Accounts: £36.6m Profit

[cricketfieldclarets]

Is there a single example where a club has succeeded at this level without having to bust the bank and ending up in financial difficulties?

Yes. Us last season.

[cricketfieldclarets]

Accounts

First off, I really like reading our accounts. Other clubs tend to go down the route of making things obscure, but our accounts are always very transparent with explanations that highlight all the key points in a clear and constructive manner. Viewing them is a numerical pleasure not a chore.

Looking at the figure of £36.5m profit, in comparison to the £22.1m profit of the previous financial period, it is tempting to say that our profit is rising.

However, that isn't the case. Looking at the figures more closely our profitability actually declined.

We generated £14.4m more profit for the year ended 30th June 2018, but that included player sales and the 7th place cash windfall. On the opposite side of the balance sheet wages increased by a little over £20.5m, we lost about £6m more in player depreciation than the previous period and we spent an extra £3.6m on general operating costs.

Bundling all of that together our primary cost of doing business increased by roughly £30m.

In the same time frame our turnover increased by almost £18m, mainly due all of the extra money that our 7th placed league position brought in. Our 7th placed position earned us about £27m along with additional income from TV revenue and income from live matches.

The income streams that are associated with TV revenue are more balanced in respect to the league positions, although the top six are trying their best to extend the revenue inequality when the health of the league and the quality of football would be better served by increasing the revenue share for those outside the top six. Arguing that the top six clubs attract more viewers is a fair point, but how many viewers would they attract if they had nobody to play or every game was a walkover.

It takes two teams to play a game of football and preserving the competitive quality of the league is far more important to viewer figures than the commercial visibility of the top six.

Adding to the prize money and TV revenue we had player sales of nearly £29.5m.

To put everything in context we had a very profitable period, but that doesn't stand as a bench mark for this year and beyond.

We posted a profit of £36.65m for the financial period. Now, our costs are going to stay roughly the same if we stay in the premier league (although our wages will decrease because a significant chunk of the £20m rise will have been a result of bonus payments). For the sake of hypothetical argument lets chop it down to £10m for the next accounts. If we finish in 16th this season we will earn about £9.5m in prize money, which would be £17.5m less than last season.

This season we will have to cover something like £20m in higher wages (£30m less bonuses) and our revenue from player sales could be £24.5m lower than the last financial period (we probably got £5m for Vokes). I should also point out that the income generate from player sales is received over time, which is very important, but not for this rough and ready assessment.

So in the next set of accounts our income could decrease by £42m. Or to put it simply, instead of us making a profit of about £36.5m we could be facing a loss of £5.5m. That is how quickly things can turn around in the world of football finance. If we look at the £2m that is awarded for each position on the league ladder it is easy to see why people refer to football as a result driven business.

As fans we want to finish as high up the table as we can, but from a financial perspective a couple of places can mean the difference between posting a profit and a loss.

Now, taking all of that onboard do we have nearly £60m to splash out on players? Yes, but only if we throw caution to the wind and place the long term prosperity of the club at risk.

For some people the £60m cumulative profit will stand out as a license to go out and spend our cash freely, but to me it is evidence of sound financial planning. It is a very healthy state of affairs that has been secured with the understanding that we need to combine financial prudence with on the pitch performance to move forward.

Well done to the club and everyone involved. Although a bit of "investing in the future" during the last window wouldn't have gone amiss instead of leaving us with what could turn out to be a lot of work to do in the next window. One way or another doing nothing in an environment that doesn't reward standing still will always be costly.

Follow Up Notes

These very simplistic ramblings are based on the club staying in the Premier League. If we ever suffer the drop things would change dramatically. Granted we would get parachute payments that will help in the short term and relegation clauses would lower our wage costs, but the impact of losing out on the lucrative TV revenue stream would be immense.

Our balance sheet currently looks healthy and the benefit of astute financial management is easy to see. The increasing costs of depreciation and amortisation of player registrations is a bit of a worry, along with the impact player sales have contributed to our profit. Selling players to bring in revenue is always an option, but if the money raised is wasted on players who aren't up to the job the team performance suffers and that can lead to a downward spiral.

In the short term the trading section of the balance sheet could show parity between a clubs player sales and player purchases, but only because the actual decrease in overall value is being hidden in the reduced performance ability of the first team and their respective values.

The true extent of such a loss will only reveal itself as players are sold for less than they were bought for or they sit out their contracts and leave on free transfers. Naturally, an important difference has to be made between players actively fighting for the shirt who can contribute when called upon and players who aren't playing because they aren't good enough. The first of those scenarios represents the limiting fact that we can only ever field eleven players, but the second is indicative of very poor recruitment decisions.

A club can show a balanced trading account, but if they have or they are showing a greater reliance on things like loan players, to maintain performance levels despite spending heavily on permanent signings, then it should raise serious question marks about the quality of their permanent signings.

We only need to look at QPR and Fulham, amongst others, to see that.

Prior to their relegation QPR focussed on bringing in players closer to the end of their careers who were happy to coast along and take relatively high wages in return for their lack lustre efforts. The trading account showed parity, but the team performance suffered and when they did drop those wages and the associated transfer expenditure player a major part in their downward trajectory towards their current fight against bankruptcy.

Fulham spent the bulk of their transfer income on questionable players who contributed little. Once again, their balance sheet showed parity, but it made them heavily reliant on short term loans. They arrived in the Premier League with only half a team, after most of their loan players returned to their clubs, which forced them to spend heavily this season.

Some people have questioned their spending vs their performance this season. However, I don't think they spent heavily because they wanted to, they spent heavily because they had to. It was a direct response to the poor quality players that they brought in as permanent signings during the past few years and negligent strategic planning.

The seeds of their misfortune this season were sown three of four years ago. Although, spending all that money on the two French midfielders they brought in this season highlights the fact that their heavy reliance on analytical money ball is still a very big cause for concern. Statistics count for very little in and of themselves, it is the quality of the people interpreting them that is always important.

