Bournemouth - finances

[aggi]

I fully agree there is a middle ground but the continuous foot stamping by some on here would suggest it's tough to find.
We are pretty unique in the PL, and probably most of the championship, in that we try to stay out of debt.

It's quite unusual in any decent sized business to be running debt free. There are a few benefits to being partly debt financed, the most obvious being that interest is tax deductible. It's also generally cheaper than equity and can provide a method for a business to grow quickly.

A football club, particularly one where the owners don't seem to be looking to make a return on their equity, may be somewhat different but "No debt = Good, Debt = Bad" isn't necessarily always true.

[Burnleyareback2]

What ever he's on mate...its just to much.

Great summary

[dsr]

It's quite unusual in any decent sized business to be running debt free. There are a few benefits to being partly debt financed, the most obvious being that interest is tax deductible. It's also generally cheaper than equity and can provide a method for a business to grow quickly.

A football club, particularly one where the owners don't seem to be looking to make a return on their equity, may be somewhat different but "No debt = Good, Debt = Bad" isn't necessarily always true.

That's all true. But to extend it, where it falls down with certain football clubs (Bolton the prime example) is that if debt is not backed up by assets, then it is bad bad bad. Unless the debtor has made cast iron arrangements to cancel the debt.

The oddity of a football club is that a lot of its assets are intangible, and wildly variable. Marks & Spencer has a lot of goodwill that isn't on their balance sheet (but can be used as security for debt) because they have their name and customer loyalty. The value of these doesn't vary much from year to year. A football club has goodwill from customer loyalty, of course, but in the Premier League the goodwill is worth tens or hundreds of millions and is based on not being relegated. You can lose the lot in a season - and suddenly your debts no longer have assets behind them, and prospective owners find the club a whole lot less interesting to buy.

[Spijed]

Does anyone know why football clubs are treated differently when it comes to HMRC?

In any other business those collecting taxes get their money first, but when it comes to football they are way down the list.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Does anyone know why football clubs are treated differently when it comes to HMRC?

In any other business those collecting taxes get their money first, but when it comes to football they are way down the list.

HMRC have been trying to change this, for obvious reasons.


https://www.insider.co.uk/special-repor ... e-13016801" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[CrosspoolClarets]

I missed this thread while working away this week, it’s a good one.

No doubts that AFCB are the wrong example for us to follow. The balance sheet is a train wreck in the making. While a sweeping statement I would be tempted to suggest that this is what happens with overseas owners who care only about a presence in the Premier League.

But, make no mistake, it would be wrong to use this kind of example to justify our own club not improving fans facilities or adequately strengthening in recent windows. We would still have a healthy balance sheet with the suggestions that I and others have made many times.

[ClaretTony]

I agree - it’s got nothing to do with Bournemouth’s finances...it’s very unusual for a thread to go off at a tangent on this board !
Btw - Vokes being unhappy on the bench is no different to Vydra and plenty of others who have to sit on the bench. The priority is the club / team not any individual. Yes it would have been tough on Sam to deny him a big move but it’s not like he was crying poverty or could not have waited till the summer. Stoke had little or no chance of promotion or relegation either...whatever way you look at it losing Vokes made us weaker. If Dyche did not think that we would not have given him a new contract last year and he would not be bringing him on or starting him as much as he has done this season.

I laughed when I read the first sentence - it is absolutely spot on.

You are very right when you say the priority is the club/team and not an individual but the whole thing Dyche has built has been based on being honest and respectful with his players. He won't stand in the way when a player wants to move on, that's how he does it, and Vokes wanted to move to Stoke in the last window. He'd previously been a good player for us, a good member of Dyche's group in the way he's conducted himself and I get the impression that the manager will not jeopardise things in any way. If a player tells him he wants to go then I am absolutely sure he'll facilitate that.If he'd said no to Vokes, which he could have done, then other players in the group will see that and things might have changed. The minute we have a squad that are not as together as has been the case in the last few years, our days at this level are probably over. The manager won't put that at risk. So, for that reason, I think we could well have been very much weaker had we retained Sam.

[Chester Perry]

Back to the principle topic - @SwissRmble has done his thing with the non-judgemental analysis of the figures

https://twitter.com/SwissRamble/status/ ... 8347333637" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I am still wondering how they haven't been done for breaching the rules on wage growth - the 43% increase is in no way matched by revenue increases outside from TV that I can see

[Braindead]

Yeah how could we have possibly known a 34 year old whose game had been all about hard work and putting a shift in would start to pick up injuries? As for Wells not being good enough, he probably isn't but the poor bloke hasn't been given a chance as he, and it looks like Vydra is going to be the same.

No, you are correct.

Obviously we should assume that a player with a consistent, almost injury free time for almost a decade in the Premier league is bound to get injured now he's hit the age of 34 and signs for Burnley.

Not sure if you are trolling.

[Chester Perry]

The price of Football do a deep dive analysis into Bournemouth's results

http://priceoffootball.com/bournemouth- ... a-ba-boom/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[cricketfieldclarets]

I laughed when I read the first sentence - it is absolutely spot on.

You are very right when you say the priority is the club/team and not an individual but the whole thing Dyche has built has been based on being honest and respectful with his players. He won't stand in the way when a player wants to move on, that's how he does it, and Vokes wanted to move to Stoke in the last window. He'd previously been a good player for us, a good member of Dyche's group in the way he's conducted himself and I get the impression that the manager will not jeopardise things in any way. If a player tells him he wants to go then I am absolutely sure he'll facilitate that.If he'd said no to Vokes, which he could have done, then other players in the group will see that and things might have changed. The minute we have a squad that are not as together as has been the case in the last few years, our days at this level are probably over. The manager won't put that at risk. So, for that reason, I think we could well have been very much weaker had we retained Sam.

Or he could have said the most important thing is the club and you signed a new deal two months ago. Once our future is decided in the summer you can move on or stay with us whatever you prefer.

As it stands it highlights the contract means nothing.