Financial Results

[Guest ttfn]

16 minutes ago, jeffschlupp said:

Not much of note in there, all seems pretty standard to me.

 

Club owes Top directly £30m (same as last year), and KPI in total £111.5m + £42.5m, give or take. The £111.5m is the £91m original loan for Seagrave + a top-up of £20.5m, and then they've take another loan out of £42.5m since May.

They now owe Macquarie £80m but this is all new loans and all of their old charges are resolved.

 

It's an operating profit if you take out COVID among other things.

 

£43.9m is a remarkable profit on transfers when you consider we paid for Fofana and Castagne that summer. I recall telling this place in the summer the club had got some superb instalment deals on Soumare and Daka...same situation there.

 

Edit: Does once again show the importance of commercial revenue. £33m from sponsorship and advertising? The figures next year with FBS are going to be interesting.

The fact we paid for Fofana and Castagne is not especially relevant - I think they were both on 5 year deals. Say they cost £60m between them the cost in the accounts this year is 60/5 = £12m. The timing of the cash flows doesn’t really matter for the accounting (it does a tiny bit but one for another day!).

[Lesta Legend]

People see the word loss and go into blind panic. Same people also get annoyed when we don’t spunk £80mill on a right winger. 
 

As long as we improve on the pitch and stay in this league then I’m confident KP will do the right thing for the club and losses will happen...

[turtmcfly]

17 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

Then fans need to stop being so precious about us keeping our most established players. It's a fine line between signing young and talented players on the back of cashing in on our successful players but it's the only way without seriously pissing off our players and them wanting to leave quite quickly anyway.

 

What's quite interesting though is even as we continue to see huge increases in wages, there's been a handful of players not sign new deals that were expected to. Tielemans, Soyuncu, Ricardo etc. The wages would be through the roof if they had. This backs up the notion that under Rodgers we have started paying our signings huge starting salaries and that's because we're now signing more 24+ players like Castagne, Praet, Perez, Vestergaard etc and they demand a minimum starting salary of £70k a week. Grim given how crap nearly all of them have been an'all.

 

This. Controlled selling of our big names for a major chunk of profit is not a bug of the model, it really is a feature

 

Wrote about this a week or two ago, wrt it being almost a mandated feature. I know correlation ≠ causation, but the one time recently we didn't do it was last summer, and I'd be interested if anyone wanted to use that as an argument against doing it in the future.

 

Of course, not selling a big name last year has a knock on effect. Youri will be likely be off, and counted by the 'precious mob' as this year's big name, when we may only get a middling fee for him. And if that's the case it will be because we held on to him for an extra year

 

 

[Guest ttfn]

24 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

That would be in 2021/22 accounts would it not?

 

Biggest thing for me is that revenue has gone up £70m and that's before we've signed this FBS deal. We are doing more in bringing in extra revenue which pays for the wages and transfers. We continue to push it to the maximum and yet still our fans demand more.

The £70m increase is not a number anybody should be hanging their hat on. It is a freak occurrence driven by the timing of the 19/20 season and Covid.

 

If you look at note 2, like-for-like broadcasting income is up about 6%, sponsorship up about 6%. Obviously on the flip side ticketing has been hammered.
 

I would guess that the “real” like-for-like increase (adjusting for amounts held over from 19/20 and assuming a steady state position on the gate receipts) is more like £20-25m of which £13m is European football. Not to be sniffed at but obviously we can’t count on that happening every year.

[Jon the Hat]

31 minutes ago, coolhandfox said:

The accounts are up 31st of May 2021, cup final was 15th of May 2021.

 

So would depend if they paid them before or after the 31st.

Whether they were paid before or after the financial year end would impact cash but not profit, because if you win a cup which triggers a bonus payment you make an accrual for that bonus payment.  In other words any FA Cup winning bonuses would definitely be in these figures.

[grobyfox1990]

12 minutes ago, Lesta Legend said:

People see the word loss and go into blind panic. Same people also get annoyed when we don’t spunk £80mill on a right winger. 
 

As long as we improve on the pitch and stay in this league then I’m confident KP will do the right thing for the club and losses will happen...

Exactly. Amazon made losses for years, they’d probably still like to make losses but it’s too much of a cash machine now, as they were investing for the future. Just had a quick browse through the front half and this is a very encouraging set of stats. Revenue up during all this chaos and cash flow statement v healthy. The investment into facilities and a young ish playing squad should ensure a good future

[Hollism]

38 minutes ago, turlo said:

Do we pay anything back on those KPI loans? Lost what page its on but there was a note that those loans were "payable on demand" rather than over a specific period like a bank loan

That’s standard terms for any owner injection into any business. It means that the club will only pay it back when it can afford to, or (more likely) when it is sold*.
 

In theory, KPI could demand the payment today, but given that the stakeholders are the same people, it’s not going to happen unless KPI somehow get into serious financial trouble.
 