It is easy to fall into the trap of believing data is objective and consequentially superior to personal experience and individual decision making. In the sense that it has a very loose connection to the a priori (separate from experience) objectivity of mathematics. However, when we introduce people into the equation, to make decisions about what we are going to include in the interpretive formulae we use, or they are given authority to make judgements about what should be considered or excluded in respect to the data then we have tainted the process with subjectivity.

Comparing any formula with verifiable results can increase its verisimilitude (nearness to the truth), but it can be a very long and potentially costly process. The more variables in play the greater the potential for errors and the process will always be susceptible to the appearance of a "black swan". We can put forward the hypothesis that all swans are white and proceed to act upon it with certainty, because all the swans that we have encountered have been white, but it only takes a single black swan to render the hypothosis flawed. Things have a habit of changing and the same is true for the value of data in relation to its ability to accurately represent things.

Collecting data is good and making use of analytical systems can be very beneficial in any decision making process, but having the right people in place is always a lot more important. Analytics are a tool used that can be used by people to good effect or bad, they are never anything more.

The news coming out of the club, that we are going to pay closer attention to the development of players in terms of their performance potential and financial value as a means of increasing our profitability, is very welcome. If we get it right everyone will benefit, but if we get it wrong it could have devastating consequences in a very short time frame.

When you put your faith in numbers then one way or another you are rolling the dice. If youut your faith in people with proven track records that can be trusted to deliver results your odds of getting a good outcome increase. Employ both to best effect and the potential for ongoing success will move one step closer.

Wolves and Fulham

Wolves have done well because they spent a lot, but that shouldn't take away from the fact that they recruited wisely, albeit with some questionable help from Jorge Mendes. Fulham haven't, because they were hampered by past strategic mistakes and they made some bad recruitment decisions in the Summer window.

What is happening at Fulham should definitely be of some interest to us. Four years ago Mike Rigg was embarking on his two years of employment with them. His time at Fulham played a big part in their development and what has happened to them since, but the the upturn in their playing performance during the two years prior to their promotion had more to do with the loan players they had to bring in after his departure.

The restructuring of our recruitment operations towards a new statistics-based model, "which is better than anything else out there", has something of a Fulham flair to it, and more of a Snake OIl Salesman's spin. The mention of a data professor who Rigg has known for 4 years also caught my attention (which would probably place the person at Fulham).

In terms of damage limitation I'm hoping that it is Miguel Rios who moved to Opta in February and not Craig "Crackpot" Kline with his "golden algorithms" and his "two boxes ticked" shenanigans. Putting all of the "talk like a joke" intellectual property ramblings to one side, tailoring the work flow of an existing software package to our needs would be infinitely preferable to having Kline associated with our club.

In reference to another thread if I had to pick between Craig Kline with his "golden algorithms" and Quickenthetempo's kids with their copy of FIFA then I would go with the kids. The way I see it the kids are unproven, they might just pull an unexpected rabbit out of the hat, but Kline was part of a recruitment team that was definitely responsible for a lot of extremely poor signings over a period of three years. Thinking along those lines I would rather have Mystic Meg in charge of our recruitment "It could be Claret and Bluuuuuuuuuue".

The Fulham system didn't work then, it isn't working for them now and the statistics indicate that if we replicate it then it won't work for us - unless we have better people in place to guide the basic strategic premise. Only misguided people like Theresa May believe that doing the same thing over and over again will lead to a different result. Arguably, it might do, but it is statistically improbable.

And They All Lived Happily Ever After

I think that is how I'm supposed to finish the equivalent of a short story and it is the outcome that I'm hoping for when it comes to us. Cupcakes and Rainbows would be a nice extra.

UTC

Sorry. Would you mind expanding a little on that please?

[otto1959]

Accounts

First off, I really like reading our accounts. Other clubs tend to go down the route of making things obscure, but our accounts are always very transparent with explanations that highlight all the key points in a clear and constructive manner. Viewing them is a numerical pleasure not a chore.

Looking at the figure of £36.5m profit, in comparison to the £22.1m profit of the previous financial period, it is tempting to say that our profit is rising.

However, that isn't the case. Looking at the figures more closely our profitability actually declined.

We generated £14.4m more profit for the year ended 30th June 2018, but that included player sales and the 7th place cash windfall. On the opposite side of the balance sheet wages increased by a little over £20.5m, we lost about £6m more in player depreciation than the previous period and we spent an extra £3.6m on general operating costs.

Bundling all of that together our primary cost of doing business increased by roughly £30m.

In the same time frame our turnover increased by almost £18m, mainly due all of the extra money that our 7th placed league position brought in. Our 7th placed position earned us about £27m along with additional income from TV revenue and income from live matches.

The income streams that are associated with TV revenue are more balanced in respect to the league positions, although the top six are trying their best to extend the revenue inequality when the health of the league and the quality of football would be better served by increasing the revenue share for those outside the top six. Arguing that the top six clubs attract more viewers is a fair point, but how many viewers would they attract if they had nobody to play or every game was a walkover.

It takes two teams to play a game of football and preserving the competitive quality of the league is far more important to viewer figures than the commercial visibility of the top six.

Adding to the prize money and TV revenue we had player sales of nearly £29.5m.

To put everything in context we had a very profitable period, but that doesn't stand as a bench mark for this year and beyond.

We posted a profit of £36.65m for the financial period. Now, our costs are going to stay roughly the same if we stay in the premier league (although our wages will decrease because a significant chunk of the £20m rise will have been a result of bonus payments). For the sake of hypothetical argument lets chop it down to £10m for the next accounts. If we finish in 16th this season we will earn about £9.5m in prize money, which would be £17.5m less than last season.

This season we will have to cover something like £20m in higher wages (£30m less bonuses) and our revenue from player sales could be £24.5m lower than the last financial period (we probably got £5m for Vokes). I should also point out that the income generate from player sales is received over time, which is very important, but not for this rough and ready assessment.

