The Albion posts losses of £14.7m

Moshe Gariani · Feb 5, 2014

Nothing to worry about.

Tony Bloom can afford it and it is his pleasure to spend money in this way.

Presumably he makes it all tax efficient and I'd bet his net worth has gone up by a few tens of millions in the past 12 months in any case.

PILTDOWN MAN · Feb 5, 2014

Golfboy said:
Palace were sent into admin for much smaller losses than this.

No they owed money they couldn't afford to pay, and were basically insolvent which brings about all matter of legal procedures. "We", the royal WE are meeting all our debts as we are not trading insolvent. Cash flow and profit/ loss are two different animals.

TottonSeagull · Feb 5, 2014

saafend_seagull said:
Nope. £20k.

Papers = incorrect.

And you know this how?

The Camel · Feb 5, 2014

saafend_seagull said:
Loads of reasons why this has happened.

Wayne bridge £20k a week, and others as I mentioned on here a few weeks ago.

£3.5m on ulloa (it isn't £2m like everywhere says) so some player amortisation costs there.

Some will be depreciation of the stadium. Uk gaap requires a FULL year depreciation in its first year of use. Therefore 110m/33 = 3.33m depreciation p&l charge - although people get away with pro rota'ing the depreciation so this could be a lot less as the work wasnt complete until end of February.

Loads of one off costs:

- sponsorship boards
- sacking the caterers
- staff redundancies
- sunk costs on rail network
- improvements at falmer
- legal fees for gus case prior to year end

At least bloom won't have to pay any taxes for a while whilst we have all these accumulated losses!

People moan about forest chairman subsidising them. Well we have been subsidised about £150M.

Anyone know if a effective market interest rate must be applied to the loan under fpp rules?

Amortisation is a great word.

CPFC G · Feb 5, 2014

Moshe Gariani said:
Nothing to worry about.

Tony Bloom can afford it and it is his pleasure to spend money in this way.

Presumably he makes it all tax efficient and I'd bet his net worth has gone up by a few tens of millions in the past 12 months in any case.

That's fine then.

Looks to me you are getting rid of most of the costs in this years figures to give it a good go next season. Still staggering figures though. English football really is ****ed.

Beach Hut · Feb 5, 2014

Bozza said:
Season tickets will not be hiked if I understand 'hiked' to mean a very large rise.

so they will go up, I have every confidence it will be hidden in the travel tax

Weststander · Feb 5, 2014

saafend_seagull said:
Loads of reasons why this has happened.

Wayne bridge £20k a week, and others as I mentioned on here a few weeks ago.

£3.5m on ulloa (it isn't £2m like everywhere says) so some player amortisation costs there.

Some will be depreciation of the stadium. Uk gaap requires a FULL year depreciation in its first year of use. Therefore 110m/33 = 3.33m depreciation p&l charge - although people get away with pro rota'ing the depreciation so this could be a lot less as the work wasnt complete until end of February.

Loads of one off costs:

- sponsorship boards
- sacking the caterers
- staff redundancies
- sunk costs on rail network
- improvements at falmer
- legal fees for gus case prior to year end

At least bloom won't have to pay any taxes for a while whilst we have all these accumulated losses!

People moan about forest chairman subsidising them. Well we have been subsidised about £150M.

Anyone know if a effective market interest rate must be applied to the loan under fpp rules?

To correct your wild guesses conveniently suiting your arguments, actual annual depreciation hitting the profit and loss account in the Amex era is just £0.9m.

Advertising boards and other improvements you talk of, having a useful economic life of more than a year, would be capitalised on the balance sheet, as part of fixed assets, and finally forming part of the £0.9m annual depreciation charge. Not part of an explanation of the losses.

Sunk costs is a cash flows term, not directly applying to the accounting losses.

Interest on directors loans - there's no mention of that in the rules.

