| £180M Stick or Twist !? 18:53 - Jan 14 with 4346 views | Al_Bundy |
Probably the worst ever season to be relegated from the Premier this season considering what is due to be paying out in this league next season.
We are not adrift but well and truly in the relegation scramble to stay up.
So if you were the Swans board, would you throw some serious cash at trying to play catch up like some other teams are doing and recruit to improve our chances of staying up or would you go down the loanee route and trust the squad we have and have damage limitation if we do go down? |  | | |  |
| £180M Stick or Twist !? on 20:21 - Jan 14 with 1210 views | costalotta |
| £180M Stick or Twist !? on 19:13 - Jan 14 by Joe_bradshaw |
The crazy thing is that the more money we've had from being in the Premier League the worse our accounts look.
If we stay up the extra money will again go to players and their agents and the club will struggle to retain any of it. If we refuse to pay the crazy wages and signing on fees we won't attract the players that can keep us up. It's a vicious circle and I'm struggling to see how we get out of it without an altruistic sugar daddy owner. |
And didn't Huw suggest as much last season. Just before the American interest. We all know how that went. WHat might have been eh. Of course there are those who were set dead against it at the time. I wasn't sure as there was much of a case put forward by the club. |  | | |
| £180M Stick or Twist !? on 20:23 - Jan 14 with 1207 views | lovejuicejack |
| £180M Stick or Twist !? on 19:32 - Jan 14 by Dr_Winston |
No they aren't.
Risking the club's long term future is a complete non-starter, no matter the potential future rewards. |
How can you say that when we are already 65 mill in debt? If we go down then we will never be able to pay it back. We've entered a one way street I'm afraid and have to try and push forward.
We in the big boys league now and you have to pay to play! |  | | |
| £180M Stick or Twist !? on 20:36 - Jan 14 with 1172 views | oh_tommy_tommy |
We are not £65 million in debt
Where the flying f@ck did you get that from ? |  |
| |
| £180M Stick or Twist !? on 20:37 - Jan 14 with 1167 views | Jackanapes |
| £180M Stick or Twist !? on 20:36 - Jan 14 by oh_tommy_tommy |
We are not £65 million in debt
Where the flying f@ck did you get that from ? |
Huw Jenkins has syphoned it off. HE has it in an offshore bank account allegedly. |  |
|
“The stupidest thing she knew was for people to act like they knew all about the things they knew absolutely nothing about.†|
| |
| £180M Stick or Twist !? on 20:40 - Jan 14 with 1153 views | vetchonian |
| £180M Stick or Twist !? on 20:36 - Jan 14 by oh_tommy_tommy |
We are not £65 million in debt
Where the flying f@ck did you get that from ? |
A fans dad said so | |
| |
| £180M Stick or Twist !? on 20:40 - Jan 14 with 1153 views | Jackanapes |
Seriously though it would be offensive if it wasnt so laughable. People invent stuff just fuel their anger. | |
|
“The stupidest thing she knew was for people to act like they knew all about the things they knew absolutely nothing about.†|
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| £180M Stick or Twist !? on 20:45 - Jan 14 with 1133 views | Uxbridge |
| £180M Stick or Twist !? on 19:41 - Jan 14 by Thursday |
The worst ever season to be relegated from the Premier is always the current one. |
Quite.
The time I'll worry about us is when we move away from our principles. That's largely what caused our playing downturn. |  |
| |
| £180M Stick or Twist !? on 20:48 - Jan 14 with 1113 views | Dr_Winston |
How much are we owed?
Would take some doing to run up a net debt of £65m. |  |
| Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair, or f*cking beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back. |
| |
| £180M Stick or Twist !? on 20:49 - Jan 14 with 1111 views | Jackanapes |
You've pulled one line out of set of accounts that means nothing without context. Folk like you are dangerous. [Post edited 14 Jan 2016 20:51]
| |
|
“The stupidest thing she knew was for people to act like they knew all about the things they knew absolutely nothing about.†|
| |
| £180M Stick or Twist !? on 20:50 - Jan 14 with 1107 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| £180M Stick or Twist !? on 20:48 - Jan 14 by Dr_Winston |
How much are we owed?
