• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

ENIC

DaveT316 said:
Is it too simple to state the drop off in league position has cost us here and the difference between being in the red and the black? It's a, what, £20-25m swing from 5th to 17th?

The big spike in profitability in Poch years driven by regular champions league football?

Maybe I'm over-simplifying and need to properly read the article, but is there anything really to see here?
Click to expand...
Clicky headline. Roll eyes.

The impressive rise in profits upto the completion of the stadium were a tactical move as we went into the final reconciliation of refinancing the stadium debt. It paid off in the low long term rates we secured.

COVID then took it's toll (as it did on everything and everyone) on income and profits.

As noted above the circa £70m depreciation charge on the stadium makes it appear we are trading at a bad loss. Remove that, we are not.

Two things to worry about in the accounts.
Player trading and transfer fees owed. (Hence our shift back to young recruits)
Increased operational costs. (Yep inflation is a killer)

Our debt is not a worry (remember that £250m of our long term debt isn't the stadium but the refinanced COVID loan that bridged that particular event)...to service this debt pile isn't an issue as a yearly cost (as long as the current mob don't carry on as they started with Macquarie loan nonsense)

If we go down....we are certainly going to have to trim any fat and hope we bounce straight back......you could say what we need is an astute safe pair of hands. The irony.
 
DaveT316 said:
Is it too simple to state the drop off in league position has cost us here and the difference between being in the red and the black? It's a, what, £20-25m swing from 5th to 17th?

The big spike in profitability in Poch years driven by regular champions league football?

Maybe I'm over-simplifying and need to properly read the article, but is there anything really to see here?
Click to expand...
It’s around 3.6 mil per league position, or closer to 43 mil.
 
DaveT316 said:
Yeah he sounded only one layer deep on the VFTL pod - I’d hardly call him a football finance expert and I came away feeling I could have offered the same level of insight into our finances.
Click to expand...

He’s a former jr level accountant but does not have the ability to interpret the financial data he is reporting on.
 
Thought it was a decent piece to be honest and the guy made some great points on the podcast. Despite people rushing to proclaim what will happen if we are relegated, no one knows. There is no precedent for it, we don’t know what’s in the players’ contracts and who will stay/go and we’ve no idea what the £200m operating costs consist of. There are too many variables to know how badly we’ll be impacted.

What’s apparent to me is that Chelsea and City have changed the football landscape where it becomes very, very expensive and risky to try and compete. We’ve made a particularly calamitous job of it with our player trading over the last few seasons. We’ve spent big money on fees but on risky punts who haven’t worked out and we lost our ability to squeeze other clubs for fees for the lads we were selling. All that has contributed to a 300m (I think) transfer fee burden we still have to settle.

We are a case study for the ages, more so if we go down. I’d find it infinitely more fascinating if it was any other club. Right now, I’m just closing my eyes, covering my ears and hoping RDZ can keep us up.
 
DeanoAustin said:
Thought it was a decent piece to be honest and the guy made some great points on the podcast. Despite people rushing to proclaim what will happen if we are relegated, no one knows. There is no precedent for it, we don’t know what’s in the players’ contracts and who will stay/go and we’ve no idea what the £200m operating costs consist of. There are too many variables to know how badly we’ll be impacted.

What’s apparent to me is that Chelsea and City have changed the football landscape where it becomes very, very expensive and risky to try and compete. We’ve made a particularly calamitous job of it with our player trading over the last few seasons. We’ve spent big money on fees but on risky punts who haven’t worked out and we lost our ability to squeeze other clubs for fees for the lads we were selling. All that has contributed to a 300m (I think) transfer fee burden we still have to settle.

We are a case study for the ages, more so if we go down. I’d find it infinitely more fascinating if it was any other club. Right now, I’m just closing my eyes, covering my ears and hoping RDZ can keep us up.
Click to expand...

I think the original sin here is the poor player sales. I am dying to know what the logic was of letting these players run down contracts rather than selling them, either at peak value, or if they were surplus to requirements, getting them out while we could still get something for them. I remember it right back to Gomes just rotting here for no reason.

Was it Levy thinking that if he showed a harder edge in negotiations for surplus players that we could squeeze an extra few mil for the Bale and Kane sales? Hardly seems worth it. It is completely baffling to me.

Then, under Poch, when Poch wanted to sell players, not purely out of a financial value calculation but because he understand the culture he had built, the system that he uses and he knew he needed fresh players in the squad. Again, we refused. Here it seemed like someone - Levy. ENIC? - had decided that actually, it wasn’t Poch’s coaching and culture and system that made all of these players look incredible exactly at the same time, it was that in the wisdom of their scouting and signings they had furnished him with a world class squad that would do better once he was gone. So again, we don’t sell when we need to, and inevitably the whole thing slides.

Of course the attempt to correct it by selling Brennan with the squad stretched thin as it was, was just insane idiocy. It reeks of there clearly being a new diktat to sell players for value rather than hold on too long, but with terrible judgement applied to the actual situation on the ground. Clueless.

But getting back to it…why on earth did we decide that we didn’t need to sell players? What possible logic was there?
 
SissokoWasGood (BoL) said:
I think the original sin here is the poor player sales. I am dying to know what the logic was of letting these players run down contracts rather than selling them, either at peak value, or if they were surplus to requirements, getting them out while we could still get something for them. I remember it right back to Gomes just rotting here for no reason.

Was it Levy thinking that if he showed a harder edge in negotiations for surplus players that we could squeeze an extra few mil for the Bale and Kane sales? Hardly seems worth it. It is completely baffling to me.

Then, under Poch, when Poch wanted to sell players, not purely out of a financial value calculation but because he understand the culture he had built, the system that he uses and he knew he needed fresh players in the squad. Again, we refused. Here it seemed like someone - Levy. ENIC? - had decided that actually, it wasn’t Poch’s coaching and culture and system that made all of these players look incredible exactly at the same time, it was that in the wisdom of their scouting and signings they had furnished him with a world class squad that would do better once he was gone. So again, we don’t sell when we need to, and inevitably the whole thing slides.

Of course the attempt to correct it by selling Brennan with the squad stretched thin as it was, was just insane idiocy. It reeks of there clearly being a new diktat to sell players for value rather than hold on too long, but with terrible judgement applied to the actual situation on the ground. Clueless.

But getting back to it…why on earth did we decide that we didn’t need to sell players? What possible logic was there?
Click to expand...
Was it a case that Levy was influenced by the criticism he got for selling players with years on their contracts? He got hammered for Berbatov, Keane, Carrick etc. He even got some criticism for Bale, Modric and even Kane who only had a year left. In an eagerness to be seen as a club who aren’t a selling club, we instead let lads run down their contracts and value.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back