Losses up to £23.5m?

[Sturny]

28 minutes ago, BS4 on Tour... said:

Dunno, I just pointed out that Leeds pay less in salaries than we do in total and they have a bigger squad....

https://www.leedsunited.com/teams/first-team

https://www.bcfc.co.uk/teams/first-team-squad/ 

First team squads are very similar, if not the same if you don't include Taylor Moore.. 

Also https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/jumplist/startseite/wettbewerb/GB2 shows we have 25 whilst they have 23 

Like I said earlier, the overall salary is misleading. Leeds paying players 30k a week is an example of this.. 

[Major Isewater]

As Mark Twain posted on the internet.

[Kid in the Riot]

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

For what it's worth, our BCFC Holdings Accounts out today- pretty busy this morning so a couple of brief headline figures.

• Turnover- £25,975,432
• Wages- that'd be the total figure including directors, players and non players alike, pensions, social security etc- £27,274,691
• Headline loss- £25,164,281

As I thought then- roughly. Revenue higher with BCFC Holdings- but losses also higher.

I suppose to a degree the yearly figures aren't that important as FFP is taken over a three year period. As others have pointed out that £25m loss is counter-balanced against £20m+ of player sales from this summer.

[Mr Popodopolous]

21 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

I suppose to a degree the yearly figures aren't that important as FFP is taken over a three year period. As others have pointed out that £25m loss is counter-balanced against £20m+ of player sales from this summer.

Correct- but 3 year period, well we passed it but perhaps not by much for 15/16 to 17/18.

Also my understanding is that we have £6m of costs excluded from FFP calculations- all clubs have them, ours total £6m. Therefore I would guess lop £6m of each years losses and the FFP figures look more comfortable.

According to my quick additions, total losses for BCFC Holdings headline from 2015/16 to season just gone were £46,308,386.

Lop £18m off that and it's £28,308,386.

The flipside of the £20m of players sold this summer- which seems to have been very necessary- is that next season, our 16/17 figures obviously will be excluded so our close to zero FFP loss this year will be wiped from calculations and the starting point will be the big loss last season- that said this summer should see our losses well down.

[Davefevs]

@Sturny and @BS4 on Tour...

not entering your debate, but Wages and Salary numbers entered into the company accounts will include signing on fees, etc.  Leeds are imho managing their player costs very well for a club who supposedly pay big money and we can’t compete with.

If the likes of Bamford are on 30k per week, they must have some low earners too to balance it out.

When we see the rest of the Championship team Accounts we will have a better picture of where City fall into it.

My opinion is that we have a slightly bloated squad, when you consider what we might be paying / wasting for players like a Hegeler (personally I think he has something to offer) and wasted on the likes of Diony and Kent, not taking into account others who our head coach doesn’t want to play.  I think we could offload 3 or 4 players saving say £40k per week...that’s £2m off of our wage bill.  

Whether we can directly compare to Leeds to see the merits of City or Leeds is up to you, but I think it’s difficult.

[Sturny]

19 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

@Sturny and @BS4 on Tour...

not entering your debate, but Wages and Salary numbers entered into the company accounts will include signing on fees, etc.  Leeds are imho managing their player costs very well for a club who supposedly pay big money and we can’t compete with.

If the likes of Bamford are on 30k per week, they must have some low earners too to balance it out.

When we see the rest of the Championship team Accounts we will have a better picture of where City fall into it.

My opinion is that we have a slightly bloated squad, when you consider what we might be paying / wasting for players like a Hegeler (personally I think he has something to offer) and wasted on the likes of Diony and Kent, not taking into account others who our head coach doesn’t want to play.  I think we could offload 3 or 4 players saving say £40k per week...that’s £2m off of our wage bill.  

Whether we can directly compare to Leeds to see the merits of City or Leeds is up to you, but I think it’s difficult.

 Can agree with this. We do have a couple of players that their salaries combined could equal to something Bamford might be on, we never will do that though. Guess Leeds are willing to offer individuals more whilst we're more spread on a higher average? 

