Finances

[CosbehFox]

2 hours ago, Long Eaton Fox said:

Gambled on getting into europe and failed.

And expected someone to take the Tielemans bait. 

 

It's not worth comparing Everton and Villa as their revenues are higher for numerous reasons, therefore they have a large room for comfort. Your bread and butter for revenue is stadium and TV coverage. Unfortunately they do better on both of those than us 

[CosbehFox]

2 hours ago, Long Eaton Fox said:

Gambled on getting into europe and failed.

And expected someone to take the Tielemans bait. 

 

It's not worth comparing Everton and Villa as their revenues are higher for numerous reasons, therefore they have a large room for comfort. Your bread and butter for revenue is stadium and TV coverage. Unfortunately they do better on both of those than us 

[Stevosevic]

Just now, Cardiff_Fox said:

And expected someone to take the Tielemans bait. 

 

It's not worth comparing Everton and Villa as their revenues are higher for numerous reasons, therefore they have a large room for comfort. Your bread and butter for revenue is stadium and TV coverage. Unfortunately they do better on both of those than us 

They’re not higher revenues though are they? Based on recent seasons? 
 

I thought we had the 7th highest until

recently?

[CosbehFox]

6 minutes ago, Stevosevic said:

They’re not higher revenues though are they? Based on recent seasons? 
 

I thought we had the 7th highest until

recently?

But they will be this season - with football finances, it's always about projecting the season ahead rather than the season just gone. No European football or unlikely to be on TV as much this season compared to previous seasons.

 

The nature of the transfer market is you being asked to put the wedge upfront yet the accounts and cash in some cases aren't coming until the very end of your season/fiancnial year. 

[indierich06]

I think the finances are pretty shit right now, it's clear to see. Although, I wonder if the reason we're putting out this line that it's 'loans only' and there's only a 'fraction of the Fofana money' to spend is because we don't want to get our pants pulled down over fees in the last couple of days of the window?

[foxinsox]

Just now, indierich06 said:

I think the finances are pretty shit right now, it's clear to see. Although, I wonder if the reason we're putting out this line that it's 'loans only' and there's only a 'fraction of the Fofana money' to spend is because we don't want to get our pants pulled down over fees in the last couple of days of the window?

I think not wanting to get lumbered with new players not suited to next manager either!

[indierich06]

Just now, foxinsox said:

I think not wanting to get lumbered with new players not suited to next manager either!

If we get hammered by Man U then Bodgers has got to finally be shown the door.

[iancognito]

1 minute ago, indierich06 said:

I think the finances are pretty shit right now, it's clear to see. Although, I wonder if the reason we're putting out this line that it's 'loans only' and there's only a 'fraction of the Fofana money' to spend is because we don't want to get our pants pulled down over fees in the last couple of days of the window?

That and Chelsea are paying in 4 installments, according to the guy on Sky.

[st albans fox]

13 minutes ago, iancognito said:

That and Chelsea are paying in 4 installments, according to the guy on Sky.

If we take a Macquarie loan against the deal then it’s a series of instalments 

 

a few on SM have said that it s a v good structure for us (means plenty paid upfront) 

 

have to wait to find out 

[Matt]

 

Yet we’re “skint” and/or running scared of FFP.

 

Not to mention the sales of Kante, Drinkwater, Mahrez, Chilwell.

 

Meanwhile it’s not stopping Everton or Villa.

 

Edited 31 August 2022 by Matt

[Guest Chocolate Teapot]

Someone said to me yesterday that saying you're trying to abide by ffp is a great distraction tactic if you're trying to claw back the loan you've given.....

[Shane]

Apparently since 18/19 we have one of the lowest net spends

 

Man Utd -€605m

Arsenal -€489m

West Ham -€395m

Tottenham -€368m

Newcastle -€351m

Chelsea -€343m

Wolves -€293m

Liverpool -€236m

Man City - €209m

Southampton -€120m

Palace -€80m

Brighton - €54m

Leicester - €20m

[K789]

16 minutes ago, Chocolate Teapot said:

Someone said to me yesterday that saying you're trying to abide by ffp is a great distraction tactic if you're trying to claw back the loan you've given.....

Makes sense actually of parent company is skint, top maybe asset rich cash poor and needs this money back 

[Guest Kopfkino]

8 minutes ago, Matt said:

 

Yet we’re “skint” and/or running scared of FFP.

 

Not to mention the sales of Kante, Drinkwater, Mahrez, Chilwell.

