Accounts

[Melbourne Cobbler]

So…. Considering it has been the mainstay from certain parties that our owners are the devil incarnate, what is the genuine verdict on their performance, all things considered? Are they worthy of the significant scrutiny and criticism they have endured. Or are they (all things considered) doing their best?

Difficult to understand how they could have performed any better to be honest. No exposure to external debt, and funding within the realms of being competitive that’s comparatively reasonable for 10 years straight, plus they have found a way to complete the stand. All of which goes way beyond what they originally committed to in terms of finance and timeframes all against increasingly unrealistic trading conditions. That’s more than could have been reasonably expected at the outset, despite what the bonkers brigade with their unrealistic expectations would have you believe.

[GrangeParkCobbler]

Difficult to understand how they could have performed any better to be honest. No exposure to external debt, and funding within the realms of being competitive that’s comparatively reasonable for 10 years straight, plus they have found a way to complete the stand. All of which goes way beyond what they originally committed to in terms of finance and timeframes all against increasingly unrealistic trading conditions. That’s more than could have been reasonably expected at the outset, despite what the bonkers brigade with their unrealistic expectations would have you believe.

There are always things that can be done better! For example, have we paid £500k in wages over the odds due to the recruitment policy of signing misfits and crocks, over-reliance on loan platers, and little or nothing coming through from our own youth setup.
Hopefully Mr Calderwood and co will oversee a long overdue overhaul of that side of the "business"

I do find it difficult to get my head around the fact we have reported record turnover, highest gates in god knows how long, yet still record a £2m loss for the year....and somehow thats ok because "everyone loses money"! Only in the football business would that be acceptable surely?

[GrangeParkCobbler]

The answer is to cap expenditure below income or face losing the ownership of a club. It’s really not complicated, it just needs the strength of conviction from the majority and legislation that’s strong enough. Sooner or later the average costs will become greater than the number of available individuals willing or able to support them.

These Hollywood wànkers turn up at Wrexham with cash on the hip and profiles big enough to propel the club to the big time. But eventually they will get bored or move on and Wrexham will become yet another Wigan/Blackburn/Bolton take your pick. Meanwhile the wage market has been elevated for everyone else, just to indulge these individuals on some unsustainable ego trip, while people worship them at their feet.

People have to learn to accept that in a pyramid system with promotion and relegation not all clubs can always be successful. Gearing finance towards only a positive outcome exposes a club to dependency on the individuals that took that decision and their appetite to sustain it. That comes at a risk, and the greater the financial exposure, the greater the risk. To remain competitive that risk goes up with every season that passes. Burying heads in the sand and trusting it will all work out in the end is just bonkers.

Would this work though? Birminghams last accounts for example showed revenue and operating income just shy of £20m. Are you saying it would be ok for them to spend £19.5m whilst we only spend £5m? Doesn't really even things up does it?

Just to add more figures into the Birmingham equation, their operating expenses were £42.5m! Their liabilities were just short of £100m....but thats ok because they have rich owners who can service the debt? These figures were in the last set of accounts up to June 2023 by the way.....not even taking into account things like splashing out £15m on one player!!

Football is broken!

[Michael Walker]

The answer is to cap expenditure below income or face losing the ownership of a club. It’s really not complicated, it just needs the strength of conviction from the majority and legislation that’s strong enough. Sooner or later the average costs will become greater than the number of available individuals willing or able to support them.

These Hollywood wànkers turn up at Wrexham with cash on the hip and profiles big enough to propel the club to the big time. But eventually they will get bored or move on and Wrexham will become yet another Wigan/Blackburn/Bolton take your pick. Meanwhile the wage market has been elevated for everyone else, just to indulge these individuals on some unsustainable ego trip, while people worship them at their feet.

People have to learn to accept that in a pyramid system with promotion and relegation not all clubs can always be successful. Gearing finance towards only a positive outcome exposes a club to dependency on the individuals that took that decision and their appetite to sustain it. That comes at a risk, and the greater the financial exposure, the greater the risk. To remain competitive that risk goes up with every season that passes. Burying heads in the sand and trusting it will all work out in the end is just bonkers.

I agree with the need to introduce a statutory requirement to break even (or make a profit) over say a 3 year period, with the EFL having the ability to send in 'Commissioners ' if clubs fail to abide by this requirement.

To make it fair, there could be a two strikes policy. The first time the club would be in 'special measures' the Commissioners could make the necessary cost adjustments and hand back the club.

On the second,  it would be offered for sale by the Commissioners - a much tougher statutory requirement than currently.

I know this sounds draconian,  but I disagree with the point above that there will always be 'somebody' to fund clubs.

As I highlighted on FB, the difference in real terms between the Cobblers in 1988 and last year is threefold.

This must surely mean that a vastly diminishing number of wealthy people are left to fund clubs.

I would never want the Cobblers to be left without a new wealthy backer when this game of musical chairs stops.

To emphasise,  I'm not saying the Cobblers are in imminent danger, I think most of the EFL will be if these losses are not tackled.

