Player hunt on hold
- Thread starter Kinky Gerbil
- Start date
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
B.W.
New member
- Jul 5, 2003
- 13,666
The Large One said:True, but not by much.
Suppose we are about 25% higher than some other clubs, so the equivalent 'compensation' would imply that we get receipts for a gate of 25% more. So, instead of 3,000, it's the equivalent of 3,750. Still not good.
Yes, I know the figures are rough but, you can see that the point I am making is that to compare our attendances with others can be mis-leading.
We may have to all buy three replica shirts instead of one this season.
Your figure of 3,000 has no substance... and our commercial revenue is and will continue to be higher than most in league 1...
The Large One
Who's Next?
It isn't. As a player, you keep your trap shut, no matter what the manager says or how stupidly you think he behaves.B.W. said:
Unless, of course, that player has a Plan B up his sleeve, or is blackmailing the manager, in which case, it can be open season on him.
B.W.
New member
- Jul 5, 2003
- 13,666
The Large One said:It isn't. As a player, you keep your trap shut, no matter what the manager says or how stupidly you think he behaves.
Unless, of course, that player has a Plan B up his sleeve, or is blackmailing the manager, in which case, it can be open season on him.
London Irish
Well-known member
Just a five-figure fee it was. That's what makes the Dichio situation so galling, he was a bargain, which is the only bit of the transfer market we can work in. But perfectly understandably, he didn't want to drop a league.B.W. said:
Now, starter for 10, other proven Championship-level goalscorers available for a five-figure fee
The Large One
Who's Next?
Taking it as a rough figure, it has plenty of substance.B.W. said:
The club has repeated ad nauseum ever since 1999 that the cost of putting a game on at Withdean accounts for well over half the takings of the gate receipts. True, the figure could well be closer to 3,500 - maybe even 4,000, but that's pushing it into the realms of unlikely.
Since Ecovert's contract ran out a couple of years ago, the club is in a slightly better position, but not by a huge amount.
The commercial side may well be fairly highly ranked in comparison to others in the division (I honestly don't know), but unfortnately, the revenue on commercial goods is still very small in comparison to gate receipts.
Again, a rough example... how many replica shirts do the club sell per season? Let's say 10,000. The club's profit on a £40 shirt after manufacturer's costs, shipping costs, VAT etc will be in the region of (let's be very generous here) £15 per shirt. That's £150,000 clear profit.
That's still very small compared to gate receipts (c. £3m gross), and no other garment will come close to matching the revenue streams for the shirt within the club.
Last edited:
Southover Street Seagull
Well-known member
London Irish said:Just a five-figure fee it was. That's what makes the Dichio situation so galling, he was a bargain, which is the only bit of the transfer market we can work in. But perfectly understandably, he didn't want to drop a league.
Now, starter for 10, other proven Championship-level goalscorers available for a five-figure fee
We don't need a Championship proven goalscorer at the moment.
We need a League One proven goalscorer.
B.W.
New member
- Jul 5, 2003
- 13,666
London Irish said:Just a five-figure fee it was. That's what makes the Dichio situation so galling, he was a bargain, which is the only bit of the transfer market we can work in. But perfectly understandably, he didn't want to drop a league.
Now, starter for 10, other proven Championship-level goalscorers available for a five-figure fee
How about a league 1 standard striker?...
London Irish
Well-known member
B.W. said:
I think from when he arrived until about two months later.
I'll pinpoint the day for you that it ceased to be fashionable to praise McGhee on NSC: January 10 2004, after a dull 0-0 draw against Oldham put paid to our promotion chances, according to many on here.
He's never quite been forgiven for proving so many wrong I reckon
The Large One
Who's Next?
Seen the size of the Black Hole? £12m and rising.B.W. said:
London Irish
Well-known member
B.W. said:
Ah yes, the £2.5m generated for the club by McGhee's skill at improving the likes of Virgo, Harding and Currie?
Given our £1.1m annual losses, I'd would say it's a reasonable deduction that this money has been keeping us safe from defaulting on our debts last year, this current year and maybe with a bit put away for the future too - given that a Falmer stadium and its revenue streams remain a few years away but the planning fees and lawyers' bills for it have to be paid now.
