Personally I wouldn't put the cart before the horse. You could but I wouldn't, that was Freddie's creative school of accounting and saddled us with the current situation. Its quite simple to me, you have the current wage budget and the current squad. You then have the money which has been generated by the club this year. If we want to add to the squad and/or increase the wage budget, this should be funded from the money we have generated. If we sell players we generate further funds from the fee and freeing of wages that can be added to the pot. If the wage budget doesn't change then there is no impact on the generated funds. If it goes down then you could have greater freedom in other areas, keep it for January of future transfers, or transfer it to another budget to carry out improvements. You could treat it as a separate thing and wait until the end of the season to then account for the increase by decreasing the transfer budget for that season but I don't think you would. Surely you'd just get rid of the risk factor at the outset by taking a prudent approach to this years funds.
I'm glad we waited for Dubravka at 27 rather than Cabellero at 36. Plus this is just hearsay. More likely is Cabellero like Abraham just wanted to wait to see if he'd get a better offer. He probably felt he did. Just like Abraham. I'd argue both were wrong. We will need to shift a keeper this summer to accommodate Dubravka. It would be silly to have Woodman, Elliot, Darlow and Dubravka on the books. We are just wasting wages. Rafa should have sold a keeper if he wanted to buy one.
But that is exactly what every company does. Wages are an ongoing cost and are account for during the period they are incurred. Why would wages be treated any differently than any other cost incurred during the year. The wages for the season just gone weren’t taken from a pot of money we had at the start of the season so why would any increase in wages for next season be taken out of the surplus from this season. It doesn’t make accounting sense. If Rafa is given all the money the company generates as a surplus then that is what it means. Wages are not a factor in the transfer budget. Yes if wages go up and income stays the same then the transfer budget will be less next year but not this year.
You'd think by now MA would have learnt to keep his gob shut. He knows fine well, every word he utters is dissected from all directions.
I don’t think it works like that at football clubs. It would a good question to ask the club about the funds. I’ve always assumed they have one transfer budget each season which includes wages and transfer fees. Maybe I’ve played too much Football Manager.
Accounts are out according to the official site https://www.nufc.co.uk/news/latest-news/accounts-year-ending-30-june-2017
That ain't pretty Perhaps a reality check for all involved. I hope we aren't going to have a painful paying for all of this now though. The debt going up is not helpful either. Relegation is a bitch by the looks of it.
Unfortunately we are not going to know until this time next year how much we made in our first season back in the Premier League. Before then we'll be just guessing how much is available to Rafa (or his replacement ). Any transfers/sales we make before the end of June will muddy the water of the accounts though.
Seems like lessons were not learned from the previous relegation with, it would appear, no relegation clauses in relation to salaries. Another good job done by Penfold.
It makes this seasons transfer fiasco slightly more understandable but we made £125+m this year in EPL and TV money alone so it should have a slightly healthier look to it now but what this really shows is MA is now owed £150m and for any takeover that is bad news as he isn't walking away without that money, plus what he bought the club for and then probably a cherry on top for the grief he's had over the last 13 years. £350-400m is the mark so the FCB stays, hopefully so does Rafa
It's because cashflow isn't the same as profit. Take transfer fees for instance. Because a player is classed as an asset you write down the costs over the term of their contract. So if you sign a player for £20M on a 4 year contract only £5M is part of the profit calculation each year. But of course cash goes down by £20m in year 1. Another example is Mike Ashley's loan of £17M. As it's interest free it has no impact on profit but has a positive effect on the cash balance. There are many other reasons why profit/loss doesn't equate to change in cash balance. It's all accounting procedures and very boring.
This is simple thing to suggest but I reckon much harder in practice. The agents will press for their player not to suffer any financial penalty as a result of relegation. You are not going to back out of certain deals because the players won't accept a relegation clause. The 90m we spent on the likes of Shelvey, Townsend, Gini, Thauvin, Mbemba, Saivet - we insist on relegation clauses, then maybe they don't sign (some would say great in some cases). You can imagine the reaction of the fans if that was the excuse rolled out in a transfer window why the deal hasn't happened. Sadly I think this is just a significant risk factor associated with PL football nowadays. The players and agents have way too much leverage. I'm still a fan of a central agency negotiating all football player transfers for set fees. Set clauses have to be in place like a relegation clause regardless of the club or contract. It'll never happen because it wouldn't be considered a free market. However it would solve an awful lot of issues and the financial burdens being placed upon clubs.
Could you not have delivered this news on Monday stylist. You know the rules, Fridays are feel good days. Friday announcements are for positive news you bastard.
The wages numbers are funny. Gone from £74.7m in the Premier League to £112.2m in the Championship. Gone up £37.5m? They say there was £30m for "onerous contract provisions" included. What the hell is that? The tax bill and fines they are expecting from HMRC for trying to fiddle players' contracts? The other £7.5m perhaps for bonuses (different contracts and players involved from season to season so can't compare the numbers exactly)?
130% wages to turnover??!! Massive concern. Does this mean some of the loans or sales were ones where we agreed to pay all or some of the wages. Even the 2016 turnover couldn't sustain those wages. Lets hope our turnover has shot through the roof this year and we've offloaded some of the wages. Our 2017 finances are **** though. You can see now how Sunderland dropped like a stone. Relegation now is crippling for most clubs. The PL and FA have to do something to prevent this continually happening. They can't just allow these big clubs to move further and further away while cattling decent clubs left right and centre. The vulture in me says lets skim any quality we can from Stoke, West Brom and Swansea on the cheap
