| we exist to fund DC UNITED 15:31 - Dec 26 with 8729 views | RhonddaSwans |
prove me wrong? |  |
| |  |
| we exist to fund DC UNITED on 16:46 - Dec 26 with 1595 views | jasper_T |
| we exist to fund DC UNITED on 15:39 - Dec 26 by RhonddaSwans |
look over player sales in and out .
you are a mug if you don't see our real ins and outs.
we have made money year after year.
Their glazer style ownership has had us posting losses next |
Clueless. | | | |
| we exist to fund DC UNITED on 16:48 - Dec 26 with 1592 views | RhonddaSwans |
| we exist to fund DC UNITED on 16:46 - Dec 26 by jasper_T |
Clueless. |
mate 😎
(I don't really care what you think)
post a video of you celebrating a 4-0 loss!
Jasper petty!
jasper petty! | |
| |
| we exist to fund DC UNITED on 16:50 - Dec 26 with 1584 views | RhonddaSwans |
| we exist to fund DC UNITED on 16:46 - Dec 26 by jasper_T |
Clueless. |
also jasper
You are the clueless one, just a happy clapper.
do me a favour mate just block me.
Us ambitious fans don't want to here what members of the trust think! [Post edited 26 Dec 2023 16:53]
| |
| |
| we exist to fund DC UNITED on 16:51 - Dec 26 with 1578 views | RhonddaSwans |
| we exist to fund DC UNITED on 16:46 - Dec 26 by jasper_T |
Clueless. |
come on jasp yey 5-0!
jasper loves it | |
| |
| we exist to fund DC UNITED on 16:54 - Dec 26 with 1560 views | Whiterockin |
| we exist to fund DC UNITED on 16:39 - Dec 26 by RhonddaSwans |
you sure can with super rich owners.
do you think chelsea or man city habe ever made a real profit?
we have the morgan family that 🩸 swansea in the wings |
Why should the Morgan family invest millions in the club. I will ask you this, if you won £40M on the lottery how much would you pump into the club. Personally apart from a hospitality box and youth football I wouldn't throw cash into the money pit. |  | | |
| we exist to fund DC UNITED on 16:57 - Dec 26 with 1551 views | RhonddaSwans |
| we exist to fund DC UNITED on 16:54 - Dec 26 by Whiterockin |
Why should the Morgan family invest millions in the club. I will ask you this, if you won £40M on the lottery how much would you pump into the club. Personally apart from a hospitality box and youth football I wouldn't throw cash into the money pit. |
The morgans love the club!
The real cost of promotion was what Burnley paid last year  | |
| |
| we exist to fund DC UNITED on 17:00 - Dec 26 with 1529 views | Whiterockin |
| we exist to fund DC UNITED on 16:57 - Dec 26 by RhonddaSwans |
The morgans love the club!
The real cost of promotion was what Burnley paid last year |
So you don't. | | | |
| we exist to fund DC UNITED on 17:07 - Dec 26 with 1502 views | RhonddaSwans |
| we exist to fund DC UNITED on 17:00 - Dec 26 by Whiterockin |
So you don't. |
More than anything was just stating that they wouldn't be throwing their money down a hole like you stated.
no point of talking about theoretical money is there [Post edited 26 Dec 2023 17:08]
| |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| we exist to fund DC UNITED on 17:11 - Dec 26 with 1483 views | Whiterockin |
| we exist to fund DC UNITED on 17:07 - Dec 26 by RhonddaSwans |
More than anything was just stating that they wouldn't be throwing their money down a hole like you stated.
no point of talking about theoretical money is there [Post edited 26 Dec 2023 17:08]
|
So how much would you put in. | | | |
| we exist to fund DC UNITED on 17:25 - Dec 26 with 1439 views | johnlangy |
| we exist to fund DC UNITED on 16:14 - Dec 26 by KeithHaynes |
Well, you can because we did. For no other reason to give an overall view - on transfer fees.your looking at it negatively, it’s actually a positive. But nobody seems to grasp that much any more. |
Keith, just an approximate figure but how much does it cost to run the Club at present ? | | | |
| we exist to fund DC UNITED on 17:34 - Dec 26 with 1408 views | Chippy69 |
don't worry the yanks aint going any ware
there's still blood in the old corpse yet
not much but some |  |
| They make us feel indebted
For saving us from hell
And then they put us through it
It's time the bastards fell
|
| |
| we exist to fund DC UNITED on 18:31 - Dec 26 with 1349 views | jack247 |
They aren’t crooks, they are just a long way out of their depth. | | | |
| we exist to fund DC UNITED on 18:42 - Dec 26 with 1328 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| we exist to fund DC UNITED on 18:31 - Dec 26 by jack247 |
They aren’t crooks, they are just a long way out of their depth. |
They are not crooks and they are not way out of their depth. It is them losing money when Swansea fail away and again. All Championship teams are struggling financially.