Would take some doing to run up a net debt of £65m. |
Don't ask me, ask the guy who wrote post and the guy who wrote the original article. | | | |
| £180M Stick or Twist !? on 21:02 - Jan 14 with 1070 views | sherpajacob |
no matter how much clubs spend in a gamble for next years PL money, 3 teams will go down this season, and with all that extra money in 2016/17 - 3 teams will go down that season as well.
we stayed up confortably with danny graham as our main striker, so its not about splashing cash, its about getting back to our true style of playing. |  |
| |
| £180M Stick or Twist !? on 21:06 - Jan 14 with 1054 views | Pacemaker |
| £180M Stick or Twist !? on 20:50 - Jan 14 by A_Fans_Dad |
Don't ask me, ask the guy who wrote post and the guy who wrote the original article. |
The Swiss ramble made no mention of the £65m debt only Jacknicko in his post which was from studying companies house accounts.
There doesn't seem to be any context to the debt so it's difficult to judge if it is a serious matter or some sort of accounting trick. |  |
| Life is an adventure or nothing at all. |
| |
| £180M Stick or Twist !? on 21:23 - Jan 14 with 1031 views | Nookiejack |
| £180M Stick or Twist !? on 19:13 - Jan 14 by Joe_bradshaw |
The crazy thing is that the more money we've had from being in the Premier League the worse our accounts look.
If we stay up the extra money will again go to players and their agents and the club will struggle to retain any of it. If we refuse to pay the crazy wages and signing on fees we won't attract the players that can keep us up. It's a vicious circle and I'm struggling to see how we get out of it without an altruistic sugar daddy owner. |
Our operating costs and player amortisations appear to be running at £8.5m a month. Hence our last accounts seem to be £17m worse than normal - as we moved to a 14 months accounting period - so had additional 2 months of costs during June 1025 and July 2015 - without any revenue.
Hence when we move back to a 12 months period - all other thing being equal - would expect our profit before tax to increase by £17m 12 months to 31st July 2016 - as we will book same amount of revenue but only 12 months of costs.
So maybe not as bad as we think - unless other issues have occurred since end of July 2015. | | | |
| £180M Stick or Twist !? on 21:50 - Jan 14 with 972 views | llanwrtyd_jack |
| £180M Stick or Twist !? on 19:13 - Jan 14 by Joe_bradshaw |
The crazy thing is that the more money we've had from being in the Premier League the worse our accounts look.
If we stay up the extra money will again go to players and their agents and the club will struggle to retain any of it. If we refuse to pay the crazy wages and signing on fees we won't attract the players that can keep us up. It's a vicious circle and I'm struggling to see how we get out of it without an altruistic sugar daddy owner. |
Nail. Head. Hit. | | | |
| £180M Stick or Twist !? on 22:05 - Jan 14 with 946 views | Nookiejack |
With regards to whether our accounts are made up to 31st May or 31st July - I would have thought you make them up on the basis that if you were starting a Football Club from scratch - would have set-up costs with regards to spending on new players in June and July ready for the season start in August - your revenue would then come in August to May when the season then ends - so would make sense that accounts should be made up to 31st May - as they were previously done.
We have now moved to 31st July period end - so you could argue that we have taken two seasons 'set-up costs' (the June and July period) all at once in the 14 month trading period to 31st July 2015.
I don't quite understand why we have changed the trading period to end 31st July?
Swiss ramble comments 'to be more aligned to the football season' - but that seems counter intuitive to me. | | | |
| £180M Stick or Twist !? on 22:30 - Jan 14 with 916 views | Nookiejack |
I think a really key issue is expected size of parachute payments.
