I think that the problem is that you buy players but they don't have much resale value either due to their contracts expiring or due to them turning out to be crap (Fletcher, Altidore etc). There's a good thread on the Sunderland forum http://www.not606.com/threads/transfer-disasters.338419/#post-9867696 if you ever go on there. We have had a few of those as well but have a number who have generated a lot of cash (Carroll, Cabaye, Sissoko, Wijnaldum and even Janmaat). All the financial figures are freely available as are the club accounts. You can access them through Companies House but most papers publish the basics and the clubs do as well. Our last figures (2014/15) reported a profit of UKP32.6million. Depending on how incoming and outgoing player deals are dealt with we will probably report a loss for 2015/16 although any is probably now recouped in current year due to outgoing players and our PL parachute. Suspect our wage bill has also been reduced significantly as well. No club would want to hide losses unless they were up for sale They serve several purposes: 1) lower tax exposure 2) reduce fans resentment that club doesn't buy big money transfers 3) persuade players there is no money available for them (probably not in hindsight)
You are correct to a certain extent but in the overall running of a football club today the difference between the buying and selling price is very much offset by the wages these "better " players have been paid while at the club , football today is just an end product of men with too much money indulging in a hobby, and for anyone to suggest there are profits to be made I would suggest they try another avenue , there is no question it has become an obscene situation
Sorry posted my article by mistake before I had finished. Agreed but you need to look at wage bills as well. Ours for 2016 was only 4.8million more than yours (so about 6% more). We recovered UKP85million on player sales this year and then spent UKP55million. You recovered only UKP10million and had to spend UKP27million (which equates to a loss of UKP17million, or UKP8.5million per point). Admittedly we looked after our investment last year - we obviously didn't push them too hard on the pitch and it looks like you are protecting yours this year even better than we did! If there wasn't a financial gain to be had Mike Ashley wouldn't be investing - he uses us as a tool to promote his main business, we are running at a small profit and if we get back to Premier League he will have added to his original investment. That money he is owed amounts to a long-term loan to the club provided when he first took over to pay off debts to other parties so effectively was factored into the purchase price. If there wasn't money to be made in football people like the Glazers wouldn't be investing. They bought Man United for around UKP800million, using mostly loans against the club itself, are paying off these loans through operating profits and floating share portions so that debt is now about UKP320million, while club value has increased to UKP2.23billion. As their share of this is 76% that puts their holding at UKP1.7billion. Even knocking the debt off that and assuming they put up only UKP200million for purchase they have "gained" UKP1.2billion in 11years. If thats not making money I don't know what is!
I am disappointed you used Man U as an example, I very nearly in one of my posts made mention of them, they are an exception to the rule, and although I cannot dispute your figures I would be amazed if from the figures bandied about that the difference between Newcastle and Sunderland is simply 6% it just does not compute, and of course we all know there are lies , damned lies and statistics, one of the criticisms being thrown at Short is that he is not spending enough and you claim it is merely six pounds in every hundred , very very hard to believe, considering the 80 million spent last season alone PS Did you compare the two wage bills ?
I will start putting a list of references. This came from http://sillyseason.com/football/premier-league-clubs-wage-bills-69064/ Can't vouch for its accuracy but have seen similar numbers posted elsewhere. Don't agree that United are an exception to the rule though. Have a look at this article. https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...ue-finances-club-by-club-breakdown-david-conn Its using published figures so not all like for like in years but shows that 14 of the 20 clubs made a profit before tax. Wages as a percentage of turnover ranged from 37% to 85% (Sunderland (76%) were at the high end, Newcastle (50%) at the low end for the year in question). These percentages may have come down for last season based on new TV money. Obviously there is no breakdown of individual player salaries but these are numbers from published accounts - while there might be some manipulation, hopefully they are reasonably accurate. In terms of income, taking out TV revenue, there is almost 20million quid difference between Newcastle (52mill) and Sunderland (32mill). The only conclusions I can draw from this are: 1) we eat a lot more pies (as you pointed out) and drink a lot more beer 2) our attendances are higher and our ticket prices are higher 3) we bring in more commercial sponsorship (which would be amazing as Sports Direct get their's for free)
It will get as far as 12 x 1 = 12 because that's the amount of point they will amass this season by the looks of it.
Yes - we spent the 5th highest net spend in Europe the summer before last. his summer we also had the 14th highest overall spend (though not net - as we had a 30.3 million net surplus this summer after selling the 4th highest amount). The high net spend is for one summer. After a spell of being the MOST profitable club in Europe in NET transfer spending over the previous 5 years. Nobody is disputing this. It was part of the problem we were complaining about - the club not re-investing it's profits. And yes, each of those players was paid a wage. Wages are reflected in a club's profit and loss accounts. We make a profit. Our only debt is to Mike Ashley - a debt he effectively has to himself since he owns 100% of the club. That debt had not changed since 2007. It is still £129 million. It didn't increase with our recent spending, because that spending was funded entirely by cash reserves from transfer surpluses and trading profits. They are not spending six times as much on transfer fees. What they are doing is spending nearly SEVEN times as much in NET spend. This is a mixture of panic buying, bad buying and constant changes of managers who want to bring in their own players. You're really not this thick fredor
Yes - I say something similar to my staff around pay rise time. Remember the club bank account has since then been topped up with the TV money from last year, season ticket money from this year, sponsorship money etc etc and our 30million transfer surplus from the Summer Window
I cannot help but think, people do not realise the significance of the amounts of money involved , attendance money which used to account for everything now makes very little difference, To give you some idea, Real Madrid paid for the man to take Rafa's place 48 million pounds , the wages in the Premier league are almost double the next best , it is out of control, nothing good can come of it
No,you're just being a wum and pretending not to get it. Every time I start to think you might be a serious poster who is just a bit deluded, you then starting acting really thick and stupid. I know you're neither of those things, so you're clearly just trying to be a pain in the arse.
I'm struggling to find anywhere (and I've looked in a few places now) that doesn't have Sunderland as having: a) Spent more money (net) on players than Newcastle in the past 5-10 years b) Wages as a higher percentage of turnover (which is what actually matters) c) A larger debt than Newcastle d) Lost money every year for as far back as I can find whilst Newcastle have mostly made money I'm not a fan of Ashley but one thing he had done is made us live by our means (or below our means). We owe him £129m and pay little or no interest on it and he wants us to keep owing that, in the past money has just gone in the bank rather than servicing the manageable debt.
