| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 14:38 - Jan 26 with 2098 views | Uxbridge |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 14:21 - Jan 26 by tomdickharry |
The latest set of accounts are now history so lets hope that the board have learned the lesson that close attention to detail is essential in the running of what will be when we stay up a £150M company. The light at the end of the tunnel is that expenditure on Landore and Fairwood should be completed within the short term and the club will have these additional funds available to invest in the squad. If lessons are not learned then the next set of accounts will provide the answers. |
I think you've learned the wrong lessons to be honest. The TV money is the story, not the training facilities. Plus I don't think attention to detail is the thing that needs learning. |  |
|  |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 14:44 - Jan 26 with 2093 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 12:41 - Jan 26 by JackSwanTV |
I'm 'obsessed' with that part of it because that is the part which IMO influences our decision on the rest of the statement. I think most of us read it and thought that £40 million over 3 and a half years NET is a fair investment into transfers and that nobody could argue with the club backing Monk if he spent £50 million.
If this whole part was rewording to:-
"Over the past FOUR and a half years the club have a net deficit on transfers of in excess of £24M when you factor in signing on fees and agent fees, and in the last 18 months alone (highlighting just how much we backed Garry Monk) we have spent £5M NET on these deal".
I don't think that fans would have responded in the same way to the rest of the statement if this was how this line went. Now the £24 million may be wrong (but it will be considerably lower than £40 million and over a longer period ie. considerably less spent per season) and the £5 million Net could well be wrong (but when you think Bony, Davies, Vorm, Chico, Hernandez etc.. left then I expect that it isn't going to be much more than £10 million).
This is why I think this line is so important because for me it is designed to 'blame' Monk and it is manipulating figures carefully and I don't think that this is the right thing to do.
Whether these figures were chosen by the Trust or were given to the Trust by HJ I don't know but what I am pretty sure of is that these figures do show the optimum timescale for net spend and make it look like Monk was backed (possibly more than he was) by not showing the net figure over his time.
I'm not a spoilt Newcastle fan. I don't want us to make marquee signings and waste money. I totally support our transfer policies and the Trust and I put this in that article, the general message from the trust is right IMO. Transfers do cost more than we think, we probably do have less money in the kitty than what fans think and we do have to keep being smart in the transfer market which has been the (not so) secret to our success.
But I do still have an issue with that one part, I don't think it is a coincidence and I can't really explain myself any more on that. |
But when I did my back of a fag packet calculation to show what we would have had to spend out on players for the figures to make sense over the whole period, jackonicko confirmed that the published figure in the accounts was almost identical to that which I had come up with. So, albeit astonishingly, the figure was right.
The bigger issue it seems to me, given that the figures reconciled, was the almost unbelievable amount spent on acquisitions over the past 4 or so years. That indicates the following:
- Firstly that all those seemingly cheap as chips Spanish players actually weren't. The fees involved must have been very very high, negating their good value headline figure. Funnily, that bears out the eventual decision of the board to part ways with Laudrup's agent, who was the middle man in most if not all of these deals.
- Secondly that our urgency to get them off the books at little value was a strange decision, and one that seemingly could be attributed to Monk wanting nothing to do with them. Perhaps we can learn from that and make sure that rifts are never allowed again to make such a dent on our finances, irrespective of strong player pressure.
- Thirdly, we have spent a lot of money in (effectively) purchasing an entire under 21s team - we must be spending out far more on the whole bunch of Hanley, Gorre type players that have come in than has really been understood (by the fans that is).
I personally don't have any issue in the way that the Monk period figures have been shown. The spend is what's important, not the net spend, as it shows quite how much has gone out through the door on largely substandard players (obviously with notable exceptions such as Ayew, Cork and Fab).
Finally, perhaps you would have a more sensible discussion with Phil / Ux etc if your article hadn't been headlined something like 'The Trust are pulling the wool over fans' eyes'. It's designed to be provocative, which is, of course the point, but it'll very understandably put people's backs up - it certainly would mine, if I was a Trust board member. Surely there are very sensible discussions that can be had about the club without resorting to insults and accusations?
In choosing a title such as that you are just giving ammunition to the tinfoil hat brigade - you must be able to see that?
There are far bigger questions that come out of that statement about recruitment and player selection, and even manager selection and how we navigate the waters of the PL in terms of types of signings, and fees, and the merits of 'cheap but expensive' signings vs 'more expensive but cheap' signings (headline vs all extra bits I'm referring to).