On stadia/training - there is no clamp down on capital spending. Forest can spend £100m on a new stadium if they want. The mandatory FL rules, not set out by Platini, but by the 72 football league clubs themselves, simply set out to make the operating/playing side fairer and reduce the risks of the countless insolvencies we've all seen. Forest and Leicester quite clearly have large squads of well known ex-PL players/excellent Championship players, despite having turnover no greater than the Albion's and no parachute monies. Unsurprisingly, as a result they are vying for promotion to get their mitts on PL TV money alone of 3 x BHA's total annual income. FL FFP is attempting to deal with that.

algie · Feb 5, 2014

Barrel of Fun said:
Indeed. I'd be quite tempted to. The Albion have gone beyond what I want from supporting a club.

I thought I would be a permanent fixture of Amex, but the whole thing doesn't make me excited anymore. Do I want to pay top dollar to offset a loss, a loss that is making 30 odd players exceedingly rich (in relative terms) for a minimum output?

Do I want to contribute to the wages of say, Ryan Harley (or others), who clearly couldn't be bothered. It's not even about effort. You could argue that footballers create an economy and money is spent all over the place as a result, but do I feel comfortable contributing and giving Average Joe Striker a charmed existence because he can kick a ball around for 90 minutes every week?

I know there are lots of arguments entailed in that. Tennis players, film stars, bankers and so on, but it feels as though the mediocre are being rewarded. Why does YaYa (the real one, not Ince) need £300k a week after tax? What good reason does he need that?

Well that's gratitude for Mr Bloom who spent over 120 million in building the BHA empire for you to enjoy it in first class facilities and you have already lost interest. Seriously what were you expecting that hasn't already been built for your entertainment and comfort?

Football on the whole is in a mess and expensive. It's not something new Paul.

Weststander · Feb 5, 2014

PILTDOWN MAN said:
No they owed money they couldn't afford to pay, and were basically insolvent which brings about all matter of legal procedures. "We", the royal WE are meeting all our debts as we are not trading insolvent. Cash flow and profit/ loss are two different animals.

Brighton meet and continue to meet creditors such as HMRC, players wages and suppliers, as they fall due for payment. Due to TB's generosity by way of a loan or share capital (cash injections).

CP, Leicester (several times), Portsmouth, Leeds, et seq - were unable to pay liabilities as they fell due for payment = insolvent.

Golfboy · Feb 5, 2014

ArfurW8 said:
The difference is that Simon Jordan racked up debts and could or would not pay them.

Tony Bloom pays his bills.

No sign of him shafting anybody yet.

Simon Jorden was by a substantial margin the largest creditor - i presume he could no longer bail the club out, and ended up shafting himself. I guess your sugar daddy is just richer than ours was.

8th battalion East Lancs · Feb 5, 2014

And yet someone on here told me that you have a player salary budget less than Burnley's.

It's alright, I didn't believe him.

RowleyBirkinQ.C(deceased) · Feb 5, 2014

HenryC said:
I'd put money on our losses next year being almost exactly £8m!! It's called brinkmanship...

Not quite brinkmanship but your point is correct. As others have said, I think this is just the club publishing a worst case scenario, by the time we have to publish fully for F.F.P I'm sure the debt will be below the £8mill mark. Am I missing something or being naive, but if things were so dire, would the board have sanctioned the £1.1 mill fee for Grabban (although ultimately unsuccessful)

HastingsSeagull · Feb 5, 2014

1.2M INCREASE in admin costs? Is Paul Barber on 1.5M a year for cutting the admin costs by 300k?

In all seriousness I know we are 'bringing forward' losses so we meet targets over the next few years but don't exactly get all the finer points of this accountancy. Trust those at our club though for now

sherrinned · Feb 5, 2014

Seasider78 said:
When a club with our infrastructure and income posts losses like that is shows how messed up football has become. Sadly there does not seem to be any indication of this changing. How on earth are clubs going to turn around these losses and comply with FFP.

Football is out of control

Wrong the prem is out of control. Takes all the money gives nothing back

RowleyBirkinQ.C(deceased) · Feb 5, 2014

Barrel of Fun said:
Indeed. I'd be quite tempted to. The Albion have gone beyond what I want from supporting a club.

