Club accounts

[Loggerheads Sage]

Always seems to be to be many many more stewards than there used to be. Probably even more post Ted 

[Houston Valiant]

1 hour ago, Loggerheads Sage said:

Always seems to be to be many many more stewards than there used to be. Probably even more post Ted 

I doubt that any of the additional stewards could catch him. 🤣

[JoeB2]

12 hours ago, TJHValiant said:

The interest may not be owed to Carol, it is owed to the creditors. My point is, it is the club in debt, not Carol personally. If it all goes wrong, the club goes bust, not Carol. 
 

Nothing sinister about that, it’s the case with any business but the idea she is some saviour putting herself on the line for Vale is wide of the mark. 

There is a tiny proportion of the debt owed to Barclays.

The vast, vast majority of the debt is owed to companies owned by the Shanahans (8.5m worth), interest free, which she’ll never recoup. Without these loans the club goes under. If we do go under, she loses the money she paid for the club (5m) and the money she’s loaned us since. 

It’s really hard to grasp why you’re so insistent on downplaying how grateful we should be to her. 

 

[Biddulph_PV]

18 hours ago, MelbourneValiant said:

Why aren't the FA doing something about this. If every team is losing millions chasing success while the Prem makes billions then something is seriously wrong with football. When the likes of Man City can buy a 100 players for the youth policy of which most will be cast aside instead of being blooded at a lower level, it smacks of pure greed. Football is shot, it is an awful industry. 

 

Exactly this. English football is inherently flawed if every single club is losing money. And we all know why. Wages have been blown ridiculously out of proportion. We can blame Man City - and how I would love the 115 charges to stick - but really Jack Walker and Blackburn were the start of this in the PL era (I know it’s always been around to some degree, Sunderland were once notorious for it I think). The guy knew he was on his way out, sold his Steele plant for £ millions, and wanted to see his club win something. Genie out of the bottle. 

Who knows what the answer is. The simple argument is that clubs should only be able to spent the income they generate through bonafide trading, not through spurious equity injections (i.e. ridiculous OTT money paid for sponsor/naming rights), debt-for-equity swaps and the like. But how is, say, an Accrington with 2,000 average gates supposed to complete with a Man Utd whose MATCH-DAY income for ONE game is greater than their entire playing budget for probably a season and a half? Organically, with player trading and reinvestment? Expanded corporate work? 

[JoeB2]

Confirmation for those who are refusing to accept it - the Shanahans have been loaning us 65k a week to keep us alive.

 

[JoeB2]

We are basically entirely dependent on Carol’s goodwill.

Something for us to reflect on - I’ll definitely be keeping it in mind when I air my frustrations.

[JoeB2]

[JoeB2]

10 minutes ago, JoeB2 said:

Confirmation for those who are refusing to accept it - the Shanahans have been loaning us 65k a week to keep us alive.

 

Sorry, losses are 65k a week. Loans over 55k a week.

[Brian Johnson]

27 minutes ago, JoeB2 said:

How misinformed Andy Holt is.

No one is giving the owners stick

[NW9Valiant]

2 hours ago, Biddulph_PV said:

Who knows what the answer is. The simple argument is that clubs should only be able to spent the income they generate through bonafide trading, not through spurious equity injections (i.e. ridiculous OTT money paid for sponsor/naming rights), debt-for-equity swaps and the like. But how is, say, an Accrington with 2,000 average gates supposed to complete with a Man Utd whose MATCH-DAY income for ONE game is greater than their entire playing budget for probably a season and a half? Organically, with player trading and reinvestment? Expanded corporate work? 

I don't think there really is an answer, short of football clubs and leagues all sharing revenue equally. If you were designing a fresh 'league' from scratch where no teams existed, the number of professional sides created in it wouldn't reach half of what is currently in the Football League if they also had to be solvent. 

So as for how Accrington are supposed to compete; they aren't. In any other business they (and a number of others) would just simply stop trading without their owners. I imagine things would be even worse if transfer fees were also illegal as well. 

There's a lot of money in football but at the same time, there also isn't. Some players make basically nothing as it is, when football is a 10-15 year career and that money is supposed to set people up for life after that.

Edited April 13 by NW9Valiant

[NW9Valiant]

Just now, Brian Johnson said:

How misinformed Andy Holt is.

No one is giving the owners stick

Other than a few on here basically demanding even more money put into the club to fund a striker or whatever, no. 

And I suppose that open letter made Carol a bit of a meme until Flitcroft went.

[Mellor!]

So we're losing top half League 1 money, to be potentially relegated from League 1. 

Cheers Dave.

Edited April 13 by Mellor!

[JoeB2]

30 minutes ago, Brian Johnson said:

How misinformed Andy Holt is.

No one is giving the owners stick

There’s one lad repeatedly calling her comedy Carol.

It’s the minority but it exists.

[JRC]

If the person who claimed to be "in the know" was correct (don't believe he was for one minute) that we had the 4th lowest wages in league 1 just imagine some of the losses yet to be announced. The results for this season will be at least as bad. The vast majority of supporters can only dream of earning one weeks loss in a year.

Clubs are loaded up on debt which they can never hope to repay. As clubs go to roll over they will be faced with an additional 3% interest as a minimum. In reality probably more as this size of loss is probably about par in league 1 and lenders will want a significant risk premium. At some point in the next 2 seasons I'd anticipate 3 or 4 clubs at least doing a Bury. Really it mirrors a lot of economies around the world. Global debt has risen from 210 to 312 trillion USD in a decade. In the run up to 2007 there was debt fueled global expansion which came crashing down spectacularly precipitated by the US mortgage crisis. The scale of the increase in recent years makes that rise look insignificant.  I suspect there is a very good reason why the rich are increasingly buying gold and reducing their wealth in stocks and shares.

[JRC]

47 minutes ago, Mellor! said:

So we're losing top end League 1 money, to be potentially relegated from League 1. 

Cheers Dave.

We aren't making top end loses just the norm for this league, but we don't have top end revenue. Peterborough lost more than us but get 30% bigger gates, so they spend a lot more on wages. Portsmouth lose about 3m but they have triple our gates. Everyone is overspending by about the same amount. The smaller clubs loses are just much bigger as a percentage of revenue while there wage bills are still much smaller as they have a lot less revenue.