Also is that number just including this season? As Leeds had a HUGE summer last season (23ish mil spent) and most of their signing on fees could not contribute to that number? I still feel it's rather misleading 

[Davefevs]

24 minutes ago, Sturny said:

 Can agree with this. We do have a couple of players that their salaries combined could equal to something Bamford might be on, we never will do that though. Guess Leeds are willing to offer individuals more whilst we're more spread on a higher average? 

Also is that number just including this season? As Leeds had a HUGE summer last season (23ish mil spent) and most of their signing on fees could not contribute to that number? I still feel it's rather misleading 

Leeds haven’t published 17/18 accounts yet...hence comparison is apples v pears

[Bristol Rob]

Does that period of time include Tomlin and whatever we had to lump in his direction?

Assume that if he never requested a transfer, we would have had to make good the signing on fee and other financial settlement which might otherwise have been spread over the duration of his contract.

[Mr Popodopolous]

6 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Leeds haven’t published 17/18 accounts yet...hence comparison is apples v pears

Indeed- we usually are pretty prompt with publishing ours. Most clubs seem to be less so!

Would expect (talking FFP over 3 years rather than cash losses/profits- but they all have rich owners so the latter not a concern for them right now) when they are finally published, Aston Villa, Birmingham, Sheffield Wednesday- and maybe Nottingham Forest to be in a pretty dicy position for this season, potentially Reading also (as in real accounts for 16/17, real for 17/18 and projected for this season).

[Bristol Rob]

4 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Indeed- we usually are pretty prompt with publishing ours. Most clubs seem to be less so!

Would expect (talking FFP over 3 years rather than cash losses/profits- but they all have rich owners so the latter not a concern for them right now) when they are finally published, Aston Villa, Birmingham, Sheffield Wednesday- and maybe Nottingham Forest to be in a pretty dicy position for this season, potentially Reading also (as in real accounts for 16/17, real for 17/18 and projected for this season).

So do we know who has/is/likely to exceed FFP rules?

[Sturny]

9 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

Does that period of time include Tomlin and whatever we had to lump in his direction?

Assume that if he never requested a transfer, we would have had to make good the signing on fee and other financial settlement which might otherwise have been spread over the duration of his contract.

Pretty sure we pay players like Baker/Paterson what Tomlin was on now. Wouldn't surprise me if we chucked in a fudge load of bonuses. Dunno what we were thinking then, we used to pay O'Neil 15k 

[Mr Popodopolous]

17 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

So do we know who has/is/likely to exceed FFP rules?

EFL will know through accounts projected by clubs in Spring 2019 for this season- believe the deadline for this is end of March 2019.

The rest of us? We can follow financial blogs/twitter accounts, check their most recent accounts and then make best estimates thereafter. Leeds for example, I anticipate no real issues for them. Then you have to factor in costs that are excluded for FFP purposes (stadium, academy and assorted others). Presumably the EFL will have this data too. In layman's terms it's something like FFP Loss=Total allowable loss + any profit + any allowable cost. Example- let's say team X in year 1 makes a £2m profit at this level and has allowable costs of £3m which are each season- that would mean they could publish on their accounts losses of £25m in the 2 subsequent seasons. £25m x 2-£2m-£3m (x3)=£39m.

It would be pushing the rules to their absolute limit and a big gamble, but theoretically yes that could happen I think.

[Bristol Rob]

25 minutes ago, Sturny said:

Pretty sure we pay players like Baker/Paterson what Tomlin was on now. Wouldn't surprise me if we chucked in a fudge load of bonuses. Dunno what we were thinking then, we used to pay O'Neil 15k 

I hear things like 'O'Neil was on 15k a week' - but I can never find a point of reference against which to confirm it.

I just don't know how this sort of information seemingly ends up in the public domain, unless it is pure speculation.

[Sturny]

8 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

I hear things like 'O'Neil was on 15k a week' - but I can never find a point of reference against which to confirm it.

I just don't know how this sort of information seemingly ends up in the public domain, unless it is pure speculation.

