....not. http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11695_6754565,00.html ã27.9 million losses but then you take into consideration the sales we've made since the report. About a ã10 million loss I think after everything but this is part of the plan. We've built a young squad which will only need tweaking in the future meaning we'll not be spending as much as we have done previously and yet still finish consistent top 10/top 8. There's massive money up for grabs with finishing around 7th place this year not to mention the money Europe could potentially bring in. It's a risk but Quinn and Short aren't mugs. It's not like we've wasted the money like under the Keane era. Bruce has been shrewd and when he has spent big, it's worked out well (e.g. Gyan). We've used the loan market well with the likes of Ned, Elmo and Welbeck, especially with the latter as he has had a good season and without the expense of a big transfer fee. We're in the middle of a rough patch and it doesn't get any easier over the next 4 games but the magic carpet ride still goes on
Isnt it strange when we talk of money "only 10 million" I know because I do it myself, I wont/cant justify buying a new car, but 10 mill, no probs, wierd or what, just not our money I suppose.
According to the mags wums on 606 we are in dire straits with either Short Quinn or Bruce ready to walk if you believe the vermin from up the road that has now taken over. Can anyone tell me what accounts these are actually because mine run from April to April and I haven't submitted the books yet. I do recall Niall Quinn making a statement a while back relating to a loss of 27 million when at the time he said something to the effect that the way the club and the clubs finances are structured it wasn't a problem.
If you look on SAFC.com news there is a report about the financial results. The financial year for the club is for the year up to 31st July 2010 so it does not include the sale of, among others, Darren Bent or bringing in Gyan, Sessegon and Muntari.