Vincent Tan said this today
"Surely we want to get promoted, it's tough being in the Championship - I think almost everybody loses money - and it's a terrible business to invest in something that loses money all the time,".
Swansea have sold £50m in talent since relegation. Tan has not sold anyone for a substantial profit. Swansea threw away big money not developing forwards Goykeres, Obafemi and Whittaker.
Swansea cannot accept short term managers who complain not having talent then walking away from the contracts and seeing players the discard become big stars. Obafemi had talent and has not kicked on but could have at Swansea.
Coleman and Gude must realise pretty quickly nothing can be developed if 5 loans come and go every season. Swansea can develop, like before, by being different. No loans play Broome (?) , Azeem, Parker, Wilson, Ntjoe, Kukharevic, Peterson. |  |
| |
| we exist to fund DC UNITED on 18:44 - Dec 26 with 1323 views | QJumpingJack |
| we exist to fund DC UNITED on 18:42 - Dec 26 by ReslovenSwan1 |
They are not crooks and they are not way out of their depth. It is them losing money when Swansea fail away and again. All Championship teams are struggling financially.
Vincent Tan said this today
"Surely we want to get promoted, it's tough being in the Championship - I think almost everybody loses money - and it's a terrible business to invest in something that loses money all the time,".
Swansea have sold £50m in talent since relegation. Tan has not sold anyone for a substantial profit. Swansea threw away big money not developing forwards Goykeres, Obafemi and Whittaker.
Swansea cannot accept short term managers who complain not having talent then walking away from the contracts and seeing players the discard become big stars. Obafemi had talent and has not kicked on but could have at Swansea.
Coleman and Gude must realise pretty quickly nothing can be developed if 5 loans come and go every season. Swansea can develop, like before, by being different. No loans play Broome (?) , Azeem, Parker, Wilson, Ntjoe, Kukharevic, Peterson. |
the problem is Ken and Andy have no experience at all with football. This has to be a concern.
We need a Trevor Birch type person at the club. | | | |
| we exist to fund DC UNITED on 18:48 - Dec 26 with 1316 views | jack247 |
| we exist to fund DC UNITED on 18:42 - Dec 26 by ReslovenSwan1 |
They are not crooks and they are not way out of their depth. It is them losing money when Swansea fail away and again. All Championship teams are struggling financially.
Vincent Tan said this today
"Surely we want to get promoted, it's tough being in the Championship - I think almost everybody loses money - and it's a terrible business to invest in something that loses money all the time,".
Swansea have sold £50m in talent since relegation. Tan has not sold anyone for a substantial profit. Swansea threw away big money not developing forwards Goykeres, Obafemi and Whittaker.
Swansea cannot accept short term managers who complain not having talent then walking away from the contracts and seeing players the discard become big stars. Obafemi had talent and has not kicked on but could have at Swansea.
Coleman and Gude must realise pretty quickly nothing can be developed if 5 loans come and go every season. Swansea can develop, like before, by being different. No loans play Broome (?) , Azeem, Parker, Wilson, Ntjoe, Kukharevic, Peterson. |
They are losing money because they are way out of their depth, not in spite of it.
Edit - Gyokores was on loan and the other two refused to play for us. Think of better examples. [Post edited 26 Dec 2023 18:50]
| | | |
| we exist to fund DC UNITED (n/t) on 19:54 - Dec 26 with 1250 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| we exist to fund DC UNITED on 18:48 - Dec 26 by jack247 |
They are losing money because they are way out of their depth, not in spite of it.
Edit - Gyokores was on loan and the other two refused to play for us. Think of better examples. [Post edited 26 Dec 2023 18:50]
|
| |
| |
| we exist to fund DC UNITED (n/t) on 20:04 - Dec 26 with 1230 views | QJumpingJack |
| we exist to fund DC UNITED (n/t) on 19:54 - Dec 26 by ReslovenSwan1 |
|
I cannot understand why Gyokeres is constantly being used as an example.
He was not our player. He was on loan from Brighton. 11 games 0 goals for us.
Same goes for Sam Surridge. He was a loan player. | | | |
| we exist to fund DC UNITED on 21:40 - Dec 26 with 1153 views | PrettySheetyCity |
| we exist to fund DC UNITED on 17:25 - Dec 26 by johnlangy |
Keith, just an approximate figure but how much does it cost to run the Club at present ? |
I'm not Keith but I can help with this.
Based on the last audited financial accounts which covered the 2021/22 season:
- Income (e.g., excl player sales) was £19,690,433.
