The NSC review of Albion accounts 2015/16

[Seagull]

Sky is totally dependent on football for it's survival, but the latest price rise (it's now £1,014 to watch Sky Sports in HD unless you negotiate a deal) has resulted in subscribers cutting back. Viewing figures this season are 19% down on 2015/16.

I can't believe there are enough subscribers to keep the model afloat even at these rates, unless the value of rights sold all over the world somehow fills the gap. (I did join a massive replica shirted crowd in a bar in Addis Ababa once to watch Liverpool v Chelsea!) But ... surely at some point the whole thing is likely to implode?

 

[El Presidente]

I can't believe there are enough subscribers to keep the model afloat even at these rates, unless the value of rights sold all over the world somehow fills the gap. (I did join a massive replica shirted crowd in a bar in Addis Ababa once to watch Liverpool v Chelsea!) But ... surely at some point the whole thing is likely to implode?

Sky has about 12 million suscribers in the British Isles, of whom half pay for Sports packages.

6m x £1000 = £6 billion in revenue for Sky.

The Football TV deal costs Sky about £1.4 billion a year. Admittedly they've had to pay for rights to other sporting events too, but that's still a lot of money spare.

 

[Peter Grummit]

Thanks as ever El Pres, saves some of us amateurs a lot of head scratching.

You talk of cost savings under Barber's watch. My simplified assumptions as to what he has jurisdiction over are non-TV income and 'other' costs. I don't have any great beef with the eternally vigilant one, but I'm curious as to how the 'Barber account' looks in the last couple of years:

2014 2016
Matchday income 13,009 12,035
Commercial income 5,632 6,735
18,641 18,770

Other costs 12,602 16,004

Have I got this entirely wrong, or does the 'Barber account' show a worsening deficit of around £3.25m over the 2 years?

PG

 

[El Presidente]

Thanks as ever El Pres, saves some of us amateurs a lot of head scratching.

You talk of cost savings under Barber's watch. My simplified assumptions as to what he has jurisdiction over are non-TV income and 'other' costs. I don't have any great beef with the eternally vigilant one, but I'm curious as to how the 'Barber account' looks in the last couple of years:

2014 2016
Matchday income 13,009 12,035
Commercial income 5,632 6,735
18,641 18,770

Other costs 12,602 16,004

Have I got this entirely wrong, or does the 'Barber account' show a worsening deficit of around £3.25m over the 2 years?

PG

My understanding is that the increase in other costs is linked to the coming onstream of the Lancing development and the tier 1 academy costs. In addition there has been an increase in security costs over the last couple of years. Some costs in relation to the hotel application may be there too.

 

[Peter Grummit]

My understanding is that the increase in other costs is linked to the coming onstream of the Lancing development and the tier 1 academy costs. In addition there has been an increase in security costs over the last couple of years. Some costs in relation to the hotel application may be there too.

Fair enough.

Let me ask a more general question. Is there any evidence in the accounts as to where the CEO has added value in financial terms?

PG

 

[LlcoolJ]

Fair enough.

Let me ask a more general question. Is there any evidence in the accounts as to where the CEO has added value in financial terms?

PG

Think that's pretty difficult to quantify just from a set of accounts. El Pres may well prove me wrong though.....

 

[El Presidente]

Fair enough.

Let me ask a more general question. Is there any evidence in the accounts as to where the CEO has added value in financial terms?

PG

In my opinion yes. If you look at operational costs from 2012, they have been brought under control.

In addition, the Football League TV deal for 2013 was worse than the previous one (unlike the deal for the EPL) and therefore the CEO has increased commercial income there.

 

[NooBHA]

Every time I see a set of accounts of any big business, I think ''yeh right''

I would draw people's attention to Tesco's accounts last year where there was a discrepancy in the Billions. And that discrepancy was a manufactured discrepancy. That allows them to pay larger dividends to shareholders and stops a run on the sale of shares which would reduce the value of the shares.

