100%Red&White Posted 7 April, 2011 Share Posted 7 April, 2011 It does make the decision not to have a sponsor this season look somewhat financially extravagant. And also the lack of desire to get the place as full as possible with Season Ticket holders. Still, if finances do get a bit tight they've always got OXO as a safety net. And Lallana. And Fonte.............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 7 April, 2011 Share Posted 7 April, 2011 I thought we covered everything with our big crowds...so the experts like romsey saints told us.... He was a right genius.... with expert marketing skills and finger on the pulse at SFC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Marco Posted 7 April, 2011 Share Posted 7 April, 2011 When your owner gives money to a club don't they always say it is written down as a loan rather then a donation? Using Abramovich as an example here. When he gives money to the club it goes down as a "loan from Chelsea Ltd". Which in the 08-09 report was at £369m. Seeing as they spent loads of cash since then i.e Torres would expect that to be a lot higher now. Point being just because it says the words loan does not mean it has to be paid back. The fact it states "more then five years" does not actually indicate when/if it has to be paid back. More then five years could be 500 years. The way i see it that is just a donation to help with the running costs of the club. Not a true debt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
once_bitterne Posted 7 April, 2011 Share Posted 7 April, 2011 with expert marketing skills and finger on the pulse at SFC Think yourself lucky. After he was banned from here he took up residence on Nick Illingsworth's Ugly forum and has been so utterly dull and repetitive over there that about 50 forum regulars have set up their own forum just to get away from him. He's having a field day on this subject tho as I am sure you can imagine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 7 April, 2011 Share Posted 7 April, 2011 NC said last summer that markus was "funding" the club...it has been clear pretty much that we have been spending more than we make....this is of no surprise what so ever..despite so many not listening Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chez Posted 7 April, 2011 Share Posted 7 April, 2011 But the sum made from the Cortese ticket tax is probably a drop in the ocean compared with these losses. As others have alluded to, it can't just be the likes of Lambert and Fonte who were on big money last season. Kelvin Davis' decision to turn down West Ham may now make more sense, for example. Everything pale into insignificance compared to wages. I would be interested to know how much the ticket tax brings in over the year though. Ignoring away fans that I don't think have to pay the tax, there are roughly 5000 non season ticket sales every home game. Let's say of them 3000 pay the tax, that's £9000 a home game = £207,000 a year. 1500 away fans on average, so lets say 1000 or so pay, that's £3000 per game. £69,000 a year. I don't know the sponsorship fee but if I said it was £277,000 a year would that be a million miles off? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
once_bitterne Posted 7 April, 2011 Share Posted 7 April, 2011 When your owner gives money to a club don't they always say it is written down as a loan rather then a donation? Using Abramovich as an example here. When he gives money to the club it goes down as a "loan from Chelsea Ltd". Which in the 08-09 report was at £369m. Seeing as they spent loads of cash since then i.e Torres would expect that to be a lot higher now. Point being just because it says the words loan does not mean it has to be paid back. The fact it states "more then five years" does not actually indicate when/if it has to be paid back. More then five years could be 500 years. The way i see it that is just a donation to help with the running costs of the club. Not a true debt. That's my understanding, tho we could do with an accountant to confirm! Forgetting the intial 'loan' the accounts show the club is running on a day by day loss so, considering the bills are all being paid, the money over and above our revenue must be coming from the Liebherr's pockets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasoneuelllfanclub Posted 7 April, 2011 Share Posted 7 April, 2011 If ML made a donation then i think he would have had to pay gift tax therefore by "loaning" money it is seen as an investment therfore not taxable. It could be agreed that we dont actually have to pay the debt back therefore will eventually get written off. I could be wrong but that's how I see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuz Posted 7 April, 2011 Share Posted 7 April, 2011 That's my understanding, tho we could do with an accountant to confirm! Forgetting the intial 'loan' the accounts show the club is running on a day by day loss so, considering the bills are all being paid, the money over and above our revenue must be coming from the Liebherr's pockets. Exactly. There may be several reasons why the owners wish to lend a club money rather than give it. The inter company loan, for example, may reduce a tax burden within another company. Abramovich started by loaning Chelsea money which was then partly converted into share equity http://www.soccerticketsonline.com/chelsea-lost-66-million-last-year/ Regarding the wage bill, 12.3 million equates to around £400,000 per player in a 30 man squad, assuming the club only employs players (which we know it does not). If we guess that £1.5 million of this figure goes to other employees (a total guess) we are left with a player salary bill (including tax and NI) of around £10.8 million in the year in question. This works out at an average of £360,000 per player (assuming 30 player squads) or around £7k per week per player. This does not overly surprise me but then five years ago I knew a League One player coming to the end of his career, playing for a very unfashionable team who was on £5k per week. And this was not a star striker, it was an average journeyman right back... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintjay77 Posted 7 April, 2011 Share Posted 7 April, 2011 Every single company has to publish its accounts. This "private/public" myth on here is a red herring. Ah fair enough, makes sense although I now dont understand why such a big deal was made about publishing the accounts when we were a PLC under Rupes n Co? Still, could much of this be accounted by the pre Markus days? Or is it expected that more was spent at the biggining to get us back to a suitable level? The outgoings on bringing players in is allot less this year than last although we are expected to pay out allot on the training ground shortly so the next lot of accounts might not be pretty either? Promotion this year is the only way any extra spend can be justified as the revenue must go up quite a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthamSteve Posted 7 April, 2011 Share Posted 7 April, 2011 Ah fair enough, makes sense although I now dont understand why such a big deal was made about publishing the accounts when we were a PLC under Rupes n Co? Still, could much of this be accounted by the pre Markus days? Or is it expected that more was spent at the biggining to get us back to a suitable level? The outgoings on bringing players in is allot less this year than last although we are expected to pay out allot on the training ground shortly so the next lot of accounts might not be pretty either? Promotion this year is the only way any extra spend can be justified as the revenue must go up quite a bit. That's what I was thinking, somewhere earlier in the midsts of this thread someone pointed out that these figure come to June 2010. So if it was covering the year previous it might have a slight hangover. It's probably best to sit tight and really pull-apart the next ones that are released. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 7 April, 2011 Share Posted 7 April, 2011 I find this set of figures worrying. The takeover was supposed to leave us debt-free, but it seems there is still over 14m debt oustanding from it. And we are operating at a loss as well. Financially, we havent moved on at all. I dont get those saying "this means we must win promotion". So, great, a bit more TV money, but the wages will sky-rocket as we try to maintain our hard-fought new level... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 7 April, 2011 Share Posted 7 April, 2011 like I said... we were told money was being "put in" by markus etc ages ago...why are people so surprised..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 7 April, 2011 Share Posted 7 April, 2011 I find this set of figures worrying. The takeover was supposed to leave us debt-free, but it seems there is still over 14m debt oustanding from it. And we are operating at a loss as well. Financially, we havent moved on at all. I dont get those saying "this means we must win promotion". So, great, a bit more TV money, but the wages will sky-rocket as we try to maintain our hard-fought new level... Have you read the comments in this thread about possible reasons for the "debt"? It is not "a bit more" TV money in the Championship compared to League One. It is roughly £4m more, plus you also get a lot more in the way of solidarity payments, sponsorship money, advertising money, more away fans at St Mary's, more home fans at St Mary's etc etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthamSteve Posted 7 April, 2011 Share Posted 7 April, 2011 (edited) I find this set of figures worrying. The takeover was supposed to leave us debt-free, but it seems there is still over 14m debt oustanding from it. And we are operating at a loss as well. Financially, we havent moved on at all. I dont get those saying "this means we must win promotion". So, great, a bit more TV money, but the wages will sky-rocket as we try to maintain our hard-fought new level... Could be anything though, from policing to painting the doors. I really wouldn't worry as every company owes cash in some way or another and 14m isn't bad at all. - Just proves that we need to get up and out asap. Edited 7 April, 2011 by NorthamSteve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goalie66 Posted 7 April, 2011 Share Posted 7 April, 2011 I must be a bit thick as I didn't realise privately owned business have to publically publsh accounts. What period does this cover Steve? You do if you are Limited Liability company registered in the UK for Tax and NI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Saint Posted 7 April, 2011 Share Posted 7 April, 2011 I think there are a few key points to look at on our accounts: In January there was talk of AOC going for £10m, should this be the case then that loss would be changed to a profit (granted the whole amount would not be paid upfront but this puts things slightly into perspective). We have £2m in the bank therefore cashflow seems to be managed significantly better than before, perhaps a little too cautious. These accounts are based on the end of last season and our attendances this season have been higher once again therefore Match day revenue will continue to increase. Also if you consider that most football clubs make a loss (Arsenal being one of the few exceptions) we are not doing too badly considering the financial backing that we have. Overal I think one of the big plus points from these accounts is there is a clear indication that there is continuing support from the Liebherr family which is what we want to see as fans: "Going Concern