[Michael Walker]

Would this work though? Birminghams last accounts for example showed revenue and operating income just shy of £20m. Are you saying it would be ok for them to spend £19.5m whilst we only spend £5m? Doesn't really even things up does it?

Just to add more figures into the Birmingham equation, their operating expenses were £42.5m! Their liabilities were just short of £100m....but thats ok because they have rich owners who can service the debt? These figures were in the last set of accounts up to June 2023 by the way.....not even taking into account things like splashing out £15m on one player!!

Football is broken!

This is the argument - how do you make the league competitive without clubs over reaching themselves.

The Salary Cost Management Protocol was meant to fix this but clearly hasn't.

I think alongside a statutory requirement to break-even over 3 years, should be the allowance that all capital spending is permitted, irrespective of size.

So if a small EFL club gets a sugar parent they can build a new stadium and use the extra revenue from it to build the clubs budget but they can't spend money servicing debt etc.

The other thing that would help is to share the proceeds of TV money equally across the league.

This would disproportionately help teams with the smallest budgets.

Some people might cry 'socialism' but when the remaining teams have only a few games a season they might think differently.

[Melbourne Cobbler]

Would this work though? Birminghams last accounts for example showed revenue and operating income just shy of £20m. Are you saying it would be ok for them to spend £19.5m whilst we only spend £5m? Doesn't really even things up does it?

Just to add more figures into the Birmingham equation, their operating expenses were £42.5m! Their liabilities were just short of £100m....but thats ok because they have rich owners who can service the debt? These figures were in the last set of accounts up to June 2023 by the way.....not even taking into account things like splashing out £15m on one player!!

Football is broken!

No, it doesn’t even things up. Those with a larger support base have a larger income so there is still a disparity. That’s as opposed to the current system which is dependent on those who have a larger wallet with all the financial ramifications that entails. Also the expenditure needs to be significantly lower than income, so 19.5 million off the back of 20 million is a non starter under the proposals. There will always be objections if people are prepared to look for them, it just depends if we are prepared to hurl clubs into the abyss off the back of them. The increasing costs are unsustainable, so we really don’t have a choice.

[everbrite]

No, it doesn’t even things up. Those with a larger support base have a larger income so there is still a disparity. That’s as opposed to the current system which is dependent on those who have a larger wallet with all the financial ramifications that entails. Also the expenditure needs to be significantly lower than income, so 19.5 million off the back of 20 million is a non starter under the proposals. There will always be objections if people are prepared to look for them, it just depends if we are prepared to hurl clubs into the abyss off the back of them. The increasing costs are unsustainable, so we really don’t have a choice.

For me the directors have been totally correct in applying the old maxim - cut your cloth to what you can afford. At the moment our fanbase  is no where near Brums. I accept you and I have different views on the accounts side; I do find it somewhat disconcerting that you of all people seem supportive of the bonkers brigade! All the best though!

[Melbourne Cobbler]

For me the directors have been totally correct in applying the old maxim - cut your cloth to what you can afford. At the moment our fanbase  is no where near Brums. I accept you and I have different views on the accounts side; I do find it somewhat disconcerting that you of all people seem supportive of the bonkers brigade! All the best though!

I don’t think you read my post correctly Evers.

[Another Pedj]

There are always things that can be done better! For example, have we paid £500k in wages over the odds due to the recruitment policy of signing misfits and crocks, over-reliance on loan platers, and little or nothing coming through from our own youth setup.
Hopefully Mr Calderwood and co will oversee a long overdue overhaul of that side of the "business"

I do find it difficult to get my head around the fact we have reported record turnover, highest gates in god knows how long, yet still record a £2m loss for the year....and somehow thats ok because "everyone loses money"! Only in the football business would that be acceptable surely?

Don't forget we have the lowest playing budget in Division 1 and show no ambition.

[Shoemaker]

Don't forget we have the lowest playing budget in Division 1 and show no ambition.

I’m not sure about that but I would say we have the lowest overall on pitch investment of any league one club during this period once transfer fees paid are added onto the player wages.
It all counts towards the product on the pitch.

[DavCobb]

What is this business' Net Assets figure. That is the accounting value of your employer's business. It may, of course, have an Intangible Asset value that it chooses not to value.

Net worth £40b. Profits stalling a bit. We buy and write off billions of (£) shares to keep everyone happy, we make lots of money. I wasn't really comparing it to a football team, just that a debt doesn't tell the full story and with many of these businesses (including football teams) there are a lot of smoke and mirrors. The profit/debt is on the balance sheet.

Chelsea selling women's team. Everton offsetting stadium costs etc.

I think our accounts will be a bit more interesting when we get a full season of executive boxes. I am sure they have already forecasted for that. I'm not sure I can currently see someone offering a couple of million for Max Dyche. 



 

[Winslow Lee]

Give it a few months and this will all be forgotten and people will be moaning about the calibre of signings, with wildly speculative conclusions about our playing budget. The same facile cliches will be trotted out like ‘speculate to accumulate’ and ‘investing in the playing squad’.