- Total operating expenses (i.e., player wages, infrastructure running costs, academy, match day costs etc) were £40,372,255.
- Therefore, we spent £20,681,822 more than we brought in.
- However, the Club sold players for £10,878,312, and spent £2,652,815, which reduced losses by £8,225,497.
- This meant the total losses for 2021/22 were £12,338,093.
If someone wanted to purchase 100% of the Swans, then they will not get EFL approval until they provide proof of funds of the following:
- The Purchase Price (I suspect that is around £30,000,000 based on 100% of the Club).
- Running costs for Season 1 (pre-player transfers), so based on the difference between income/expenditure in 2021/22, that would be £20,681,822.
- Comprehensive business plans. Of course, if this business plan shows running costs can be reduced, this will reduce the sum needed in escrow.
Therefore, we will have to find someone who can cough up £50,681,822 and then potentially an additional £12,338,093 per season (assuming we can still maintain the level of player sales we have using our current dross squad).
I personally can't see anyone local putting up that kind of cash.
Sources:
1) Companies House: http://tinyurl.com/38raxuce
2) EFL Handbook (see Appendix 6): https://www.efl.com/documents/efl-handbook.pdf | | | |
| we exist to fund DC UNITED on 21:43 - Dec 26 with 1143 views | Whiterockin |
| we exist to fund DC UNITED on 21:40 - Dec 26 by PrettySheetyCity |
I'm not Keith but I can help with this.
Based on the last audited financial accounts which covered the 2021/22 season:
- Income (e.g., excl player sales) was £19,690,433.
- Total operating expenses (i.e., player wages, infrastructure running costs, academy, match day costs etc) were £40,372,255.
- Therefore, we spent £20,681,822 more than we brought in.
- However, the Club sold players for £10,878,312, and spent £2,652,815, which reduced losses by £8,225,497.
- This meant the total losses for 2021/22 were £12,338,093.
If someone wanted to purchase 100% of the Swans, then they will not get EFL approval until they provide proof of funds of the following:
- The Purchase Price (I suspect that is around £30,000,000 based on 100% of the Club).
- Running costs for Season 1 (pre-player transfers), so based on the difference between income/expenditure in 2021/22, that would be £20,681,822.
- Comprehensive business plans. Of course, if this business plan shows running costs can be reduced, this will reduce the sum needed in escrow.
Therefore, we will have to find someone who can cough up £50,681,822 and then potentially an additional £12,338,093 per season (assuming we can still maintain the level of player sales we have using our current dross squad).
I personally can't see anyone local putting up that kind of cash.
Sources:
1) Companies House: http://tinyurl.com/38raxuce
2) EFL Handbook (see Appendix 6): https://www.efl.com/documents/efl-handbook.pdf |
You are nuts if you think the clubs value is only £30M. | | | |
| we exist to fund DC UNITED on 22:24 - Dec 26 with 1088 views | PrettySheetyCity |
| we exist to fund DC UNITED on 21:43 - Dec 26 by Whiterockin |
You are nuts if you think the clubs value is only £30M. |
Fair enough, but I based £30,000,000 off:
- When Nigel Morris invested, the share price was £23.04 per share based on the Confirmation Statement filed with Companies House.
- There are 2,756,542 A and B shares in the Club, so the value of the shares is £63,510,727.68.
- However, when you deduct debt from that value (circa. £36,000,000 excluding the convertible loan notes which were converted into shares after the accounts were posted), this gives an equity value of £27,510,727.68.
- I rounded up this figure to £30,000,000 as it's easier to quote round numbers.
I appreciate it's a back-of-a-fag-packet calculation but in my opinion it's generally a good indicator of what the Club is worth, albeit it might be worth more if debt has been paid off since 2021/22 (we won't know until May 2024, when the accounts for 22/23 are posted). | | | |
| we exist to fund DC UNITED on 22:39 - Dec 26 with 1075 views | BryanSwan |
Jesus this is utterly mental.
I get that the owners may not be doing particularly well with the running of the club, but to suggest they are finding some secret hidden money in the club to fund DC is ridiculous.
The club loses money every single week (Championship clubs do not run on a sustainable business model). | |
| |
| we exist to fund DC UNITED on 12:08 - Dec 27 with 925 views | johnlangy |
| we exist to fund DC UNITED on 21:40 - Dec 26 by PrettySheetyCity |
I'm not Keith but I can help with this.
Based on the last audited financial accounts which covered the 2021/22 season:
- Income (e.g., excl player sales) was £19,690,433.
- Total operating expenses (i.e., player wages, infrastructure running costs, academy, match day costs etc) were £40,372,255.
- Therefore, we spent £20,681,822 more than we brought in.
- However, the Club sold players for £10,878,312, and spent £2,652,815, which reduced losses by £8,225,497.
