legov Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Reduced season ticket sales Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out how to increase ticket sales and hence revenue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houlston Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 When you see that we are only worse off than the previous results because of compensation and basically one players wages, it really isnt half as bad as the reaction it has got. Furthermore some fees arent even included, added to that the money Lerner has just put in I'd wager we arent far off from breaking even. I also dont see why people are so bothered by it, perhaps if its that much of a concern then why dont the keyboard warriors go to a few more matches and help the club out. Oh no wait a minute we cant do that because we arent competing for 6th spot anymore and McLeish is our manager. I imagine that if we were in the top four right now no one would give too much of a shit about the club losing money. But as we are doing shit then its just something else to moan about and get hysterical over. Football isnt what it used to be and the vast majority of clubs are losing money all over the place. Take Man City, yes they have a much wealthier owner but they are also running at a much higher loss. Also no one really knows what is or isnt included in it and who has been paid what yet we're all happy to jump to conclusions that we know nothing about. I'm much more bothered with whats going on on the pitch than this set of woolly financials. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 I also think it puts to bed any thought that he didn't receive anything from the club in the settlement he got. And thus the club paying him compensation points to the fact that they admitted fault even though he left us. I didn't know anyone thought he didn't get anything. If anything the opinion on here tended to be "he won his case" which is quite wrong. That both the club and MO'N met in the middle suggests very strongly, that both accepted equal fault.With all due respect, no it does not. It suggests that negotiations started , one side made an offer to the other that the other was prepared to accept. The fact that one side had to pay that settlement, or at least thought paying that would save them further costs or else why pay in the first place, sort of suggests that they were in the wrong Whatever it does not suggest that both sides accepted equal fault, it suggests that one side offered an amount the other found acceptable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 I'm much more bothered with whats going on on the pitch than this set of woolly financials. Surely even you can see that what happens off the pitch has a direct correlation to what happens on it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houlston Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 I'm much more bothered with whats going on on the pitch than this set of woolly financials. Surely even you can see that what happens off the pitch has a direct correlation to what happens on it? Thanks for the patronising "even you can see" opener but what is your point? So we do better on the pitch and the revenue increases? And? It wont increase enough unless we get into the CL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveMac Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 When you see that we are only worse off than the previous results because of compensation and basically one players wages, it really isnt half as bad as the reaction it has got. Furthermore some fees arent even included, added to that the money Lerner has just put in I'd wager we arent far off from breaking even. With revenue of £92m and operating expenses of £158m, we are a long way from breaking even. Our staff costs alone were £83m (90% of revenue!!), which while it will reduce over the coming 12 months will still mean we post an operating loss in the next financial period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 When you see that we are only worse off than the previous results because of compensation and basically one players wages, it really isnt half as bad as the reaction it has got. Furthermore some fees arent even included, added to that the money Lerner has just put in I'd wager we arent far off from breaking even. With revenue of £92m and operating expenses of £158m, we are a long way from breaking even. Our staff costs alone were £83m (90% of revenue!!), which while it will reduce over the coming 12 months will still mean we post an operating loss in the next financial period. It also ignores the fact that the previous results were dreadful (as were the ones before that) so "only" being worse off because of compensation is missing the point entirely. As a club we are completely insolvent, which is fine if you're Chelsea or Man Ciy scrapping away for the title and Champions League places, but not so good when you're looking nervously down at the likes of Wolves, with an owner who really hasn't go the first clue as to how to run a football team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houlston Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 When you see that we are only worse off than the previous results because of compensation and basically one players wages, it really isnt half as bad as the reaction it has got. Furthermore some fees arent even included, added to that the money Lerner has just put in I'd wager we arent far off from breaking even. With revenue of £92m and operating expenses of £158m, we are a long way from breaking even. Our staff costs alone were £83m (90% of revenue!!), which while it will reduce over the coming 12 months will still mean we post an operating loss in the next financial period. But again the £25m Randy has put in isnt included and nor are a lot of transfers received. We also have a number of high earners that between January and the summer we have left. Whilst the £25m Randy has put in cant really be counted as revenue it does cover losses so, I bet we arent far off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voinjama Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 I think secretly Randy probably regrets this adventure he started in 2006, he wont admit of course. But the financial and mental strain it has put him on him has probably made him regret