B.W.
New member
- Jul 5, 2003
- 13,666
We are one! The Large One!
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
The Albion posts losses of £14.7m
- Thread starter Jo Wadsworth
- Start date
We are one! The Large One!
When a player is bought, the cost is taken on to the balance sheet and shown as an intangible asset. That total cost is then taken to the profit and loss account as a cost in equal annual chunks over the life of the contract that was signed (so, if a player was bought for £2m and had a 4 year contract, £500k pa would hit the P&L as a cost). When a player is sold, any transfer fee is taken to the P&L as income and all the remaining asset value is taken to the P&L as a cost at the time of the sale.
So, say our £2m player signs a 4 year deal in 2011/12 and is sold in 2013/14 for £3m.
The P&L effect would be:
2011/12: -£500k
2012/13: -£500k
2013/14: +£2m (£3m sale price minus the balance of the original purchase price not already taken to the P+L - £2m minus £500k minus £500k)
The net effect over the length of time that the player was with us is a profit of £1m (£3m sale price minus £2m cost price), which is exactly what you'd expect! It's just that the effect has been spread out over the time that he was playing for us.
Behind Enemy Lines
Well-known member
I stand corrected.
Seagull over Canaryland
Well-known member
I can't reconcile the Gus situation last March when he asked to be released from his contract. OK our form at that time wasn't amazing but it wasn't too shabby either. We were contenders - and did get to the play offs. Its almost as if Gus doubted his own abilities with the squad at his disposal (yet they delivered) and allowed his head to be turned by thoughts of a job elsewhere. Plus he did not pick the strongest available side for the play offs, so things don't quite add up.
I do agree that back in March when he wanted to leave Gus would have been very aware of our financial position (especially for this season under FFP if we did not get promoted) but he had just signed Upson and Ulloa (£2m) so Gus certainly had decent backing from Tony Bloom. Plus we allegedly made a substantial offer for VVD. Ok the latter did not happen but the intent and presumably another £2m was there to spend. (Interesting: that £4m+ budget was more than we subsequently received for Bridcutt).
As it turned out we comfortably stormed to 4th place and for most of the play off games looked like the team most likely to go through. Surely Gus would have given every ounce of his efforts to win the play off and hopefully go on to secure promotion to the Prem and surely a huge transfer budget to match? Why did Gus not grasp the situation he was in control of - his reputation would have been greatly enhanced, thereby making himself even more marketable to a top Prem club and avoided all the negatives that subsequently emerged. Gus had these within his own grasp - but opted for the alternative?
Strange. The more I reflect on his role the more I see the root cause of our disjointed run this season as being Gus's fault than the Club's. I certainly think he sowed seeds of doubt in Bridcutt and maybe one or two other players heads and we have paid the price for that. It just makes Oscar's performance seem even more creditable given what went on before. The sooner Oscar gets the full squad available and without any transfer whispers in players ears the better.
The loan window remains open through until March. We were rumoured to be interested in a number of players at this time. It is not too wild a guess to suggest Gus wanted someone else to push across the finishing line, but was turned down, due to the budget.
Machiavelli
Well-known member
Thanks for posting this AZ. There is only an abbreviated version of this article on The Argus' website, but I remember those comments vividly. I'm still of the view that this is illustrative of Vicente's commitment to the club. He dresses this up as though he was doing the club a favour by withdrawing his availability -- or trying to blame Poyet -- but he could have taken the risk for the club's last and biggest game of the season.
Creaky
Well-known member
You've answered your own problem - there is nothing to reconcile as soon as you recognise that your assertion that GP "opted for the alternative" is WRONG.
For crying out loud it was ONE game of football - if the team 'favourite' to win any match always won there would be no need for the players to even start the match! - why is it so impossible to believe that it was nobody's fault and certainly no-one's deliberate design to go out and lose that match.
Philzo-93
Well-known member
A lot of it is loans let's not forget plus anonymous investors...
He's converted a lot of the loans to shares. Wouldn't be surprised if another 8 figure sum was converted on top of the £40 million he wrote off in September 2012.
Where do these 'anonymous investors' feature in the accounts or ownership of the club, if at all??
seagullsovergrimsby
#cpfctinpotclub
This could be a fascinating screenplay with "Uncle" Tony as the young upstart in the Jewish Mafia taking care of business.
Blue Valkyrie
Not seen such Bravery!
Let me guess. A 200 page thread with loads of homophobic digs along with apocalyptic conclusions about our finances
Haven't bothered with that Depressing Den of Delusion for a long time.
SIMMO SAYS
Well-known member
Let me guess. A 200 page thread with loads of homophobic digs along with apocalyptic conclusions about our finances
Just 5 pages so far...
If they are shareholders, it won't be in the accounts, but on the annual return at Companies House and so open to the public to buy for a few pennies.
If lenders/bondholders you won't find out. But there are no surprises as to the names of those lenders - in the Withdean era, it was DK, TB, Norman Cook, Derek Chapman, the owner of Friday Ad, and few others. As the losses accumulated over the Withdean era right to the end (we had a better squad than 6,000 gates could sustain and £m's was spent on fighting for Falmer, architects, planning experts), TB's share of those loans increasing dominated. Then once planning permission was given for Falmer which coincided with the banking crisis, as everyone knows only TB had the finances to inject cash taking those loans to the club to another level.
Del Fenner
Because of Boxing Day
B.W.
New member
- Jul 5, 2003
- 13,666
LoL! You're never lonely with your own imaginary troll friend! Oh, and the wife, kids, and real friends help too! ;-)
symyjym
Banned
The club overspent last season deliberately. They brought foward expenses like the electronic advertising boards to avoid it going on this seasons accounts. I would hazard a guess that there was a long list of expenses being brought forward and we have only spent £500k purchasing Stephens this season whereas last year we bought Ulloa for £2m.
More seating at the Amex compared to the start of last season and higher gate averages brings in an extra £1-£2m.