There was that leaked squad pay slip. Also there's places like football manager of fifa where it's people's jobs to find out the most accurate likely salary there is. Finally, i'm not sure if anyone else remebers but didn't Marlon Pack's dad come out saying he was annoyed they paid O'neil 15k and Pack less? 

So that's three unofficial sources i'm getting this from, make of it what you wish but I choose to believe them.

[Olé]

On 01/11/2018 at 09:26, Bristol Rob said:

How Leeds keep their wage bill so low remains one of the great mysteries.

The players get a direct share of ticket prices and Sky revenue. After that you don't need to pay them much.

[BS4 on Tour...]

5 hours ago, Sturny said:

https://www.leedsunited.com/teams/first-team

https://www.bcfc.co.uk/teams/first-team-squad/ 

First team squads are very similar, if not the same if you don't include Taylor Moore.. 

Also https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/jumplist/startseite/wettbewerb/GB2 shows we have 25 whilst they have 23 

Like I said earlier, the overall salary is misleading. Leeds paying players 30k a week is an example of this.. 

https://www.leedsunited.com/news/team-news/23576/2018-19-squad-numbers-announced 

- their club’s website shows 29 players at the start of this season...

[Sturny]

22 minutes ago, BS4 on Tour... said:

https://www.leedsunited.com/news/team-news/23576/2018-19-squad-numbers-announced 

- their club’s website shows 29 players at the start of this season...

Like I pointed out earlier which you have missed, again. Things have changed as those squad numbers were posted. For example ours show Taylor Moore, Joe Bryan and Djuric.... some of those players that Leeds listed have been sold/loaned (as its revealed in July......before the window has closed)

https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/jumplist/startseite/wettbewerb/GB2  is constantly updated and more accurate. Just accept you're wrong, I know it's hard 

[Davefevs]

41 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

I hear things like 'O'Neil was on 15k a week' - but I can never find a point of reference against which to confirm it.

I just don't know how this sort of information seemingly ends up in the public domain, unless it is pure speculation.

I have no ITK but I would be surprised if GON was on less than £18-20k per week here.  Baker allegedly signed a £35k per week contract at Villa in the Prem, likely to include a (guess) 40% relegation clause, so would’ve been on £21k when we signed him.  Are Villa contributing to his wages?  Unlikely.  Who knows whether we are paying him £15k, but that £6k shortfall compensated by a £1m signing on fee over 3 years (or whatever).  That is allegedly how the Tomlin deal was structured.  City’s stance - ‘we have a maximum wage structure....but we’ll pay you a big signing on fee instead’.  That way you don’t get disharmony in the dressing room, unless.....Tomlin blabs about his signing on fee.

In my line of work nobody discusses their day rate!!  Nor does anyone ask you either!!!

[BS4 on Tour...]

36 minutes ago, Sturny said:

Like I pointed out earlier which you have missed, again. Things have changed as those squad numbers were posted. For example ours show Taylor Moore, Joe Bryan and Djuric.... some of those players that Leeds listed have been sold/loaned (as its revealed in July......before the window has closed)

https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/jumplist/startseite/wettbewerb/GB2  is constantly updated and more accurate. Just accept you're wrong, I know it's hard 

So your beloved ‘Transfermkt’ website is ‘constantly updated and more accurate’ - so why isn’t it showing Jack Clarke and Ryan Edmondson in Leeds United’s first squad? Both are in their first team squad and both have squad numbers - Clarke is no 47 and Edmondson is no 39...

Here’s a link to your fave site showing their squad... minus those two members of their first team squad...

https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/leeds-united/startseite/verein/399/saison_id/2018 - and the page in this link even shows Clarke as being in the squad for their last game...at the bottom...

’Constantly updated and more accurate’ ?! Haha! Just accept you’re wrong, I know it’s hard...

[Sturny]

32 minutes ago, BS4 on Tour... said:

So you’re beloved ‘Transfermkt’ website is ‘constantly updated and more accurate’ - so why isn’t it showing Jack Clarke and Ryan Edmondson in Leeds United’s first squad? Both are in their first team squad and both have squad numbers - Clarke is no 47 and Edmondson is no 39...

Here’s a link to your fave site showing their squad... minus those two members of their first team squad...

https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/leeds-united/startseite/verein/399/saison_id/2018

’Constantly updated and more accurate’ ?! Haha! Just accept you’re wrong, I know it’s hard...

Even so it doesn't equal more players  and even if we put this back into context, usual u18 players (which they are) doesn't add to the topic as their salary is likely quite small. So scraping the barrel with two 17yo to add up to the similar count of our team doesn't exactly prove anything.. We were talking about first team salaries. If you wanna go as far as that Leeds have 19 U23 players and we have 11 u23 

It does however add to the point to why Leeds can offer players more than us, because part of their squad is made up of 17-18yos with peanuts for salaries. 

That was still better than posting a link that's listing squad numbers before the transfer window is shut and using it as a squad count 

[Sturny]

33 minutes ago, Sturny said:

Even so it doesn't equal more players  and even if we put this back into context, usual u18 players (which they are) doesn't add to the topic as their salary is likely quite small. So scraping the barrel with two 17yo to add up to the similar count of our team doesn't exactly prove anything.. We were talking about first team salaries. If you wanna go as far as that Leeds have 19 U23 players and we have 11 u23 

It does however add to the point to why Leeds can offer players more than us, because part of their squad is made up of 17-18yos with peanuts for salaries. 

That was still better than posting a link that's listing squad numbers before the transfer window is shut and using it as a squad count 

Actually that was from a different year nvm 

[22A]

A loss is still a loss, but; 

https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=pwPr%2fzHs&id=AB8A3B51E62C9F458B3E2F8A9DA8749F62D78D79&thid=OIP.pwPr_zHss25q_Z-px7f8vAAAAA&mediaurl=http%3a%2f%2fwww.raf.mod.uk%2fRAFbenson%2frafcms%2fmediafiles%2fA47EC654_ABB8_F5D1_867C6C37304C7A23.jpg&exph=176&expw=117&q="welcome+to+raf+benson"&simid=608003621869128249&selectedIndex=0&ajaxhist=0

Grimsby Town have announced a loss in their year-ending financial results – but have revealed they are undergoing a “programme of work” to improve facilities at Blundell Park.

The club have recorded a loss of £36,328 for the year ending May 31, 2018, but have said in a statement that they are “generating a consistent level of income.”

That income has enabled Town to increase its playing budget, and continue its investment into its Youth Academy and Cheapside training ground.

[Lanterne Rouge]

6 hours ago, Bristol Rob said:

Does that period of time include Tomlin and whatever we had to lump in his direction?

Assume that if he never requested a transfer, we would have had to make good the signing on fee and other financial settlement which might otherwise have been spread over the duration of his contract.

And Gary O`Neil`s wages which I doubt were peanuts?

[BS4 on Tour...]

41 minutes ago, Red Right Hand said:

And Gary O`Neil`s wages which I doubt were peanuts?

Absolutely.....we can up with the dosh when we feel the need....David James was paid handsomely too....

[Huntstile Red]

On 01/11/2018 at 16:06, Sturny said:

Strictly comparing ourselves to others? We are performing as we should be. Interesting that teams like Birmingham spend DOUBLE what we are on wages. 

I think it's slightly misleading though,  Leeds spend slightly less than us but probably have a smaller squad and pay higher wages to the average player whilst our squad is potentially larger with a lower wage. 

Haven't read all the pages on here, so apologies if already noted: Leeds have 24 players who have made a first team appearance since August, we have 21. So much for them having a smaller squad.

There are teams who spend more on wages than us but are worse (Brum, Stoke) and teams who are the inverse (Brentford, Millwall). As ever we're somewhere in the middle of it all. Much as the figures indicate why we didn't go mad on transfers last Jan, not sure we'll have a better chance of that promotion any time soon. I'd rather have spent 11 months ago. Lansdown splurged money in 2008 when it didn't need throwing around - no-one else did - and now, ffp notwithstanding, he's gone relatively spendthrifty when spending would probably have seen us into the playoffs back in May. Back to front. But then, that, again, sums us up quite a bit, too.