it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveMac Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Whilst the £25m Randy has put in cant really be counted as revenue it does cover losses so, I bet we arent far off. You've just countered your own point. Lerner putting money in doesn't mean we're breaking even, it's just means that we can pay our creditors which we wouldn't be able to do if he didn't. If we were solvent that money could have been spent on improving the team, rather than just covering losses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 When you see that we are only worse off than the previous results because of compensation and basically one players wages, it really isnt half as bad as the reaction it has got. Furthermore some fees arent even included, added to that the money Lerner has just put in I'd wager we arent far off from breaking even. With revenue of £92m and operating expenses of £158m, we are a long way from breaking even. Our staff costs alone were £83m (90% of revenue!!), which while it will reduce over the coming 12 months will still mean we post an operating loss in the next financial period. But again the £25m Randy has put in isnt included and nor are a lot of transfers received. We also have a number of high earners that between January and the summer we have left. Whilst the £25m Randy has put in cant really be counted as revenue it does cover losses so, I bet we arent far off.Not being patronising pr having a dig at all but just to ask, do you understdand the accounting procedures involved in the treatment of Lerner's £25M and the player sales? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob182 Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Is the £50 million the total debt or the loss for that finatual year? As it dosent make any sence to me, but I'm No expert. I can't tell whether you're joking or not... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 If we were solvent that money could have been spent on improving the team or getting rid of the useless clown managing it which now we cannot afford to do, rather than just covering losses. Fixed for you Risso Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houlston Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Whilst the £25m Randy has put in cant really be counted as revenue it does cover losses so, I bet we arent far off. You've just countered your own point. Lerner putting money in doesn't mean we're breaking even, it's just means that we can pay our creditors which we wouldn't be able to do if he didn't. If we were solvent that money could have been spent on improving the team, rather than just covering losses. And how do you think ManCity will cope? Because their owner will do the exact same thing. Just like every single club who dont have a wealthy owner will either issue shares, take out a loan or refinance the debt. I really dont know what people expect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Cheers Rich! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted February 29, 2012 Moderator Share Posted February 29, 2012 I also think it puts to bed any thought that he didn't receive anything from the club in the settlement he got. And thus the club paying him compensation points to the fact that they admitted fault even though he left us. I didn't know anyone thought he didn't get anything. If anything the opinion on here tended to be "he won his case" which is quite wrong. That both the club and MO'N met in the middle suggests very strongly, that both accepted equal fault.With all due respect, no it does not. It suggests that negotiations started , one side made an offer to the other that the other was prepared to accept. The fact that one side had to pay that settlement, or at least thought paying that would save them further costs or else why pay in the first place, sort of suggests that they were in the wrong Whatever it does not suggest that both sides accepted equal fault, it suggests that one side offered an amount the other found acceptable. If that's what you want to have suggested to you, then that's fine. It's not the only, or the most logical conclusion. When 2 parties start off "you owe me a full years pay off, you forced me to go" versus "we owe you nothing, you resigned" and end up meeting in the middle, it is the case that both parties have accepted that they are in part right and in part wrong. To me your analysis is the polar opposite extreme of the one that would say "One side persistently claiming entitlement for full salary, over and over then dropped that claim, instead effectively saying "well just give me something, then, and I'll go stop pestering you" " . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houlston Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Not being patronising pr having a dig at all but just to ask, do you understdand the accounting procedures involved in the treatment of Lerner's £25M and the player sales? No I dont Richard, I just choose to comment on it and pretend I know all the ins and outs just like nearly every single poster on this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Whilst the £25m Randy has put in cant really be counted as revenue it does cover losses so, I bet we arent far off. You've just countered your own point. Lerner putting money in doesn't mean we're breaking even, it's just means that we can pay our creditors which we wouldn't be able to do if he didn't. If we were solvent that money could have been spent on improving the team, rather than just covering losses. And how do you think ManCity will cope? Because their owner will do the exact same thing. Just like every single club who dont have a wealthy owner will either issue shares, take out a loan or refinance the debt. I really dont know what people expect.Their owner's wealth puts them in a completely different position. That is he can afford to cover it. Ours cannot afford a pot to piss in currently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denis_B Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Well the accounts still aren't available via Companies House so we will have to keep on guessing about some things. What it does show is we have bee nfinancially mismanaged over the last few years and RL has to take the blame for that or is it his mate Daniel Berick (High FlyingUS Lawyer, Company Secretary for RAL Realty and RL's general Factotum) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts