19 season where a boardroom tete-a-tete saw the rather unexpected and hasty departure of both the previous Chairman and another long standing director and the sacking of the club’s most successful manager.
There is a quote on that last link I posted from July 2015 which says:
“Joining the board of an extremely well run football club is a great honour and privilege and I can assure all supporters, many who know me, of my genuine intentions to help the club to continue moving forward and prosper”
I sincerely hope post the departures of those two very honourable and longstanding directors a year ago that we continue to be “extremely well run”
The grumblings over how bad the playing budget is for BBM this season, is a massive smokescreen IMHO since those in authority have remained relatively constant over the last 5 years of League 1 in both a) setting that budget and b) the spending of it.
If it is true that we have cut the playing budget this year (a Chairman and CEO decision) and WITH knowledge of the Craig Dawson money from 1 July 2019 then I would hope the rationale for doing so might be made public and clearly explained given our board’s open acknowledgement of the biggest financial threat to the club is relegation to League 2.
There’s a logic to that comment since as far as I can see we have much MORE income this year that both last year and that would have budgeted not less. The Dawson cash for example should be with the club now.
Why would we cut the playing budget when we know that doing so brings into play our biggest financial threat?
I can understand it staying the same and it not keeping up with other clubs but if I read what is written we have reduced it.
So, in my view there is either a financial incongruence in the story being told about the budget being cut vs the economic reality AND/OR a unknown financial hole appeared in 2018/19 which has needed to be dealt with. | |
| |
| Quick look at the financial statements on 16:03 - Dec 29 with 1916 views | Ninco |
| Quick look at the financial statements on 15:26 - Dec 29 by RAFCBLUE |
At best, you can only speculate on what conversations I may have had with any of the same people.
What I will say is that you’ll know that we have a CEO who has an open door policy and will give time to people like TS, me and others and who is additionally and now very proactively and publicly seeking new financial investment in RAFC.
To answer your question, the only authority I’m actually interested in is the audited accounts to May 2019 and what they say about the true audited financial position of the club.
They are due to be sent to me and all other shareholders in the next 8 weeks and will show the tale of the 2018/19 season where a boardroom tete-a-tete saw the rather unexpected and hasty departure of both the previous Chairman and another long standing director and the sacking of the club’s most successful manager.
There is a quote on that last link I posted from July 2015 which says:
“Joining the board of an extremely well run football club is a great honour and privilege and I can assure all supporters, many who know me, of my genuine intentions to help the club to continue moving forward and prosper”
I sincerely hope post the departures of those two very honourable and longstanding directors a year ago that we continue to be “extremely well run”
The grumblings over how bad the playing budget is for BBM this season, is a massive smokescreen IMHO since those in authority have remained relatively constant over the last 5 years of League 1 in both a) setting that budget and b) the spending of it.
If it is true that we have cut the playing budget this year (a Chairman and CEO decision) and WITH knowledge of the Craig Dawson money from 1 July 2019 then I would hope the rationale for doing so might be made public and clearly explained given our board’s open acknowledgement of the biggest financial threat to the club is relegation to League 2.
There’s a logic to that comment since as far as I can see we have much MORE income this year that both last year and that would have budgeted not less. The Dawson cash for example should be with the club now.
Why would we cut the playing budget when we know that doing so brings into play our biggest financial threat?
I can understand it staying the same and it not keeping up with other clubs but if I read what is written we have reduced it.
So, in my view there is either a financial incongruence in the story being told about the budget being cut vs the economic reality AND/OR a unknown financial hole appeared in 2018/19 which has needed to be dealt with. |
Would Keith Hill's compensation be that unknown financial hole? | | | |
| Quick look at the financial statements on 16:19 - Dec 29 with 1895 views | RAFCBLUE |
| Quick look at the financial statements on 16:03 - Dec 29 by Ninco |
Would Keith Hill's compensation be that unknown financial hole? |
Possibly.
No one has explained yet what forced Dunphy and Goodwin to go which preceded Hill’s sacking so it could also be to do with that.
Both have tried to be involved in buying other clubs so they didn’t just retire. | |
| |
| Quick look at the financial statements on 16:23 - Dec 29 with 1879 views | fitzochris |
| Quick look at the financial statements on 16:19 - Dec 29 by RAFCBLUE |
Possibly.
No one has explained yet what forced Dunphy and Goodwin to go which preceded Hill’s sacking so it could also be to do with that.
Both have tried to be involved in buying other clubs so they didn’t just retire. |
And that’s the two sides of the story you get from speaking directly to the those involved. | |
| |
| Quick look at the financial statements on 16:24 - Dec 29 with 1877 views | judd |
| Quick look at the financial statements on 16:19 - Dec 29 by RAFCBLUE |
Possibly.
No one has explained yet what forced Dunphy and Goodwin to go which preceded Hill’s sacking so it could also be to do with that.
Both have tried to be involved in buying other clubs so they didn’t just retire. |
Hill was being paid monthly, so no lump sum payout. Another poster published on here that it was common practice to pay sacked managers monthly until they gained other employment. I would hope that payments to Hill stopped when he went to Bolton. | |
| |
| Quick look at the financial statements on 16:41 - Dec 29 with 1840 views | RAFCBLUE |
| Quick look at the financial statements on 16:24 - Dec 29 by judd |
Hill was being paid monthly, so no lump sum payout. Another poster published on here that it was common practice to pay sacked managers monthly until they gained other employment. I would hope that payments to Hill stopped when he went to Bolton. |
Hill was still employed by the club but they sat him at home on gardening leave and relieved him of his duties which is why they will have continued to pay him monthly.
I would expect that we will have paid both him and Beech a lump sum to cover the unexpired term of the contract the point Hill was offered the Bolton job in August 2019. Beech joining Carlisle soon after.
Hill signed a five year contract in 2017 so when we sacked him in March 2019 he had,39 months of that contract to run and 33 months to run when Hill joined Bolton.
As a comparator, Chris Brass was owed £89k when he was sacked as assistant manager by bury; which he had to go to the courts to try and recover.
We won’t have just stopped paying him when he joined Bolton, there will have been a lump sum.
To be confirmed when we see the accounts. | |
| |
| Quick look at the financial statements on 18:02 - Dec 29 with 1780 views | Cleedale |
| Quick look at the financial statements on 16:19 - Dec 29 by RAFCBLUE |
Possibly.
No one has explained yet what forced Dunphy and Goodwin to go which preceded Hill’s sacking so it could also be to do with that.
Both have tried to be involved in buying other clubs so they didn’t just retire. |
Surmising here RAFC and have read most of your posts and what could be a very interesting set of accounts 18/19.
So could it be that we've had to pay back loans/funds (that may/may not have been made) to previous directors? These 'might' have accrued over many years as well as the KH pay-off? And other things....?
I've heard of this before at other clubs where departing chairs./directors have wanted their money back. Personally haven't a clue and just guessing but do things add up? We may just have to wait and see.... | | | |
| Quick look at the financial statements on 18:54 - Dec 29 with 1726 views | RAFCBLUE |
| Quick look at the financial statements on 18:02 - Dec 29 by Cleedale |
Surmising here RAFC and have read most of your posts and what could be a very interesting set of accounts 18/19.
So could it be that we've had to pay back loans/funds (that may/may not have been made) to previous directors? These 'might' have accrued over many years as well as the KH pay-off? And other things....?
I've heard of this before at other clubs where departing chairs./directors have wanted their money back. Personally haven't a clue and just guessing but do things add up? We may just have to wait and see.... |
The club was self-standing and self-sufficient at 31 May 2018. At the end of FY2018 the club:
(1) had £1,177,784 as cash in the bank
(2) owed two directors £24,498
It could have paid back those directors if it had wanted to.
Despite making a loss of £306,606 we were in great shape.
In the season of FY2019, we retained our League 1 status, did not have a notable cup run, lost two directors for reasons unknown and fired Hill and Beech.
I'd expect a bigger loss than £306,606; the scale of that loss will be revealed when the accounts are filed, not later than the end of February 2020.
Worst case, we have a loss of over £1m in the year to 31 May 2019 and have used all of that cash in place at the end of May 2018 to fund it.
Whatever the number, there are a lot of different supporters now asking difficult questions about our real financial situation based on what we have out on the pitch. | |
| |
| Quick look at the financial statements on 12:44 - Dec 30 with 1583 views | 1907 |
Last year the wage budget was inflated by 30%. Do we not just think that the budget this year will be something similar to the year before?
The biggest issue is BBM can’t use the budget the way he wants because of the dead wood on the contracts Hill granted. | | | |
| Quick look at the financial statements on 12:55 - Dec 30 with 1570 views | boromat |
| Quick look at the financial statements on 12:44 - Dec 30 by 1907 |
Last year the wage budget was inflated by 30%. Do we not just think that the budget this year will be something similar to the year before?
The biggest issue is BBM can’t use the budget the way he wants because of the dead wood on the contracts Hill granted. |
I'm sure we've been told several times in interviews by BBM and Bottomley that this year's playing budget is significantly reduced from last year. Don't know if anyone has any links? | |
| |
| Quick look at the financial statements on 13:14 - Dec 30 with 1547 views | ChaffRAFC |
| Quick look at the financial statements on 12:44 - Dec 30 by 1907 |
Last year the wage budget was inflated by 30%. Do we not just think that the budget this year will be something similar to the year before?