I thought I would be a permanent fixture of Amex, but the whole thing doesn't make me excited anymore. Do I want to pay top dollar to offset a loss, a loss that is making 30 odd players exceedingly rich (in relative terms) for a minimum output?

Do I want to contribute to the wages of say, Ryan Harley (or others), who clearly couldn't be bothered. It's not even about effort. You could argue that footballers create an economy and money is spent all over the place as a result, but do I feel comfortable contributing and giving Average Joe Striker a charmed existence because he can kick a ball around for 90 minutes every week?

I know there are lots of arguments entailed in that. Tennis players, film stars, bankers and so on, but it feels as though the mediocre are being rewarded. Why does YaYa (the real one, not Ince) need £300k a week after tax? What good reason does he need that?

Although I couldn't ever see myself losing enthusiasm for the Albion, because of personal and family circumstances, I'm not in a position to keep shelling out like youon season tickets and other match day paraphernalia.
But I wholeheartedly agree with your other points. Player wages are ridiculous, and mediocrity does seem to be rewarded.

saafend_seagull · Feb 5, 2014

RowleyBirkinQ.C(deceased) said:
Not quite brinkmanship but your point is correct. As others have said, I think this is just the club publishing a worst case scenario, by the time we have to publish fully for F.F.P I'm sure the debt will be below the £8mill mark. Am I missing something or being naive, but if things were so dire, would the board have sanctioned the £1.1 mill fee for Grabban (although ultimately unsuccessful)

Debt? Our retained losses carried forward just from the Amex would then be a paltry £30 MILLION in three years.

RowleyBirkinQ.C(deceased) · Feb 5, 2014

ArfurW8 said:
The difference is that Simon Jordan racked up debts and could or would not pay them.

Tony Bloom pays his bills.

No sign of him shafting anybody yet.

CPFC G said:
That's fine then.

Looks to me you are getting rid of most of the costs in this years figures to give it a good go next season. Still staggering figures though. English football really is ****ed.

Nice to see some measured and even quite kind responses from our friends up the road.
You can stay

RowleyBirkinQ.C(deceased) · Feb 5, 2014

saafend_seagull said:
Debt? Our retained losses carried forward just from the Amex would then be a paltry £30 MILLION in three years.

My bad, DEBT was the incorrect term.

Chicken Runner61 · Feb 5, 2014

RowleyBirkinQ.C(deceased) said:
Not quite brinkmanship but your point is correct. As others have said, I think this is just the club publishing a worst case scenario, by the time we have to publish fully for F.F.P I'm sure the debt will be below the £8mill mark. Am I missing something or being naive, but if things were so dire, would the board have sanctioned the £1.1 mill fee for Grabban (although ultimately unsuccessful)

As I understand Buying a player doesn't make the books look bad.

The money is sometimes paid in stages but the players value goes on the books as an asset.

losses come form running costs wages and losing money on players, in our case its presumably the cost of running the Amex. A few space cadets on here think that when they see a full ground and a few pies being sold they club is raking it in.

From what I see of football clubs its the wage bill thats the biggest problem, a big squad with players earning 20-40k a week needs a lot of money coming in to avoid a big loss.

I think a few clubs are going for promotion now to try and get hold of hard cash into their books asap. I hope its the stadium and training ground costs thats showing in those losses and that next season the figure comes down.

Weststander · Feb 5, 2014

HastingsSeagull said:
1.2M INCREASE in admin costs? Is Paul Barber on 1.5M a year for cutting the admin costs by 300k?

In all seriousness I know we are 'bringing forward' losses so we meet targets over the next few years but don't exactly get all the finer points of this accountancy. Trust those at our club though for now

Total pay, benefits, pension etc to ALL Directors in the year 2011/12 was £465k.

When was Barber appointed?

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

The Albion posts losses of £14.7m

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

Brighton Bhuna Boy

Well-known member

The moaning of life

Well-known member

New member

New member

New member

Well-known member

New member

New member

Well-known member

New member

New member

We stand where we want!

Well-known member

Share this page