- This meant the total losses for 2021/22 were £12,338,093.
If someone wanted to purchase 100% of the Swans, then they will not get EFL approval until they provide proof of funds of the following:
- The Purchase Price (I suspect that is around £30,000,000 based on 100% of the Club).
- Running costs for Season 1 (pre-player transfers), so based on the difference between income/expenditure in 2021/22, that would be £20,681,822.
- Comprehensive business plans. Of course, if this business plan shows running costs can be reduced, this will reduce the sum needed in escrow.
Therefore, we will have to find someone who can cough up £50,681,822 and then potentially an additional £12,338,093 per season (assuming we can still maintain the level of player sales we have using our current dross squad).
I personally can't see anyone local putting up that kind of cash.
Sources:
1) Companies House: http://tinyurl.com/38raxuce
2) EFL Handbook (see Appendix 6): https://www.efl.com/documents/efl-handbook.pdf |
Much appreciated. | | | |
| we exist to fund DC UNITED on 12:31 - Dec 27 with 914 views | KeithHaynes |
| we exist to fund DC UNITED on 22:39 - Dec 26 by BryanSwan |
Jesus this is utterly mental.
I get that the owners may not be doing particularly well with the running of the club, but to suggest they are finding some secret hidden money in the club to fund DC is ridiculous.
The club loses money every single week (Championship clubs do not run on a sustainable business model). |
It’s of course not the case. |  |
| |
| we exist to fund DC UNITED on 13:17 - Dec 27 with 875 views | majorraglan |
| we exist to fund DC UNITED on 21:40 - Dec 26 by PrettySheetyCity |
I'm not Keith but I can help with this.
Based on the last audited financial accounts which covered the 2021/22 season:
- Income (e.g., excl player sales) was £19,690,433.
- Total operating expenses (i.e., player wages, infrastructure running costs, academy, match day costs etc) were £40,372,255.
- Therefore, we spent £20,681,822 more than we brought in.
- However, the Club sold players for £10,878,312, and spent £2,652,815, which reduced losses by £8,225,497.
- This meant the total losses for 2021/22 were £12,338,093.
If someone wanted to purchase 100% of the Swans, then they will not get EFL approval until they provide proof of funds of the following:
- The Purchase Price (I suspect that is around £30,000,000 based on 100% of the Club).
- Running costs for Season 1 (pre-player transfers), so based on the difference between income/expenditure in 2021/22, that would be £20,681,822.
- Comprehensive business plans. Of course, if this business plan shows running costs can be reduced, this will reduce the sum needed in escrow.
Therefore, we will have to find someone who can cough up £50,681,822 and then potentially an additional £12,338,093 per season (assuming we can still maintain the level of player sales we have using our current dross squad).
I personally can't see anyone local putting up that kind of cash.
Sources:
1) Companies House: http://tinyurl.com/38raxuce
2) EFL Handbook (see Appendix 6): https://www.efl.com/documents/efl-handbook.pdf |
Thanks for the post.
The key in a lot of this is the total operating expenses, - it’s a pretty wide heading and in truth none of us know exactly what is being included in this ledger. It will of course cover player wages, running costs, agents fees etc etc. The operating costs could also include consultancy fees and other expenditure to interested parties, however it may not and we simply don’t know. Before we can make really informed comments there’s a need for more detail. [Post edited 27 Dec 2023 13:21]
| | | |
| we exist to fund DC UNITED on 13:18 - Dec 27 with 874 views | Gwyn737 |
| we exist to fund DC UNITED on 18:42 - Dec 26 by ReslovenSwan1 |
They are not crooks and they are not way out of their depth. It is them losing money when Swansea fail away and again. All Championship teams are struggling financially.
Vincent Tan said this today
"Surely we want to get promoted, it's tough being in the Championship - I think almost everybody loses money - and it's a terrible business to invest in something that loses money all the time,".
Swansea have sold £50m in talent since relegation. Tan has not sold anyone for a substantial profit. Swansea threw away big money not developing forwards Goykeres, Obafemi and Whittaker.
Swansea cannot accept short term managers who complain not having talent then walking away from the contracts and seeing players the discard become big stars. Obafemi had talent and has not kicked on but could have at Swansea.
Coleman and Gude must realise pretty quickly nothing can be developed if 5 loans come and go every season. Swansea can develop, like before, by being different. No loans play Broome (?) , Azeem, Parker, Wilson, Ntjoe, Kukharevic, Peterson. |
Where’s the sporting example of them not being out of their depth? DC United?
Where’s the sporting success of this ownership team?
For me, it’s not their out of their depth, it’s that they don’t care. We’re just one of a set of numbers on a balance sheet.
That’s it. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
