Port Vale CEO Matt Hancock has responded to several questions on the club’s finances raised by this website.
In February, OVF editor Rob Fielding published an opinion piece called “Opinion: Port Vale’s huge debts are a mounting concern” which (as the title suggests) raised concerns of his about the club’s mounting loans. Comments on the piece from other fans largely echoed those concerns. The piece (which you can read in full here) also posed several questions for the club. Those questions have now been asked of the CEO who has replied to each one.
We are grateful to Matt Hancock for taking the time to respond. Here are our questions and his answers in full…
The concerns
What points were raised in the opinion piece? To give context to the following questions…
Firstly, the article pointed out that several other clubs such as Shrewsbury Town (who produce a document fans can download) and Stoke City produce an explanatory document when they announce their accounts. This is a summary of spending and income – to give fans a better idea of what has caused the profit or loss. Rob wanted to propose this idea to the Valiants, so fans at least have the background of the club’s financial performance. This formed question one below.
For the second question, the article looked at staffing numbers for clubs and found that Port Vale had many more staff than other clubs including Shrewsbury, Walsall, Crewe and even Championship neighbours Stoke City. This formed question two below.
The final question is fairly obvious – with total loans now over £14m (with over £7m added in the last two financial years alone) this seems unsustainable and Rob wanted to know what plans are in place to address and stop those losses. This formed question three below.
Q&A with the CEO
So, with those points in mind, here are the questions we asked Matt Hancock and his replies.
RF: The club has reported losses of around £7m for the last two financial years. There may be a reasonable reason for that amount but we fans cannot tell. Will Vale consider producing a summary and analysis of the annual accounts as Stoke, Walsall and Shrewsbury do?
MH: The club hasn’t traditionally produced a separate summary alongside the statutory accounts because they are published in full and available publicly. That said, we appreciate that the raw accounts don’t always provide much narrative context.
I’m happy to include more explanation in an upcoming CEO update to give supporters a clearer picture of what sits behind the figures and where money has been invested. Open communication is important to us, and we’ve tried to show that through my monthly updates to supporters and engagement with the Supporter Advisory Board. If additional context helps supporters better understand the direction of travel, that’s something we’re comfortable providing.
RF: In a similar vein to the first question, can the club provide an explanation on why the staffing numbers are so much higher than several other clubs?
MH: On the question around staffing, the headline figure in the accounts can be misleading. Unlike some other clubs, ours includes all casual and ad-hoc workers across the year, including those who may only work occasional matchdays and, in some cases, individuals who haven’t yet been formally removed from payroll records. It is not representative purely of full-time staff in the way figures are often interpreted – the ‘actual’ figure is closer to 150, both full and part-time, including playing staff.
I’d add to that by saying that many areas that other clubs outsource are handled in-house at Vale Park. Our kiosk staff, hospitality teams and the vast majority of stewards are employed directly by the club rather than through external agencies. Other clubs often show lower numbers because those roles sit with third-party contractors and therefore don’t appear in their staffing totals. We’ve chosen this model because it gives us greater control over the matchday experience and helps us maintain the standards we want supporters to receive, and I do feel it’s having the desired impact when we review our ‘family excellence’ performance, for example.
RF: Club debts are around £14m at the moment and clearly losing around £3.5m a year for the last two years means it is only increasing. What are the club’s plans to decrease the losses?
MH: Lastly, on controlling any losses, this is a wider issue across football. As I’m sure you know, most clubs at our level rely heavily on owner funding and the current financial landscape makes breaking even extremely difficult. That’s one of the reasons we support financial reform and more sustainable models within the game.
The main driver of the Shanahans’ investment has been the first team and that remains the case, as already reflected in significant recruitment spending. Since taking over, they have also invested millions into infrastructure to bring facilities up to a compliant and appropriate standard, including major improvements across the stadium and training environment. Many of these less glamorous projects were necessary given the condition of those assets at the point of takeover, and I’ve recently alluded to further significant investment into the pitch this summer.
Alongside that, we’re actively working on increasing revenues across commercial activity, events, partnerships and matchday operations so that we become less dependent on owner funding over time. Sustainability is a clear focus, but in the current climate, owner support remains essential. You’ll be aware that, as an example, we’ve frozen season ticket prices since 2023 despite rising operational costs, so the challenge for us is balancing these things against that need for sustainability moving forward.
We welcome your comments and thoughts on this Q&A. Post your comment below.
These responses sound very similar to those of a politician, they tell you nothing. If the club owes in the region of £14m to £15m to The Shanahans, how does it propose to pay this off if they decided that they wanted to sell up. No buyer would surely want to pay for the club plus all that debt. He talks a good talk.