Now if there was a fanzine that explored those sorts of matters then that would be well worth a read in my view. An article on whether ultimately the increased TV revenues means that football will be destroyed in this country (because of all these factors) would be interesting. It's easy to create a football fanzine 'redtop' full of gossip and speculation, but there is scope for a really good one.
Just an opinion. |  | | |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 14:56 - Jan 26 with 2065 views | tomdickharry |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 14:38 - Jan 26 by Uxbridge |
I think you've learned the wrong lessons to be honest. The TV money is the story, not the training facilities. Plus I don't think attention to detail is the thing that needs learning. |
Disagree then its all about opinions. | | | |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 15:00 - Jan 26 with 2058 views | JackSwanTV |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 14:44 - Jan 26 by londonlisa2001 |
But when I did my back of a fag packet calculation to show what we would have had to spend out on players for the figures to make sense over the whole period, jackonicko confirmed that the published figure in the accounts was almost identical to that which I had come up with. So, albeit astonishingly, the figure was right.
The bigger issue it seems to me, given that the figures reconciled, was the almost unbelievable amount spent on acquisitions over the past 4 or so years. That indicates the following:
- Firstly that all those seemingly cheap as chips Spanish players actually weren't. The fees involved must have been very very high, negating their good value headline figure. Funnily, that bears out the eventual decision of the board to part ways with Laudrup's agent, who was the middle man in most if not all of these deals.
- Secondly that our urgency to get them off the books at little value was a strange decision, and one that seemingly could be attributed to Monk wanting nothing to do with them. Perhaps we can learn from that and make sure that rifts are never allowed again to make such a dent on our finances, irrespective of strong player pressure.
- Thirdly, we have spent a lot of money in (effectively) purchasing an entire under 21s team - we must be spending out far more on the whole bunch of Hanley, Gorre type players that have come in than has really been understood (by the fans that is).
I personally don't have any issue in the way that the Monk period figures have been shown. The spend is what's important, not the net spend, as it shows quite how much has gone out through the door on largely substandard players (obviously with notable exceptions such as Ayew, Cork and Fab).
Finally, perhaps you would have a more sensible discussion with Phil / Ux etc if your article hadn't been headlined something like 'The Trust are pulling the wool over fans' eyes'. It's designed to be provocative, which is, of course the point, but it'll very understandably put people's backs up - it certainly would mine, if I was a Trust board member. Surely there are very sensible discussions that can be had about the club without resorting to insults and accusations?
In choosing a title such as that you are just giving ammunition to the tinfoil hat brigade - you must be able to see that?
There are far bigger questions that come out of that statement about recruitment and player selection, and even manager selection and how we navigate the waters of the PL in terms of types of signings, and fees, and the merits of 'cheap but expensive' signings vs 'more expensive but cheap' signings (headline vs all extra bits I'm referring to).
Now if there was a fanzine that explored those sorts of matters then that would be well worth a read in my view. An article on whether ultimately the increased TV revenues means that football will be destroyed in this country (because of all these factors) would be interesting. It's easy to create a football fanzine 'redtop' full of gossip and speculation, but there is scope for a really good one.
Just an opinion. |
I do see that although I generally get attacked by the 'tin foil hat' brigade no matter what though. I think they like to moan at anything and I'm doing my part for society by giving them ammunition but I can possibly agree that 'fans being misled' wasn't the best use of title.
Definitely sounds like you need to get writing to me......... :) | |
| |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 15:05 - Jan 26 with 2035 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 14:44 - Jan 26 by londonlisa2001 |
But when I did my back of a fag packet calculation to show what we would have had to spend out on players for the figures to make sense over the whole period, jackonicko confirmed that the published figure in the accounts was almost identical to that which I had come up with. So, albeit astonishingly, the figure was right.
The bigger issue it seems to me, given that the figures reconciled, was the almost unbelievable amount spent on acquisitions over the past 4 or so years. That indicates the following:
- Firstly that all those seemingly cheap as chips Spanish players actually weren't. The fees involved must have been very very high, negating their good value headline figure. Funnily, that bears out the eventual decision of the board to part ways with Laudrup's agent, who was the middle man in most if not all of these deals.
- Secondly that our urgency to get them off the books at little value was a strange decision, and one that seemingly could be attributed to Monk wanting nothing to do with them. Perhaps we can learn from that and make sure that rifts are never allowed again to make such a dent on our finances, irrespective of strong player pressure.
- Thirdly, we have spent a lot of money in (effectively) purchasing an entire under 21s team - we must be spending out far more on the whole bunch of Hanley, Gorre type players that have come in than has really been understood (by the fans that is).
I personally don't have any issue in the way that the Monk period figures have been shown. The spend is what's important, not the net spend, as it shows quite how much has gone out through the door on largely substandard players (obviously with notable exceptions such as Ayew, Cork and Fab).
Finally, perhaps you would have a more sensible discussion with Phil / Ux etc if your article hadn't been headlined something like 'The Trust are pulling the wool over fans' eyes'. It's designed to be provocative, which is, of course the point, but it'll very understandably put people's backs up - it certainly would mine, if I was a Trust board member. Surely there are very sensible discussions that can be had about the club without resorting to insults and accusations?
In choosing a title such as that you are just giving ammunition to the tinfoil hat brigade - you must be able to see that?
There are far bigger questions that come out of that statement about recruitment and player selection, and even manager selection and how we navigate the waters of the PL in terms of types of signings, and fees, and the merits of 'cheap but expensive' signings vs 'more expensive but cheap' signings (headline vs all extra bits I'm referring to).
Now if there was a fanzine that explored those sorts of matters then that would be well worth a read in my view. An article on whether ultimately the increased TV revenues means that football will be destroyed in this country (because of all these factors) would be interesting. It's easy to create a football fanzine 'redtop' full of gossip and speculation, but there is scope for a really good one.
Just an opinion. |
One of the problems is that Fans do not get to see the breadown of the Accounts, or necessarily understand what they see.
It takes someone like jackonicko to dig it out for us.
We also do not get to see the actual breadown of the up-front costs Vs the Agent's fees Vs the sign on fees Vs the wages, so we can't tell if a player is or isn't good value when we buy or sell him.
Or the delays built in to paying or receiving some of those payments.
Without that it is hard to understand where the cash seems to have mysteriously (apparently) dissapeared to. | | | |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 15:24 - Jan 26 with 2025 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 15:05 - Jan 26 by A_Fans_Dad |
One of the problems is that Fans do not get to see the breadown of the Accounts, or necessarily understand what they see.
It takes someone like jackonicko to dig it out for us.
We also do not get to see the actual breadown of the up-front costs Vs the Agent's fees Vs the sign on fees Vs the wages, so we can't tell if a player is or isn't good value when we buy or sell him.
Or the delays built in to paying or receiving some of those payments.
Without that it is hard to understand where the cash seems to have mysteriously (apparently) dissapeared to. |
It all comes down to trust (rather than 'The Trust'!!) in the people running the club.
Unfortunately, I think that at least some of that trust was eroded over the whole 'American Investors' incident, (compounded in part by the film) and also certain public statements that were made over the Trust's shareholding and, crucially for me at least, the unwillingness of other shareholders to allow the Trust to increase its shareholding.
It was certainly the first time for many, many years, that I found myself unable to trust what was being said by the club, as I felt that episode indicated a swing in priorities from putting the club first to putting individuals first. It may take the passing of time for that trust to be reestablished, it may never be reestablished (I suspect that if we stay up this year, there will be a renewed attempt to monetise at least some of the shareholding and these financial pressures will be used to facilitate that.
However, at the end of the day, it is a privately owned club, and they actually don't need to tell us anything at all - it is completely within their right. They have to publish accounts, and they are now freely available on the companies house website for anyone to download, but you're right that the accounts often don't show crucial pieces of analysis (and why would they - some of it would be commercial suicide to publish).
Perhaps we just need to accept the 'new era' and start seeing the board and the club in the way that fans of virtually every other club see their boards. We are fortunate in that there is at least some level of fan representation on that board, but as has been said on many occasions, it's just one voice, and they can be outvoted on everything if the board are so minded. It is what it is, it is just a shame in some ways that the days of 'by the fans for the fans' are gone, to some extent at least.
Although I have no doubt that the people running the club remain 'fans' it doesn't quite mean what it once did. [Post edited 26 Jan 2016 15:25]
| | | |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 15:24 - Jan 26 with 2024 views | Uxbridge |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 15:05 - Jan 26 by A_Fans_Dad |
One of the problems is that Fans do not get to see the breadown of the Accounts, or necessarily understand what they see.
It takes someone like jackonicko to dig it out for us.
We also do not get to see the actual breadown of the up-front costs Vs the Agent's fees Vs the sign on fees Vs the wages, so we can't tell if a player is or isn't good value when we buy or sell him.
Or the delays built in to paying or receiving some of those payments.