 

Meanwhile it’s not stopping Everton or Villa.

 

Sorry but the obsession with Villa on here.

 

Lets be clear here - in their last accounts they spent 126m on wages - that’s clearly gone up significantly since May 21. Ours, if you guesstimate an adjustment for Covid accounting are more like 160-170 (you need to take out club staff wages but let’s just assume they’re the same so it’s not important)

 

And they also made 100m on a player that cost them nothing last year. They have made another 15-20m on the kid going to Chelsea this year who cost them nothing. So there you have 115m in player trading profit. Fofana probably going to look like 40m max in the accounts

 

Their cash net spend also  is no higher than 15-20m. They’re absolutely fine for FFP of either kind rn, the time it becomes more challenging for them is when last years amortisation costs are still appearing on the income statement but the Grealish profit disappears from consideration (3 years).

 

Everton are a bit more strange, although hardly spending huge amounts.
West Ham looks like a problem coming later on but again their wage bill is so far below ours at last reporting date. 

[Stadt]

2 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

Sorry but the obsession with Villa on here.

 

Lets be clear here - in their last accounts they spent 126m on wages - that’s clearly gone up significantly since May 21. Ours, if you guesstimate an adjustment for Covid accounting are more like 160-170 (you need to take out club staff wages but let’s just assume they’re the same so it’s not important)

 

And they also made 100m on a player that cost them nothing last year. They have made another 15-20m on the kid going to Chelsea this year who cost them nothing. So there you have 115m in player trading profit. Fofana probably going to look like 40m max in the accounts

 

Their cash net spend also  is no higher than 15-20m. They’re absolutely fine for FFP of either kind rn, the time it becomes more challenging for them is when last years amortisation costs are still appearing on the income statement but the Grealish profit disappears from consideration (3 years).

 

Everton are a bit more strange, although hardly spending huge amounts.
West Ham looks like a problem coming later on but again their wage bill is so far below ours at last reporting date. 

I think we're terrible negotiators.

 

The Bertrand signing for example, we held almost all of the cards and we've been totally defrauded by the deal. It's hard to guess where the overspend actually it's most likely across the board. There's probably a 10 or 20% wages overspend on every single first team player.

[eblair]

Football finances are really hard to digest. Too much briefing to make sense of things.

 

When we were selling players makes sense to say we have money; now we need to buy makes sense to say opposite

 

Think we are in trouble but so hard to work out by how much. The owners business imploding is not very helpful 

[RowlattsFox]

I don't understand the finances and don't pretend otherwise. I just hope we will see the benefit of managing our finances in the future years whereas the likes of Villa, Everton and even Forest now cannot sustain. 

 

Clearly we are struggling, a lot of money went on the training ground, is that to our detriment? As nice as it is, has it really made us more desirable to anyone? 

[Chrysalis]

35 minutes ago, Shane said:

Apparently since 18/19 we have one of the lowest net spends

 

Man Utd -€605m

Arsenal -€489m

West Ham -€395m

Tottenham -€368m

Newcastle -€351m

Chelsea -€343m

Wolves -€293m

Liverpool -€236m

Man City - €209m

Southampton -€120m

Palace -€80m

Brighton - €54m

Leicester - €20m

These tables really need to include wage spend.  Its why some are on here are wondering why we in this situation.

[Guest Kopfkino]

31 minutes ago, Stadt said:

I think we're terrible negotiators.

 

The Bertrand signing for example, we held almost all of the cards and we've been totally defrauded by the deal. It's hard to guess where the overspend actually it's most likely across the board. There's probably a 10 or 20% wages overspend on every single first team player.

Well there’s two factors.

 

We probably have more players on first team wages and we probably pay them x amount more anyway.

 

But if 10% higher wages means you get Fofana instead of him going to West Ham (I know they never agreed a fee) then is that bad negotiation? If it means you can secure your higher value assets with longer contracts (like Maguire, Fofana, Chilwell), is it bad negotiation? If you make a habit of paying people more, everyone in the industry comes to know that and it’s harder to get others cheaper. 
 

Clearly we’ve given out contracts that we shouldn’t have and which you couldn’t really make the case for with foresight let alone hindsight (Choudhury imo) but it seems to me we have a philosophy of paying people better and it’s easy to pick holes in it when it clearly goes wrong but it’s also important to recognise when it helps.

[Stadt]

6 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

Well there’s two factors.