Although the company is reporting a loss for the year and has significant net liabilities, its principle indebtedness at the year end was to its parent company and shareholder. (Liebherr family) The parent company Director (NC) has received assurances from the controlling party that funds will be made available as and when they are required to fund commitments for the foreseeable future. The company financing is inextrinicably linked with that of its parent company. Accordingly the Directors consider it appropriate to prepare the accounts on a going concern basis (in laymans terms they intend to trade for the next 12 months)"The "going concern" statement puts it into prospective. I am confortable with where we are and what is meant by that statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docker-p Posted 7 April, 2011 Share Posted 7 April, 2011 NC's salary is enormous. £650K for a company the size of Saints is breathtaking. Good work fella. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonnyLove Posted 7 April, 2011 Share Posted 7 April, 2011 It does make the decision not to have a sponsor this season look somewhat financially extravagant. I don't think the £125K that Flybe was paying would of made much of a difference Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joey-deacons-left-nut Posted 7 April, 2011 Share Posted 7 April, 2011 I find this set of figures worrying. The takeover was supposed to leave us debt-free, but it seems there is still over 14m debt oustanding from it. And we are operating at a loss as well. Financially, we havent moved on at all. I dont get those saying "this means we must win promotion". So, great, a bit more TV money, but the wages will sky-rocket as we try to maintain our hard-fought new level... Are you really that thick??? The aim is to get back to the Premiership. To do that we have to imrpove the playing squad etc to get back there. This will mean spending more money than we get in. However, once you get in the Premiership the plan (may be) is to start generating revenue, this will wipe out the previous years debts. Hence we have a 5 year plan. The "loans" are just a tax efficient way (For Markus) of funneling funds into the club. I'd imagine the gov. will eventually start cracking down on these types of loans soon (I wonder how much the tax man has lost out on Abramovichs for instance) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joey-deacons-left-nut Posted 7 April, 2011 Share Posted 7 April, 2011 And before you start, the difference between us now and what happened at Pompey is that we have a clear business plan on how tostart generating revenue, wheras Pompey blatantly had no idea how it was going to cover it's outgoings and basically stuck it's head in the sand whilst still continuing to spunk cash left,right and centre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 7 April, 2011 Author Share Posted 7 April, 2011 NC's salary is enormous. £650K for a company the size of Saints is breathtaking. Good work fella. Where is that listed? Can't find it in the copy I've got here... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonnyLove Posted 7 April, 2011 Share Posted 7 April, 2011 (edited) To put it in Perspective. Tottenham Lost £10m last year (First time in a very long time they made a loss). Is anyone worried. No. BA & BT make massive losses one year but make large ones in others it comes down to what is going on behind the scenes. Think of all the work that went into the club in the last 12 months from June to June and then this will show why we made a loss. As I said we will probably make another one this year but it won't be as bad. You can run at a loss as long as your paying your bills (We are) and you have Cash, investment to cover the losses. This is how businesses are run. If you notice we made losses and we still have a few mill in the bank. Edited 7 April, 2011 by JonnyLove Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doddisalegend Posted 7 April, 2011 Share Posted 7 April, 2011 To put it in Perspective. Tottenham Lost £10 last year (First time in a very long time they made a loss). Is anyone worried. No. BA & BT make massive losses one year but make large ones in others it comes down to what is going on behind the scenes. Think of all the work that went into the club in the last 12 months from June to June and then this will show why we made a loss. As I said we will probably make another one this year but it won't be as bad. You can run at a loss as long as your paying your bills (We are) and you have Cash, investment to cover the losses. This is how businesses are run. If you notice we made losses and we still have a few mill in the bank. Really? 10 quid or are there supposed to be be some 0000s on there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sour Mash Posted 7 April, 2011 Share Posted 7 April, 2011 And before you start, the difference between us now and what happened at Pompey is that we have a clear business plan on how tostart generating revenue, wheras Pompey blatantly had no idea how it was going to cover it's outgoings and basically stuck it's head in the sand whilst still continuing to spunk cash left,right and centre. Great to hear. Where can I get a copy of this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 7 April, 2011 Share Posted 7 April, 2011 Great to hear. Where can I get a copy of this? why on earth would you need a copy..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 7 April, 2011 Share Posted 7 April, 2011 Don't companies running at a loss pay less tax than those running as a profit....? Make of that what you will..... ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 7 April, 2011 Share Posted 7 April, 2011 p.s. Have Pompey filed their accounts for the same period yet....? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 7 April, 2011 Share Posted 7 April, 2011 Anyone know what this bit under 'Long Term Creditors' means? "Amounts owed to group undertakings £6m" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintjay77 Posted 7 April, 2011 Share Posted 7 April, 2011 I find this set of figures worrying. The takeover was supposed to leave us debt-free, but it seems there is still over 14m debt oustanding from it. And we are operating at a loss as well. Financially, we havent moved on at all. I dont get those saying "this means we must win promotion". So, great, a bit more TV money, but the wages will sky-rocket as we try to maintain our hard-fought new level... Could we already be paying championship wages to our league 1 players? If so there might not be as much of a rocket for salary's next season for our current squad and the extra revenue will ballance it out. If thats the case then its clear to see why this year is the deadline for getting promoted as I doubt any club sticking to a decent business model would budget for wages to remain based on the league aboves income for too long. The budget may have been to spend big to get us up 1 level and to compete there. Promotion 1st year would have been a bonus but promotion the 2nd year would be vital. A year in the Championship with the current squad and maybe a couple of additions would put us into the next phaze of possible spending to get us into the Prem and by then our 1st class academy would be starting to feed us a better stream of youngsters backed up with a few good signings. On paper it makes sense but in practice its not my money being played with and things hardly ever go as planned in football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintjay77 Posted 7 April, 2011 Share Posted 7 April, 2011 p.s. Have Pompey filed their accounts for the same period yet....? Now there would be a comparrison for spending within or without means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 7 April, 2011 Share Posted 7 April, 2011 p.s. Have Pompey filed their accounts for the same period yet....? That company was liquidated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crab Lungs Posted 7 April, 2011 Share Posted 7 April, 2011 Could the director be Crouch pre-takeover? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lallana's Left Peg Posted 7 April, 2011 Share Posted 7 April, 2011 If money was an issue for this club I doubt we'd be paying £125k for 17 year olds from other Academies. Cortese clearly feels he has the backing from the owners and the medium-long term plan is still being executed. A loss like this is only an issue for the owner of the club, and they would know about the figures well in advance of them being published today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 7 April, 2011 Share Posted 7 April, 2011 That company was liquidated. Ah. Yes. I forgot that minor detail! :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 7 April, 2011 Share Posted 7 April, 2011 NC's salary is enormous. £650K Source? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
holepuncture Posted 7 April, 2011 Share Posted 7 April, 2011 When your owner gives money to a club don't they always say it is written down as a loan rather then a donation? Using Abramovich as an example here. When he gives money to the club it goes down as a "loan from Chelsea Ltd". Which in the 08-09 report was at £369m. Seeing as they spent loads of cash since then i.e Torres would expect that to be a lot higher now. Point being just because it says the words loan does not mean it has to be paid back. The fact it states "more then five years" does not actually indicate when/if it has to be paid back. More then five years could be 500 years. The way i see it that is just a donation to help with the running costs of the club. Not a true debt. That is the way I was looking at it, the debt could be converted into equity in a period of 5ish years. 14m of debt sounds like the takeover price. The Liebherrs will be repaid as and when possible, or, if as Markus's wishes, to be written off one day. I heard this time last year that a £50m trust fund was put in place when ML took over, no idea if there was any substance to it, but it would make a nice 5year 'to the prem' style budget! Don't companies running at a loss pay less tax than those running as a profit....? Make of that what you will..... ;-) Well, you would be paying tax on your profits and so on! One thing we can be sure on, NC knows his finance, I take great confidence in that! p.s. Have Pompey filed their accounts for the same period yet....? Dont be ridiculous, since gadymack kicked them out of thier offices they conduct all of there financial accounting on the white board in the changing rooms. 'sorry my hmrc, the cleaner keeps wiping the figures off' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 7 April, 2011 Author Share Posted 7 April, 2011 Could the director be Crouch pre-takeover? I don't think Crouch ever drew a salary. Most likely to be David Jones, who didn't leave the club until after the end of that financial year. The problem with figures like we've seen is that they're already so far out of date it's impossible to make any sort of informed judgement. Private limited companies have 9 months from the end of the financial year to submit their accounts, publicly listed ones only have three months so you get a more up-to-date reflection on their status. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 7 April, 2011 Share Posted 7 April, 2011 (edited) The parent company Director (NC) has received assurances from the controlling party that funds will be made available as and when they are required to fund commitments for the foreseeable future. The company financing is inextrinicably linked with that of its parent company. Can someone pop that up on the Palarse forum? Cheers p.s. "inextrinicably" is not a word.....is that a direct copy-and-paste from the Companies House report? Edited 7 April, 2011 by trousers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 7 April, 2011 Share Posted 7 April, 2011 Well, you would be paying tax on your profits and so on! Exactly....ergo, best to report a loss (on paper).... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doddisalegend Posted 7 April, 2011 Share Posted 7 April, 2011 Well at least this might quiten down all those who want us to sign and extra 7 strikers,14 midfielders and two extra goal keepers every transfer window as cover becuase they think we have a bottomless pit of money. I'm not going to worry about this I assume that NC and Markus's family know what there upto with regards to the clubs finances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 7 April, 2011 Share Posted 7 April, 2011 we should have spent silly money on CMS anyway...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 7 April, 2011 Share Posted 7 April, 2011 Transfer fees spent since 30th June 2010 £1.3m, no transfer revenue I've highlighted the important bit from the accounts summary....."no transfer revenue"....i.e. we're no longer a selling club.....that's all we need know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doddisalegend Posted 7 April, 2011 Share Posted 7 April, 2011 we should have spent silly money on CMS anyway...... On the other hand maybe these figures will stop all the other clubs extracting the urine every time we try to buy a player...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint_clark Posted 7 April, 2011 Share Posted 7 April, 2011 (edited) NC's salary is enormous. £650K for a company the size of Saints is breathtaking. Good work fella. Making stuff up again, are we? Edit; nevermind, just saw Steves post. Edited 7 April, 2011 by Saint_clark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 7 April, 2011 Author Share Posted 7 April, 2011 Source? Just found it, in the holding company's accounts (DMWSL 613 Limited). Director's emoluments: 599,793 The total amount payable to the highest paid director in respect of emoluments was £599,793 The only two directors listed for the holding company are Nicola Cortese and Markus Liebherr. The second line above, logically, states that only one of them drew a salary. I don't think it would be anything out of the ordinary to assume that Nicola Cortese was the director paid a salary, and rightly so, considering ML's relative "hands-off" approach. I'd like someone with more definitive knowledge than me to clarify the "Director's remuneration" section of company accounts - as far as I'm aware, the payments listed there only apply to the period in which a person is listed as a director - any salary received while not listed as a director won't be included in this section. On that basis, earlier on in the report, it states that Nicola Cortese only became a director on 15th December 2009, which means that the money paid as shown above was done so over a period of 6 and a half months. Pro-rata, that results in a salary in excess of £1.1m. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 7 April, 2011 Share Posted 7 April, 2011 Could we already be paying championship wages to our league 1 players? If so there might not be as much of a rocket for salary's next season for our current squad and the extra revenue will ballance it out. If thats the case then its clear to see why this year is the deadline for getting promoted as I doubt any club sticking to a decent business model would budget for wages to remain based on the league aboves income for too long. The budget may have been to spend big to get us up 1 level and to compete there. Promotion 1st year would have been a bonus but promotion the 2nd year would be vital. A year in the Championship with the current squad and maybe a couple of additions would put us into the next phaze of possible spending to get us into the Prem and by then our 1st class academy would be starting to feed us a better stream of youngsters backed up with a few good signings. On paper it makes sense but in practice its not my money being played with and things hardly ever go as planned in football. This is plausible, especially as under Pardew (our last great volume of transfer activity) we were supposedly looking for players that could carrying on doing the job in the NPC. Thanks for explaining it without the side-dish of abuse that some other morons on this thread needed to use in order to get their stunted point across. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fish fingers Posted 7 April, 2011 Share Posted 7 April, 2011 On that basis, earlier on in the report, it states that Nicola Cortese only became a director on 15th December 2009, which means that the money paid as shown above was done so over a period of 6 and a half months. Pro-rata, that results in a salary in excess of £1.1m. Bound to have taken a pay cut to join us. Good effort Nicola. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry the Badger Posted 7 April, 2011 Share Posted 7 April, 2011 On that basis, earlier on in the report, it states that Nicola Cortese only became a director on 15th December 2009, which means that the money paid as shown above was done so over a period of 6 and a half months. Pro-rata, that results in a salary in excess of £1.1m. No wonder he's commited to Saints ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crab Lungs Posted 7 April, 2011 Share Posted 7 April, 2011 Does any of this mean Um Pahars will be running as the TSW-elect representative candidate on the board, once we've kicked Cortese out? Just kidding - I'm a Richard Chorley fan personally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now