Jump to content
IGNORED

City release accounts - Ouch!


Henry

Recommended Posts

On 06/01/2022 at 09:12, Monkeh said:

You do realise that the wages include every player not just first team don't you,

That's the 15 and 16 year olds on 120 quid a week to over paid strikers on 27k a week

 

On 06/01/2022 at 09:36, Davefevs said:

We’d already included him.

Transfer profit consisted of Eliasson, Szmodics and Morrell.  If we got a fee for Rory Holden, it was nominal, same with Jonny Smith.

Those 3 accounted for about £3m of the £6.2m

Could the ladies team be included in these figures, or are they accounted for separately? Unlikely to be a significant amount, but every little helps

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, WarksRobin said:

 

Could the ladies team be included in these figures, or are they accounted for separately? Unlikely to be a significant amount, but every little helps

The Womens accounts are included in the Holding Company accounts, but there is no transfer fee income, players who left in the summer were generally OOC, e.g. Ebony Salmon.  The money in their game is tiny in comparison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, ColeCiderRed said:

?

Gee: "City have lost £412,000 a week, every week, for the last 10 years from day-to-day trading, Maguire found. Overall, in the latest annual finances, City's revenue was down 39 per cent to £16.7m but wages had increased six per cent to £35.3m. Day-to-day losses increased by a quarter to £44m, with owner investment up to £214m."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

City estimate that, by next year, the pandemic has cost them around £30m in lost transfer revenue, based on previous earnings, a number that would have, in theory, moved them significantly closer to being in the black.

In a "normal" business this would be a bit like saying "if we'd got that sales order everything would have been fine". 

Do we have £30M of talent on our books that would be attractive to Prem clubs / abroad or those in our current division that have the benefit of parachute payments [no one else has any £]. 

HNM £8M / Bentley £4M / Kalas £7M / Scott £7M = £26M this plus gate revenue being restored and we could be OK???

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, headhunter said:

City estimate that, by next year, the pandemic has cost them around £30m in lost transfer revenue, based on previous earnings, a number that would have, in theory, moved them significantly closer to being in the black.

In a "normal" business this would be a bit like saying "if we'd got that sales order everything would have been fine". 

Do we have £30M of talent on our books that would be attractive to Prem clubs / abroad or those in our current division that have the benefit of parachute payments [no one else has any £]. 

HNM £8M / Bentley £4M / Kalas £7M / Scott £7M = £26M this plus gate revenue being restored and we could be OK???

I think anyone buying Scott for 7m is getting a complete steal. 

I think if he continues on the same trajectory in the next 12/18 months, he could become our record sale and it’ll be to one of the big boys. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Fordy62 said:

I think anyone buying Scott for 7m is getting a complete steal. 

I think if he continues on the same trajectory in the next 12/18 months, he could become our record sale and it’ll be to one of the big boys. 

I would agree with that. I guess it is about whether City hold their nerve for 12 months after which the chickens come home to roost in some shape or form with regards to FFP compliance.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

Yep, unless ffp changes we are in the shit,

Ffp will likely change and most of the division will be in the same shit 

I don't see us as being alone in the FFP  situation of course.

We are the only club in the Championship to have released 2021 accounts, and I reckon a number of clubs results will be worse than ours.

With the 2019 results keeping us within guidelines for this season, there will be Championship clubs that don't have that luxury, and will fail the FFP for this season, and will of course be of more immediate concern for the EFL.

Moving forward the situation has to change of course. How can the Championship, L1 & L2 have different systems? And of course, how competitive can the Championship be under FFP with the PPs that a number of clubs are getting for 3 years. It's all getting a bit farcical now.

I can see a situation where the EFL when confronted by the 20/21 figures, just concede that the clubs shouldn't be penalised due to "Act of God"; and are given a free pass. The system then has to change to some form of Salary cap for all three leagues that is consistent across the board. They then have to figure out how to strip out these PP's out of the Salary Cap situation, to allow the Championship once again to be a competitive division. 

