Well i wanted to raise this for discussion as people are claiming we need to increase our revenue's. However looking at Swansea's turnover over the financial year ending 31st May 2013, there turnover was 67.1 million and that was before any player sales etc.... Which in turn they did also make a profit on. Profits before player sales was 8.5 million and with player sales 20 million. Now by my reckoning the worst team in the Premier League will end up with 65 million this year from TV rights alone, this means that our turnover will be at least 80 million. Now how the heck is that not enough? Even if we factor in spending on players in our first season, in our second season we shouldn't need to spend anywhere near as much surely? So why do we need to increase our revenues? If Swansea can make a profit on turnover of 67 million, why can't Hull City make profit on turnover of at least 80 million. That 65 million is also based on us finishing bottom if we finished 17th our prize money and TV money would be higher. My issue is this, surely our turnover should be enough without resorting to changing our name? What is our wage bill as it seems ridiculously high? I also feel that if we do make a loss this year due to spending on players, surely we should be looking to make profits in the coming years to counter act that? If we can't make money in the Premier League with the turnover we have surely we need to start looking at the costs rather than the turnover? This self sufficient malarkey was meant to start in the Premier League. Have i over simplified it? I just don't get how we can make a loss on turnover of 80M+ when Swansea made a profit on turnover of 67.1M. What have i missed? This to me shows that we are mis-managing our club in someway and we need to do the basics right before we start looking for money from overseas, as at this rate we could increase our revenue's to say 120M, but the Allams would find a way for us to still not be making money. I just don't get where this 11M deficit is coming from that the Allams talk about, the revenue we gain in the PL should be more than enough to cover our outgoings but it's not according to AA.
Something to do with the fact that Swansea have been in the PL for 3/4 seasons?? therefore PL funding for longer
I share your thoughts. We can second guess but for clarity we need to wait until the final accounts to July 2013 are available. July 2012 accounts were published in early January this year, so if there is any consistency we might expect to see them in around 6 weeks or so.
Why would that affect there ability to make profits? They had less funding than us last season yet made a substantial profit, we have more funding but are making a loss. Even if you factor in that we had to buy players for our first season in the Pl surely that wouldn't matter due to the extra turnover of 15M, which is roughly what we spent on players.... Unless our wage bill is higher than Swansea's which if it is we deserve shooting.
To be fair i thought it was around 2.2M, but that's not enough for the difference between our losses and Swansea's profit, which from my calculations would make our costs around 27M higher than Swansea's. Which is ridiculous, if we didn't have that money why the **** have we spent it, i thought AA's idea was to run it like a business.
Yes...... To be fair i am not the best with accounts but it just interested me how on earth AA predicts we will lose so much in our first season in the Premier League when Swansea did quite the opposite. If i have missed something obvious, please point out, as it is quite possibly i have.
