|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Jun 21, 2013 12:16:23 GMT
You may be right in which case he should have used a Unfortunately there are plenty of city people who think just like that! Christ, Irony alert. Do we always have to use a smiley? Paul (TWM) - I think you had a "senior" moment. He was quite clearly being ironic - and even an old fart like you (or me!) should have spotted it.
|
|
|
Post by Staying up for Grandadstokey on Jun 21, 2013 14:25:51 GMT
If she has the same political allegiance as her dad , she may have to wait a while. Leaders of all parties, plus others, can submit potential honours candidates, so it shouldn't make any difference which party is in power. I don't remember Tony Robinson being a staunch Tory. Yes but his was all part of a cunning plan
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Jun 22, 2013 5:54:21 GMT
Three articles in the Sentinel this morning about the Bet365/Stoke City results including an interview with Denise. I'm actually starting to get a bit misty-eyed about Denise! Not in THAT way, you understand - I'm just rather chuffed that one of Britain's most successful businesswomen comes from North Staffs. Looks like the SCFC loss of £30 million ish for the financial year just ended WAS a true figure for the year's loss - I'm gob smacked to be honest. I wish we got individual results for the club so they could be examined in more detail. Stoke resultsInterview with DeniseBet365 results
|
|
|
Post by wuzza on Jun 22, 2013 6:55:48 GMT
Put me in the 'gob-smacked' club too! Ok our transfer expenditure is high but nowhere near as high as the top clubs. Our wages are on the lowish side to most in the league and our turnover is pretty much the average (excluding the top 5 or 6 'multi-national' clubs). Income from the PL as everyone knows is enormous. The ONLY thing that we suffer from really compared to other clubs of our stature is the occasional windfall of a big player sale. Selling Bego would for example have halved that loss and put us much more in line.
Anyway Im sure Bet365's accountants can make some use of our 'contribution' to the group's figures !!
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Jun 22, 2013 7:02:06 GMT
Put me in the 'gob-smacked' club too! Ok our transfer expenditure is high but nowhere near as high as the top clubs. Our wages are on the lowish side to most in the league and our turnover is pretty much the average (excluding the top 5 or 6 'multi-national' clubs). Income from the PL as everyone knows is enormous. The ONLY thing that we suffer from really compared to other clubs of our stature is the occasional windfall of a big player sale. Selling Bego would for example have halved that loss and put us much more in line. Anyway Im sure Bet365's accountants can make some use of our 'contribution' to the group's figures !! Yes - our wage bill went up - but not enough to fully explain the increased loss. Presumably some other costs went up (or income went down) but we haven't yet seen enough of the detail of the accounts to work out what happened. I don't know if the supporter's council can raise this sort of thing with the club, but it would be nice to have the club's accounts presented in a more understandable way - even though I accept that (because the club is a subsidiary company of Bet365) there is no legal requirement to do so.
|
|
|
Post by alster on Jun 22, 2013 7:18:16 GMT
Yes, if they carry on like this, it may soon be Dame Denise Coates - Dame being the female equivalent of Sir. If she has the same political allegiance as her dad , she may have to wait a while. A little under two years, with a bit of luck.
|
|
|
Post by fca47 on Jun 22, 2013 7:32:01 GMT
Latest accounts not yet filed, but I'm sure someone will go through them with a fine tooth comb.
|
|
|
Post by fca47 on Jun 22, 2013 7:36:35 GMT
See they have set up a foundation but no details filed yet.
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on Jun 22, 2013 8:21:13 GMT
Put me in the 'gob-smacked' club too! Ok our transfer expenditure is high but nowhere near as high as the top clubs. Our wages are on the lowish side to most in the league and our turnover is pretty much the average (excluding the top 5 or 6 'multi-national' clubs). Income from the PL as everyone knows is enormous. The ONLY thing that we suffer from really compared to other clubs of our stature is the occasional windfall of a big player sale. Selling Bego would for example have halved that loss and put us much more in line. Anyway Im sure Bet365's accountants can make some use of our 'contribution' to the group's figures !! Yes - our wage bill went up - but not enough to fully explain the increased loss. Presumably some other costs went up (or income went down) but we haven't yet seen enough of the detail of the accounts to work out what happened. I don't know if the supporter's council can raise this sort of thing with the club, but it would be nice to have the club's accounts presented in a more understandable way - even though I accept that (because the club is a subsidiary company of Bet365) there is no legal requirement to do so.I dont think you need much detail to understand what has been building here, John. Overpriced signings of aged players with nothing come back in terms of sales out of the club. Continual granting of thank you contracts to crocks and past it servants of the cause catch up with the books in a bad way in the end. Then people wonder why a more structured approach to recruitment has been put into place and a determination that the development of our own talent will no longer be allowed to be treated as a sideshow is reinforced. Its just a shame it was all done a little late to save the club many millions of pounds. Still, the appropriate changes have been made now.