To quote from the attached Guardian article
'From the 2016-17 season relegated clubs will receive 55% of the equal share of broadcast revenue paid to Premier League clubs in the first year after relegation, 45% the following year and 20% in year three.'
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/jun/02/parachute-payments-clubs-relegat
Swiss Ramble estimates we would receive £38m of broadcast income compared to £85m currently and you would also expect our Match day and Commercial income to fall as well.
Our players must have relegation clauses built into their contracts - otherwise we will have to embark on a fire sale to remain solvent.
Hence it is a big call for us to twist and also what new quality players will come to us with relegation clauses built into them. | | | |
| £180M Stick or Twist !? on 22:54 - Jan 14 with 883 views | Jackanapes |
| £180M Stick or Twist !? on 22:30 - Jan 14 by Nookiejack |
I think a really key issue is expected size of parachute payments.
To quote from the attached Guardian article
'From the 2016-17 season relegated clubs will receive 55% of the equal share of broadcast revenue paid to Premier League clubs in the first year after relegation, 45% the following year and 20% in year three.'
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/jun/02/parachute-payments-clubs-relegat
Swiss Ramble estimates we would receive £38m of broadcast income compared to £85m currently and you would also expect our Match day and Commercial income to fall as well.
Our players must have relegation clauses built into their contracts - otherwise we will have to embark on a fire sale to remain solvent.
Hence it is a big call for us to twist and also what new quality players will come to us with relegation clauses built into them. |
SO we would get 55% of the higher rate for going down? That could actually work out cheaper than staying the prem. 55% of £150m and a significantly lessened wage bill. | |
|
“The stupidest thing she knew was for people to act like they knew all about the things they knew absolutely nothing about.†|
| |
| £180M Stick or Twist !? on 23:01 - Jan 14 with 873 views | Bloodyhills |
| £180M Stick or Twist !? on 19:28 - Jan 14 by Darran |
Do people actually believe that next seasons tv money will make us a rich club then? |
No, if we stay up we will be competing with all the others who will also have big tv money and so will end up spending it all on players just to remain competitive. The players and their agents will be the ones that benefit. | |
| |
| £180M Stick or Twist !? on 23:02 - Jan 14 with 871 views | awayjack |
I think that the 55% is the new parachute deal from next season, hence everyone at the bottom is pushing the financial boundaries to stay up. Relegation this season is the current parachute deal which I think is £25m in the first year. As TV income in Prem next year also goes up massively - minumum £100m, it's a huge swing. [Post edited 14 Jan 2016 23:22]
|  | | |
| £180M Stick or Twist !? on 23:22 - Jan 14 with 850 views | Edmundo |
| £180M Stick or Twist !? on 19:28 - Jan 14 by Darran |
Do people actually believe that next seasons tv money will make us a rich club then? |
We'll be standing still in the same league......hoping the manager/chairman/recruitment team can pull another rabbit from the hat. |  |
| Swansea City-Officially the best football team in Wales-FACT |
| |
| £180M Stick or Twist !? on 00:10 - Jan 15 with 814 views | Nookiejack |
The £65.8m creditors position is explained to some extent note 15 to the accounts on page 22.
It is all due within one year.
Jackonicko is right to highlight that £30m of it is uncategorised - so quite unhelpful and surprised KPMG did not require the club to give further explanation of what such a material amount comprises.
There are also Creditors falling more than one year equating to £6.8m. (only £0.8m 12 months to 31st May 2015)
I suppose an interesting thing about the move to 31st July accounting period is that £5m amount owing for Eder and £3m for Tabanou would be included in these accounts as we bought them before 31st July 2015. Previously they would not have been included if accounts were made up to 31st May 2015.
So from a comparison perspective with previous accounts (12 months basis) - would make Creditors position £8m worse off but Intangible assets £8m better off (less maybe a couple months of amortisation).
Creditors may also include £3m payment due to Southampton for Jack Cork.
