Risso Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 Bannan must have been on £150K a week. And if he wasn't, he should have been.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isa Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 (edited) I reckon that Dunne, Warnock and part of Ireland's wages is still more than Kozak, Luna, Tonev, Helenius, Okore and Bacuna's wages. In fact, if they were earning roughly £10k each, that'd still be fairly similar to what Dunne was on, I imagine! I doubt any of those are on £10k per week. Especially Kozak, Okore and Tonev. Edited March 5, 2014 by Isa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 I agree about Okore and Kovzak, £4m and £7m players wouldn't come for YTS money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
briny_ear Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Turnover up £3.5m to £84m Of which - gate receipts up £700K, TV money up £2.2m, Sponsorship up £500K, commercial no change, UEFA solidarity down £200K. (Whatever that is) Staff costs UP £2.3m to £72m Impairment of player registrations (ie write off of remaining player values) £6m. Other termination costs £2.2m. Overall loss £51m Heaven knows, I'm miserable now. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danceoftheshamen Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 (edited) Am i correct in thinking though that everything which could possibly be put through during that set of accounts was done to kind of clear the decks once and forall? which kind of makes it look bad but the truth is the clubs finances are now actually quite rosy? But we won't see the on paper evidence of this until next years accounts are published? Coz thats how i'm reading it... And the real facts are the club is now fully self sufficient. Now we also know i believe that the new Premier League money doesn't get paid out completely until the end of the season from what was said during the summer and we also have a large gap set to appear on the wage bill once Hutton, Bent, Given, Delfounso, Nzogbia and a couple of others are cleared out... So there actually will be room for some renewed spending in the summer surely?.. Add to that any funds gained from player sales and you can see the light at the end of the tunnel fast approaching. So with the Norwich win vastly improving our probability of staying up things are actually looking promising in my opinion... Now for a shock win against Chelsea please! Edited March 6, 2014 by danceoftheshamen 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rovers13 Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Risso, does the transfer fees thing include things like agent fees and loyalty bonuses? I have no clue how football accounting works, but maybe that could make up the difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fun Factory Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 I agree about Okore and Kovzak, £4m and £7m players wouldn't come for YTS money. Half a million a year is seen as YTS- football has well and truly eaten itself. How can so many average players earn so much money? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 (edited) Am i correct in thinking though that everything which could possibly be put through during that set of accounts was done to kind of clear the decks once and forall? which kind of makes it look bad but the truth is the clubs finances are now actually quite rosy? But we won't see the on paper evidence of this until next years accounts are published?Coz thats how i'm reading it... And the real facts are the club is now fully self sufficient.I think that you may be reading in to things what you want to see rather than what they may actually be saying. Edited March 6, 2014 by snowychap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danceoftheshamen Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Am i correct in thinking though that everything which could possibly be put through during that set of accounts was done to kind of clear the decks once and forall? which kind of makes it look bad but the truth is the clubs finances are now actually quite rosy? But we won't see the on paper evidence of this until next years accounts are published? Coz thats how i'm reading it... And the real facts are the club is now fully self sufficient. I think that you may be reading in to things what you want to see rather than what they may actually be saying. Maybe so but no harm in a bit of positivity around the gaff, can but hope! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suttonpaul Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 I appreciate that this may be spam to some (so many posts one after another) but here are things I can decipher from the accounts (by all means not all the data just what I understand). FUTURE TRANSFER COSTS as of the 31st May 2013 is £8.4m. This is ALL POSSIBLE payments to be made to other clubs so includes clauses that trigger payments such as appearances, international caps or even money left to be paid for players brought on instalments. All players brought after 31/05/13 wont be included in this cost. TRANSFER SPENDING - This amounted to £18.9m in Summer 2013 (PL Season 2) and £21.7m Summer 2012 (PL Season 1). TRANSFERS RECIEVED - £2.5m in 2012 and £0.6m in 2013 This means Lambert has spent £37.5m net over his two seasons. Someone needs to explain to me and the other none accounts what each of the figures mean for the creditors and amortisation mean as the figure mentioned previously say we wrote off 6.1m but it looks like we wrote off 45.1m? What's this all about? It looks important. STAFF COSTS (All Players, Coaching Staff AND Directors) £61.6m Including national insurance payments which accounts for 7.9m of that. Can someone explain the increase in admin costs from 1.8m 2012 to 15.8m 2013? There are some other bits that could be important but not that I recognise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted March 6, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted March 6, 2014 For goodness sake, the word is BOUGHT. Past tense of "buy" BROUGHT is the past tense of "bring". Sorry, I know this is very petty and off topic, but it's driving me mad! 