|
|
Post by fca47 on Jan 19, 2015 8:31:29 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Jan 19, 2015 8:42:02 GMT
Good find (thumbsup) Didn't realise it cost us that much to fuck TP and his boys off! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2015 8:50:50 GMT
That atricle shows what an absolute Godsend the extra 30m TV revenue has been, we were running at 91% wage to turnover during Pulis last season which is just unsustainable. Now we're in a position to really push on, but that involves buying players that have the potential to be sold on for big money (rather than the Crouch's of this world with no resale value) and our scouting and youth policies bearing fruit.
|
|
|
|
Post by Amo on Jan 19, 2015 8:51:31 GMT
Very good analysis of the Premier League and shows you the "mega gap" between the top 4 Champions League teams and the rest.
Does show you what a good job the current management team are doing and how lucky we are to have the backing of the Coates family.
Long may it last.
Up The Potters!
|
|
|
|
Post by stokiejoe on Jan 19, 2015 8:54:54 GMT
An excellent read and a good explanation of the role played by the Coates family.
|
|
|
|
Post by huuuuuth on Jan 19, 2015 8:59:23 GMT
Good, in depth analysis. Not knocking the previous regime, but there was absolutely no way that level of spending could carry on (the spending was allowed by uncle peter of course) So the purse strings HAD to be tightened, which proves even more, what a fantastic job Sparky is doing  |
|
|
|
Post by skip on Jan 19, 2015 9:11:31 GMT
Great article, thanks for the post.
One thing of real note, the last season under Pulis; the wages to income ratio was terrifyingly high. We coujd have gone bang with another year or two of that.
|
|
|
|
Post by cheekymatt71 on Jan 19, 2015 9:24:23 GMT
This is not a happy statistic:
Stoke’s achievement in staying in the Premier League for so long is really placed into context when you compare their revenue to other clubs. In 2012/13 Stoke’s revenue of £66.5 million was the 17th highest in the top tier, only above QPR, Reading and Wigan, i.e. the three clubs that were relegated that season.
Obviously due to our low season ticket prices and the fact we are in an area of the UK where people cant afford to spend too much from the financial crisis.
Not sure what else the club can do to raise more commercial income in other parts of the world. Maybe we can open a club-shop in Barcelona for spanish fans who want to follow Bojan & Muniesa? lol
|
|
|
|
Post by wuzza on Jan 19, 2015 9:46:45 GMT
The problem with increasing commercial revenue is that it is very hard to 'sell' the club abroad or even around the country when the best you can realistically offer is a 7th place finish. We would be ecstatic with that performance but to the outsider its all a bit dull. This league as we all know is set up to make the rich richer.
|
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Jan 19, 2015 9:47:05 GMT
It's actually quite depressing reading that. Even with a benign billionaire benefactor, we will never ever challenge for the very top honours again.
I'd also be asking serious questions of the Chief Executive of the year with those dreadful commercial revenue results.
|
|
|
|
Post by Billy the kid on Jan 19, 2015 9:52:30 GMT
So there you go, Uncle Peter has HAD to tighten the purse strings.
|
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on Jan 19, 2015 9:56:46 GMT
I agree it's a depressing report and shows the huge wealth gap between the top clubs and the rest and also that the PL is in a massive financial bubble.
|
|
|
|
Post by Billy the kid on Jan 19, 2015 10:02:23 GMT
The only issue I have with all of this is, where in all of this does the FFP help to protect clubs?
|
|
|
|
Post by redstriper on Jan 19, 2015 10:04:05 GMT
Very good article.
reading between the lines its shows what a great job Hughes is doing with a very limited budget - his results v spend is right up there at the top of the pile.
|
|
|
|
Post by Plave on Jan 19, 2015 10:08:20 GMT
The only issue I have with all of this is, where in all of this does the FFP help to protect clubs? It's only mean to protect the top few from a new billionaire club appearing and challenging them all. That's the only reason it exists. |
|
|
|
Post by chad on Jan 19, 2015 10:10:31 GMT
We will probably be a £100million pound business this year
Who would have thought that ten years ago
|
|
|
|
Post by dutchstokie on Jan 19, 2015 10:13:32 GMT
We're doing fine at the moment....on and off the pitch. Lets try to keep the balance right Good work all round  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2015 10:19:30 GMT
Brilliant article, definitely one to keep. I had argued we were literally shitting money however our outlay unbeknownst to me was far higher than even I had imagined.