Without that it is hard to understand where the cash seems to have mysteriously (apparently) dissapeared to. |
It's not so much the fans don't get to see the accounts, it's translating that into things laypeople can understand really. Anyone can log onto COmpanies House and download the accounts. It's even free nowadays.
The breakdown of the costs however is not readily available though, and its these hidden costs that really add up. Agents fees are borderline offensive.The staging of payments can be seen in the accounts but only in their entirety .. you can't see what makes up the total.
But yes, totally agree that to understand fully you need to see in much more detail, and even then you'll probably end up asking lots of questions of the people who prepare the accounts! | |
| |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 15:28 - Jan 26 with 2015 views | Uxbridge |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 15:24 - Jan 26 by londonlisa2001 |
It all comes down to trust (rather than 'The Trust'!!) in the people running the club.
Unfortunately, I think that at least some of that trust was eroded over the whole 'American Investors' incident, (compounded in part by the film) and also certain public statements that were made over the Trust's shareholding and, crucially for me at least, the unwillingness of other shareholders to allow the Trust to increase its shareholding.
It was certainly the first time for many, many years, that I found myself unable to trust what was being said by the club, as I felt that episode indicated a swing in priorities from putting the club first to putting individuals first. It may take the passing of time for that trust to be reestablished, it may never be reestablished (I suspect that if we stay up this year, there will be a renewed attempt to monetise at least some of the shareholding and these financial pressures will be used to facilitate that.
However, at the end of the day, it is a privately owned club, and they actually don't need to tell us anything at all - it is completely within their right. They have to publish accounts, and they are now freely available on the companies house website for anyone to download, but you're right that the accounts often don't show crucial pieces of analysis (and why would they - some of it would be commercial suicide to publish).
Perhaps we just need to accept the 'new era' and start seeing the board and the club in the way that fans of virtually every other club see their boards. We are fortunate in that there is at least some level of fan representation on that board, but as has been said on many occasions, it's just one voice, and they can be outvoted on everything if the board are so minded. It is what it is, it is just a shame in some ways that the days of 'by the fans for the fans' are gone, to some extent at least.
Although I have no doubt that the people running the club remain 'fans' it doesn't quite mean what it once did. [Post edited 26 Jan 2016 15:25]
|
I should have pressed send 2 mins later 
Just one thing to add, it'd be a very sad day if we have to accept the scenario you outline in your penultimate paragraph. We should hold our club to a higher standard than other clubs, and call to account if they fall below that. Ditto the Trust. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 15:29 - Jan 26 with 2015 views | Flashberryjack |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 14:56 - Jan 26 by tomdickharry |
Disagree then its all about opinions. |
Opinions are good, questions are good.
The debatable is, are they good opinions ? |  |
| |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 15:48 - Jan 26 with 1997 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 15:28 - Jan 26 by Uxbridge |
I should have pressed send 2 mins later
Just one thing to add, it'd be a very sad day if we have to accept the scenario you outline in your penultimate paragraph. We should hold our club to a higher standard than other clubs, and call to account if they fall below that. Ditto the Trust. |
That's true, but ultimately unless there's provisions in any shareholders' agreement that us mere mortals are unaware of ;-), there is a limit to what pressure can be put on.
My belief, as stated at the time of the American 'Investors' was that the Trust's greatest weapon is PR and the ability to sway public opinion. No one in their right minds will 'invest' in a club where the supporters are all completely against it from the start and the Trust are perceived as 'difficult'. | | | |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 15:57 - Jan 26 with 1984 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 15:00 - Jan 26 by JackSwanTV |
I do see that although I generally get attacked by the 'tin foil hat' brigade no matter what though. I think they like to moan at anything and I'm doing my part for society by giving them ammunition but I can possibly agree that 'fans being misled' wasn't the best use of title.
Definitely sounds like you need to get writing to me......... :) |
With all due respect, the type of discussion I am interested in, will not be found in a fanzine that has 'F*** Off Monk' as its cover page !
You can't now change the type of magazine it is any more than the Sun could suddenly start printing a comprehensive and interesting analysis about the threat of terrorism in Western Europe in place of 'Kylie, aged 19, thinks what happened in Paris was shocking' next to a picture of her t**s. | | | |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 16:02 - Jan 26 with 1980 views | Phil_S |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 14:44 - Jan 26 by londonlisa2001 |
But when I did my back of a fag packet calculation to show what we would have had to spend out on players for the figures to make sense over the whole period, jackonicko confirmed that the published figure in the accounts was almost identical to that which I had come up with. So, albeit astonishingly, the figure was right.