*So if the terms of the loan were something else like £100k a month, the terms couldn’t be changed without mutual agreement if someone else bought LCFC. This way, the clubs new owner could be forced to settle it.

 

 

 

disclaimer: not an accountant but am a business owner.

[LC1884FC]

That wage bill is eye watering.

[An Sionnach]

6 minutes ago, LC1884FC said:

That wage bill is eye watering.

There were those who doubted Hamza was on £3 million a year.

[Foxxed]

No big transfers out this season. I expect a couple this season to cover it.

[CrispinLA in Texas]

4 minutes ago, An Sionnach said:

There were those who doubted Hamza was on £3 million a year.

Wow 3m to sit on the bench.... surely he could of been turned into a CB and used as a defender.

Also we are paying Vest and Bert at least 70k for doing nothing also now including Perez

[Vazman]

1 hour ago, Ric Flair said:

Then fans need to stop being so precious about us keeping our most established players. It's a fine line between signing young and talented players on the back of cashing in on our successful players but it's the only way without seriously pissing off our players and them wanting to leave quite quickly anyway.

 

What's quite interesting though is even as we continue to see huge increases in wages, there's been a handful of players not sign new deals that were expected to. Tielemans, Soyuncu, Ricardo etc. The wages would be through the roof if they had. This backs up the notion that under Rodgers we have started paying our signings huge starting salaries and that's because we're now signing more 24+ players like Castagne, Praet, Perez, Vestergaard etc and they demand a minimum starting salary of £70k a week. Grim given how crap nearly all of them have been an'all.

Yeah 2 of those players mentioned above, are hardly value for money, makes me cringe.

[An Sionnach]

Just now, CrispinLA in Texas said:

Wow 3m to sit on the bench.... surely he could of been turned into a CB and used as a defender.

Also we are paying Vest and Bert at least 70k for doing nothing also now including Perez

Our wage bill is a major barrier to signing players. However what can you do? If you want quality players , you have to pay. We get linked with these so called promising young players like Daka and Soumaré but their agents are going to demand expensive contracts. We say we want to be a top six club but that means a very high wage bill.

[Fox in the North]

 

[Pliskin]

**** sake, don’t publish these, the fans are on edge as it is! 

[Winsum]

Still £62 million in transfer fees outstanding

[Tommy G]

1 hour ago, coolhandfox said:

The accounts are up 31st of May 2021, cup final was 15th of May 2021.

 

So would depend if they paid them before or after the 31st.

No it wouldn't, any bonus' would be accrued up until 31st May, we aren't operating cash accounting!

[st albans fox]

Average wage in 20/21 only a few mill short of spurs and 26m clear of West Ham !  the players ( and manager) are being paid to finish 6th/7th ……

[moore_94]

 

[An Sionnach]

Just now, st albans fox said:

Average wage in 20/21 only a few mill short of spurs and 26m clear of West Ham !  the players ( and manager) are being paid to finish 6th/7th ……

On here its often said we should be a top six club with our squad and going by the wage bill that is understandable. West Ham ,Villa, Everton and Newcastle are going to pay big salaries to their players and if we want to keep up so are we. If we are not prepared or able to do that we will fall away.

[Guest Chocolate Teapot]

4 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Average wage in 20/21 only a few mill short of spurs and 26m clear of West Ham !  the players ( and manager) are being paid to finish 6th/7th ……

Be interested to see their numbers this year.

[turlo]

19 minutes ago, An Sionnach said:

Our wage bill is a major barrier to signing players. However what can you do? If you want quality players , you have to pay. We get linked with these so called promising young players like Daka and Soumaré but their agents are going to demand expensive contracts. We say we want to be a top six club but that means a very high wage bill.

We need to stop signing too many squad players in their mid to late 20's like Perez, Praet, Vestergaard etc who want wages. in the 70-80k region.  . 

Edited 17 February 2022 by turlo

[Marshall Cockney Fox]

Does it mean the Neymar deal is off?

[turlo]

48 minutes ago, Hollism said:

That’s standard terms for any owner injection into any business. It means that the club will only pay it back when it can afford to, or (more likely) when it is sold*.
 

In theory, KPI could demand the payment today, but given that the stakeholders are the same people, it’s not going to happen unless KPI somehow get into serious financial trouble.
 

*So if the terms of the loan were something else like £100k a month, the terms couldn’t be changed without mutual agreement if someone else bought LCFC. This way, the clubs new owner could be forced to settle it.

 

 

 

disclaimer: not an accountant but am a business owner.

Thanks for the clarification. I was interested as i often see comments on social media that our owners don't invest into the club and lack ambition, which is obviously not the case. Just because our owners aren't pumping in big money to fund transfers like Everton & Villa, doesn't mean they've not invested. 

[CrispinLA in Texas]

37 minutes ago, Fox in the North said:

 

Wow man 192m a year in wages that's staggering 😱

Edited 17 February 2022 by CrispinLA in Texas