Next year will be a true test of the FFP because obviously this current crop of players costs won't be fully in those accounts so next year might be difficult to keep within the FFP. If it is borderline it will be possible to do by re-categorising expenditure and if there is interest payable on loans then ''right to interest'' could be ''waived'' to help keep within FFP.

I also don't know if ''Youth Development'' is counted in the FFP. It might not be and if it isn't you might see current squad players moved into that squad to help reduce the operating losses; however one thing is clear I think that there does need to be a shedding of players who are surplus to requirements. That's blindingly obvious if we want to stay within the FFP Regulations.

The original post was an excellent summary of the latest accounts. I haven't looked at those accounts in any detail as far too busy at the moment but one thing struck me during the recent Rail Strike. The first thing I would do in the current accounting period. I would refuse to pay whatever fee they are due to pay Southern for the inclusive match day travel. After all, if the milkman fails to deliver your milk you wouldn't pay for the milk that wasn't delivered.

 

[El Presidente]

Every time I see a set of accounts of any big business, I think ''yeh right''

I would draw people's attention to Tesco's accounts last year where there was a discrepancy in the Billions. And that discrepancy was a manufactured discrepancy. That allows them to pay larger dividends to shareholders and stops a run on the sale of shares which would reduce the value of the shares.

Next year will be a true test of the FFP because obviously this current crop of players costs won't be fully in those accounts so next year might be difficult to keep within the FFP. If it is borderline it will be possible to do by re-categorising expenditure and if there is interest payable on loans then ''right to interest'' could be ''waived'' to help keep within FFP.

I also don't know if ''Youth Development'' is counted in the FFP. It might not be and if it isn't you might see current squad players moved into that squad to help reduce the operating losses; however one thing is clear I think that there does need to be a shedding of players who are surplus to requirements. That's blindingly obvious if we want to stay within the FFP Regulations.

The original post was an excellent summary of the latest accounts. I haven't looked at those accounts in any detail as far too busy at the moment but one thing struck me during the recent Rail Strike. The first thing I would do in the current accounting period. I would refuse to pay whatever fee they are due to pay Southern for the inclusive match day travel. After all, if the milkman fails to deliver your milk you wouldn't pay for the milk that wasn't delivered.

Here's a pro-forma of an FFP submission

 

[LlcoolJ]

Here's a pro-forma of an FFP submission

View attachment 80073

As that was loading up on Tapatalk (with a shit Wifi connection) I was undecided as to if it would be an actual one or a picture of some scribblings on a fag packet as a gag.

You've disappointed me.

 

[NooBHA]

Here's a pro-forma of an FFP submission

View attachment 80073

Ah Excellent - Thanks for that. Loads of scope there then. Looks like the Youth Development is an Add back in the FFP as I thought. I wonder how many YD Games a player might need to play there to consider their salaries as YD Costs ?

A few Other categories which might be helpful. I especially love the category of ''Permitted Exceptional Items'' That must really open a real can of worms with such a vague category that one being an ''add back''

 

[Brovion]

I've never bothered with Sky so I'm quite shocked to see it's now over a grand a year. I'm from the generation when football was once free to watch and it feels odd that now people are seemingly happy and willing to pay over a grand for it.

Before Sky though there was no live football on TV! You had the Cup Final, the odd England game and that was it.

Not everybody likes sport, so it's actually really good that there is a dedicated sports broadcaster. If you like watching sport you subscribe. If you don't like it you don't subscribe and you spend your money on something else. And I must have a really good deal because the way my package is structured I only pay about £140 a year for Sky Sports (admittedly not the HD version). As far as value for money is concerned I think it's excellent, and it pisses all over the outrageous TV Tax (aka the Licence fee) that I have to pay for the BBC whether I want to watch it or not. And I don't even watch the Premier League!

 

[El Presidente]

Before Sky though there was no live football on TV! You had the Cup Final, the odd England game and that was it.