[Melbourne Cobbler]

There are always things that can be done better! For example, have we paid £500k in wages over the odds due to the recruitment policy of signing misfits and crocks, over-reliance on loan platers, and little or nothing coming through from our own youth setup.
Hopefully Mr Calderwood and co will oversee a long overdue overhaul of that side of the "business"

I do find it difficult to get my head around the fact we have reported record turnover, highest gates in god knows how long, yet still record a £2m loss for the year....and somehow thats ok because "everyone loses money"! Only in the football business would that be acceptable surely?

In fairness Simon much of that is with hindsight.

[Winslow Lee]

I’m not sure about that but I would say we have the lowest overall on pitch investment of any league one club during this period once transfer fees paid are added onto the player wages.
It all counts towards the product on the pitch.

Just to name one team I would speculate Cambridge would be lower.

[DavCobb]

I do find it difficult to get my head around the fact we have reported record turnover, highest gates in god knows how long, yet still record a £2m loss for the year....and somehow thats ok because "everyone loses money"! Only in the football business would that be acceptable surely?

What does it look like if you consider the known money we have received previously....for the likes of a 12 year old kid and Charlie Goode in the not too distant past?
In fact, who were the last players we received a little bit of 'undisclosed' for?
That must be the biggest key difference.

Not forgetting the known increase in just about everything. Utility costs, staffing costs and today they are about to feel the NI hike with a significant number of employees.
I reckon they need to get those boxes full and make as many prawn sandwiches as they can ASAP!

[GrangeParkCobbler]

In fairness Simon much of that is with hindsight.

True Dale, but when you are looking back on something and asking what could have gone better, it’s always going to be ‘with hindsight’…

[CobblerForever]

The answer is to cap expenditure below income or face losing the ownership of a club. It’s really not complicated, it just needs the strength of conviction from the majority and legislation that’s strong enough. Sooner or later the average costs will become greater than the number of available individuals willing or able to support them.

These Hollywood wànkers turn up at Wrexham with cash on the hip and profiles big enough to propel the club to the big time. But eventually they will get bored or move on and Wrexham will become yet another Wigan/Blackburn/Bolton take your pick. Meanwhile the wage market has been elevated for everyone else, just to indulge these individuals on some unsustainable ego trip, while people worship them at their feet.

People have to learn to accept that in a pyramid system with promotion and relegation not all clubs can always be successful. Gearing finance towards only a positive outcome exposes a club to dependency on the individuals that took that decision and their appetite to sustain it. That comes at a risk, and the greater the financial exposure, the greater the risk. To remain competitive that risk goes up with every season that passes. Burying heads in the sand and trusting it will all work out in the end is just bonkers.

In the end you just get clubs thrown out or relegated down the leagues like Kettering and Rushden (locally). Does it really matter ? The Cobblers would start again in The United Counties League with Beds, Marvo, Mysterious and the Trust at the helm.

[Terryfenwickatemyhamster]

True Dale, but when you are looking back on something and asking what could have gone better, it’s always going to be ‘with hindsight’…

Hindsight, and on a message board. With little, or no experience of the circumstances unique to any club. It seems to me, that people want a certain level of entertainment, but at park football prices. The fact that not one league football club can survive on gate receipts alone, is a testament to the madness that prevails. Clubs are exploring more and more creative ideas for revenue streams just to survive. Yet they continue to run at a loss. Then we are told by some of the planks that have posted on here, that there is a queue of people wishing to take us and our council house over 😂😂

[BedsCobb]

I've seen a few today and just a quick search...
Swansea £15m loss
Stockport £7m loss
Yeovil £2.8m loss
Bournemouth £66m loss
Reading £21m loss
Walsall £1.8m loss

How the  f*** is football still going?!

(im sure theres 'good' reasons for a few but still crazy)

Football isn't like any other business,  your costumers are loyal to the product regardless how faulty it is.
It's good to show losses on a balance sheet for tax purposes.
Overstretching to achieve on pitch success can pay dividends ...If it goes boob's up , you only drop a few divisions, cut your cloth and start again...
All those clubs that flew too close to the sun, got relegated out the football league, come/ came back bigger and stronger ...
It's when a club just tread water without trading in a correct manner to suit its surroundings,  it stagnates.

[SC Cobbler]

Difficult to understand how they could have performed any better to be honest. No exposure to external debt, and funding within the realms of being competitive that’s comparatively reasonable for 10 years straight, plus they have found a way to complete the stand. All of which goes way beyond what they originally committed to in terms of finance and timeframes all against increasingly unrealistic trading conditions. That’s more than could have been reasonably expected at the outset, despite what the bonkers brigade with their unrealistic expectations would have you believe.

Combined with either chasing promotion in League Two or playing our football in League One throughout their ownership too, it's probably been the best ownership in a lot of fans lifetime? The club feels a lot better and professional than it ever has in my opinion.