Just as well we have a manager in McGhee that has earned us these healthy transfer recepits, otherwise we all might not have a club to watch every Saturday, eh?
- Thread starter
- #275
Out of interest, how much debt is it before the bank says thats it, no more?London Irish said:It's a fair question
From the club accounts, at June 2005, the indebtedness was:
Bank Overdraft...............................235,423
Payment received on account........1,599,217
Trade Creditors..............................824,195
Owed to BHA Holdings.................4,483,530
Capital Gains Tax...........................365,418
Tax and Social Security..................810,229
Directors Loan Accounts.................564,083
Other Creditors...............................220,771
Other Loans.................................2,681,898
Accruals..........................................100,622
Total Indebtedness.....................11,885,386
(By the way, I'm perfectly willing to accept that Brentford have more debts than the ones I specified to Noades/Barclays Bank, but I think where they really trump us is having an asset in a ground).
London Irish
Well-known member
Kinky Gerbils said:
Because we don't have any assets, I don't actually think our bank debts are that high, we're just not a good enough risk for them to lend too much money too
There is a good analysis of the debt on this thread here:
http://www.northstandchat.biz/showthread.php?threadid=75351
Essentially half of the £12m debt is to Dick Knight and all the other directors, so we don't have to worry about that.
It's the other half that is more of a concern. It is claimed on the thread that our trade creditors (suppliers of all kinds) and our tax/social security debts are high for a company our size. This must be a big challenge for the board to manage and find the available funds for.
There is also a large amount owed, up to £2.6 million, to un-named people who are not directors.
So the essential threats that currently exist for us financially are:
Firstly - that we run out of available cash to pay a large bill (one of these trade creditors, or the tax people, or the Goldstone sale capital gains bill that still exists) and get taken to court/get declared insolvent, or
Secondly - these unamed people/persons we owe £2.6m to suddenly cut up rough and want their money back (but a safe assumption surely would be that the board only agreed to take their money with the clear expectation and confidence they wouldn't put us in such a bad situation, so maybe this can be assumed the lesser of these threats facing us).
The accounting period for 2006 would have just ended. With all the monies coming in from the Virgo and Harding sales, hopefully the next lot of accounts to June 2006 may look a bit healthier than these 2005 figures, let's hope so.
But I just feel this puts a very sobering light on all this talk about being one of the top 6 biggest clubs in League 1. Financially speaking, we just about keep our heads above water and carve out a very precarious existence as a football club.
Do enough people really understand that when they moan about the lack of major signings? I really wonder.
Last edited:
Schrödinger's Toad
Nie dla Idiotów
- Jan 21, 2004
- 11,957
B.W. said:
We sold him ...
Uncle Buck
Ghost Writer
- Jul 7, 2003
- 28,071
Turkey said:
However I believe a large amount of this debt is in fact interest free loans from directors, which they paid in to get their shares. Not sure they are even repayable as there was some loop whole that made it better for them to 'loan' the money rather than buy into the club.
Tom Bombadil
Well-known member
Why does no one ever point out that in itself that list is meaningless. There are a number of reasons for this;
1) There is no accompanying information for assets. For all we know, we may have cash in some short term investment that covers our current liabilities.
2) What are the assets and liabilities in the holding company? To make a realistic assessment of the liquidity of company we need to see the Group balance sheet.
3) What are the terms of the loans. We have £2.7m in other loans. Now this is a problem if we have to pay them back in the short term or we are incurring a high rate of interest, but if they are over a long period then it's not an issue.
There are a number of other factors we could investigate but the point is we aren't in a position to judge the state of the clubs finances with an excerpt from the balance sheet of just one of the group companies.
1) There is no accompanying information for assets. For all we know, we may have cash in some short term investment that covers our current liabilities.
2) What are the assets and liabilities in the holding company? To make a realistic assessment of the liquidity of company we need to see the Group balance sheet.
3) What are the terms of the loans. We have £2.7m in other loans. Now this is a problem if we have to pay them back in the short term or we are incurring a high rate of interest, but if they are over a long period then it's not an issue.
There are a number of other factors we could investigate but the point is we aren't in a position to judge the state of the clubs finances with an excerpt from the balance sheet of just one of the group companies.