| Statement from The Moneysnatchers in Washington. on 23:10 - Sep 4 with 1335 views | KrisP |
| Statement from The Moneysnatchers in Washington. on 20:58 - Sep 4 by longlostjack |
Not suggesting a line-by-line disclosure but please explain how Huw’s remuneration or the interest charged on a bridging loan might help competitors? |
Agreed, but that's very different to the call to release the accounts. |  | |  |
| Statement from The Moneysnatchers in Washington. on 23:35 - Sep 4 with 1302 views | jasper_T |
| Statement from The Moneysnatchers in Washington. on 22:40 - Sep 4 by awayjack |
OK I’ve asked a few times and respect you don’t want to give a view on the £126m cost breakdown. It’s not just £99m wages you mention but an extra £27m of other expenses. Agree it’s clearly not the tea lady of lower paid staff. I’m sure Burnley who’s costs for same period were £55m lower than ours - have plenty of low paid back room staff on their payroll. They also had/have a pretty competive playing squad!
As mentioned on many threads, my concern - flagged to Trust who have access to far more detailed financials - is the need to understand the nature of the costs, with the changes in 2018 and critically how do we move from £126m in costs to the £25m we need to be sustainable after parachute payments.
I hear the Trust are still waiting for a growing list of financial questions to be answered. Hopefully when the information is supplied, the 2018 accounts are reported and maybe the Board share an outline plan to support the ‘sustainability’ objective, we’ll have more clarity and quash some of the conspiracy theories that naturally arise in the absence of meaningful information. |
Burnley were in their first season back in the PL that year after winning promotion in 15/16. Their wage costs had risen from £27m in the Championship to £61m in 16/17. By comparison we were in our 6th(?) consecutive season, with an entire squad on long term PL contracts.
Also they run a Category Two academy compared to our Category One (the difference is just spending amounting to a few million). And their turnover was £5m less than ours. | | | |
| Statement from The Moneysnatchers in Washington. on 12:41 - Sep 6 with 1175 views | awayjack |
| Statement from The Moneysnatchers in Washington. on 23:35 - Sep 4 by jasper_T |
Burnley were in their first season back in the PL that year after winning promotion in 15/16. Their wage costs had risen from £27m in the Championship to £61m in 16/17. By comparison we were in our 6th(?) consecutive season, with an entire squad on long term PL contracts.
Also they run a Category Two academy compared to our Category One (the difference is just spending amounting to a few million). And their turnover was £5m less than ours. |
Burnley is extreme example with costs £55m lower than ours! That’s a full team on Bony wages as difference! Our costs were in top 8 in PL even if Burnley were super efficient and we were excessive, it still leaves serious unanswered questions.
There’s analysis on other sites from people ITK from various sources that player wages were circa £52m. This seems consistent with our squad versus others.
That leaves non-player wages of £47m plus other expenses of £26m. So £73m of on/playing costs! You’ve offered no logical explanation for this but seem to have a problem that others challenging it. Odd view and pointless debate unless you have details to support.
Per Trust meet last night, that the owners have refused to share cost details with other Board members and not answered financial questions you’d expect a Board to discuss. Simply increases concerns there’s something serious to hide. |  | | |
| Statement from The Moneysnatchers in Washington. on 12:45 - Sep 6 with 1166 views | TheResurrection |
| Statement from The Moneysnatchers in Washington. on 12:41 - Sep 6 by awayjack |
Burnley is extreme example with costs £55m lower than ours! That’s a full team on Bony wages as difference! Our costs were in top 8 in PL even if Burnley were super efficient and we were excessive, it still leaves serious unanswered questions.
There’s analysis on other sites from people ITK from various sources that player wages were circa £52m. This seems consistent with our squad versus others.
That leaves non-player wages of £47m plus other expenses of £26m. So £73m of on/playing costs! You’ve offered no logical explanation for this but seem to have a problem that others challenging it. Odd view and pointless debate unless you have details to support.
Per Trust meet last night, that the owners have refused to share cost details with other Board members and not answered financial questions you’d expect a Board to discuss. Simply increases concerns there’s something serious to hide. |
The Trust never gave any indication there was something serious they were trying to hide.
Show me where they said that instead of making things up?
Regardless of the appropriateness of the NDA for Stu MacDonald, they were still willing to divulge everything to him. |  |
| |
| Statement from The Moneysnatchers in Washington. on 12:47 - Sep 6 with 1163 views | longlostjack |
| Statement from The Moneysnatchers in Washington. on 12:41 - Sep 6 by awayjack |
Burnley is extreme example with costs £55m lower than ours! That’s a full team on Bony wages as difference! Our costs were in top 8 in PL even if Burnley were super efficient and we were excessive, it still leaves serious unanswered questions.
There’s analysis on other sites from people ITK from various sources that player wages were circa £52m. This seems consistent with our squad versus others.
That leaves non-player wages of £47m plus other expenses of £26m. So £73m of on/playing costs! You’ve offered no logical explanation for this but seem to have a problem that others challenging it. Odd view and pointless debate unless you have details to support.
Per Trust meet last night, that the owners have refused to share cost details with other Board members and not answered financial questions you’d expect a Board to discuss. Simply increases concerns there’s something serious to hide. |
I concur. Their actions hardly inspire confidence in their financial actions. |  |
| |
| Statement from The Moneysnatchers in Washington. on 13:27 - Sep 6 with 1124 views | vetchonian |
| Statement from The Moneysnatchers in Washington. on 12:45 - Sep 6 by TheResurrection |
The Trust never gave any indication there was something serious they were trying to hide.
Show me where they said that instead of making things up?
Regardless of the appropriateness of the NDA for Stu MacDonald, they were still willing to divulge everything to him. |
Yes but he would be unable to say anything or do anything about it.
What if there are £XYZ millions of non playing salaries Stu can see that someone somewhere is taking a fat wedge but his lips are sealed!
And you wonder why some want to get the pitchforks out | |
| |
| Statement from The Moneysnatchers in Washington. on 13:51 - Sep 6 with 1116 views | longlostjack |
| Statement from The Moneysnatchers in Washington. on 13:27 - Sep 6 by vetchonian |
Yes but he would be unable to say anything or do anything about it.
What if there are £XYZ millions of non playing salaries Stu can see that someone somewhere is taking a fat wedge but his lips are sealed!
And you wonder why some want to get the pitchforks out |
Exactly! Basic common sense. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