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cudoz Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 (edited) Sutton Paul - I'll try to decipher below. I appreciate that this may be spam to some (so many posts one after another) but here are things I can decipher from the accounts (by all means not all the data just what I understand). FUTURE TRANSFER COSTS as of the 31st May 2013 is £8.4m. This is ALL POSSIBLE payments to be made to other clubs so includes clauses that trigger payments such as appearances, international caps or even money left to be paid for players brought on instalments. All players brought after 31/05/13 wont be included in this cost. Note 25 of the accounts deals with Contingent Liabilities - i.e. liabilities that could arise if certain, specific, conditions are met in the future. You would not expect this to include amounts left to pay on for a player bought on instalments as the condition surrounding that liability (i.e. you bought the player) has already been met. It would however include amounts due from clauses such as appearances, international caps, European qualification etc. These amounts are not required to be recognised on the face of the balance sheet, but they do need to be disclosed in the accounts. TRANSFER SPENDING - This amounted to £18.9m in Summer 2013 (PL Season 2) and £21.7m Summer 2012 (PL Season 1). The directors report states that £19m of player registrations were acquired. Someone needs to explain to me and the other none accounts what each of the figures mean for the creditors and amortisation mean as the figure mentioned previously say we wrote off 6.1m but it looks like we wrote off 45.1m? What's this all about? It looks important. The £6.1m is an impairment which varies to amortisation. This is to ensure that a players registration is not carried at more than recoverable amount. Amortisation aims to spread the 'cost' over the life of the asset. Impairment aims to reduce the cost to its market, or recoverable, value at that date. The £45.1m figure, taken from note 10 will include amortisation brought forward, amortisation during the year, impairment, less disposals - i.e. when you sell a player you will wipe out his original cost and any accumulated amortisation as at the date you sell him. This will then give you a "value" of the player as at the date of sale, to which you add the transfer fee to work out the profit / (loss) on the transaction. STAFF COSTS (All Players, Coaching Staff AND Directors) £61.6m Including national insurance payments which accounts for 7.9m of that. We now have 1,601 employees (2012 - 1,740) which includes 12 more playing staff or coaches. The other figures are correct. Can someone explain the increase in admin costs from 1.8m 2012 to 15.8m 2013? It might just be my morning brain (or the fact I should actually be working), but I can't see where you've taken this from? Edited March 6, 2014 by cudoz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VillaForever1970 Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 So these accounts basically show that Lerner is still a bastard and Risso should run the accounts because he has all the answers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob182 Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 So these accounts basically show that Lerner is still a bastard and Risso should run the accounts because he has all the answers?No Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob182 Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 I reckon that Dunne, Warnock and part of Ireland's wages is still more than Kozak, Luna, Tonev, Helenius, Okore and Bacuna's wages. In fact, if they were earning roughly £10k each, that'd still be fairly similar to what Dunne was on, I imagine!I doubt any of those are on £10k per week. Especially Kozak, Okore and Tonev.It was hypothetical. But, I can't imagine Luna, Tonev, Bacuna and Helenius are on more than £10k, considering they came from fairly poor leagues. Kozak and Okore, I agree with, maybe they're on around £15-£20k. I still don't think any of this year's signings will be on much more than £20k p/w. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 So these accounts basically show that Lerner is still a bastard and Risso should run the accounts because he has all the answers? No thanks, I couldn't afford the drop in pay. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nigel Posted March 6, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted March 6, 2014 Id love to know how teams like Liverpool are staying afloat. Even with double the merchandising they should be in real trouble, but you dont hear anything like that from them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samjp26 Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Id love to know how teams like Liverpool are staying afloat. Even with double the merchandising they should be in real trouble, but you dont hear anything like that from them. They made a £50m loss didn't they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 STAFF COSTS (All Players, Coaching Staff AND Directors) £61.6m Including national insurance payments which accounts for 7.9m of that.We now have 1,601 employees (2012 - 1,740) which includes 12 more playing staff or coaches. The other figures are correct.Risso's post and your post yesterday said that staff costs were £71.8 million.Which is correct - £71.8m or £61.6m? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KHV Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Id love to know how teams like Liverpool are staying afloat. Even with double the merchandising they should be in real trouble, but you dont hear anything like that from them. They made a £50m loss didn't they? Yeah they did. They have lost £90m in two years! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts