Like Burn said, We're using the TV money to put us in the black. We can push on from there. You have to remember we've got a whole host of contracts expiring at the end of the season, mostly consisting of overpaid squad players who won't get new contracts. You have to wonder if eliss has one eye on January and one on next summer as another round of heavy recruitment is going to be needed.
but we have been getting £40 million a year in TV money alone since we came up, £20 million on gates (at a very rough guess but it wont be much less) and whatever the sponsorship and advertising around the ground generates, merchandise as well and the £50 million Keane spent was Drumavilles, not Shorts. Just doesnt add up for me but not having a go at Short either, it is what it is, but if we keep struggling and no major investmet is made in the playing squad....
Accounts for the year to 31 July 2012 Ownership: Owned by the American Ellis Short via Drumaville, a company registered in Jersey Turnover: 11th in league, £78m (down from £79m in 2011) Gate receipts: £14m TV and media: £47m Sponsorship and royalties: £9m Conference and commercial: £8m Wage bill: 8th, £64m (up from £61m In 2011) Wages as proportion of turnover: 82% Loss before tax: £32m (increased from £8m in 2011) Net debt: £84m Interest payable: £2m Highest-paid director: Niall Quinn, £2,432,702 (includes £2m compensation for resigning) Source- The Guardian Wages SUNDERLAND 12/13-£64m 11/12-£61m Source- TSM Plug
08/09 in-£4,500,000 out-£25,000,000 net spend- £20,500,000 09/10 in-£18,750,000 out-£31,000,000 net spend- £12,250,000 10/11 in-£36,300,000 out-£22,200,000 net spend- £14,100,000 11/12 in-£18,500,000 out-£24,050,000 net spend- £5,550,000 12/13 in-£11,650,000 out-£30,000,000 net spend- £18,350,000 Obviously figures vary from different sources but that doesn't look good to me. So I'm right behind Ellis sorting our finances once and for all.
it's the wages as % of turnover which are way too high, albeit SNQ was a lumpy extra as will MON for the next years accounts.l will be interesting to see how much lower salaries are as a result of the playing staff turnaround this summer
1) Even if we have 40 million to spend on 2 players, we need to be able to attract them. For that, we need to a few seasons of stability, top ten and possibly Europe. 2) Spuds would never have been able to bring in the players they did this season without selling Bale. My biggest hope for our new structure is to concentrate a bit more on developing young players and buying bargain talent, and we get a player who we can sell on for 40m or more 3) Man City, Man U, Liverpool etc charge £700 or more for seasons tickets. I am sure Short would be able to spend more on players, if fans would still show up to games if season ticket prices were doubled. But they wont, so Short cant.
Very good read this thread, and my problem is I agree with everything thats been said! Both positive and negative! OK. So we don't spend to excess. Its a big risk - what if we go down? My slant is fingers have to be pointed at the academy. Southampton / Everton / oh you all know, most teams seem to be better than us at brining through home grown talent. Why? x
so 52 million net spend over 5 years when we are a struggling just staying up PL side and 30 million of that MON spent on 3 players. in this day and age that is **** im afraid.
This talk of net spend is all well and good, but surely it's what you spend it on that counts? The skunks have done well over the last few years scouting the right players and not paying over the odds for them. Chuck in a few home-growns like Andy Carroll and the playing side is well in the black. Granted, the rest of the club is a joke, but that's another story. We got SKP and Marco Gabbiadini for relative peanuts and if we can scout better and spend wisely (Fletcher is a good example) we can do as well as the next team. We aren't going to be bothering Man U or Chelsea for a while, but that doesn't mean we can't do OK in the interim.
One of the most amazing things you hear constantly from the press is "Sunderland" and "Paolo" bashing - "They've brought in far too many players" etc. etc. then the same people say how well Holloway is doing at Palace (who have brought in more players than ANY other side in the league including us?? Hypocritical to the extreme!
huh!! Its **** the other way for me, the toon have done well but they shopped in France for the most part and selling AC for £35million helped a hell of a lot. All this money in the game and we have spent peanuts, and Fletcher was a good buy? huh, he cost us £12,000,000+, that to me is not a good buy, in hindsight Wickham was even worse, but at least he is still under 21 so if he does all of a sudden come to life we may get some takers for silly bloody money (probably not but you never know) and he was bought the same year (6 months later) than AC which must have boosted prices across the board for young English Talent (hence why it looks like we got ripped off).
Well I think operating in the black and maintaining our premiership status should be our priority, The youth we'll develop will provide a lot of extra income in the future so we have money to spend on players and remain in the black. Doing what we did with Keane, Bruce and MoN proved to be 3 disasters that has put us into debt. Why do the same again? Fletch not a good buy? Why? because he picked up an injury? Could happen to anybody. Or is he not fashionable enough? He scores goals for fun so it can't be that. If he was called Fletchinio or Stavros Fletchkov would that make it money well spent. Just don't know how anybody can call him a bad buy. He's all round excellent. Bordering on a world class striker.
I think it's fairly evident that your owner has ambition, so you've got the foundations for success. I won't go into United and how we waited for success to spare Comm having to start moaning at me again. I think as long as you've got a decent owner, who's running you as a football club you'll eventually find a formula for success, on whatever level it may happen on. Success is measured financially at too many clubs, football appears to be more of an industry nowadays than a sport. Owners with itchy trigger fingers and big ego's, headless chicken owners with good intentions, owners who get bored, owners who are out of their depth in this league, owners who gamble, lie and focus all of their efforts into the balance sheets, owners who know how to make a good roast dinner but very little about football, owners who sell butt plugs wholesale... there's a whole load of footy clubs governed by people who worry me (mine included) but you're in a minorty of clubs who have an owner who just seems to wanna compete. If he's making a loss it's only because he's invested money that he was prepared to lose in the first place, statistically, it's highly unlikely he's going to be a stupid person. Decent from my view.
Singled out for praise again? I must have pissed you off about something before, of what i've no idea, but if i was out of order i apologise.....See i'm a reet good egg me
You had a go at him for coming on the board and constantly drawing reference to United. You can't remember can you? Such is your reign of terror