I had asserted we were must be 'shitting money' - not true, at least up until end of last season but, it can now be seen - if we can finish ninth or above again -
we actually will be
Well done to all involved
And the last swipe, Stoke City are definitely not 'smalltown' anymore - and as for the 1800 extra seats or, 'a small modification to our stadium' - There can be no more
excuses for not doing it --- surely !
|
|
|
|
Post by santy on Jan 19, 2015 10:21:19 GMT
FFP is designed to impose sanctions on clubs who spend more than they can earn. It has no interest in helping clubs increase revenue further or become more profitable further down the line.
So essentially it takes speculating to accumulate out of football, in some cases it does go wrong - Portsmouth and Leeds being the prominent examples. Man City & Chelsea show it can also work. You also have teams like Villa who have tried it to an extent, failed and then gone back to living within their means.
Clubs are trying various methods to get around it, Man City have tried their system with NYC FC and the australian side by their owners paying money back to Man City through those clubs, but that got ruled against. Real Madrid seem to have hit on a pretty legitimate strategy when they signed Bale, seemingly able to use a loan from a bank on favorable terms.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Jan 19, 2015 10:29:13 GMT
A very thorough article which explains to me why it is necessary for the club to be prudent about "filling ends", "rock the city" signings, and renewing contracts of players in the twilight of their careers.
The world is driven by advertising which funds TV revenue, web sites, and newspapers. This regrettably results in the most popular clubs grabbing the lions share of the revenue. This in turn also results in their names being quoted out of context, for example "Diouf, the ex Manchester United player" will result in this article appearing as one of 210,000,000 results each time someone Googles ManU and increases the chances of a hit on the web site. So the media will make constant references to the top clubs even when reporting on the lower clubs. (Googling "Stoke City" gives 37,000,000 results.) TV companies will focus on those teams that will bring in the greatest advertising revenue.
Another unfortunate outcome of this trend is that the Premier League is moving to a situation where it cannot afford for the top clubs to fail as it could bring down the whole system. (Similar to the last government having to bail out the banks with tax payers money because the country could not afford to let those banks go to the wall due the amount of disruption it would cause society and businesses. Imagine the misery to pensioners and small businesses if Lloyds and RBS had been allowed to go into liquidation.) This means the administration of the game will be biased towards those top clubs to keep them successful.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Jan 19, 2015 10:31:06 GMT
Even QPR with their 18,000 gates generating more match day revenue than us.
Who was it who posted on here the other day asking how can QPR hope to compete in the Prem with their miserable gates?
Well there is the answer. 1)They generate more revenue than us from those gates and b)It doesn't much matter unless you are generating Manchester United style match day revenues since it is a drop in the ocean compared to the TV money.
Don't take this wrong, huge credit to Stoke City FC for this situation, they have done a great job of keeping match day prices down throughout our tenure in the Prem and I salute them for it!
|
|
|
|
Post by foster on Jan 19, 2015 10:34:37 GMT
- Interested to see how the commercial revenue changes next year with Warrior as a partner now.
- Seems to me like the deadwood had a big effect on wages and overall results. Hopefully under Hughes we'll sort that out. I expect we'll manage to keep the wage bill roughly the same as more go out than come in.
