Historically we have filed accounts in September/October, but in 2023 we filed them in March, the last set of accounts were filed on 24 December. I’ll see you all on here on Christmas Day to debate this further
Mate it's in black and white in our accounts. We had an operating loss of 18.1m in 24. 18.1/52 = 349k a week. Where on Earth are you getting that we had a 500k a week operating loss in 24? That operating loss also includes player amortisation which is why it's so stupid to exclude player sales from any consideration of ordinary business for the club. 23/24 doesn't include the sale of Philogene or Greaves which are in 24/25.
Whilst City are charging us £6.40 for a can of intrepid flat as a fart Guinness on the concourse they will continue to lose a lot more a week.
They must trying hard to get a flat Guinness, pioneers of the widget, the surger and now the nitrosurger. Would have thought it nigh on impossible to get a bad pint of Guinness.
It’s well known that we are losing £600k a week. Just because it hasn’t been publicly or officially confirmed doesn’t make it not true.
True. Nor to just about anyone else. Simple question, which you've already been asked once but ignored ... how on earth can he be "milking the club dry" when he's still funding the club to the tune of how ever many hundred thousand a week it's costing him? Jim, what you are saying honestly makes no sense whatsoever. Just because you've heard talk of some small business not getting paid on time, something you quite possibly don't know the full story about, don't let it cause you to loose your senses and all reason about what is actually going on.
Here’s my source. Operating profit -£26.5million or -£510k per week. https://swissramble.substack.com/p/hull-city-finances-202324 While player sales is an essential part of a clubs finances, the core business is essentially tickets/sponsorship v wages. That shows how well we are managing our core business. Player sales is not a guaranteed source of income. You hope you can always move on some players for big fees, but we could very easily be scratching around selling Jones and McLoughlin for peanuts, unable to offset the huge operating loss. It’s not good financial planning as you are always gambling on a £10-15million player coming through. Just takes a few more Siniks as opposed to Hughes’s and we’d be in a hole we couldn’t get out of.
These are also the figures Baz has referred to. I also pointed out they are misleading because he didn’t account for player sales, which any ‘non sensationalist’ journalist would do. It would be fair for him to say the finances aren’t great but to just throw away ‘losing 500k per week’ was irresponsible nonsense.
Didn't we get 3m for Jones? How much were the offers for Hughes? Why should we include player amortisation but not player sales? Either include both or neither. Paying fees for players isn't necessary every window either.
It really isn't as simple as taking 'Operating Profit / Loss' (or 'EBITDA; or 'Profit / Loss before Tax' or whatever you choose). The reality is that all the moving parts are considered when making decisions about who we buy, how much we pay, who we sell, what is spent, etc. We'd spend less on players and wages if we hadn't sold, or didn't have, players fetching big fees. Conversely, we'd spend more on players and wages if we do sell, or have, players fetching big fees. Everything is inter-related. So, main point, it doesn't make sense to selectively focus on 'Operating Profit / Loss', effectively ignoring 'Profit / Loss on player sales' (and interest and tax). 'Profit / Loss after Tax' is the reality (subject of course to the nature of accounting rules). And then, talking of reality, there's 'Cash Flow' too ... Irrespective, we're still losing a lot of money each week, and the loss is being funded by the owner .... in his quest to "milk the club dry". Somebody really should have a word with him
The point I tried to make earlier and that I believe Willy is trying to do as well is that player sales whilst included aren’t guaranteed. Especially during the season depending on the payment structure the clubs agree. City benefit from the revenue being fairly consistent as the memberships are monthly but cash flow could still be an issue in some months with lower gate receipts etc. To your point that next set of accounts will include the bigger player sales. It will also include the larger sum of our acquisitions you would think. We were operating at a loss of ~350k per week but you can imagine that heavily fluctuated some weeks.
It’s just how accounts are reported. It’s not my take on it but an accounting principle. In the same way a companies depreciation of its assets is included in its operating profit/loss.
This is getting deep now…I feel people falling asleep at their keyboards as we discuss accounting principles
and while £3million isn’t necessarily peanuts, at our current rate of spending we’d need to sell 5 Alfie Jones each season.
Losing money every week and yet still spending on things we don't have to to improve the match day experience. And somehow milking the club dry.
£3m is the headline figure None of the safe standing or works around the stadium has been paid for by the club.
