|
Post by scoob on Apr 1, 2011 9:14:11 GMT
£403K Profit on Turnover of £2.6M which had increased by 37% from the previous year. Operating loss before player transactions was £91k. Not as good as predicted at the Fans Forum due to less profit from Wembley than expected. www.oufc.co.uk/page/News/0,,10342~2328480,00.html The last paragraph sounds like KT is less confident of the club being profitable for this year.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Cannell on Apr 1, 2011 10:01:11 GMT
I read that slightly differently, scoob.
I thought "we lost 91k without players transactions (I guess the Whitehead money) last year", in the last para KT says "We expect to show a net profit without players transactions this year".
So I though it was more positive.
What I haven't thought about is our net position on player transactions this season, which I expect will push us towards a loss.
Hmm, any ideas how much? Sorry for the scream of unconsciouslessness.
|
|
|
Post by Colin B on Apr 1, 2011 10:01:12 GMT
I agree with you about the last paragraph, Scoob. It would be interesting to fast forward 12 months.
I am led to believe that unless we have a play off semi final (or final) we will report a small loss.
|
|
|
Post by scoob on Apr 1, 2011 10:16:21 GMT
I read that slightly differently, scoob. I thought "we lost 91k without players transactions (I guess the Whitehead money) last year", in the last para KT says "We expect to show a net profit without players transactions this year". So I though it was more positive. What I haven't thought about is our net position on player transactions this season, which I expect will push us towards a loss. Hmm, any ideas how much? Sorry for the scream of unconsciouslessness. Paul I think we are saying roughly the same thing. I am not certain but I think the club have paid out on player transactions (eg Craddock £60k???) but have not reported that they have sold anyone. That suggests to me that the club could make a loss for this year if operating profit it small. However, that is just reading between the lines so nothing certain. A small loss would not be a disaster. I would prefer to see a profit along the lines of what was predicted at the last Fans Forum (£250k) but I recognise that remaining competitive with so many clubs overspending is difficult. This ties in with some of the comments by posters on here who have links with people at the club. It has been suggested that the playing budget has been increased well beyond the break even figure mentioned by KT at the forum. It probably also explains why the club are keen for supporters to renew season tickets so early (cashflow).
|
|
|
Post by outofthegloom on Apr 1, 2011 10:38:57 GMT
Agreed the only player transaction to date is Craddock, subject to anything else before 30 June this year. I understand the MacLean extension was only higher wages.
Think the forecast is for a small loss. If that is roughly equal to what (is assumed) to have been spent on Craddock. I would call that acceptable. Any more than that would be a concern.
|
|
|
Post by ryaniobirdio on Apr 1, 2011 10:48:48 GMT
A small loss would not be a disaster. I would prefer to see a profit along the lines of what was predicted at the last Fans Forum (£250k) but I recognise that remaining competitive with so many clubs overspending is difficult. This ties in with some of the comments by posters on here who have links with people at the club. It has been suggested that the playing budget has been increased well beyond the break even figure mentioned by KT at the forum. It probably also explains why the club are keen for supporters to renew season tickets so early (cashflow).The break even attendance figure was well over 7,000 as of December. This is proof that the 6,500 - 6,800 figure most people were swallowing is just not right. I'm concerned that there was a loss of nearly a hundred grand last season, and that reading between the lines, there will be a small loss this season after taking player dealings into account. This is not what a lot of people were led to believe very recently with stories such as "United are in the black!" Hopefully the remaining three home gates can be a bit bigger than expected and go some way towards addressing the balance, which is what we all want. As a sidenote; just what would things have looked like had Dean Whitehead not been sold?
|
|
|
Post by Paul Cannell on Apr 1, 2011 10:59:32 GMT
I thought Whitehead was last year Ryan - in which case 91k loss, no?
Scoob, yeah I think you, me and ootg are expressing the same mildly positive sentiments about much the same interpretation.
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Apr 1, 2011 11:15:43 GMT
Will have to wait and see what the actual accounts show to be sure, but the fans forum on 15 July 2010 (ie two weeks after year-end) predicted a loss before player transfers of £8,843 and player income of £694,755. It seems Wembley income went down by £100K if the loss ended up at 91K (perhaps there were some win bonuses as well?). The increase in turnover is great news.
2010/11 we have the league tv money approx £650K? and the EPL solidarity payments of £250K?
