|
Post by sheikhmomo on Jun 22, 2013 12:59:38 GMT
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. Agreed Hughes has a better record at it no doubt. When TP got it right he got it spectacularly right, those days became more and more infrequent though.
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Jun 22, 2013 13:07:32 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. TP is not the issue Hughes is I don't see Hughes a manager with a track record of promoting youth particularly. Of course he will sign more young players than TP would because not to would be impossible,that's not my beef. I just don't see that Hughes fits the program.
|
|
|
Post by adi on Jun 22, 2013 13:28:41 GMT
Blimey - losses up from £5m to £31m. And wage bill up to £60m! Ouch. Has Denise pulled up the financial drawbridge? Now we know why we will be quiet in the transfer market this summer, it is very likely Mr Hughes will have been given similarity instructions to TP to generate cash by moving some players on prior to buying. Hence why we've released so many players. It's indicative of the Pulis era that although we've done very well to survive we have done it at a big expense. Who will buy old players who haven't really played any decent stuff for years?
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Jun 22, 2013 13:39:11 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. The accounts were for the year to March 2013 it's not entirely unfeasible that if the decision to get rid of TP had been made that this wasn't recognised in the accounts as a restructuring provision.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Jun 22, 2013 13:42:55 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. Writing off the loan would have no impact on bet365 tax liabilities, stoke are part of the same group a £39m loss in bet 365 would be a £39m gain in the football club accounts therefore zero tax impact.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Jun 22, 2013 14:09:09 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 resultsActually having thought about it some more, I reckon the 11\12 loss of £5m was artificially low in the April 11-March 12 period they'd have been the FA Cup semi-final and final with the resultant prize money and merchandising profits, the Europa cup run the sale of Tuncay maybe too. Without these the £5m loss would be more like £15m-£20m and the increase to losses of £30m for 12\13 becomes more understandable \ less dramatic.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2013 14:15:28 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. TP is not the issue Hughes is I don't see Hughes a manager with a track record of promoting youth particularly. Of course he will sign more young players than TP would because not to would be impossible,that's not my beef. I just don't see that Hughes fits the program. He doesn't fit the program long term but he's a middle man who will refresh the squad with younger, cheaper alternatives to Pulis signings and totally refresh the wage bill over the next few years. It makes the step to self sufficiency a lot less than it would have been just going from A Pulis to Z Other.
|
|
|
Post by apb1 on Jun 22, 2013 14:22:27 GMT
On the losses, aren't transfer fees spread over the life of a contract? So Crouch, rather than a 12m signing, is 3m p.a.? Still a long way to go, but if all our fees for the last 4 years say were stacked up...
Amortising I think it's called.
|
|
|
Post by smiler_andy on Jun 22, 2013 14:26:48 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 agree with Mark. If you look at the following players some who may have left during the season Whitehead Owen Upson Lund Nash Pennant Delap Sid Diego A Higgy Tong Then you add Ness Edu That is 13 players who hardly made any appearances last year apart from Whitehead. I have probably missed a few as well. As an example If you work at a salary average of £15,000 a week for 13 players(you put your own figure in). It works out cost for the season of around £10.14m on players who hardly played or did not get a squad number. With just basic calculation you can see we have probably wasted a lot of money and things had to change.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Jun 22, 2013 14:39:53 GMT
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 agree with Mark. If you look at the following players some who may have left during the season Whitehead Owen Upson Lund Nash Pennant Delap Sid Diego A Higgy Tong Then you add Ness Edu That is 13 players who hardly made many appearances last year apart from Whitehead. I have probably missed a few as well. As an example If you work at a salary average of £15,000 a week for 13 players(you put your own figure in). It works out cost for the season of around £10.14m on players who hardly played or did not get a squad number. With just basic calculation you can see we have probably wasted a lot of money and things had to change. And it clarifies PC's blackhole of wages comment. Some people thought he meant wages in general but I'm pretty sure he was on about what is explained above. You forgot Palacios too.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Jun 22, 2013 14:42:38 GMT
On the losses, aren't transfer fees spread over the life of a contract? So Crouch, rather than a 12m signing, is 3m p.a.? Still a long way to go, but if all our fees for the last 4 years say were stacked up... Amortising I think it's called. Yeah good point although more the full year impact of the £20m on Crouch, Palacios and Jerome in 12\13 as well as the additional spend on Adam \ Nzonzi etc starting to be amortised.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Jun 22, 2013 14:50:20 GMT
Accounts confuse the shit out of me.
|
|
|
Post by liathroid on Jun 22, 2013 15:03:55 GMT
Accounts confuse the shit out of me. lucky for you then,sitting on your commode all day with your laptop
|
|