The bigger issue it seems to me, given that the figures reconciled, was the almost unbelievable amount spent on acquisitions over the past 4 or so years. That indicates the following:
- Firstly that all those seemingly cheap as chips Spanish players actually weren't. The fees involved must have been very very high, negating their good value headline figure. Funnily, that bears out the eventual decision of the board to part ways with Laudrup's agent, who was the middle man in most if not all of these deals.
- Secondly that our urgency to get them off the books at little value was a strange decision, and one that seemingly could be attributed to Monk wanting nothing to do with them. Perhaps we can learn from that and make sure that rifts are never allowed again to make such a dent on our finances, irrespective of strong player pressure.
- Thirdly, we have spent a lot of money in (effectively) purchasing an entire under 21s team - we must be spending out far more on the whole bunch of Hanley, Gorre type players that have come in than has really been understood (by the fans that is).
I personally don't have any issue in the way that the Monk period figures have been shown. The spend is what's important, not the net spend, as it shows quite how much has gone out through the door on largely substandard players (obviously with notable exceptions such as Ayew, Cork and Fab).
Finally, perhaps you would have a more sensible discussion with Phil / Ux etc if your article hadn't been headlined something like 'The Trust are pulling the wool over fans' eyes'. It's designed to be provocative, which is, of course the point, but it'll very understandably put people's backs up - it certainly would mine, if I was a Trust board member. Surely there are very sensible discussions that can be had about the club without resorting to insults and accusations?
In choosing a title such as that you are just giving ammunition to the tinfoil hat brigade - you must be able to see that?
There are far bigger questions that come out of that statement about recruitment and player selection, and even manager selection and how we navigate the waters of the PL in terms of types of signings, and fees, and the merits of 'cheap but expensive' signings vs 'more expensive but cheap' signings (headline vs all extra bits I'm referring to).
Now if there was a fanzine that explored those sorts of matters then that would be well worth a read in my view. An article on whether ultimately the increased TV revenues means that football will be destroyed in this country (because of all these factors) would be interesting. It's easy to create a football fanzine 'redtop' full of gossip and speculation, but there is scope for a really good one.
Just an opinion. |
Out of interest Lisa where did you get incomings to be using your back of a fag packet calculation? |  | | |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 16:09 - Jan 26 with 1966 views | monmouth |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 15:57 - Jan 26 by londonlisa2001 |
With all due respect, the type of discussion I am interested in, will not be found in a fanzine that has 'F*** Off Monk' as its cover page !
You can't now change the type of magazine it is any more than the Sun could suddenly start printing a comprehensive and interesting analysis about the threat of terrorism in Western Europe in place of 'Kylie, aged 19, thinks what happened in Paris was shocking' next to a picture of her t**s. |
Don't give him ideas. Wonder what Kylie thinks about the Swans financial management eh JS?
Was going to answer the previous post by saying I too think that the major benefit of the dividend fund held by the trust could be not to purchase future shares but to fund first class PR campaigns and other professional advice. Then I decided I liked the second post better. |  |
| |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 16:12 - Jan 26 with 1952 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 16:02 - Jan 26 by Phil_S |
Out of interest Lisa where did you get incomings to be using your back of a fag packet calculation? |
Just estimates based on what was reported (on average) in the media at the time Phil, so nothing particularly definitive. Just used to establish a 'ball park' type figure rather than cracking open the excel or anything !!
I was pretty surprised that my fag packet seemed to give a figure (in the round - I'm sure that there were ups and downs) that was so close to what the accounts showed to be the case if I'm honest. Either complete coincidence or what gets reported is not far off the truth once you look at sensible reporting rather than the hype. | | | |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 18:03 - Jan 26 with 1869 views | Phil_S |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 16:12 - Jan 26 by londonlisa2001 |
Just estimates based on what was reported (on average) in the media at the time Phil, so nothing particularly definitive. Just used to establish a 'ball park' type figure rather than cracking open the excel or anything !!
I was pretty surprised that my fag packet seemed to give a figure (in the round - I'm sure that there were ups and downs) that was so close to what the accounts showed to be the case if I'm honest. Either complete coincidence or what gets reported is not far off the truth once you look at sensible reporting rather than the hype. |
So would you say the £120m and £75m are ball park correct in your view and pre or post joe Allen sale ? | | | |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 18:33 - Jan 26 with 1843 views | tomdickharry |
With all these figures being bandied about wonder why balance sheet "red flags" and over trading that was quite evident was ignored. | | | |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 18:54 - Jan 26 with 1832 views | monmouth |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 18:33 - Jan 26 by tomdickharry |
With all these figures being bandied about wonder why balance sheet "red flags" and over trading that was quite evident was ignored. |
You still haven't explained what you mean by overtrading in this context, but you keep repeating it again and again like a demented parrot.