The biggest issue is BBM can’t use the budget the way he wants because of the dead wood on the contracts Hill granted. |
The budget has been reduced, hence why Done and Wilbraham took paycuts to re-sign. The budget was increased by 30% and for that 30% increase, we still only just missed out on relegation. It was a big mistake. The amount of wasted wages currently contracted is the biggest issue we have.
BBM's signings so far have been good on the whole. Sanchez, Norrington-Davies, Magloire and Pyke on loan (latter is a poor signing) and Ryan, O'Connell, Lynch and McShane. Give him the means to bring in a few new faces and I'd be confident he would bring in valuable assets. |  |
| If I hadn't seen such riches, I could live with being poor |
| |
| Quick look at the financial statements on 13:39 - Dec 30 with 1517 views | 1907 |
| Quick look at the financial statements on 13:14 - Dec 30 by ChaffRAFC |
The budget has been reduced, hence why Done and Wilbraham took paycuts to re-sign. The budget was increased by 30% and for that 30% increase, we still only just missed out on relegation. It was a big mistake. The amount of wasted wages currently contracted is the biggest issue we have.
BBM's signings so far have been good on the whole. Sanchez, Norrington-Davies, Magloire and Pyke on loan (latter is a poor signing) and Ryan, O'Connell, Lynch and McShane. Give him the means to bring in a few new faces and I'd be confident he would bring in valuable assets. |
I know yeah I just think it’ll be interesting when we actually see what the figure is. I genuinely think it’ll be similar to what we have usually operated on in the past.
BBM has made some excellent signings, agree about that also.
Fingers crossed for some fresh blood, a few out the door, a new Henderson contract & an end to the injury crisis. | | | |
| Quick look at the financial statements on 14:03 - Dec 30 with 1495 views | RAFCBLUE |
| Quick look at the financial statements on 13:14 - Dec 30 by ChaffRAFC |
The budget has been reduced, hence why Done and Wilbraham took paycuts to re-sign. The budget was increased by 30% and for that 30% increase, we still only just missed out on relegation. It was a big mistake. The amount of wasted wages currently contracted is the biggest issue we have.
BBM's signings so far have been good on the whole. Sanchez, Norrington-Davies, Magloire and Pyke on loan (latter is a poor signing) and Ryan, O'Connell, Lynch and McShane. Give him the means to bring in a few new faces and I'd be confident he would bring in valuable assets. |
Hi Chaff.
If I take actual numbers from the accounts provided to shareholders, the club said as follows for wages spent on players:
FY2017 (year ending May 2017): £1,934,157
FY2018 (year ending May 2018): £2,343,418 ( 21.2% increase on FY2017)
The assertion being made is that for FY2019 there was a 30% increase in the £2.3m figure - so that would be a wage budget like £3,046,443 (30% increase on FY2018)
There is then an assertion that for this season for FY2020 that this has been cut by 30% so £2,132,510 (70% of my FY2019).
That would mean that BBM is operating at a lower budget than Keith Hill when we survived in May 2018 with an agreed pool of smaller players.
That logic coming out of the club for this season makes no sense.
We have two less backroom staff (in not replacing Hill and Beech) and have 5 less permanently signed players (9 out and 4 in) - net headcount reduction of 7:
OUT: (Perkins, Rafferty, Moore, McGahey, Cannon, Ntile, Williams, Inman and Adshead)
IN: (Lynch, Ryan, McShane and O'Connell)
As I've posted on another thread we have 14 out of 25 players out of contract this year in June 2020 which I think will include 3 of our top 5 earners.
I don't believe that the wage bill of that current playing squad is less than £2.1m.
Not aimed at you - someone can't be right here between the Board vs CEO vs manager on what the playing budget is and in the context where players like Done and Wilbraham are willing to take a pay cut to re-sign.
I simply can't see how we would have possibly spent £3m - £700k more in FY2019 than the squad which kept us up that year vs Charlton.
Soccerbase has a net player movement of + 1 in Summer 2018 being Perkins, Wilbraham, Inman and Dooley in and Kitching, Canavan and Hollins leaving. | |
| |
| Quick look at the financial statements on 15:10 - Dec 30 with 1429 views | 1907 |
| Quick look at the financial statements on 14:03 - Dec 30 by RAFCBLUE |
Hi Chaff.
If I take actual numbers from the accounts provided to shareholders, the club said as follows for wages spent on players:
FY2017 (year ending May 2017): £1,934,157
FY2018 (year ending May 2018): £2,343,418 ( 21.2% increase on FY2017)
The assertion being made is that for FY2019 there was a 30% increase in the £2.3m figure - so that would be a wage budget like £3,046,443 (30% increase on FY2018)
There is then an assertion that for this season for FY2020 that this has been cut by 30% so £2,132,510 (70% of my FY2019).
That would mean that BBM is operating at a lower budget than Keith Hill when we survived in May 2018 with an agreed pool of smaller players.