Not going to be an easy one for them to manage, that's for sure.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, headhunter said:

I would agree with that. I guess it is about whether City hold their nerve for 12 months after which the chickens come home to roost in some shape or form with regards to FFP compliance.

David,

As per my earlier post, I don't think City are in a terrible position compared to a number of Championship clubs.

The 2019 results push the problem 12 months into the future, and hopefully by then the EFL will have come to their senses over 20-21, and future application of some sort of Salary Cap.

There will be a number of clubs that for this season here and now, have breached the FFP, as they don't have a 2019 season to include in their figures. Those clubs will be of more immediate  concern to the EFL in my view.

Big decisions to be made of course this Summer around all of the OOC's, Optional years, and players going into their last year of contract of course.

We could be looking at a vastly different team in August 2022 to the one that finishes this season.

Edited by NcnsBcfc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, headhunter said:

City estimate that, by next year, the pandemic has cost them around £30m in lost transfer revenue, based on previous earnings, a number that would have, in theory, moved them significantly closer to being in the black.

HNM £8M / Bentley £4M / Kalas £7M / Scott £7M = £26M this plus gate revenue being restored and we could be OK???

Not a chance anyone is paying even half that for Bentley & the golden moment to sell Kalas was last summer (with rumoured interest then from a Bundesliga club), we would struggle to get £3m for him by the summer with less than 12 months on his current deal.

I like HNM but if we really did turn down in excess of £8m for him for Watford in the summer I’m amazed.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reading the EP article, I may be naive, but I’m still not that concerned at this stage.

When he was chief executive of Surrey, Gould often used the media as a means to put pressure on the ECB. This is what he’s doing here - he’s laying out a damaging but plausible scenario of the majority of clubs having huge losses and breaching FFP, and then pointing out that in turn would kill the integrity of the competition due to those losses arising from an “act of God” as opposed to mismanagement (although there is a degree - cough - Ashton, it’s not the main factor here). The line about taking the deduction vs selling players is an iteration of that we can’t undermine the competitiveness of clubs following Covid.

Basically, it’s a push article to set the ground for either a major allowance for Covid related losses (as noted, our concerts/conferences is actually the big hit), or reform. As all bar the parachute clubs will be impacted to some degree, there will be a rally behind this - it’s just we’re first over the hill and laying the groundwork 

  • Like 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, NcnsBcfc said:

I don't see us as being alone in the FFP  situation of course.

We are the only club in the Championship to have released 2021 accounts, and I reckon a number of clubs results will be worse than ours.

With the 2019 results keeping us within guidelines for this season, there will be Championship clubs that don't have that luxury, and will fail the FFP for this season, and will of course be of more immediate concern for the EFL.

Moving forward the situation has to change of course. How can the Championship, L1 & L2 have different systems? And of course, how competitive can the Championship be under FFP with the PPs that a number of clubs are getting for 3 years. It's all getting a bit farcical now.

I can see a situation where the EFL when confronted by the 20/21 figures, just concede that the clubs shouldn't be penalised due to "Act of God"; and are given a free pass. The system then has to change to some form of Salary cap for all three leagues that is consistent across the board. They then have to figure out how to strip out these PP's out of the Salary Cap situation, to allow the Championship once again to be a competitive division. 

Not going to be an easy one for them to manage, that's for sure.

FWIW I think there will be some clubs posting figures like ours, but not as many as you’d think.  The likes of Millwall, Preston, Coventry, Luton, etc, have low cost bases compared to ours, haven’t gone mad by paying out as much in fees as us (big amortisation bill), etc, and therefore aren’t at the mercy of both covid and a collapse of transfer fees as we are.  We put our eggs in the wrong basket.

I expect the likes of Forest, Boro, Stoke, Cardiff, Birmingham (possibly) will be sweating a bit, but like us have a bit of time to sort their acts out.

I’ve ignored Derby and Reading - basket cases.

 

As for RG’s words, I think he is trying to gain support for future changes and messaging and managing the expectations of fans, both this window and in the summer.  I honestly don’t think SL would let us break FFP.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

Reading the EP article, I may be naive, but I’m still not that concerned at this stage.