So in the next set of accounts our income could decrease by £42m. Or to put it simply, instead of us making a profit of about £36.5m we could be facing a loss of £5.5m. That is how quickly things can turn around in the world of football finance. If we look at the £2m that is awarded for each position on the league ladder it is easy to see why people refer to football as a result driven business.

As fans we want to finish as high up the table as we can, but from a financial perspective a couple of places can mean the difference between posting a profit and a loss.

Now, taking all of that onboard do we have nearly £60m to splash out on players? Yes, but only if we throw caution to the wind and place the long term prosperity of the club at risk.

For some people the £60m cumulative profit will stand out as a license to go out and spend our cash freely, but to me it is evidence of sound financial planning. It is a very healthy state of affairs that has been secured with the understanding that we need to combine financial prudence with on the pitch performance to move forward.

Well done to the club and everyone involved. Although a bit of "investing in the future" during the last window wouldn't have gone amiss instead of leaving us with what could turn out to be a lot of work to do in the next window. One way or another doing nothing in an environment that doesn't reward standing still will always be costly.

Follow Up Notes

These very simplistic ramblings are based on the club staying in the Premier League. If we ever suffer the drop things would change dramatically. Granted we would get parachute payments that will help in the short term and relegation clauses would lower our wage costs, but the impact of losing out on the lucrative TV revenue stream would be immense.

Our balance sheet currently looks healthy and the benefit of astute financial management is easy to see. The increasing costs of depreciation and amortisation of player registrations is a bit of a worry, along with the impact player sales have contributed to our profit. Selling players to bring in revenue is always an option, but if the money raised is wasted on players who aren't up to the job the team performance suffers and that can lead to a downward spiral.

In the short term the trading section of the balance sheet could show parity between a clubs player sales and player purchases, but only because the actual decrease in overall value is being hidden in the reduced performance ability of the first team and their respective values.

The true extent of such a loss will only reveal itself as players are sold for less than they were bought for or they sit out their contracts and leave on free transfers. Naturally, an important difference has to be made between players actively fighting for the shirt who can contribute when called upon and players who aren't playing because they aren't good enough. The first of those scenarios represents the limiting fact that we can only ever field eleven players, but the second is indicative of very poor recruitment decisions.

A club can show a balanced trading account, but if they have or they are showing a greater reliance on things like loan players, to maintain performance levels despite spending heavily on permanent signings, then it should raise serious question marks about the quality of their permanent signings.

We only need to look at QPR and Fulham, amongst others, to see that.

Prior to their relegation QPR focussed on bringing in players closer to the end of their careers who were happy to coast along and take relatively high wages in return for their lack lustre efforts. The trading account showed parity, but the team performance suffered and when they did drop those wages and the associated transfer expenditure player a major part in their downward trajectory towards their current fight against bankruptcy.

Fulham spent the bulk of their transfer income on questionable players who contributed little. Once again, their balance sheet showed parity, but it made them heavily reliant on short term loans. They arrived in the Premier League with only half a team, after most of their loan players returned to their clubs, which forced them to spend heavily this season.

Some people have questioned their spending vs their performance this season. However, I don't think they spent heavily because they wanted to, they spent heavily because they had to. It was a direct response to the poor quality players that they brought in as permanent signings during the past few years and negligent strategic planning.

The seeds of their misfortune this season were sown three of four years ago. Although, spending all that money on the two French midfielders they brought in this season highlights the fact that their heavy reliance on analytical money ball is still a very big cause for concern. Statistics count for very little in and of themselves, it is the quality of the people interpreting them that is always important.

It is easy to fall into the trap of believing data is objective and consequentially superior to personal experience and individual decision making. In the sense that it has a very loose connection to the a priori (separate from experience) objectivity of mathematics. However, when we introduce people into the equation, to make decisions about what we are going to include in the interpretive formulae we use, or they are given authority to make judgements about what should be considered or excluded in respect to the data then we have tainted the process with subjectivity.

Comparing any formula with verifiable results can increase its verisimilitude (nearness to the truth), but it can be a very long and potentially costly process. The more variables in play the greater the potential for errors and the process will always be susceptible to the appearance of a "black swan". We can put forward the hypothesis that all swans are white and proceed to act upon it with certainty, because all the swans that we have encountered have been white, but it only takes a single black swan to render the hypothosis flawed. Things have a habit of changing and the same is true for the value of data in relation to its ability to accurately represent things.

Collecting data is good and making use of analytical systems can be very beneficial in any decision making process, but having the right people in place is always a lot more important. Analytics are a tool used that can be used by people to good effect or bad, they are never anything more.

The news coming out of the club, that we are going to pay closer attention to the development of players in terms of their performance potential and financial value as a means of increasing our profitability, is very welcome. If we get it right everyone will benefit, but if we get it wrong it could have devastating consequences in a very short time frame.

When you put your faith in numbers then one way or another you are rolling the dice. If youut your faith in people with proven track records that can be trusted to deliver results your odds of getting a good outcome increase. Employ both to best effect and the potential for ongoing success will move one step closer.

Wolves and Fulham

Wolves have done well because they spent a lot, but that shouldn't take away from the fact that they recruited wisely, albeit with some questionable help from Jorge Mendes. Fulham haven't, because they were hampered by past strategic mistakes and they made some bad recruitment decisions in the Summer window.

What is happening at Fulham should definitely be of some interest to us. Four years ago Mike Rigg was embarking on his two years of employment with them. His time at Fulham played a big part in their development and what has happened to them since, but the the upturn in their playing performance during the two years prior to their promotion had more to do with the loan players they had to bring in after his departure.

The restructuring of our recruitment operations towards a new statistics-based model, "which is better than anything else out there", has something of a Fulham flair to it, and more of a Snake OIl Salesman's spin. The mention of a data professor who Rigg has known for 4 years also caught my attention (which would probably place the person at Fulham).