|
|
|
Post by werrington on Jun 22, 2013 8:31:27 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Jun 22, 2013 9:22:42 GMT
Yes - our wage bill went up - but not enough to fully explain the increased loss. Presumably some other costs went up (or income went down) but we haven't yet seen enough of the detail of the accounts to work out what happened. I don't know if the supporter's council can raise this sort of thing with the club, but it would be nice to have the club's accounts presented in a more understandable way - even though I accept that (because the club is a subsidiary company of Bet365) there is no legal requirement to do so.I dont think you need much detail to understand what has been building here, John. Overpriced signings of aged players with nothing come back in terms of sales out of the club. Continual granting of thank you contracts to crocks and past it servants of the cause catch up with the books in a bad way in the end. Then people wonder why a more structured approach to recruitment has been put into place and a determination that the development of our own talent will no longer be allowed to be treated as a sideshow is reinforced. Its just a shame it was all done a little late to save the club many millions of pounds. Still, the appropriate changes have been made now. I take your point Mark. But I'd still like to see more detail. For example, the wage bill is up by £8 million but the loss is up by £24 million. That's £16 million of losses where I (and I expect a lot of others) would like to see a fuller picture. Our player purchases were not higher in the last financial year than in the previous year (I don't think?) so the £16 million must be accounted for by something else. Income hasn't dropped drastically, has it? If supporters had been given this information then the decisions made by the club would be easier to understand even by those fans who claim at present not to understand, or agree, with the decisions made this spring. I just think that clubs make a rod for their own backs if they don't have transparency in their finances. It is another reason why I like to see fan representation on football club boards - although I know you and I are never going to agree on that point.
|
|
|
Post by Fred Ferret on Jun 22, 2013 9:26:36 GMT
I assume that Bet365 wouldn't have a problem writing off the £39m loan - it would simply reduce their CT liability? Alternatively, conversion of loan to shares would allow new investors to come on board - particularly with the new £60m PL deal now in place. It has to be asked, once again, that if the strategy is indeed for growth - surely a modest stadium expansion would not be onerous, given the large income streams. Even Bardiff are looking to add 5,000 seats.
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on Jun 22, 2013 9:28:17 GMT
Would be interesting to get a bit of flesh on the bone.
Maybe the £6-7m training ground expansion? The loss of the £5m Europa League TV/prize money from 11-12?
|
|
|
Post by Fred Ferret on Jun 22, 2013 9:30:07 GMT
Would be interesting to get a bit of flesh on the bone. Maybe the £6-7m training ground expansion? The loss of the £5m Europa League TV/prize money from 11-12? Add to that - the £15 for the stadium expansion plans. Edit: Joke - 15K.
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on Jun 22, 2013 9:30:38 GMT
Certainly makes your respect for David Moyes increase when you see their last 2 reported wage bill figures have been £58m and £63m.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Jun 22, 2013 9:32:14 GMT
Yes - our wage bill went up - but not enough to fully explain the increased loss. Presumably some other costs went up (or income went down) but we haven't yet seen enough of the detail of the accounts to work out what happened. I don't know if the supporter's council can raise this sort of thing with the club, but it would be nice to have the club's accounts presented in a more understandable way - even though I accept that (because the club is a subsidiary company of Bet365) there is no legal requirement to do so.I dont think you need much detail to understand what has been building here, John. Overpriced signings of aged players with nothing come back in terms of sales out of the club. Continual granting of thank you contracts to crocks and past it servants of the cause catch up with the books in a bad way in the end. Then people wonder why a more structured approach to recruitment has been put into place and a determination that the development of our own talent will no longer be allowed to be treated as a sideshow is reinforced. Its just a shame it was all done a little late to save the club many millions of pounds. Still, the appropriate changes have been made now. The fact that Tony Scholes is still a major part of the management team means your final sentence isn't quite accurate.
|
|
|
Post by liathroid on Jun 22, 2013 9:33:17 GMT
bonus payments could cost a few pound as well, loyalty ,staying up money ,who knows what type of bonus money is built in to their contracts
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Jun 22, 2013 10:22:27 GMT
Yeah I can't quite fathom where the losses have come from. It doesn't seem proportional to the spending we know about.