When he was chief executive of Surrey, Gould often used the media as a means to put pressure on the ECB. This is what he’s doing here - he’s laying out a damaging but plausible scenario of the majority of clubs having huge losses and breaching FFP, and then pointing out that in turn would kill the integrity of the competition due to those losses arising from an “act of God” as opposed to mismanagement (although there is a degree - cough - Ashton, it’s not the main factor here). The line about taking the deduction vs selling players is an iteration of that we can’t undermine the competitiveness of clubs following Covid.

Basically, it’s a push article to set the ground for either a major allowance for Covid related losses (as noted, our concerts/conferences is actually the big hit), or reform. As all bar the parachute clubs will be impacted to some degree, there will be a rally behind this - it’s just we’re first over the hill and laying the groundwork 

Beat me to it….spot on imho.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

Reading the EP article, I may be naive, but I’m still not that concerned at this stage.

When he was chief executive of Surrey, Gould often used the media as a means to put pressure on the ECB. This is what he’s doing here - he’s laying out a damaging but plausible scenario of the majority of clubs having huge losses and breaching FFP, and then pointing out that in turn would kill the integrity of the competition due to those losses arising from an “act of God” as opposed to mismanagement (although there is a degree - cough - Ashton, it’s not the main factor here). The line about taking the deduction vs selling players is an iteration of that we can’t undermine the competitiveness of clubs following Covid.

Basically, it’s a push article to set the ground for either a major allowance for Covid related losses (as noted, our concerts/conferences is actually the big hit), or reform. As all bar the parachute clubs will be impacted to some degree, there will be a rally behind this - it’s just we’re first over the hill and laying the groundwork 

Agree, just read it & it has a far more nuanced perspective than Gregor has tried to make out.

Gould hasn’t actually ruled out sales at all, but is making a much broader point.

Certainly worth a read for those still thinking we’re after Dwight Gayle, though ??

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

IF (and I don’t think for one second we will be) we take a points deduction, surely it’s the lesser of two evils as far as relegation is concerned. If we have to take a hit then there will absolutely be other clubs in the same boat. That gives us a fighting chance to avoid relegation if we can keep a squad together. If we sell the house then unless there are miracles in the transfer market we are condemning ourselves to relegation anyway. 
 

I think as others have said this is Richard Gould using the media a bit here. He’s already got a big piece out on parachute payments and I think we will see more of this under him than Ashton

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

It’s behind a paywall.  Is it a re-hash of James Piercy’s article?

If you're using chrome, go to settings - security & privacy - site settings - turn off javascript. 

It will allow you to see the article. 

Works on many websites, not the Athletic though!

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

4 to 6 points and a transfer embargo although reading and Birmingham,

12 is for administration which we are in no danger of while sl remains at the helm

I'd rather than an additional 6 points, rather than have an embargo. We need some new players in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

Reading the EP article, I may be naive, but I’m still not that concerned at this stage.

When he was chief executive of Surrey, Gould often used the media as a means to put pressure on the ECB. This is what he’s doing here - he’s laying out a damaging but plausible scenario of the majority of clubs having huge losses and breaching FFP, and then pointing out that in turn would kill the integrity of the competition due to those losses arising from an “act of God” as opposed to mismanagement (although there is a degree - cough - Ashton, it’s not the main factor here). The line about taking the deduction vs selling players is an iteration of that we can’t undermine the competitiveness of clubs following Covid.

Basically, it’s a push article to set the ground for either a major allowance for Covid related losses (as noted, our concerts/conferences is actually the big hit), or reform. As all bar the parachute clubs will be impacted to some degree, there will be a rally behind this - it’s just we’re first over the hill and laying the groundwork 

Gould strikes me as a CEO who is going to be pushed to the front by a number of clubs to collectively argue on their behalf alongside City.

He is articulate, thoughtful; and comes across as a man with experience who perhaps the EFL will feel they can negotiate with?

Some of the CEO's at other clubs come across as either second hand car dealers, or nothing more than nepotistic appointments by Foreign owners.

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...