I agree with PL, why should not all clubs aspire to pay the minimum wage, especially if Luton Town can adopt the living wage policy.
Big clubs (such as EPL) should pay well when you consider the money paid to players and the TV money etc. And it's hardly like they employ thousands of low paid people where a small increase would turn out to be a massive amount. In the great scheme of things it will mean happier employees and increased goodwill for peanuts. And it's the right thing to do.
If anyone is curious how we stack up against the rest of the PL, the invaluable Swiss Ramble is writing up some of the clubs. Hasn't done us yet, but the charts for other clubs provide a good benchmark of where we stand...looks like we'll clock in second in profit in after-tax profits, behind Spurs and their post-Bale windfall.
Newcastle have a record profit of £19m for the 2013/14 seasom. I wonder what our profits will be this season, what with player sales and increased revenue?
Depends how things are structured, but wouldn't be shocked if they approached £50m. Our wage bill is even smaller this year than it was last, and with two-thirds or thereabouts of the costs for Staplewood apparently allocated prior, we're likely sitting on a giant pile of cash at this point, and another sizable wedge (thanks to more televised games, and likely additional merit payment money for our league position) is still to come.
Pompey announce profit of £118k: http://www.portsmouthfc.co.uk/documents/pcfc14acs-signed522-2366509.pdf
On another forum I've had a year-long, on-again, off-again debate about Southampton's finances with a Spurs fan who seems convinced that we're in trouble. He reckon's "Southampton's finances are a Pandora's box" and has said: "I guess I am just not clear from this information where the extra 23M over spend on the training ground, the transfer deficit from last year and the 19M 'pay day' loan come into play with just a 20M loan from the owner." I haven't followed this stuff in enough detail to really answer that point. Can anyone else help?
Cashflow. Football involves large payments, often made at times when the club is taking in next to no money. Transfer fees for players sold are often structured such that they're paid off over a couple years, but the up-fronts (which include paying out the loyalty bonuses on outgoing players, paying agent fees/signing bonuses to new additions, etc) generally happen all at once, and there are suppliers/contractors to pay, and all of that good stuff. Turning a large paper profit doesn't necessarily mean that you're flush with actual cash...at least not yet. But with two successive years of large profits, I'd imagine that we have quite a bit of cash on hand, and consequently the loans are likely a thing of the past. It's the same reason that 'normal' companies with pronounced busy/slow seasons maintain large lines of credit. The slow season is when you stock up to be ready for the busy season, and dipping into that loan to ensure that you'll maximize sales is ultimately more financially responsible than just spending off cashflow.
It is a pity that you can't buy a win at the moment, the natives are getting restless about Andy Awful.
Is he saying we only got a £20m loan from Kat so needed a £19 loan as well? If so he is wrong, the £20m loan from Kat was to pay off that loan so it became a owner loan.
I *think* he's saying that we overspent on the training ground by £23m, this time last year we owed £27m in transfer fees and we obviously had this "pay day" loan of £19m as well and he doesn't get how that £69m is covered by the £20m loan. I'm not sure but I think the new £20m loan covers the "pay day" loan, the training ground was covered by an earlier loan (that's part of the £50m we owe Katharina in total) and the transfer "debt" isn't really debt, it's just fees being paid in instalments - we probably still have transfer "debt" and so do most other clubs.
The training ground came out at a higher figure than predicted (hardly amazing), but that doesn't mean we are down 29 million. If I intended to build a house for 100K, but it came out at 125K...it wouldn't mean I had lost 25K. I could have the money in the bank or I could sell something...wouldn't mean I borrowed a further 25K...so may not end up as a debt.
It isn't. Most of those are instead covered by the giant pile of money that the teams get in revenue, and '13/'14 was the first year of the new TV deal. At this point, the money is such that if your player outgoings/incomings are on par, and you aren't spending Man City-esque amounts on wages, you will make a profit. Probably a large profit. It appears that, in the short-term at least, making a large profit is our intent, for reasons that we'll find out over the next eighteen months or thereabouts.
FTFY I find it interesting that if a business's profits are maximised by reducing the amount paid to employees, this is always evil. If an employee's profits are maximised by increasing the amount paid to employees, this is always good. By the way it always helps if the businesses in question are called "big". Makes them sound much more heartless and evil. Even more powerful is "Corporations" Vin