And the fact that bet365 and not Stoke own the Brit and training ground always worries the shit out of me too, there's potential for disaster there in the future.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Jun 22, 2013 10:32:16 GMT
And the fact that bet365 and not Stoke own the Brit and training ground always worries the shit out of me too, there's potential for disaster there in the future. That's the Coates family get out of jail card isn't it. We should be grateful for their benevolence it has given us some great times but they are fully covered whilst we remain a Premier League outfit.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Jun 22, 2013 10:35:49 GMT
And the fact that bet365 and not Stoke own the Brit and training ground always worries the shit out of me too, there's potential for disaster there in the future. That's the Coates family get out of jail card isn't it. We should be grateful for their benevolence it has given us some great times but they are fully covered whilst we remain a Premier League outfit. Yup and You can't blame them for it really, if it was our money and we were smart we would do the same. But ultimately for the club I think it's a frightening position to be in.
|
|
|
Post by nott1 on Jun 22, 2013 11:19:46 GMT
Perhaps the new direction was to get relegated as it would cost a lot less to run the club? Only joking of course!
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Jun 22, 2013 11:22:58 GMT
Yeah I can't quite fathom where the losses have come from. It doesn't seem proportional to the spending we know about. And the fact that bet365 and not Stoke own the Brit and training ground always worries the shit out of me too, there's potential for disaster there in the future. Even if the Stoke City club owned the Britannia and Clayton Woods, the fact that the Club is owned by Bet 365 means that ownership would ultimately belong to Bet 365. If the stadium and the training ground were owned by a third party company that would mean they were just as much at risk of a sell off as if Bet 365 owned them. So the surrent situation is no bigger a risk in asset stripping terms than it was before Bet365 took over. The only way to ensure safety from asset stripping would be if the stadium and training ground (and car parks) were owned by a separate charitable trust or something similar whose deed specified that the stadium and training complex MUST be retained for football purposes. There are probably a few clubs which are in that situation - but not many.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Jun 22, 2013 11:25:32 GMT
True but I still don't like it.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Jun 22, 2013 11:45:19 GMT
The stadium is now valued at £43 million - far more than the site would be worth if sold off for commercial use. So I can't imagine any buyer for the stadium - other than someone who wanted to use it to house a football club.
Similarly the chances of a buyer getting planning permission to use Clayton Woods for anything other than sports or recreational use, must be NIL.
Nothing is certain, of course, but the chances of Stoke falling victim to asset strippers are very low. Most grounds which have been asset stripped have been crappy old stadia sitting on prime development land in areas where there is a planning bias towards development. That doesn't apply to either the Brit or Clayton Woods.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Jun 22, 2013 11:47:49 GMT
Trust no one is my motto! It's not necessarily asset strippers, I just don't like the idea it can be sold off to a third party and we end up in a situation like Coventry where we pay massive rent and don't get the revenue. There's scope to getting fucked over in a few different ways.
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Jun 22, 2013 12:06:27 GMT
Are we all agreed that signing younger players for lower transfer fees, & more importantly lower wages, is the way to go before eventually bringing through our own Academy players?
Which is why I don't really understand the appointment of Mark Hughes tbh.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Jun 22, 2013 12:15:22 GMT
Are we all agreed that signing younger players for lower transfer fees, & more importantly lower wages, is the way to go before eventually bringing through our own Academy players? Which is why I don't really understand the appointment of Mark Hughes tbh. He's signed players for low fees in the past who have then been sold for a lot more, hasn't he? David Bentley and Santa Cruz are both players signed for very little and sold for a lot. I'm sure there are others. TP didn't manage that trick once at Stoke in ten years.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Jun 22, 2013 12:34:38 GMT
Are we all agreed that signing younger players for lower transfer fees, & more importantly lower wages, is the way to go before eventually bringing through our own Academy players? Which is why I don't really understand the appointment of Mark Hughes tbh. It's easy to say but very hard to do effectively. If the Bet 365 taps are being significantly turned down you presume the shrewd suits down on Festival Park have a budget folder which says 'What happens if we go down'.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Jun 22, 2013 12:35:46 GMT
Are we all agreed that signing younger players for lower transfer fees, & more importantly lower wages, is the way to go before eventually bringing through our own Academy players? Which is why I don't really understand the appointment of Mark Hughes tbh. He's signed players for low fees in the past who have then been sold for a lot more, hasn't he? David Bentley and Santa Cruz are both players signed for very little and sold for a lot. I'm sure there are others. TP didn't manage that trick once at Stoke in ten years. Harsh when you consider the increase in value of Shawcross and Begovic in particular.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Jun 22, 2013 12:48:57 GMT
He's signed players for low fees in the past who have then been sold for a lot more, hasn't he? David Bentley and Santa Cruz are both players signed for very little and sold for a lot. I'm sure there are others. TP didn't manage that trick once at Stoke in ten years. Harsh when you consider the increase in value of Shawcross and Begovic in particular. A fair comment. But those two (plus Huth) are probably the only ones where TP has produced significant "added value" on players he bought for modest amounts. I reckon Hughes (at Fulham and Blackburn) probably has a better record in that respect. I'm discounting Man City and QPR on the grounds that his brief there (even at pre-Arab Man City) was not to buy cheap and add value.
|
|