Latest Accounts

The Club has published this on its website:

“SWANSEA CITY HAS REPORTED A PRE-TAX LOSS OF £3.2 MILLION FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR ENDING JULY 31, 2018 IN ITS LATEST SET OF ACCOUNTS.

The loss follows a profit of £13.4 million from the previous year (July 31, 2017).

Turnover for the year was £126.8 million compared with £127.8 million for the previous year. This included an increase of £2.6 million in commercial revenue to £12 million, mainly via additional sponsorship gains.

However, the club’s 18th-place finish in the Premier League resulted in a loss of broadcast revenue of £4.7 million, down from £109.3 million to £104.6 million.

Total operating costs, including an increase of £27.7 million in player amortisation costs of £51.9 million, amounted to £175.1 million compared with £150.8 million for the previous year.

The club employed an average of 409 members of staff, including playing staff, during the year at a cost of £90.7 million. This also includes part-time and matchday staff, plus the acquisition of Stadium Management Company staff. This compared with 369 staff members at a cost of £98.7million the previous year, a reduction in staff costs of £8 million.

No dividends were paid to Directors during the financial year.

A statement in the accounts read: “The 2017-18 season proved another difficult season which ultimately led to relegation from the Premier League after a stay of seven years.

“The Under-23 team finished fourth in Premier League 2 Division 1 which was an excellent achievement in their first season in the top division, together with being runners-up in the Premier League Cup and a good run in the International Cup and Checkatrade Trophy.

“The Directors are committed to providing the resources necessary for investment in players, coaches and management to ensure the team is competitive. However, the club needs to continue to do this in a sustainable manner.’’

While relegation from the Premier League has resulted in a loss of revenue amounting to approximately £65 million, running a financially sound football operation remains of paramount importance to the club.

As a result, the club will continue to work hard to find the right balance between success on the field and prudent financial management in order to secure the club’s long-term future for its supporters and an eventual return to the Premier League.”

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/47794006

 

“Directors received no dividend payments .....”

Seemingly a strange choice of word - surely the word should be Shareholders rather than Directors?

 

I believe they haven't for the past 3 years ?

 

Not sure about previous years.

The point I was trying to make is that the way it’s written means that Dividends could have been paid to Shareholders......

Let’s wait until the accounts are filed so that we can go through the detail.

 

If the Directors are also shareholders, they would have received dividends in their role as shareholders...………..?

 

Theoretically, that would be the case but, perhaps the Directors waived their rights to receiving a Dividend payment... meaning that shareholders may have received something.

I’m intrigued by the use of Directors rather than Shareholders.

 

That's what I'm trying to say, although not very clearly If the Directors are also Shareholders, won't they be getting paid a dividend anyway? It they are, then the statement "Directors received no dividend payments" is merely a spin of the facts. Forgive my ignorance in such matters

 

As Directors they could receive remuneration (a salary or a fee) or be an unpaid Non-Executive Director.

Any dividend received would be in their capacity as a Shareholder - not a Director.

When companies list the remuneration of Directors in the Accounts, any Dividend income is not included.

 

So it is implied that Directors would never receive dividend payments!

 

No - it basically implies that remuneration is regarded as being solely from their position as a Director.

Dividend income comes from their shareholding investment.

Therefore if a Director who was also a shareholder received say £100k in salary and £50k in Dividends, then the Directors’ Remuneration Table would show just the £100k.

 

I get that. But a director who is not a shareholder would never get a dividend. Is that correct?

 

Correct!

A Director needs to have shares - any payment linked to performance would be a ‘bonus’ ie remuneration

 

So it’ll be interesting to see what the Directors got paid, as you alluded to earlier. I think I’m there now!

 

Taff....get on with it......I only came on here to see your analysis...and find there is none. What's going on? It does look like there has been a healthy profit on transfers though to make up for the operating loss.

 

Frankfurter - the Accounts have yet to be filed at Companies House.

Once they are, I will post what I think!

 

Don't fib, we all know you came over to see Dai's forensic breakdown of the accounts

 

Shudder the thought......

 

The yanks are doing great…...profit is down but cash is flying in. Just need to cut the wages bill for these lazy sods who are taking the piss and all will be fine.

 

Losses everywhere!!!! Even the skinflint Jinx made a £2.5 Million loss, oh sweet music indeed.................