Are the accounts due???

[Dirk Gently]

4. The club had an agreed overdraft and the bank decided to call it in for some reason.?

While I do not personally believe that such an action was taken by the bank, I also accept that such an action could have taken place. This is why I have included it in the list of what I believe to be the possible reasons behind the clubs repayment of this substantial amount of money.

Personally, I'd say it was an accident of timing - the credit crunch (and a time when banks were being forced to look closely at the wisdom of all their lending) coincided with us failing to bounce straight back up to the PL.

If any financial analyst in a bank was to look at who would be the biggest financial risks in football, they'd have to say it was relegated clubs 2 years after going down - look at the number who've gone into administration at that point. So from the bank's point of view we had suddenly become a very bad risk. What is slightly surprising is that they were switched on enough to realise this, though.

Alternatively, perhaps their rules on overdrafts are based on a percentage of turnover. On the PL turnover of about £50m a £7m bank overdraft is only 14% - reduce that turnover by about two-thirds and suddenly that overdraft is a far more significant sum as far as the bank is concerned.

[Harpers So Solid Crew]

If you look at the accounts published the overdraft appeared in the second seaon in the Prem, it might be that it was the £7m ish that was spent on new facilities, and was only ever a short term thing, to be repaid at the end of the followinf season regardless of where we were.

[JC]

The accounts are now out and I have a copy. Interesting points are as follows

Turnover £31m (2008 £58m)
Profit £3m (£6.7m)

Staff costs £27.7m (£33.1m)


Analysis of turnover

Football £25m (£52m)
Hotel £5m (£5.8m)

Analysis of profit

Football - Operating Loss £12m (£7m profit)
Profit on transfers £16m (£0.4m profit)
Other -£1m (-£0.7m)


The balance sheet is more or less what might be expected. The loan for the chairman is vitually unchaged at just under £26 million. One strange thing is that there is no evidence of bank overdrafts having been repaid, but that could have happened after the year end which is 30th June 2009. The other unusual fact is that trade debtors have shot up from £3m to over £11m. I am guessing that a player had been sold (Doyle?) but not paid for at 30th June. There was also a new loan taken out of £2.8 million

I suppose that overall the most interesting thing is that though turnover fell by £27m wages only went down by £6m and it was only the profit on tranfers of £16m that kept the club in profit.

[Sarah Star]

What period does that cover? April 2008-April 2009?

[JC]

1st July 2008 to 30th June 2009

[Sarah Star]

Sorry. Should have read it more carefully

Thanks for not calling me a moron

[Wycombe Royal]

I suppose that overall the most interesting thing is that though turnover fell by £27m wages only went down by £6m and it was only the profit on tranfers of £16m that kept the club in profit.

Which clearly highlights, for all those idiots out there, why certain players had to be sold, released and loaned out.......

[Harpers So Solid Crew]

It also clearly shows that the players did not take a massive pay cut on relegation, despite the club saying that they did.

[Wycombe Royal]

It also clearly shows that the players did not take a massive pay cut on relegation, despite the club saying that they did.

Most of the high earners probably did but then don't forget that Doyle and Hunt got new deals during the season which probably put their wages back up to the Premiership level.....

[Spotters Badge]

Why does everyone assume that the wages are only those of the playing staff?

Maybe there are some very high earners that are not players and haven't been shipped out.

[Thaumagurist*]

Such as who?

[Wycombe Royal]

Why does everyone assume that the wages are only those of the playing staff?

No-one is assuming that. It is just that winthin a football club the majority of wages is on the playing staff. Their weekly wage will be more than most other staffs monthly wage.

[Spotters Badge]

Such as who?

Nicky Hammond, Nigel Howe, the head of Finance, Marketing guy etc.

And why the rolling eyes??

[Thaumagurist*]

I rolled my eyes because I knew what the answer would be. And you have just done the predictable response.

[Spotters Badge]

Whatever rocks your boat

[Sun Tzu]

I doubt many of the back office staff are on massive wages (in comparison to the players). Logically they will be on more than your average office worker or jobbing builder but nowhere near the million a year that some players will have earned. And if you 'move on' your Chief Exec you only have to employ another one, and there would be little point doing what you can do on the pitch and replacing a high earning proven performer with a youngster who shows potential !

[Harpers So Solid Crew]

I did hear of a very large bonus structure was in place if we made the Prem, and that it paid the pen pushers very well, then again would anyone deny them a good bonus, of course this was a few years ago now. I could see a couple being on 6 figure salaries, but with the responsibility of the roles why should they not be?


Sales and marketing manager 50k plus.