In terms of damage limitation I'm hoping that it is Miguel Rios who moved to Opta in February and not Craig "Crackpot" Kline with his "golden algorithms" and his "two boxes ticked" shenanigans. Putting all of the "talk like a joke" intellectual property ramblings to one side, tailoring the work flow of an existing software package to our needs would be infinitely preferable to having Kline associated with our club.

In reference to another thread if I had to pick between Craig Kline with his "golden algorithms" and Quickenthetempo's kids with their copy of FIFA then I would go with the kids. The way I see it the kids are unproven, they might just pull an unexpected rabbit out of the hat, but Kline was part of a recruitment team that was definitely responsible for a lot of extremely poor signings over a period of three years. Thinking along those lines I would rather have Mystic Meg in charge of our recruitment "It could be Claret and Bluuuuuuuuuue".

The Fulham system didn't work then, it isn't working for them now and the statistics indicate that if we replicate it then it won't work for us - unless we have better people in place to guide the basic strategic premise. Only misguided people like Theresa May believe that doing the same thing over and over again will lead to a different result. Arguably, it might do, but it is statistically improbable.

And They All Lived Happily Ever After

I think that is how I'm supposed to finish the equivalent of a short story and it is the outcome that I'm hoping for when it comes to us. Cupcakes and Rainbows would be a nice extra.

UTC

[BOYSIE31]

Don't do it, leave him alone in his confused bubble

I ok then

[BOYSIE31]

Can we move on with just TV Revenue only, has the time come for the club to look for other ways of funding our position In this league.....the thorny subject of new investors ?

Don't be daft they don't want outside investment

[Long Time Lurker]

Sorry. Would you mind expanding a little on that please?

And They All Lived Happily Ever After

I think that is how I'm supposed to finish the equivalent of a short story and it is the outcome that I'm hoping for when it comes to us. Cupcakes and Rainbows would be a nice extra.

I read an article by Tom Heaton in which he said

“I don’t think it’s going to be straightforward and everything’s going to be cupcakes and rainbows"

I like cupcakes and rainbows so I'm hoping for a positive flourish to end our season.

Tom Heaton turning up on our doorstep with a baking apron and the necessary ingredients would be a welcome bonus.

He could do the dishes while we are waiting for them to cook, next stop Celebrity Bake Off.

[BOYSIE31]

I give you Hart / wells / Walters /vydra /Gibson and crouch - combined £34 million in transfer fees and probably £10 million in wages and a handful of appearances and 2 goals.
Just a shame some of this money was not invested in youth.

[Pstotto]

"We continue to invest in new playing talent whilst trading players who are close to or at their peak value"

Peter Crouch.
Jo Hart

So not about Burnley success on the field but selling players for profit, as a human trading organization.

So not supporting Burnley, supporting Mike Garlick.

I might as well support Boots the Chemists and cheer outsider the store every time they make a sale, as if it were a goal.

[tim_noone]

I give you Hart / wells / Walters /vydra /Gibson and crouch - combined £34 million in transfer fees and probably £10 million in wages and a handful of appearances and 2 goals.
Just a shame some of this money was not invested in youth.

Less any re.sale value on Wells Gibson or Vydra if you have Doubts as to their futures at Turf Moor.

[Tall Paul]

Sorry. Would you mind expanding a little on that please?

I think it was just a very long way of saying that he doesn't like Mike Rigg.

[cricketfieldclarets]

Less any re.sale value on Wells Gibson or Vydra if you have Doubts as to their futures at Turf Moor.

I.e. a loss.

[tim_noone]

I.e. a loss.

I give you Fulham.

[CrosspoolClarets]

I’ve now read through the accounts and fed them into a nice little piece of software I use for this kind of thing to predict future issues.

My observations are:

1. We are of course nearly at the end of the NEXT financial year too, and we can reasonably predict that the profit will be dramatically reduced after the transfer year we have had (a net deficit compared to a net surplus). My modelling is struggling to present this is a rosy light.

2. Not only that, but our contingent liabilities (extra transfer payments for appearances etc) has gone up to £13m from £6m. That has to be a player signed in 17/18 so I expect it to be Wood or Cork, and given those two play loads of games it could easily soon trigger another payment. The fees were undisclosed as I recall.

3. TV money went up significantly but bonuses will have offset it somewhat and of course we will get less this season

4. £30m of the profit is from the sale of players thus is non recurrent.

All of the above is bad news. However, the good news:

5. Net assets up from £40m to £76m

6. Player values sat on the balance sheet are probably understated (an obvious risk on running contracts down but selling players in the event of relegation may be quite lucrative even compared to income falls, I don’t want that of course)

7. The club is obviously being run in a stable way. That is good.

So, in general good, but with some worrying elements. We probably need to sell 3 expensive players in the summer to keep things ticking over. One could argue that Pope, Tarkowski, Mee, Vydra and Brady could bring in around £80m and may not weaken the first eleven if we replace Tarky. We then have to spend some of it on new talent and keep things rolling over.

As long as the club do that they will be creeping up their powder store by £20m-£30m a year, at least, and it gets closer to the point where major ground improvements can easily be affordable, were the board to choose to do them, and that is the key issue affecting the future health of the club because in due course they will be essential, and must not be unaffordable, or they will be presiding over a crumbling ruin in the lower divisions. Mock Rovers and Bolton all we want, but at least they have decent facilities.

[summitclaret]

Thanks for that CrosspooI. I appreciate when people give their time to help us understand issues.

This is not in any way a criticism but why would we want to improve the ground when we appear not to be able to afford the players we obviously need?

[Bin Ont Turf]

Mock Rovers and Bolton all we want, but at least they have decent facilities.

Ha ha ha.

[Vegas Claret]

It's in the notes to the accounts - 184 plus 295 part time staff on matchdays.

Cheers TP

[Long Time Lurker]

I think it was just a very long way of saying that he doesn't like Mike Rigg.