I agree with Phil, my initial thought before I read his post was “this sounds like a politician” who is using words to fill space without actually saying very much. The answer about the number of staff was clear, why can he not give clear answers to the other questions?
If the majority of Carol’s investment has gone into the first team then it is an absolute tale of woe, to spend all that money to have made very little progress. Had the answer been that a huge amount of the spend been on capital expenditure to improve facilities I would have been happy but his answer is saying the bulk is on revenue expenditure for the first team. I will await to see the further publication of financial information that has been promised. I see there is no mention of academy spending and costs, does the CEO really think that this is part of first team expenditure? More light and focus on your replies please Mr Hancock. I appreciate that he may be working to a brief from Carol about how much to say.
This reply raises more questions than it answers
He can’t win can he? He comes out to answer the questions Rob raises, and is pilloried “for saying nothing” and accused of “talking a good talk”. What else is he supposed to do? How about suggesting he is saying it exactly like it is? How about giving the man some credit for being open and honest? His answers make sense:
1 – If you want the information presented in that format, we are happy to do so and will do it. And you’ve had the chance to ask this question at all the supporters club meetings I’ve been to and haven’t by the way…and didn’t. But don’t let that stop your mock outrage at an apparent “lack of transparency”.
2 – We use our own staff and don’t contract out like other clubs do, which is why it looks higher – and many of them are part time too. I can’t believe the club would deliberately over spend on staffing either, given our finances, but it’s easy to compare to others who do it differently.
3 – The Shanahans have spent necessary money on making us legally compliant and improving facilities, as well as spending most of it on players. Most right minded fans can see the former, and are frustrated that the latter hasn’t worked this season in making us competitive at this level on the pitch. And again, they can’t win can they? If they don’t spend the money on the players, they will be accused of selling us short and lacking ambition, and when they do spend the money we turn round and suggest that they are racking up debt that will make us less attractive to a prospective buyer further down the line.
So many bar stool experts who know how to run this club better – if they go down to the club and form an orderly queue to offer their wisdom and services free of charge, we’ll be in the Premiership in no time.
Bang on Ken. 99% of fans talk a great game (like we always moan re Hancock) but in reality in a similar position would do similar as would come across the same constraints. We are simply a league 1 or league 2 club and lucky we have owners that fund a business that if ran sustainable, would be on the same budgets as most non league and league 2 clubs. As I’ve said before, you need billions not millions these days
Very well said, both Ken and Peter.
As previously posted on the OVF forum, it is clear that Carol and Kevin are continuing to put major investment into our club solely for the benefit of the club and its supporters, with no prospect of ever getting most of that investment back.
As well as putting in so much of their time and efforts to build up our club, while also dealing with the demands and stresses of running a very difficult (and in some ways irrational) business such as a football club.
I believe that most Vale supporters very much appreciate and are grateful for all that they do.
So I hope that Carol and Kevin understand how much they are valued by the majority of Vale supporters.
Well done Mr Hancock, it took you 6 days to come up with that rubbish telling us nothing. Alls you needed to do was- gate receipts are £, corporate match day receipts are £, None match day corporate receipts are £, shop receipts are £, sponsorship and advertising receipts are £, TV and media income is £, Tea bar and refreshment receipts are £, Car parking receipts are £, Incoming Transfer receipts are £, AND SIMILAR for out going, (how much have all these redundancies cost us). Then everyone would understand WHY you are loosing so much more money than anyone else. Wouldn’t that be easier than coming out with the Trollope we’ve had to read. Also when you go on about other clubs using third party match day staff, if that’s the cheapest way to do it why don’t Port Vale. Your excuse of managing your own staffing levels could highlight why everyone thinks we are over staffed in every department, including on the field of play. (That’s the football pitch to you). Also to Ken are you Hancock’s father? You go on about bringing facilities up to legal standards. After taking the toilets out of use at the Baycars End of the Railway Paddock to give to the Anyway supporters, the toilets at the Hamil Road end of the Railway Paddock were condemned and closed, (leaving 2-3000 vale fans having to pee In bucks on the car park). These toilets were condemned 4-5years after the Shanahans had purchased the club. There wasn’t much effort keeping these up to legal standards, and what exactly does the Ground Maintenance Manager do to allow them fall into this condemned state. Also your statement “Most right minded fans can see the former, and are frustrated by the later” YOU ARE Mr HANCOCK’S DAD!!! To Peter, yes we are a league ONE club at best, but ask yourself this- why are so many other teams able to make a much better job of it, and loose far less money??