Not everybody likes sport, so it's actually really good that there is a dedicated sports broadcaster. If you like watching sport you subscribe. If you don't like it you don't subscribe and you spend your money on something else. And I must have a really good deal because the way my package is structured I only pay about £140 a year for Sky Sports (admittedly not the HD version). As far as value for money is concerned I think it's excellent, and it pisses all over the outrageous TV Tax (aka the Licence fee) that I have to pay for the BBC whether I want to watch it or not. And I don't even watch the Premier League!

£140 for Sky Sports? How do you manage that?

 

[atomised]

Every time I see a set of accounts of any big business, I think ''yeh right''

I would draw people's attention to Tesco's accounts last year where there was a discrepancy in the Billions. And that discrepancy was a manufactured discrepancy. That allows them to pay larger dividends to shareholders and stops a run on the sale of shares which would reduce the value of the shares.

Next year will be a true test of the FFP because obviously this current crop of players costs won't be fully in those accounts so next year might be difficult to keep within the FFP. If it is borderline it will be possible to do by re-categorising expenditure and if there is interest payable on loans then ''right to interest'' could be ''waived'' to help keep within FFP.

I also don't know if ''Youth Development'' is counted in the FFP. It might not be and if it isn't you might see current squad players moved into that squad to help reduce the operating losses; however one thing is clear I think that there does need to be a shedding of players who are surplus to requirements. That's blindingly obvious if we want to stay within the FFP Regulations.

The original post was an excellent summary of the latest accounts. I haven't looked at those accounts in any detail as far too busy at the moment but one thing struck me during the recent Rail Strike. The first thing I would do in the current accounting period. I would refuse to pay whatever fee they are due to pay Southern for the inclusive match day travel. After all, if the milkman fails to deliver your milk you wouldn't pay for the milk that wasn't delivered.

In addition this crop of players and this season come under the first year of the rolling 3 years and 39 million ffp limit

 

[clapham_gull]

Before Sky though there was no live football on TV! You had the Cup Final, the odd England game and that was it.

Technically not true.

ITV and BBC showed live top division football in the 80s.

 

[NooBHA]

£140 for Sky Sports? How do you manage that?

My brother has got all the scams going with services like Sky. He used to cancel his Sports channels during the close season. A few years he went through a couple girlfriends over a couple of years period and what he did then he cancelled the subscription and set up a new one in the new girlfriends names and he get the ''new customer deduction'' rates.

So the answer is trade the wife or girlfriend in every year and you get cheap Sky Sports

 

[El Presidente]

My brother has got all the scams going with services like Sky. He used to cancel his Sports channels during the close season. A few years he went through a couple girlfriends over a couple of years period and what he did then he cancelled the subscription and set up a new one in the new girlfriends names and he get the ''new customer deduction'' rates.

So the answer is trade the wife or girlfriend in every year and you get cheap Sky Sports

Yup, I've cancelled Sky and they have offered me 60% off the usual price, but it's still at least £300 a year. I might be tempted at £140 though.

Last wife I traded in cost me a lot of money, even the thought of discounted West Brom v Bournemouth isn't going to tempt me to do it again.

 

[chrispyk]

This is basically a summary of what I need to know for my accounting final next week! Especially factoring in how we comply with FFP.

 

[NooBHA]

This is basically a summary of what I need to know for my accounting final next week! Especially factoring in how we comply with FFP.

What accounting Exams now cover selective ''course work'' now ? - The thought of doing exams ever again would fill me with dread

 

[NooBHA]

Yup, I've cancelled Sky and they have offered me 60% off the usual price, but it's still at least £300 a year. I might be tempted at £140 though.

Last wife I traded in cost me a lot of money, even the thought of discounted West Brom v Bournemouth isn't going to tempt me to do it again.

My brother is clever though. Just lived with them - He is one of these guys who would walk into a shop like Curries or Furniture shop and asked for a fridge freezer or a 3 piece suite and they quoted him a price he would say to the salesman ''How much discount if I brought my own van to the back door and slipped payment straight into your pocket'' Makes Arthur Daly look like Mother Theresa