Not really. I'm not impressed by his performance record and it worries me. His talk in circles jibber jabber with an emphasis on management buzzwords also concerns me.

However, people perform differently in different environments and it could turn out to be a case of third time lucky. We have brought out the best in people before, helping them to raise their game and reach new levels of performance. At this juncture I can't see why it should be any different for Rigg.

Did we need to get with the times and add new dimensions to our recruitment? Yes

Do we need to try and replicate Fulham's data driven recruitment model, calling upon people who were involved in its creation? Probably not

Will analytics be another useful tool in our box? Yes

You take what has happened before, learning from the successes and mistakes, and then you put a modified plan into place. One that maximises the chance of the former happening and reduces the potential for the latter. Mistakes can be valuable, providing that you learn from them.

The barrage of press releases at the beginning of the week simply made me think of Fulham more than Burnley. I think we need a combination of both, old and new, people and performance data, with a greater emphasis on Burnley than Fulham.

At the end of the day the difference between our club and many other clubs is character not statistics, we confound statistics, that is a big part of what we do. So the quality of the people at the club and their experience should always come first in our decision making.

Saying all of that I would have preferred Mark Warburton as our Technical Director. Any bloke that gives up a well paying city job to change the tires on a youth team mini bus in the company of Sean Dyche has character and a passion for the game.

It is also interesting to note the downturn in performance at Brentford after his departure, despite the same statistic driven model being in place. People make a difference, numbers just keep count.

[Colburn_Claret]

Amazing figures, and they are going to be needed.
I'd like new signings as I'm sure Sean and Mike Garlic would, butliving within your means has to be key.
The infrastructure we've built doesn't come cheap, and would be far too expensive to sustain outside the premier league. That dry powder store is essential should we go down.

Mind with a combined profit for the last 3 years of 100 million, the powder store is now hopefully, full.

[Chester Perry]

Mind with a combined profit for the last 3 years of 100 million, the powder store is now hopefully, full.

think you need to reset that Abacus

[TVC15]

"

I might as well support Boots the Chemists and cheer outsider the store every time they make a sale, as if it were a goal.

Would not be in the least bit surprised if that’s how you spent your Saturday afternoons !

[TVC15]

I’ve now read through the accounts and fed them into a nice little piece of software I use for this kind of thing to predict future issues.

My observations are:

1. We are of course nearly at the end of the NEXT financial year too, and we can reasonably predict that the profit will be dramatically reduced after the transfer year we have had (a net deficit compared to a net surplus). My modelling is struggling to present this is a rosy light.

2. Not only that, but our contingent liabilities (extra transfer payments for appearances etc) has gone up to £13m from £6m. That has to be a player signed in 17/18 so I expect it to be Wood or Cork, and given those two play loads of games it could easily soon trigger another payment. The fees were undisclosed as I recall.

3. TV money went up significantly but bonuses will have offset it somewhat and of course we will get less this season

4. £30m of the profit is from the sale of players thus is non recurrent.

All of the above is bad news. However, the good news:

5. Net assets up from £40m to £76m

6. Player values sat on the balance sheet are probably understated (an obvious risk on running contracts down but selling players in the event of relegation may be quite lucrative even compared to income falls, I don’t want that of course)

7. The club is obviously being run in a stable way. That is good.

So, in general good, but with some worrying elements. We probably need to sell 3 expensive players in the summer to keep things ticking over. One could argue that Pope, Tarkowski, Mee, Vydra and Brady could bring in around £80m and may not weaken the first eleven if we replace Tarky. We then have to spend some of it on new talent and keep things rolling over.

As long as the club do that they will be creeping up their powder store by £20m-£30m a year, at least, and it gets closer to the point where major ground improvements can easily be affordable, were the board to choose to do them, and that is the key issue affecting the future health of the club because in due course they will be essential, and must not be unaffordable, or they will be presiding over a crumbling ruin in the lower divisions. Mock Rovers and Bolton all we want, but at least they have decent facilities.

So much of the above is incorrect I really cannot be bothered correcting it....but the icing on the cake has to be mentioning Bolton having decent facilities. Do they really ? - there’s me thinking the only assets they have to left to sell are the training cones ! You do realise they don’t own their decent ground, decent training facilities, their decent hotel etc ?

[SGr]

I do!
There was a need for his quality and he still has mileage.

-Club record fee
-High wages
-29 years old
-Was striker a problem position?

When we don’t have big financial backers, risk management becomes ever more important. From where I’m sitting, he was just not worth it. That sort of money can’t be justified unless we believe we can get a long period of good service or a big sell on fee - he never could have offered either.

[SGr]

Know a lot of people are expressing concerns over our wage bill but can I take a moment to defend the board for once. If there’s one thing they’re really good at, it’s financial prudency. Little doubt that relegation clauses will exist in contracts of high earners, as well as the large bonus payouts from last year that were related to our league finish.

[cricketfieldclarets]

Know a lot of people are expressing concerns over our wage bill but can I take a moment to defend the board for once. If there’s one thing they’re really good at, it’s financial prudency. Little doubt that relegation clauses will exist in contracts of high earners, as well as the large bonus payouts from last year that were related to our league finish.

Can you explain what was prudent about:

£15m Gibson
£8 - 12m Vydra

Plus at least £150k pw x at least 40 weeks for Gibson, Vydra, Crouch and Hart.
Plus signing on fees.

[Pstotto]

No, I stand outside a chip shop with the notice 'Best fish and chips in town' and when folk walk past I say to them 'Best fish and chips in town', with my hands on my hips and tip-toeing a bit like Mackay off Porridge and then I go 'See, look' and I point and I say 'Can you see?' and then I say it again... 'Best fish and chips in town' until the owner comes out of the shop and tells me to move on.

[Stayingup]

To be fair, its a new record of 35 sensible posts before one that makes you question whether humanity really should be allowed exist.