|
|
|
Post by scoob on Apr 1, 2011 11:43:40 GMT
A small loss would not be a disaster. I would prefer to see a profit along the lines of what was predicted at the last Fans Forum (£250k) but I recognise that remaining competitive with so many clubs overspending is difficult. This ties in with some of the comments by posters on here who have links with people at the club. It has been suggested that the playing budget has been increased well beyond the break even figure mentioned by KT at the forum. It probably also explains why the club are keen for supporters to renew season tickets so early (cashflow).The break even attendance figure was well over 7,000 as of December. This is proof that the 6,500 - 6,800 figure most people were swallowing is just not right. I'm concerned that there was a loss of nearly a hundred grand last season, and that reading between the lines, there will be a small loss this season after taking player dealings into account. This is not what a lot of people were led to believe very recently with stories such as "United are in the black!" Hopefully the remaining three home gates can be a bit bigger than expected and go some way towards addressing the balance, which is what we all want. As a sidenote; just what would things have looked like had Dean Whitehead not been sold? Why the "swallowing" comment. Most of us can only go on what comes out of the club. You have made similar comments recently about the break even crowd but did not answer my questions about the level. Only a couple of weeks ago KT was talking about a £100k profit on YP (his body language portrayed different) and that is one of the reasons I commented on his latest statement at the start of this thread because that seems to have changed. Some on here were criticising the club for aiming to make a £250k profit and saying that they should spend more on the team. It seems like they have got their wish which is fine but it just means there will be no surplus to carry over to next season which is a shame especially with the increase in gate money and the figures mentioned by Slappy. However, the turnaround last season has to be recognised. The Whitehead money has probably bailed IL out but at least the massive losses have been adressed. IL may not have had any involvement in Whitehead but you can't just ignore player profits/losses because they are a normal part of football. The club made a profit of £400k last season not a loss of £100k, or even £800k, that is what matters. The problem is that it could not be used to strengthen the team due to previous overspending. As I have stated many times before I am concerned about what will happen when (not if) performances dip to such a level that crowds fall and it is impossible to reduce costs (short term). We could easily be back to the big losses and there is no build up of funds to cover that. KT appears to have shrugged this off when he answered my question on the subject via Oxvox but it is a real issue that many fans choose to ignore. The balance between spending on the squad and the success of the team is always a very difficult problem especially with other teams massively overspending. I will be disappointed if there is a significant loss for this year but I can understand that achieving profits is very difficult in the Football Industry with such slanted playing fields.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Baldi on Apr 1, 2011 12:55:56 GMT
I'm wondering if the small loss is inclusive of the scheduled payments of money back to the fans that lent us money - 100k I believe - or not?
As for the player budget, I wonder if there was a view taken of we'll invest in players like Payne this season with next season in mind. It's possible we may go back down the road of season long loans on players like Burge and Doble, reducing costs a little.
A small loss at the end of this financial year would be a little frustrating.
|
|
|
Post by Millman on Apr 1, 2011 13:00:24 GMT
Interesting interpretations of the situation guys, thanks.
My comments would be any loss this season with such a large increase in income (both gates, season tickets, and league money) is very disappointing. It indicates a worrying trend of over spending on players again.
Also if it is true that the breakeven figure is as high as 7000 attendances, then that strikes me as very rash. The attendance figures are exceptional and should by no means be taken as normal. Next season the breakeven figure must be set at around 6300, as others have pointed out things may not go as well as this year.
Assuming the the major cost is player spending, then it must be reigned in. We can't afford as many changes as we make in a season, and the cost of expensive loans must be carefully considered. We must aim to build a squad at the start of the season that will challenge with only minor tweaks. Stability is key.
Likewise financial stability is everything these days and yet it does not have to come in expense of success if you are very careful. We must get smarter.
|
|
|
Post by scoob on Apr 1, 2011 13:03:58 GMT
Loan repayments are not taken into account when calculating Profit & Loss. Interest on loans is part of the P&L but I believe these loans were interest free(?).
|
|
|
Post by londonroader on Apr 1, 2011 14:07:09 GMT
Loan repayments are not taken into account when calculating Profit & Loss. Interest on loans is part of the P&L but I believe these loans were interest free(?). So what would be the situation without these loans propping up the club?
|
|
|
Post by Best Mate on Apr 1, 2011 14:51:05 GMT
Though I agree with Millman - when setting next years budgets we should be looking at a 6,300 crowd (ish).
If, the best happens - and the current bottom 4 all come down from League One (Walsall, Rovers, Plymouth and you know who) and Crawley were joined by Luton.
We could have 4 crowds in excess of 10,000 (assuming the clubs who come down are all doing well and then travel here in numbers which I am sure they would). So the average would probably being higher if you chuck in a Boxing day crowd as well.
It is a careful balancing act as we all want the club to get the good players but we don't want to be losing the money! Its about time we had a mini cup run as well and drew a Premiership team - that would help!!
|
|
|
Post by paulayres on Apr 1, 2011 15:20:56 GMT
As these are the accounts for season 2009-10 I would have expected a profit after the Playoff semi and Wembley final. The fact that the club received as much as £100k less than they expected from the final is a bit worrying. Dont forget the 12th man fund gave a large amount of money to the club last season to help CW get out of the Non League.
This 2010-11 season will be the one to watch as it will be interesting to see how the club has faired with an average gate of over 7k and the extra income we get for being back in the FL. The size of next seasons playing budget will be very interesting.
|
|
|
Post by Best Mate on Apr 1, 2011 16:02:44 GMT
After the fiasco of the FA Trophy final a few years back when neither team hardly got a penny - I would love to know the actual figures we received from taking 35,000 fans to Wembley.