Oh and which specific red flags are you worried about? Or are you just quoting Jacko on the latter? Which is a fair enough approach. | |
| |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 19:38 - Jan 26 with 1790 views | tomdickharry |
Now that would be telling. | | | |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 19:40 - Jan 26 with 1789 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 18:03 - Jan 26 by Phil_S |
So would you say the £120m and £75m are ball park correct in your view and pre or post joe Allen sale ? |
Well firstly the calculation I did was a little different to the one given in the statement. I calculated the 'deficit' over the whole period to come up with a spend of about £110m if the 'ins' were approximately £70m. Jacko showed that the accounts showed that to be correct even before signing on fees were included (I had assumed that they must be to come up with that sort of number, but I was incorrect in that assumption). The deficit over the whole PL period including signing fees would be lot higher therefore if my 'ins' figures are even remotely correct.
As for the cut off. Most of the £110m that has been spent is after the cut off stated (that first year excluded is, what £3.5m for Danny, £2m each for Routs and Lita and the odd bits and bobs like a loan fee for Caulker but not much else - say a total of £15m - £20m). So let's say the spend (without signing fees to fit in with the accounts) has been £85m - £90m since that period. We've had in (that we know has to be included) of £25m for Bony, £12m for JJS, £7m for SS21, loan fee for Michu, Nathan and smaller bits. That's an 'in' of c.£48m. Without signing fees, that's a 'deficit' of c. £35m - £40m. Now signing fees (athat have been included according to the statement) must be at least the £20m shown in the accounts as still due (Ayew, Gomis, Fabianski and all the other signings having smaller bits). So Allen / Brendan must be included in the £40m in my view otherwise it would be higher. | | | |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 19:45 - Jan 26 with 1778 views | exiledclaseboy |
What does "overtrading" mean? |  |
| |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 19:54 - Jan 26 with 1765 views | cimlajack |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 19:45 - Jan 26 by exiledclaseboy |
What does "overtrading" mean? |
A situation in which a company is growing it's sales faster than it can finance them.
This usually leads to enormous accounts payable or accounts receivable and a lack of working capital to finance operations. | | | |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 21:59 - Jan 26 with 1653 views | Phil_S |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 19:40 - Jan 26 by londonlisa2001 |
Well firstly the calculation I did was a little different to the one given in the statement. I calculated the 'deficit' over the whole period to come up with a spend of about £110m if the 'ins' were approximately £70m. Jacko showed that the accounts showed that to be correct even before signing on fees were included (I had assumed that they must be to come up with that sort of number, but I was incorrect in that assumption). The deficit over the whole PL period including signing fees would be lot higher therefore if my 'ins' figures are even remotely correct.
As for the cut off. Most of the £110m that has been spent is after the cut off stated (that first year excluded is, what £3.5m for Danny, £2m each for Routs and Lita and the odd bits and bobs like a loan fee for Caulker but not much else - say a total of £15m - £20m). So let's say the spend (without signing fees to fit in with the accounts) has been £85m - £90m since that period. We've had in (that we know has to be included) of £25m for Bony, £12m for JJS, £7m for SS21, loan fee for Michu, Nathan and smaller bits. That's an 'in' of c.£48m. Without signing fees, that's a 'deficit' of c. £35m - £40m. Now signing fees (athat have been included according to the statement) must be at least the £20m shown in the accounts as still due (Ayew, Gomis, Fabianski and all the other signings having smaller bits). So Allen / Brendan must be included in the £40m in my view otherwise it would be higher. |
Interesting because in the "misleading" article it is taken as red that Brendan and Joe Allen weren't included despite them leaving after may 2012 | | | |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 22:39 - Jan 26 with 1603 views | monmouth |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 21:59 - Jan 26 by Phil_S |
Interesting because in the "misleading" article it is taken as red that Brendan and Joe Allen weren't included despite them leaving after may 2012 |
Not by me Phil. I took it as yellow. | |
| |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 22:49 - Jan 26 with 1594 views | Phil_S |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 22:39 - Jan 26 by monmouth |
Not by me Phil. I took it as yellow. |
AH that's worrying as it most definitely was green
Try a re-read you may see the difference  | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