 

We probably have more players on first team wages and we probably pay them x amount more anyway.

 

But if 10% higher wages means you get Fofana instead of him going to West Ham (I know they never agreed a fee) then is that bad negotiation? If it means you can secure your higher value assets with longer contracts (like Maguire, Fofana, Chilwell), is it bad negotiation? If you make a habit of paying people more, everyone in the industry comes to know that and it’s harder to get others cheaper. 
 

Clearly we’ve given out contracts that we shouldn’t have and which you couldn’t really make the case for with foresight let alone hindsight (Choudhury imo) but it seems to me we have a philosophy of paying people better and it’s easy to pick holes in it when it clearly goes wrong but it’s also important to recognise when it helps.

Paying our best assets above market rate keeps them here and they eventually sell for a better price (although it didn't work like that in Fofana's case) which is great and makes sense.

 

Signing Ward and paying him (presumably) above the going rate is naive

We gave Mendy a new 3 year deal (?) in 20/21

Pereira signed a 3 year extension I think, most people on here expressed concern at that owing to injuries

Choudhury's 60k p/w as you mentioned

Vestergaard and Bertrand etc 

 

There's lots of consistent unforced errors - we cant afford to pay squad players first XI wages we did with the latter two.

 

[Gav_LCFC14]

Securing our long term finances by getting us relegated is one of the strangest strategies I've heard of. The board are just as much to blame as rodgers. Whoever Is in Tops ear (our CFO?) Is having a disaster. We have accountants making footballing decisions. 

[Desabafar]

do the financial rules say that income has to be from football

i guess not…cos other teams have hotels and events they make money off..and our own stadium plan is for hotel and arena to add income?

 

why then do football clubs not ever buy cash-generating profitable business to help the bottom line? like lcfc has the turf academy..make it turf services and sell them around the world..or use king power retail expertise to run retail businesses but the income goes to club..or buy profitable businesses to keep them as they are

[sacreblueits442]

On 31/08/2022 at 11:02, ealingfox said:

Weird how we seem to be the only club affected by these FFP rules.

...if you choose to live above your means then you will encounter possible eviction in the end!!!

We tried to push the boundaries, at the time it was a gamble worth taking, and success would have engulfed the additional expenses, of the higher wage fees we sought to pay. The Champions League dream failed to materialize and then we missed out again, and so we were left with a hole to fill somewhere down the line.

[Terraloon]

3 hours ago, Desabafar said:

do the financial rules say that income has to be from football

i guess not…cos other teams have hotels and events they make money off..and our own stadium plan is for hotel and arena to add income?

 

why then do football clubs not ever buy cash-generating profitable business to help the bottom line? like lcfc has the turf academy..make it turf services and sell them around the world..or use king power retail expertise to run retail businesses but the income goes to club..or buy profitable businesses to keep them as they are

Income can come from any legitimate income stream although there are issues claiming certain expenses wherein those expenses aren’t football specific.

 

A few clubs do indeed have hotels but very few of them actually add enough to make a difference. It didn’t go well for Chelsea ( Chelsea Village ) the £100 million Euro Bond taken out to finance the hotels, flats, sports club, night club etc was impossible to service from income and when it came to repaying the capital it was nigh on impossible 

 

Other clubs such as Bolton, Derby & Reading who built hotels as part of their re development have not been able to develop the additional income stream and if you go back to Chelsea the hotels being in London and the two combined are far smaller than the 200 rooms planned but the occupancy levels are no where close to 80%

 

People need to forget FFP for a second and focus just  on the accounts they tell the story of a business that is spending more than it generates, most clubs do so it comes down to owner input and whilst the sums put in aren’t anywhere near the levels of other clubs  the fact that the wages to turnover ratio reported by Leicester is closer to 90% than 70% surely had to be addressed that is unless the owner increases equity as opposed to just loaning money

[Fox1980]

4 hours ago, Desabafar said:

do the financial rules say that income has to be from football

i guess not…cos other teams have hotels and events they make money off..and our own stadium plan is for hotel and arena to add income?

 

why then do football clubs not ever buy cash-generating profitable business to help the bottom line? like lcfc has the turf academy..make it turf services and sell them around the world..or use king power retail expertise to run retail businesses but the income goes to club..or buy profitable businesses to keep them as they are

Spot on, I think it’s all b@ll@cks to be honest. How much money does a hotel bring in really? The profits wouldn’t even cover a players weekly wages.