Swansea City has announced a post-tax profit of £1.7m in its latest financial accounts ending May 31, 2014. The year, which saw the Swans finish 12th in their third Premier League season and reach the knockout stages of the Europa League, reveal that turnover increased by £31.6m to £98.7m from £67.1m in the previous accounting year. The increase is due in large to the additional TV broadcasting income negotiated by the Premier League. Expenditure increased by £29.7m due to additional player amortisation and trading of £21.2m and all other operational costs of £8.5m resulting in an operating profit of £1.3m, which is a marked improvement over a loss of £600,000 previously. With almost no income generated from player sales, the overall profit after interest and a tax adjustment was £1.7m compared with a profit of £15.3m the previous year that saw profit on player sales totalling £21.2m. Swansea City’s Finance Director, Don Keefe, said: “The Board continued to invest in the playing squad during the accounting period to maintain performance standards with notable acquisitions being Wilfried Bony and Jonjo Shelvey. “The total cost of acquiring all new players during that year amounted to £33.4m, while an additional £6.9m was spent on new training facilities at Fairwood which became operational in February 2014. “Some additional improvements will still be necessary to fully complete the training sites at Fairwood and Landore to the Board’s satisfaction when cash flow permits.’’ (Taken from the Official Site: http://www.swanseacity.net/news/article/swans-announce-1.7m-profit-2235098.aspx#UCwk6PWCvpahzsPO.99) Always good to read that the board are looking after things. Quite an achievement to make this kind of profit "with almost no income generated from player sales". Investment or not, long may this approach continue.
I wonder what level of cost/provision was included in respect of the departure of ML and his coaching staff?
Unbelievable that this thread has become about Laudrup. I would expect that the compensation amount on the tax return would have had to have been accurate, so I would have thought that the amount accounted for in these figures is accurate. If you want to know the figure, try and get a copy of the figures and see for yourself. It's hardly worth bitching back and forth about it. This was meant to be a thread highlighting the good job that the board has done, and continues to do, with regards to managing our finances.
[QUOTE="bigkidderz, post. This was meant to be a thread highlighting the good job that the board has done, and continues to do, with regards to managing our finances.[/QUOTE] I've just reread the few posts this thread attracted,and NONE denigrated the board.
Read my post and show me where I said the board was denigrated? At the same time, show me an instance where the board was praised in this thread for achieving profit? Get on topic. The thread is 10 posts old and hasn't had a single reply on topic. Of course the figures in the financial figures would have been accurate regarding ML's compensation? You can't make up figures as a company. Why was that even questioned? That matter was closed a long time ago. Just because it's an undisclosed amount doesn't give anyone the right to question "the level" of compensation. ML accepted it. Case closed.
We have the best board in the league. It's a shame the FFP rules mean diddly squat as its full of loopholes for the richer clubs.
Sorry to disillusion you,but Laudrup's "case" will remain open for as long as posters wish to discuss it,compensation and all.
Again, as far as opinion goes, it's of course not closed. But, sorry to disillusion you, financially, it is. That can't be questioned and it should not have been questioned in this thread. The question effectively questions whether our board are breaking the law by returning incomplete figures. Of course the full 'level' of compensation is included in these accounts.
Your not arguing about Thirty bob and a one way ticket to the desert are you?? its neither here or there .
I'm having difficulty trying to work out what your gripe is. No one has quoted any compensation figures,and if they had - SO WHAT? Nobody died.
BK, as a Chartered Accountant, you can probably deduce that I would be interested in the financial statements of the Club. From the opening 2 paragraphs, I am able to reconcile last year's Operating Loss of £600k to this year's Operating Profit of £1.3m as follows: Operating Loss in 2013 £(0.6)m Increased turnover. £31.6m Increased costs. £(29.7)m Operating Profit 2014. £1.3m The comments indicate that £21.2m of the increased level of costs were "player" and "trading" related, with the balance of £8.5m relating to all other operational costs. If, for example £2.6m was paid to ML (& his coaching team) then that would have had the effect of reducing Operating Profit by two-thirds ie it would have been £3.9m instead of £1.3m In addition, the Club earned (below the line) income of £0.4m presumably from (net) interest received and a tax credit, thereby generating the overall Net Profit of £1.7m as quoted in the headline.
Those numbers differ from the already known numbers, the Swans made over £15M pre-tax profits. This was massively publicised. But then we get told £1.7M post-tax profit. Something doesn't add up here, we need to see the books!
My gripe was that the focus of the replies was on Laudrup's compensation without a mention of the successful financial year.