Oh shut up. Everyone is entitled to sn opinion
Your post was not cslled foe.

[dsr]

Can you explain what was prudent about:

£15m Gibson
£8 - 12m Vydra

Plus at least £150k pw x at least 40 weeks for Gibson, Vydra, Crouch and Hart.
Plus signing on fees.

The Board of Directors are condemned all ways round. Here's you criticising them for signing Gibson when he wasn't needed because neither Mee nor Tarkowski were going to be injured; and there's Summit criticising them for not replacing Cork because they should have known that Cork wasn't going to play like he did last year. The big problem, as I see it, is that the Board can't foretell the future. They need some of your hindsight.

Just for clarity, is your objection to Gibson because you thought we didn't need another centre half, or is it because you wanted a cheaper alternative?

[summitclaret]

The Board of Directors are condemned all ways round. Here's you criticising them for signing Gibson when he wasn't needed because neither Mee nor Tarkowski were going to be injured; and there's Summit criticising them for not replacing Cork because they should have known that Cork wasn't going to play like he did last year. The big problem, as I see it, is that the Board can't foretell the future. They need some of your hindsight.

Just for clarity, is your objection to Gibson because you thought we didn't need another centre half, or is it because you wanted a cheaper alternative?

You are spot on re Gibson. Whem did i mention Cork? Its the fitness of Defour that was the issue and to a lessor extent brady. Its not hindsight. I said it in July.

[dsr]

You are spot on re Gibson. Whem did i mention Cork? Its the fitness of Defour that was the issue and to a lessor extent brady. Its not hindsight. I said it in July.

You said the central midfield is week. You must mean either Westwood or Cork; I presumed it was Cork because he has been the weaker.

[CrosspoolClarets]

Thanks for that CrosspooI. I appreciate when people give their time to help us understand issues.

This is not in any way a criticism but why would we want to improve the ground when we appear not to be able to afford the players we obviously need?

I answered that in the post.

“in due course they will be essential, and must not be unaffordable, or they will be presiding over a crumbling ruin in the lower divisions”

The key bit being that they will be essential, at some point in the years to come.

I would also question the “need” for players, with the greatest respect. If we finish 17th we don’t “need” them. But of course I do want us to strengthen, and think we can do that by selling valuable players we aren’t currently using much.

The art of a board is to balance the short and long term requirements. For example, in my area of expertise, if we spend too much on shiny long term hospital facilities, people die. If we spend too little due to focusing on short term needs (e.g. nurses), people eventually die (through outdated facilities). It’s a fine balance that can never be perfect. Burnley FC isn’t as important but the logic still applies (and I apologise for the dramatic example, and the general public don’t realise it, but it is true).

[cricketfieldclarets]

The Board of Directors are condemned all ways round. Here's you criticising them for signing Gibson when he wasn't needed because neither Mee nor Tarkowski were going to be injured; and there's Summit criticising them for not replacing Cork because they should have known that Cork wasn't going to play like he did last year. The big problem, as I see it, is that the Board can't foretell the future. They need some of your hindsight.

Just for clarity, is your objection to Gibson because you thought we didn't need another centre half, or is it because you wanted a cheaper alternative?

My problem is you should be buying to improve the first team. It was inevitable to so many. Especially after both form had drastically fallen and we had at least 6 but potentially 12+ more games.

Its either Dyche has bought 3 duds plus Hart. Or the board didnt back him enough to get better. Either way our business was abysmal.

Fwiw I rate Gibson and think Vydra has something to offer. In fact only Crouch is the signing I didnt agree with at the time of signing. But either Dyche doesnt rate them or the board doesnt. Either way strange signings for a frugal club.

In central midfield Defour has been fragile since day one. Westwood was rarely a starter until this season. Cork has been an excellent player for us no doubt. Hendrick has been hit and miss. So regardless of Corks form we needed at least one extra body in there. And that explains the interest in Clucas in August. Which makes no signing in Jan after Defour was out again even more puzzling.


Imo in summer we definitely needed and I said at the time:

Hart or A N other due to Heaton and Popes injuries. Has it worked out? Id argue he has saved us more points than he lost and neither him nor heaton are the problem. So overall a logical signing and one we needed.

Gibson or A N other. Gibson was a logical signing. Youngish. English. Decent pedigree. Left sided. But after a very poor season by Mee and Tarks standards and Long starting ahead of him in a back 5 seems we never really fancied him.

Centre midfielder. The pursuit of Clucas showed the club agreed. But typically we had all of our eggs in a championship clubs basket and failed. This is where looking outside the normal box would have given us so many options.

A winger. With Brady injured. JBG injured at the world cup. Arfield leaving. And Lennon inconsistent. We were well short there. Thankfuly we eventually trusted McNeil after early promise.

A tricky striker. Again Vydra looked logical on the face of it. And I was happy initially. Bit again a very strange signing because given our problems. And our predictability we have barely trusted him.

Overall its not the type of signings we made that were the problem. They make sense on the face of it. But to have spent so much on players the manager or board didnt rate is ludicrous. May as well have gambled on unknown foreigners!

As i say lots of good happening right now. But our transfer business is the reason we are 17th. Theres no getting away from it.

[Claretuk]

BFC are rich n we are poor, who gives a foook!

[CrosspoolClarets]

So much of the above is incorrect I really cannot be bothered correcting it....but the icing on the cake has to be mentioning Bolton having decent facilities. Do they really ? - there’s me thinking the only assets they have to left to sell are the training cones ! You do realise they don’t own their decent ground, decent training facilities, their decent hotel etc ?

Well, I was quickly researching and posting during one of my kiddies tantrums, so that is always possible. I’m too tired to read back through it and check, it’s been 18 hour working days this week.

The point about Bolton is nothing to do with ownership, it is to do with the facility the fans sit in. Without doubt it is better than ours. That is my only point. No doubt they mismanaged the money and ballsed it up, I’m not claiming otherwise.