[The Constant Rabbit]

So, in a nutshell:

We have spent waaaay over the odds on some very, very mediocre players. Including some absurd loan fees.

And had to sell/release 6 or 7 of the more high profile ones to cover that mistake? - Reid,Flint,Bryan,Mags,Milan,O'Neil etc 

I thought we had this all-singing,all-dancing recruitment team that could do no wrong.

Obviously not.

We WOULD have money for good players if we stopped spunking millions up the wall on excessive wages, loan fees and signing on bonuses for the wrong players.

Correct?

[Bristol Rob]

43 minutes ago, SX227 said:

So, in a nutshell:

We have spent waaaay over the odds on some very, very mediocre players. Including some absurd loan fees.

And had to sell/release 6 or 7 of the more high profile ones to cover that mistake? - Reid,Flint,Bryan,Mags,Milan,O'Neil etc 

I thought we had this all-singing,all-dancing recruitment team that could do no wrong.

Obviously not.

We WOULD have money for good players if we stopped spunking millions up the wall on excessive wages, loan fees and signing on bonuses for the wrong players.

Correct?

Exactly.

The club set out with a deliberate strategy that would hold us back, but they were cunning enough to actually spend the money, rather than achieving similar without the spend.

In absolutely no way, when these players were signed did anyone say, ' but what if they're good, and what If they avoid injury?'

Our director in charge of hindsight has been a notable absence from all high profile meetings.

You could be on to something here.

[JBFC II]

52 minutes ago, SX227 said:

So, in a nutshell:

We have spent waaaay over the odds on some very, very mediocre players. Including some absurd loan fees.

And had to sell/release 6 or 7 of the more high profile ones to cover that mistake? - Reid,Flint,Bryan,Mags,Milan,O'Neil etc 

I thought we had this all-singing,all-dancing recruitment team that could do no wrong.

Obviously not.

We WOULD have money for good players if we stopped spunking millions up the wall on excessive wages, loan fees and signing on bonuses for the wrong players.

Correct?

Yep, completely correct. 

We have purposefully bought in rubbish players to make the club go backwards instead of looking to strengthen the squad and to fund that we've sold our best players. 

Makes sense... 

[The Constant Rabbit]

8 hours ago, Bristol Rob said:

Exactly.

The club set out with a deliberate strategy that would hold us back, but they were cunning enough to actually spend the money, rather than achieving similar without the spend.

In absolutely no way, when these players were signed did anyone say, ' but what if they're good, and what If they avoid injury?'

Our director in charge of hindsight has been a notable absence from all high profile meetings.

You could be on to something here.

 

8 hours ago, JBFC II said:

Yep, completely correct. 

We have purposefully bought in rubbish players to make the club go backwards instead of looking to strengthen the squad and to fund that we've sold our best players. 

Makes sense... 

Brilliant.

I shall apply to BCFC for the role of scout immediately.

May I add you as referee's?

[Sturny]

10 hours ago, Huntstile Red said:

Haven't read all the pages on here, so apologies if already noted: Leeds have 24 players who have made a first team appearance since August, we have 21. So much for them having a smaller squad.

There are teams who spend more on wages than us but are worse (Brum, Stoke) and teams who are the inverse (Brentford, Millwall). As ever we're somewhere in the middle of it all. Much as the figures indicate why we didn't go mad on transfers last Jan, not sure we'll have a better chance of that promotion any time soon. I'd rather have spent 11 months ago. Lansdown splurged money in 2008 when it didn't need throwing around - no-one else did - and now, ffp notwithstanding, he's gone relatively spendthrifty when spending would probably have seen us into the playoffs back in May. Back to front. But then, that, again, sums us up quite a bit, too.

If you include the two 17yo Leeds players into the first team squad, then us and Leeds have the same size squad (25 players each). Not sure what relevance first team appearances has to do with anything, unless you’re referring to appearance bonuses?