New Accounts

[Profondo Rosso]

It's not that it's climbing that's the worry, it's just how quickly it's climbing.

I suspect we're going to have to sell quite a few players (particularly the dispensable players on silly wages - Pantsil? Mills? Beckford?) in the summer.

 

[drew]

I think the difference this time is that the debt is owed to the owners, not banks and pension funds.

 

[Mawsley]

I think the difference this time is that the debt is owed to the owners, not banks and pension funds.

Which is why I'd appreciate a clear an unequivocal statement about their intentions for the club, the debt, funding and ownership.

 

[city-faithful]

Found this in the Grauniad. Lovely photo.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/mar/03/said-and-done-leicester-fifa

 

[Ike O'Noclassed]

I realise he was being sarcastic - but I'm not. I've read this on Twitter, Facebooky or somewhere this morning:

2002 - administration and £50M in debt
2012 - £48M in debt and climbing.

Includes the £4415 left owing St John's.

Hard to know whether the inverted commas are meant as "quotation marks" or as "heavy-handed irony"

 

[Dour]

If I read it right - the club is £46m in debt.

That excludes the latest amount put in by the owners - so it is really £54m in hock to the owners, £17m on the stadium. Just over £70 million overall which is, I believe, the highest in the championship.

 

[Profondo Rosso]

In the interview they gave just before the game on RL on Saturday the guy said the 95.5% wages on turnover was actually before the summer. Before the likes of Mills, Beckford, Nugent, Pantsil, Schmeichel, St. Ledger and Konchesky came in.

He reckoned the wage bill was well, well above 100% of our total income as it stands.

 

[SJN-Fox]

Someone (an auditor, finance type person) on the moan in tonight reckons that there are quite a few clubs in the Championship with a salary to turnover rate far in excess of ours.

 

[Profondo Rosso]

Someone (an auditor, finance type person) on the moan in tonight reckons that there are quite a few clubs in the Championship with a salary to turnover rate far in excess of ours.

Yes, but does a large part of their turnover equate to massive loans pumped in by the owners?

 

[Macky]

Yes, but does a large part of their turnover equate to massive loans pumped in by the owners?

Is that counted as turnover?

 

[FryattFox]

Is that counted as turnover?

No, very much not.

 

[fox58]

Someone (an auditor, finance type person) on the moan in tonight reckons that there are quite a few clubs in the Championship with a salary to turnover rate far in excess of ours.

he said there were 7 clubs with a wage bill over 100% of their turnover

 

[SJN-Fox]

he said there were 7 clubs with a wage bill over 100% of their turnover

I knew it was something like that but couldn't remember the exact figures.

 

[FryattFox]

I don't know why people are stressing too much. There are at many teams with similar debt levels, structures, percentages and ownerships to us, and the majority of sole-owner clubs are entirely dependent on that individual and their continued support. Yes, financially we've had an awful 18 months as all the investment has seen us achieve absolutely nothing, but the world's not about to end.

When the bubble bursts (as people have been saying it will for at least a decade) then no-one knows what will happen, but I would much rather be in our position than that of about 15 clubs in the Championship. Coventry and Birmingham have both not filed accounts for 2011 yet, and all of the noises and conversations I've had suggest they are both in serious financial difficulties - the Blues (like WHU) are very dependent on immediate promotion or a new owner.

Plus all of the signals from our overlords suggest that they are here for a few years yet, given the levels of infrastructure and investment that they have put in place at both the stadium and the training ground.

 

[LeeCovFox]

People have been saying the bubble will burst for the the nigh on twenty years that I've been watching football. Because it has been said for so long there are those who believe that it will never happen - that it's just something that people say. My own view is that the bubble will burst and that the longer we have to wait until it does, the higher the number of clubs that will find themselves casualties of it.

All this stuff about other clubs being in a similar or worse position is irrelevant. It doesn't take away from the fact that we are potentially in real trouble with this lot in charge. That other clubs are at risk of going under when the s*** hits the fan will be of no comfort to me when we find ourselves back in administration down the line.

 

[Darth Vodka]

Is that counted as turnover?

no but you can get your owners to give you money for stadium rights and count that as turnover

 

[Dour]

no but you can get your owners to give you money for stadium rights and count that as turnover

No evidence of them paying any more than did Walkers - Sponsorship, executive suites, advertising and other income came to £3.069 million in 2011, up from £2.869 in 2010.

 

[FryattFox]

No evidence of them paying any more than did Walkers - Sponsorship, executive suites, advertising and other income came to £3.069 million in 2011, up from £2.869 in 2010.

It wasn't renamed until June/July '11, so wouldn't have been included in those accounts.

 

[FryattFox]

It wasn't renamed until June/July '11, so wouldn't have been included in those accounts.

Also, unless the FL had an issue with it (which I doubt that they would as I don't expect that the additional sponsorship will be materially excessive), then who cares if they invest money by this route - although it will obviously come out of their pocket they won't have any rights to it if/when they come to sell as it's strict income.

 

[Darth Vodka]

I was meaning more Man City...but they have UEFA fairplay guidelines to circumvent