From my memory of the last Garlick thread, you are a current or ex banker. So I’d be interested in your broad view of how healthy the club is.

[summitclaret]

As Cork has been mentioned it reminds me to say that I think a key reason for us conceding so many late goals. He is clearly not as fit as he was and we don't have the players to bring on in cm.

[Bin Ont Turf]

As Cork has been mentioned it reminds me to say that I think a key reason for us conceding so many late goals. He is clearly not as fit as he was and we don't have the players to bring on in cm.

'He is clearly not as fit as he was'

You do like to pretend to know what you are talking about.

Or, you like to try and bullshit others.

[SGr]

Can you explain what was prudent about:

£15m Gibson
£8 - 12m Vydra

Plus at least £150k pw x at least 40 weeks for Gibson, Vydra, Crouch and Hart.
Plus signing on fees.

That’s our recruitment at work. Which was shocking. At the end of the day, the board cannot stand up to Dyche and co. with mere days left in the window.

When I’m asked what went wrong in summer, my answer is simple: Everything.

[cricketfieldclarets]

Biggest concern is now because we have dragged our heels and invested so little in the future, this summer - regardless of division becomes even bigger than it should have been. We will need 4 windows worth of players. Of course we will only get 3 maybe 4 bodies. But it HAS to be 4 first teamers. It cant be anything else.

Look at the side vs Leicester. Probably our strongest team now. And look at the ages they will be next season. Where is the youth and energy?

1 Heaton - 33
26 Bardsley - 34
5 Tarkowski - 27
6 Mee - 30
3 Taylor - 26
7 Berg Gudmundsson - 29
18 Westwood - 29
4 Cork - 30
31 McNeil - 20
11 Wood - 28
10 Barnes - 30

Even with McNeil that is an average age of 29!

Players of the age and experience of Mee, JBG, Barnes and Cork are fine as long as they are complimented by players with a bit more youth and energy.

Losing Vokes would have been fine... Had we not been replacing him with someone 9 years older and even slower!

[TVC15]

Well, I was quickly researching and posting during one of my kiddies tantrums, so that is always possible. I’m too tired to read back through it and check, it’s been 18 hour working days this week.

The point about Bolton is nothing to do with ownership, it is to do with the facility the fans sit in. Without doubt it is better than ours. That is my only point. No doubt they mismanaged the money and ballsed it up, I’m not claiming otherwise.

From my memory of the last Garlick thread, you are a current or ex banker. So I’d be interested in your broad view of how healthy the club is.

And my point about Bolton is that their fans might have nice facilities but the club is completely f-ucked. I think and have argued our facilities should be significantly better but I would not swap our position for Bolton’s in a million years.

As for us - yes we are in a healthy financial position. But if we get relegated then and I know I am stating the obvious things can change very quickly. Failure to go back up will mean we will need to start budgeting for not going back up and the reduction in our wages will have to be massive. The reserves we have built up will be gone in 2 or 3 years and we could be back to square one but it’s hard to see us being a Bolton, Sunderland or even Blackburn.
The reason why are finances are being managed as they are has always been very obvious to me. We do not have rich benefactors and we have no need to go into debt - so we don’t which personally I think is the right approach.
No surprises for me at all in the accounts - I said many times I thought our wage bill would be £80m and I don’t see this as a big issue...it’s still the 3rd or 4th lowest in the division and whilst people are quick to criticise our transfer record it’s actually very very good in comparison to any other club in the last 5 years - that is just a fact.

[Claretuk]

Biggest concern is now because we have dragged our heels and invested so little in the future, this summer - regardless of division becomes even bigger than it should have been. We will need 4 windows worth of players. Of course we will only get 3 maybe 4 bodies. But it HAS to be 4 first teamers. It cant be anything else.

Look at the side vs Leicester. Probably our strongest team now. And look at the ages they will be next season. Where is the youth and energy?

1 Heaton - 33
26 Bardsley - 34
5 Tarkowski - 27
6 Mee - 30
3 Taylor - 26
7 Berg Gudmundsson - 29
18 Westwood - 29
4 Cork - 30
31 McNeil - 20
11 Wood - 28
10 Barnes - 30

Even with McNeil that is an average age of 29!

Players of the age and experience of Mee, JBG, Barnes and Cork are fine as long as they are complimented by players with a bit more youth and energy.

Losing Vokes would have been fine... Had we not been replacing him with someone 9 years older and even slower!

Please STOP posting sense n upsetting the natives on here! I need to borrow some blinkers off claret Tony n Leisure..

[cricketfieldclarets]

Please STOP posting sense n upsetting the natives on here! I need to borrow some blinkers off claret Tony n Leisure..

Its not that I think everything is wrong BTW. Most of it isn't. But some for some reason take criticism of transfers as criticism of the whole club. Overall I am an optimistic fan. And times have never been as good. Its just frustrating when we could end up losing all that through negligence.

[SGr]

Biggest concern is now because we have dragged our heels and invested so little in the future, this summer - regardless of division becomes even bigger than it should have been. We will need 4 windows worth of players. Of course we will only get 3 maybe 4 bodies. But it HAS to be 4 first teamers. It cant be anything else.

Look at the side vs Leicester. Probably our strongest team now. And look at the ages they will be next season. Where is the youth and energy?

1 Heaton - 33
26 Bardsley - 34
5 Tarkowski - 27
6 Mee - 30
3 Taylor - 26
7 Berg Gudmundsson - 29
18 Westwood - 29
4 Cork - 30
31 McNeil - 20
11 Wood - 28
10 Barnes - 30

Even with McNeil that is an average age of 29!

Players of the age and experience of Mee, JBG, Barnes and Cork are fine as long as they are complimented by players with a bit more youth and energy.

Losing Vokes would have been fine... Had we not been replacing him with someone 9 years older and even slower!