Difficult to establish whether the instalments for Cork, Tabanou and Eder are due in less than or over 1 year. I would think most of their combined transfer fees of £11m are reported in Creditors > 1 year (less the first instalments due which would be reported in Creditors <1 year). i.e within the £6.8m highlighted above .
Note 26 is quite interesting - 'Other Financial Commitment' it states signing on fees of £19.4m will become due to certain players if they are still in the service of the 'group' on specific future dates. Hence £19.4m with regards to signing on fees do not appear to have been booked in the accounts yet - only when certain milestones are reached. So not yet in Creditors < 1 year or > 1 year).
We do however have circa £33m of current assets see page 9 (£18m of which is due > 1 year.)
Hence net Creditors position more like £65.8m + £6.8m less £33m = £39.6m.
Then you have to analyse player valuations in the accounts = £49.5m (page 18 note 10) verses true market value. The accounts only reflect what we have paid for the players, less amortisation to date less downward revisions of value only (not upward revisions).
The £12m Shelvey transfer fee (less what we pay to Liverpool) probably means the £49.m is a significantly lower figure than we would achieve if we sold the whole of our playing squad.
So from a Balance Sheet perspective if we monetised (turned everything into cash) all Assets and Liabilities would probably be worth a lot more than the £31.2m of net asset value reported in accounts. Which is what the accounts currently say the club is worth - if turned everything into cash.
The key issue seems to be to manage short term cash flow issues re: Creditors <1 year are £65.m verses Short term Assets of £15m + TV money £85m coming in less wages £80m re: Jackonicko's assessment. Hopefully wages are less due to 14 months accounting period.
The worst case for medium term is that we run into short term cash flow problems and then have to embark on a fire-sale of our players - at significant undervalue of their true worth. Especially if we get relegated.
Providing:-
1. cash is well managed; and
2. players have relegation clauses in their contracts equivalent to parachute payments
....we should be in a strong financial position (similar to Norwich) to compete in Championship if we get relegated. Will also then only have to sell players if we want to. | | | |
| £180M Stick or Twist !? on 00:22 - Jan 15 with 800 views | Nookiejack |
Swiss Ramble estimates 2016/17 parachute payments at £38m.
In comparison if you take a look half way down - Swiss Ramble estimates we would get a minimum £92m if we stayed up.
http://swissramble.blogspot.co.uk
I assume if you get relegated the parachute payments don't include:-
1. a % of finishing place prize money or
2. money for TV appearances
Jackonico estimated our wage bill at currently £80m - hence hopefully relegation clauses in players contracts amount to less than £38m + Match day revenue + Commercial income. | | | |
| £180M Stick or Twist !? on 00:36 - Jan 15 with 796 views | Nookiejack |
| £180M Stick or Twist !? on 00:22 - Jan 15 by Nookiejack |
Swiss Ramble estimates 2016/17 parachute payments at £38m.
In comparison if you take a look half way down - Swiss Ramble estimates we would get a minimum £92m if we stayed up.
http://swissramble.blogspot.co.uk
I assume if you get relegated the parachute payments don't include:-
1. a % of finishing place prize money or
2. money for TV appearances
Jackonico estimated our wage bill at currently £80m - hence hopefully relegation clauses in players contracts amount to less than £38m + Match day revenue + Commercial income. |
PS Parachute payments fall in subsequent seasons. The Guardian article above suggests they will now only last for three seasons in total.
Currently the parachute payments total £65m and are spread over 4 years
The payments are front-loaded so that a club receives approximately £25m in the first year of relegation, £20m in the second year and £10m in the third and fourth years.
Hence from Swiss Ramble's analysis I assume new rules apply to us - based on £38m estimate compared to current £25m.
If we financially manage the situation well - will probably allow us to have two good shots at getting back into the Premier League - whilst we have an advantage over other Championship clubs (those not also relegated and receiving parachute payments) - who will only be receiving £5m income (excluding match day and commercial income). | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
