" quite a bit of published accounts ". "Quite a bit " doesn't really cut it. You need access to the FULL accounts to make any reasoned response. Without such info, it's merely speculation, innuendo and general **** stirring. "Phil says 80 %". You say " it may be closer to 90 % ", and I read somewhere it's 83%, or 87%. So, there's FOUR different figures. My case rests. I would never place any credence on what I read on 606. Most of what is posted is fanciful, and made up, mostly for effect.
So you're speculating that Jenkins, Dineen & co don't post on social media including football forums or is that a fact ? again your impression may not reflect the truth . It wasn't said collectively though was it, it was an exchange of views between two individuals one of which isn't the brightest proven by his own actions, ( giving away sensitive information via his twitter account) . I'm speculating that you are indeed one of the old board members , Swansea is a small city and people have long memories especially when it comes to their football Club .
"I'd put my house on none of them posting here " is what I wrote , so don't go making things up. I know it's the done thing to make things up hereabouts. The last paragraph, like much written on this forum, is fanciful nonsense with not a shred of truth in it. You really should refrain from inventing stories to try and justify what you write.
"I'd put my house that none of them post on here " you're that sure are you ? Regarding the twitter conversation it does exist so your statement "is fanciful nonsense with not a shred of truth in it " really is pure speculation on your behalf , again
Choice of words is poor, I accept. But published accounts are available and have been analysed in detail. While you can state that there are lots of figures bandied about, not one of them is below 80% and to have even that amount spent on wages alone is pretty dire. The drop in income is obvious and the Swans have very little 'matchday and other' income.....lowest is Bournemouth, I believe but you are well down the list. I'm certainly not **** stirring. I have a great interest in the finances of football clubs as you may have noticed from my comments on other threads. Not sure what your case rests on but it is pretty shifty sand, I feel. Taff and others have spent some time, evidently , looking at accounts and considering them and the impact. You can find some discussions we have had about them in other threads.
I had it from Dineen, though what Swansea City director can you trust? though I have read the last three years accounts which show the club in profit, but my comment reflects the cut in income since relegation which requires no insider boardroom knowledge, just some common sense...................
Some good points made there blue! My 80% is just an average from over the last three years from the accounts, there are other online analysis to be had which are in the 80ish% so I'm not splitting hairs on what the exact figure is, because it's not necessary to making the point we are discussing, I'm sure that the 80% ratio is well down this season though.....
Swansea City chief Chris Pearlman confident of new loan recruits Is signing only one untried, untested youngster bolstering the squad? Wouldn't loaning a ready to go player, like Woods for example, help plug the gaping holes we currently have in the squad. The article reminds us of where we were 17 years ago, why's that then? things were very different then. Then we were at rock bottom in every sence, no income, barely a club and the only way to go was out the league entirely. 17 years later though its a different story because for the last 17 years a lot of blood, sweat and tears have dragged us out of that hole and over the years, value has been added to the club to make it the attractive business it is today. The club came from the pit to where it currently stands and managed earned to earn 7 years worth of TV £Ms from dining at the top table, 7 years of £Ms for final positions in the prem, £Ms from sponsorship deals, £M's from merchandise, £M's from matchday generated incomes and brought £Ms into the local community. Over the last 17yrs the club has gone from not being able to pay the Leccie bill to earning, I reckon, close on £1Bn, that in the last seven years alone so yeah, we've came a long long way. From all this hard work the Consortium has taken £M's in parachute payment, £M's from sales of stock during the 2017 and 2018 fire sale of squad assets, probably £M's from other weals and deals and all the profits from money earned by Liberty stadium and given ****ing nothing back. But in two ****ing years of ghost business men stripping us dry we've lost our way on the pitch, lost our place at the top table, been ****ing relegated and now we can hardly put a fit team of grown men on the pitch on any given match day and this ****ing **** has the gaul to say "We've go to do things the smart way" Then loan some men to do a mans job you ****ing idiot and stop bringing in YTS wanabees
The turnover from day to day activities for y/e 31 July 2017 was c.£127m. Total costs from day to day activities was c.£126m. The Profit on day to day activities was just £900,000. The overall profit of c£13m was therefore almost exclusively generated from Transfer Dealings. https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/00123414/filing-history However, we must recognise and understand that Profit is Not Cash. The Balance Sheet as at 31July 2017 had Net Current Liabilities due within 12 months of £58m! Basically, Stocks, Debtors and Cash, minus monies owed (creditors, bank overdrafts & loans) - therefore, staying in the PL was essential for business as usual from a cash flow perspective ie £109+m from TV/media. However, relegation meant that they would have to liquidate assets (on which the cash had been spent over the last 7 seasons) - the players. There was £69m on the balance sheet (Fixed Assets) for players. Therefore, the club needed to sell players to improve its cash position, as well as reduce the ongoing payroll costs.
Yes but those current liabilities were escalated by Jenkins total incompetence in the transfer window, these last three seasons he has single handedly destroyed the balance sheet!.............
Don’t disagree with your analysis Phil - better transfer business might/should have meant avoiding relegation
I detest the P.L., always have, always will. The amount of money being given to Club's is just obscene, which is why most of it gets wasted. If money isn't earned, it has no real meaning and wanton profligacy results. Hence, The Swans' seemingly being in some financial discomfort, although I doubt it's as bad as many on here maintain. For some, hammering the owners has become a way of life, and much info is made up to support that position.
Well said Lib and you are spot on in every post....Don't worry about these muppets that will say anything to run the club down and just pity them for not understanding how running a club works .....We are nowhere near broke, far from it, But what we are is a football club that wants to live within their means and put a halt to the cash cow for these players and their agents .....The American Billionaires who have made their money through sport by making whatever they get their hands on successful. It takes a lot of effort and unpopular decisions that most people wont understand...There is a long way to go yet but we can see the beginnings of refusing any player through their agents making over the top demands like woods and others.....The relegation was a gods send that made these brilliant men take action and long may they continue to finish the job however much some fans cannot understand it......
Nothing , because they haven't bought the Stadium, what they have done is the Club has taken over the lease for the next 37 years at a cost of 300.000 per annum against the Club not the yanks . Off set that by a one off payment for the naming rights , then it's probably another lump sum into the" investors " pockets
Didn't any of you read what Taff just wrote? @taff....since you have the accounts to hand, what was the cash position as at July 2017? And how does that compare to 2016? Also, many on here talk about cash being taken out by the owners.....is there evidence of that? I presume it would be in management charges or dividends? Can't see how else it would be done unless some sort of loan but that would show as an asset in the accounts. Any evidence? Sorry!!!! I admit I'm a lay sod and could look at the accounts myself but there's work my missus expects to get sorted!!!!