It’s true. And ulimately it comes back to arguments in summer that we didn’t need to make significant changes to the squad in this regard because of where we finished last season. So 3 championship players were considered acceptable despite the actual starting XI not improving.

The reality is this: Almost every Premier League club needs at least 2 substantial improvements to the firs XI every single season just to remain relatively competitive. The concept of a team “going stale” is very, very real - and history has proven it.

[cricketfieldclarets]

It’s true. And ulimately it comes back to arguments in summer that we didn’t need to make significant changes to the squad in this regard because of where we finished last season. So 3 championship players were considered acceptable despite the actual starting XI not improving.

The reality is this: Almost every Premier League club needs at least 2 substantial improvements to the firs XI every single season just to remain relatively competitive. The concept of a team “going stale” is very, very real - and history has proven it.

Can't add any more to that.

Other than... Last season

[cricketfieldclarets]

And this...

[SGr]

Can't add any more to that.

Other than... Last season

'Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it.'

Survive or not this year, that is the final lesson we have to learn.

[cricketfieldclarets]

'Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it.'

If we survive this year, then it’s the final lesson we have to learn.

Spot on.

This year is arguably worse than The Marney injury year. Given we had that as a lesson on top of more money, more pulling power and more games!

[aggi]

Accounts

Looking at the figure of £36.5m profit, in comparison to the £22.1m profit of the previous financial period, it is tempting to say that our profit is rising.

However, that isn't the case. Looking at the figures more closely our profitability actually declined.

We generated £14.4m more profit for the year ended 30th June 2018, but that included player sales and the 7th place cash windfall. On the opposite side of the balance sheet wages increased by a little over £20.5m, we lost about £6m more in player depreciation than the previous period and we spent an extra £3.6m on general operating costs.

Bundling all of that together our primary cost of doing business increased by roughly £30m.

In the same time frame our turnover increased by almost £18m, mainly due all of the extra money that our 7th placed league position brought in. Our 7th placed position earned us about £27m along with additional income from TV revenue and income from live matches.

Adding to the prize money and TV revenue we had player sales of nearly £29.5m.

To put everything in context we had a very profitable period, but that doesn't stand as a bench mark for this year and beyond.

We posted a profit of £36.65m for the financial period. Now, our costs are going to stay roughly the same if we stay in the premier league (although our wages will decrease because a significant chunk of the £20m rise will have been a result of bonus payments). For the sake of hypothetical argument lets chop it down to £10m for the next accounts. If we finish in 16th this season we will earn about £9.5m in prize money, which would be £17.5m less than last season.

This season we will have to cover something like £20m in higher wages (£30m less bonuses) and our revenue from player sales could be £24.5m lower than the last financial period (we probably got £5m for Vokes). I should also point out that the income generate from player sales is received over time, which is very important, but not for this rough and ready assessment.

So in the next set of accounts our income could decrease by £42m. Or to put it simply, instead of us making a profit of about £36.5m we could be facing a loss of £5.5m. That is how quickly things can turn around in the world of football finance. If we look at the £2m that is awarded for each position on the league ladder it is easy to see why people refer to football as a result driven business.


UTC

I've cut your post a bit so it's not a massive thought.

A few thoughts. The main one is you're not accounting for tax in your numbers. We made a £45m profit before tax, if we make smaller profits then the tax bill goes down. In your above scenario we'd still be making a profit, not the £5.5m loss you're suggesting. Also, I'm fairly sure that Vokes went for nearer £10m rather than £5m and that will all show as profit given what we paid for him.

The flip side is that in 18/19 amortisation will be up by £7-10m. Although we may sell Tarks for £30m and be in the money, it's a bit early to tell.

Financially we'll be fine for the 18/19 season. We won't be making a loss. The important thing is to stay up as, if we go down, we'll have two, maybe three, years of competing and then we'll be hoping for the next Owen Coyle.

[CrosspoolClarets]

And my point about Bolton is that their fans might have nice facilities but the club is completely f-ucked. I think and have argued our facilities should be significantly better but I would not swap our position for Bolton’s in a million years.

As for us - yes we are in a healthy financial position. But if we get relegated then and I know I am stating the obvious things can change very quickly. Failure to go back up will mean we will need to start budgeting for not going back up and the reduction in our wages will have to be massive. The reserves we have built up will be gone in 2 or 3 years and we could be back to square one but it’s hard to see us being a Bolton, Sunderland or even Blackburn.
The reason why are finances are being managed as they are has always been very obvious to me. We do not have rich benefactors and we have no need to go into debt - so we don’t which personally I think is the right approach.
No surprises for me at all in the accounts - I said many times I thought our wage bill would be £80m and I don’t see this as a big issue...it’s still the 3rd or 4th lowest in the division and whilst people are quick to criticise our transfer record it’s actually very very good in comparison to any other club in the last 5 years - that is just a fact.

Ok, well I don’t disagree with any of that, but if you don’t want to go into detail as to why you disagree with my earlier analysis we’ll have to leave it there.

My general interpretation of the accounts was similar to yours, I thought they were similar to what I expected but contained a few surprises, such as the contingent liabilities. I also feel very firm with my view that the 2018/19 accounts will be nowhere near as good and that we may need to sell a few players in the summer to keep building up that reserve - whether it is used for ground improvements (which I want ultimately) or a contingency reserve for relegation (which I interpret you as wanting).

[Leisure]

Please STOP posting sense n upsetting the natives on here! I need to borrow some blinkers off claret Tony n Leisure..

Blinkers? Please elaborate.

[gtclaret]

This very worrying, I just don't know where you are all coming from. The profit was made after the sale of Keane and Gray, so effectively there was no profit at all. So unless we make a big sale in the summer, assuming we survive, we cannot make any acquisition, The youth policy and recruitment team are still playing catch up, and is unlikely to produce much for next season. The board must remember, it is the on field success that has brought in these millions, its not anything they did

[Bfcboyo]

catering sales showed an increase from £2.41m. to £2.61m.

A few extra twix sales there.