I would guess, Wembley stadium and the conference board probably fleeced us royally.....
|
|
|
Post by Marked Ox on Apr 1, 2011 16:28:35 GMT
A small loss would not be a disaster. I would prefer to see a profit along the lines of what was predicted at the last Fans Forum (£250k) but I recognise that remaining competitive with so many clubs overspending is difficult. This ties in with some of the comments by posters on here who have links with people at the club. It has been suggested that the playing budget has been increased well beyond the break even figure mentioned by KT at the forum. It probably also explains why the club are keen for supporters to renew season tickets so early (cashflow).The break even attendance figure was well over 7,000 as of December. This is proof that the 6,500 - 6,800 figure most people were swallowing is just not right. Where has the well over 7,000 break-even figure come from?
|
|
|
Post by Lone Gunman on Apr 1, 2011 17:04:50 GMT
The break even attendance figure was well over 7,000 as of December. This is proof that the 6,500 - 6,800 figure most people were swallowing is just not right. Where has the well over 7,000 break-even figure come from? Out of ryan's ar#e it would seem. Surely a small loss is preferable to the kind of amounts the club has been haemorraging over the past few years, especially if we 'swallow' what we're boing told about the club still streamlining and seeking new ways to generate income.
|
|
|
Post by scoob on Apr 1, 2011 17:15:20 GMT
As these are the accounts for season 2009-10 I would have expected a profit after the Playoff semi and Wembley final. The fact that the club received as much as £100k less than they expected from the final is a bit worrying. Dont forget the 12th man fund gave a large amount of money to the club last season to help CW get out of the Non League. This 2010-11 season will be the one to watch as it will be interesting to see how the club has faired with an average gate of over 7k and the extra income we get for being back in the FL. The size of next seasons playing budget will be very interesting. A couple of factors that may or may not be relevant: The financial year has not ended so the final situation may end up more or less positive than KT suggests. Some of us may be slightly over reacting to a short paragraph. KT said that the Fans Forum that the income from Wembley would not be as high as many people expected. That may or may not be true but IL in particular and KT sometimes are very good at positive spin so the Wembley revenue could be a good excuse! We will never know the actual revenue from any area.
|
|
|
Post by scoob on Apr 1, 2011 17:20:18 GMT
Loan repayments are not taken into account when calculating Profit & Loss. Interest on loans is part of the P&L but I believe these loans were interest free(?). So what would be the situation without these loans propping up the club? Who knows? Maybe IL would have been in a situation where he would have to sell and probably at a knock down price or maybe he would have pulled £400k out of a hat and we may have been in the same situation. Have any of their loans been repaid?
|
|
|
Post by The Fence End on Apr 1, 2011 17:57:45 GMT
Making the accounts this public seems to me they're putting the club in the shop window for investors /buyers.
|
|
|
Post by realist on Apr 1, 2011 19:39:07 GMT
How much have the club made or lossed.
|
|
|
Post by Beav on Apr 1, 2011 19:51:07 GMT
Lossed ;D
|
|
|
Post by superox on Apr 1, 2011 20:15:00 GMT
Have any of their loans been repaid? Ian Lenagan said quite categorically at the fans forum last summer that the club planned to repay half the £400,00 that it had been lent. Of course we shall have to wait another 12 months to see if these loans have been significantly repaid.
|
|
|
Post by Yellowbrains on Apr 1, 2011 21:20:34 GMT
Making the accounts this public seems to me they're putting the club in the shop window for investors /buyers. Do the club even have a choice? I though it was the law?
|
|
|
Post by scoob on Apr 1, 2011 22:09:06 GMT
Making the accounts this public seems to me they're putting the club in the shop window for investors /buyers. Do the club even have a choice? I though it was the law? The accounts of all companies are available for anyone to download from the Companies House website. I have not looked to see if the latest OUFC accounts are available yet.
|
|
|
Post by oufcgav on Apr 2, 2011 11:26:22 GMT
Do the club even have a choice? I though it was the law? The accounts of all companies are available for anyone to download from the Companies House website. I have not looked to see if the latest OUFC accounts are available yet. The current ones are not there yet.
|
|
|
Post by oufcgav on Apr 6, 2011 10:59:06 GMT
The accounts of all companies are available for anyone to download from the Companies House website. I have not looked to see if the latest OUFC accounts are available yet. The current ones are not there yet. The Companies House website has been updated to show we've submitted the accounts, but they are still not available to download - should be next few days.
|
|
|
Post by oufcgav on Apr 7, 2011 20:45:08 GMT
Up on companies house website now. Turnover £2614045 Direct Operating Costs £1964038 Administrative Expenses £740873 Operating Loss Before Player Amortisation £90866 Profit On Disposal Of Players Contracts £531232 Profit On Ordinary Activities Before Taxation £403119 Creditors: Amounts Falling Within One Year: £1503198 Creditors: Amounts Falling After More Than One Year: £3461059 of which £3361059 to Woodstock Partners.
|
|
|
Post by Snake (RIP) on Apr 7, 2011 20:57:38 GMT
|
|