That logic coming out of the club for this season makes no sense.
We have two less backroom staff (in not replacing Hill and Beech) and have 5 less permanently signed players (9 out and 4 in) - net headcount reduction of 7:
OUT: (Perkins, Rafferty, Moore, McGahey, Cannon, Ntile, Williams, Inman and Adshead)
IN: (Lynch, Ryan, McShane and O'Connell)
As I've posted on another thread we have 14 out of 25 players out of contract this year in June 2020 which I think will include 3 of our top 5 earners.
I don't believe that the wage bill of that current playing squad is less than £2.1m.
Not aimed at you - someone can't be right here between the Board vs CEO vs manager on what the playing budget is and in the context where players like Done and Wilbraham are willing to take a pay cut to re-sign.
I simply can't see how we would have possibly spent £3m - £700k more in FY2019 than the squad which kept us up that year vs Charlton.
Soccerbase has a net player movement of + 1 in Summer 2018 being Perkins, Wilbraham, Inman and Dooley in and Kitching, Canavan and Hollins leaving. |
Which players signed new contracts in the summer of 2018?
Hill must have given them significant improvements on existing terms to take up so much cash. | | | |
| Quick look at the financial statements on 15:20 - Dec 30 with 1400 views | RAFCBLUE |
| Quick look at the financial statements on 15:10 - Dec 30 by 1907 |
Which players signed new contracts in the summer of 2018?
Hill must have given them significant improvements on existing terms to take up so much cash. |
Posted earlier in this thread:
From what I see on the Official site at the end of 2017/18 we did the following:
1. Signed Matty Gilliam until June 2020
2. Extended Calvin Andrew to June 2020 from June 2019
3. Signed Aaron Wilbraham until June 2019
4. Signed Harrison McGahey until June 2020
5. Signed Andy Cannon until June 2019
6. Signed Brad Inman until June 2019
7. Signed Danny Adshead until June 2021
Of the above we have since offloaded McGahey, Cannon, Inman and Adshead for combined fees of £500k plus add ons.
Our two biggest earners, Henderson (signed an extended deal in October 2017 to June 2020) and Done (signed for two years in June 2017 and extended for two years to June 2021 by BBM); before the supposed budget increase for Hill.
I don’t believe that the sum of the 7 contracts above would have led to a £700k (30%) increase on previous terms. An increase yes but not 30%. | |
| |
| Quick look at the financial statements on 15:52 - Dec 30 with 1360 views | 1907 |
| Quick look at the financial statements on 15:20 - Dec 30 by RAFCBLUE |
Posted earlier in this thread:
From what I see on the Official site at the end of 2017/18 we did the following:
1. Signed Matty Gilliam until June 2020
2. Extended Calvin Andrew to June 2020 from June 2019
3. Signed Aaron Wilbraham until June 2019
4. Signed Harrison McGahey until June 2020
5. Signed Andy Cannon until June 2019
6. Signed Brad Inman until June 2019
7. Signed Danny Adshead until June 2021
Of the above we have since offloaded McGahey, Cannon, Inman and Adshead for combined fees of £500k plus add ons.
Our two biggest earners, Henderson (signed an extended deal in October 2017 to June 2020) and Done (signed for two years in June 2017 and extended for two years to June 2021 by BBM); before the supposed budget increase for Hill.
I don’t believe that the sum of the 7 contracts above would have led to a £700k (30%) increase on previous terms. An increase yes but not 30%. |
Apologies didn’t see.
Agreed something doesn’t add up there. | | | |
| Quick look at the financial statements on 16:06 - Dec 30 with 1339 views | HK_Dale |
| Quick look at the financial statements on 18:54 - Dec 29 by RAFCBLUE |
The club was self-standing and self-sufficient at 31 May 2018. At the end of FY2018 the club:
(1) had £1,177,784 as cash in the bank
(2) owed two directors £24,498
It could have paid back those directors if it had wanted to.
Despite making a loss of £306,606 we were in great shape.
In the season of FY2019, we retained our League 1 status, did not have a notable cup run, lost two directors for reasons unknown and fired Hill and Beech.
I'd expect a bigger loss than £306,606; the scale of that loss will be revealed when the accounts are filed, not later than the end of February 2020.
Worst case, we have a loss of over £1m in the year to 31 May 2019 and have used all of that cash in place at the end of May 2018 to fund it.
Whatever the number, there are a lot of different supporters now asking difficult questions about our real financial situation based on what we have out on the pitch. |
This is the key point for me. As mentioned in a previous thread, despite the loss for the year, overall position remained in good shape.
Particularly as no dividends being paid, retained earnings of over £1.5m should be sufficient to reinvest some of that if we needed to.
I’d be curious as to what would be such an exceptional item that would create a significant dent in that - but as you rightly point out, it’s all speculation until the accounts for 2019 are released. |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
