Posted a loss of £23m in the last 12 months and have a bank debt of £40m!!! Bleak to say the least. If we go down and Short loses interest we are ****ed.
Not really, we were told we expecting a big loss a year ago but the tv money will cover it as it's about 67 million if we stay up, more if we go down because of the first year parachute payment which is about 8 million? That's off the top off my head, I'll find the actual payment table tomorrow as my lady wants on the lap top.
I believe it does vary and this table is based on the average televised games for each position. Taken from the Hull board. Looking for a more reputable source please log in to view this image
http://www.sportingintelligence.com...ng-where-the-money-goes-and-what-next-190601/ please log in to view this image # I think we're covered and possibly some pennies to spend with freed wages to boot, now all we need to do is stay up.
Don't think there is an issue with the finances. We have a busnessman running the club who is certainly not stupid when it comes to this - and, looking at the money you get for finishing bottom of the league, I think we'll be OK. It also does my head in when people say "what if Short loses interest"! What will he do, give the club away? We have no debt to him and our income will still be there from the funds. it's not like he's the only thing bankrolling us and it's not all his money we're uising. It is money which is coming into the club whether he's there or not. Not many people say ""hat if Sheik Monseur loses interest" as Man City are simply a toy for him and he can afford to say "stick it I'm leaving" and his money is far more important to them than Short's is to us - the prize money hardly covers their wages let alone the transfer fees etc.
I understand the tv revenue will cushion the blow but we seem to run at a loss of 20-30m every year. How long is this sustainable?
According to this, we would break even next year if we stay up http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/sunderland-face-financial-meltdown-relegated-3251341? interesting for me is how little (relatively) club directors get paid compared to the players. Can you imagine a factory where the workers get paid more than the boss?
"The directors consider the main market risk to the business to be the interest rates on the bank loan and the banking facilities" http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/footb...cial-meltdown-relegated-3251341#ixzz2wDGvUhio Follow us: @DailyMirror on Twitter | DailyMirror on Facebook The time to worry about debt is when the club can no longer afford to pay the interest. The club, judging by the statement copied above, may look to restructure the debt to reduce the interest payments, if they are relegated. It's a bit like having a mortgage many times your salary. You don't feel like you're in debt because you can afford the repayments. It's when you can't that problems arise. All pie in the sky when we stay up!
From RR Sunderland have managed to slash their wage bill by £7m, the latest round of financial results have revealed. 'Losses' are at £23m, though that figure can be misleading as they don't include profits made on player sales, something which would reduce it drastically. Turnover is down slightly to £72m, a drop that is largely down to lower gate-receipts and conference and banqueting income. The losses seem to have been covered by a large increase in the club's back debt, which now stands at £39m. On first glance the figures are worrying, but there are things which must be taken into account. Firstly, I don't think the figures were unexpected for this period (the year before July 31st 2013). The club have been open and clear about the fact they are working towards a break-even model by the end of the current TV contract. Furthermore, that contract is set to provide its first bonanza this summer, when the club will receive an increase of at least £19m from last year's figure which will obviously take care of the bulk of the current losses and, in subsequent years, the overdraft (if we stay up). We will likely have a more detailed analysis if the figures later on in the week, but for now the only question that needs to be addressed is: what would these figures mean if the club is relegated? Let's face it, we are all worrying about that at the moment! We are already seeing headlines predicting "financial meltdown" should relegation happen due to the lost income, but I don't see that based on these figures. TV income would obviously take a massive cut - the parachute payment is around £23m - but so would the wage-bill, which is by far and away the club's biggest expense. Based on these numbers, which must be stressed relate to last season rather than this, Sunderland's wage bill would fall to around £33.5m, a much more manageable figure, due to all player contracts being contractually obliged to take a 40% drop in wages should the club fall into the Championship. That number would almost certainly be less than that too given the number of players set to leave the club this summer, either at the end of their contracts or to return to their parent clubs, is in double figures. So scary numbers upon first glance, but the reduction of the wage bill is a big positive and provides solid evidence of the club getting its house in order and successfully working towards their stated plans. The worst-case scenario - relegation - seems to be absorbable whilst the best-case - survival - appears to be genuinely progressive from these numbers. Let's see what the rest of the season brings.
Whatever happens there are some poor players on massive wages who won't be here next season... cough**Larsson**cough
It shows how bad our wages are. Gards, Bardo, Seb, Westwood and Cuellar will all leave the the club or resign at reduced wages which will help the wage bill like no ones business. Dread to think What the JoS and Wes are on but they'll be out of contract at the end of next season. Would be interesting what a Hull fan's defence is of Bruce now. Bruce and Quinny have crippled us financially. It answers a lot of questions regarding the lack of permanent signings in recent windows. We've just not been in the position to offer long term deals.
These figures are pretty strong in reality in comparison to many PL clubs, and of course the cup runs this season will have generated money, interest, sponsorship etc on this years figures. Given that as mentioned players like Gardner & Larsson alone, if we assume 30k a week, would free up £3million, and that since the date of these figures the likes of Bramble on an rumoured 50k a week have gone, then I'd assume that for the current year we are already looking a great deal healthier. Having JOS & Wes on 40k each is a drain of another £4million or so, but clubs like Southampton have shown you can get quality players and pay less wages, we will surely be aware of this model. Let us not forget that we are solely owned by a multi-billionaire, who I guess knows his way around making a business profitable.
I'd have no complaints. Even if it was an overseas sponsor to draw the yanks in a bit further. Our overseas profile has raised massively after all, lets keep it up.
I don't think Ellis is actually too heavily involved in a business to use it as a smokescreen sponsor right now, but I'm certainly not against naming rights, let's be honest the stadium name is hardly historic, and although I'm used to it now, it IS ****ing ridiculous.