- I can see ticket price rises coming into effect next season (though not by much). Match-day revenue needs to increase.
|
|
|
|
Post by Clem Fandango on Jan 19, 2015 10:35:52 GMT
What I like about this is we've not yet needed to sell any of our crown jewels in order to balance the books. Obviously we're catching up with our youth system but the current recruitment strategy seems to point at some future players sales for profits not losses.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Jan 19, 2015 10:43:17 GMT
What I like about this is we've not yet needed to sell any of our crown jewels in order to balance the books. Obviously we're catching up with our youth system but the current recruitment strategy seems to point at some future players sales for profits not losses. Or paying off debts. The reason we have been able to avoid selling any crown jewels to balance the books is presumably in part at least because the club has a debt to their owners of some £57 million it says. |
|
|
|
Post by Clayton Wood on Jan 19, 2015 10:52:40 GMT
What I like about this is we've not yet needed to sell any of our crown jewels in order to balance the books. Obviously we're catching up with our youth system but the current recruitment strategy seems to point at some future players sales for profits not losses. Or paying off debts. The reason we have been able to avoid selling any crown jewels to balance the books is presumably because the club has a debt to their owners of some £57 million it says. That's the intriguing bit for me. Gross debt (borrowings from bet365) went up from £42.4m to £57.4m, £15m. But cash balances also went up from £6.5m to £19.5m, £13m leaving net borrowing up £2m. Why borrow more from bet365 to effectively put it in SCFC's bank account? Maybe it's to do with tax for bet365 but once you add all the bits back together it all washes out. Of course any business with high cash balances is more of an interest to a potential buyer. Just saying. |
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on Jan 19, 2015 11:01:41 GMT
Great article, thanks for the post. One thing of real note, the last season under Pulis; the wages to income ratio was terrifyingly high. We coujd have gone bang with another year or two of that.
This is the conclusion I came to after the capped one was sacked, he was totally out of control with his spending maybe partly down to PC, however he did state that he would not waste the family's money which of course was a blatant lie. I have no doubt he would have bankrupted the club if the Coates family not sacked him, puts into perspective the last two seasons of his reign.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Jan 19, 2015 11:05:48 GMT
Or paying off debts. The reason we have been able to avoid selling any crown jewels to balance the books is presumably because the club has a debt to their owners of some £57 million it says. That's the intriguing bit for me. Gross debt (borrowings from bet365) went up from £42.4m to £57.4m, £15m. But cash balances also went up from £6.5m to £19.5m, £13m leaving net borrowing up £2m. Why borrow more from bet365 to effectively put it in SCFC's bank account? Maybe it's to do with tax for bet365 but once you add all the bits back together it all washes out. Of course any business with high cash balances is more of an interest to a potential buyer. Just saying. That's a bit technical for me! But I just about followed the numbers and I can imagine why a business with liquid cash would be more attractive to a buyer than one without it. But then that debt, £57 million pounds. That's a big number isn't it? With no real plan to pay it back beyond happening upon the next Gareth Bale and cashing in? As it stands it would seriously put off any prospective buyer would it not? They would need to take that debt on and pay it off or service it and it would be a huge proportion of what the club is worth. I am actually quite concerned about that $57m number. Am I right to be?! |
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Jan 19, 2015 11:06:38 GMT
Or paying off debts. The reason we have been able to avoid selling any crown jewels to balance the books is presumably because the club has a debt to their owners of some £57 million it says. That's the intriguing bit for me. Gross debt (borrowings from bet365) went up from £42.4m to £57.4m, £15m. But cash balances also went up from £6.5m to £19.5m, £13m leaving net borrowing up £2m. Why borrow more from bet365 to effectively put it in SCFC's bank account? Maybe it's to do with tax for bet365 but once you add all the bits back together it all washes out. Of course any business with high cash balances is more of an interest to a potential buyer. Just saying. I presume if the club has the ready cash they can spend it quickly if needs be and not have to go to Bet365 for release of funds which might take time to raise/release if it is in deposit accounts and shares. Just a thought! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2015 11:10:13 GMT
Or paying off debts. The reason we have been able to avoid selling any crown jewels to balance the books is presumably because the club has a debt to their owners of some £57 million it says. That's the intriguing bit for me. Gross debt (borrowings from bet365) went up from £42.4m to £57.4m, £15m. But cash balances also went up from £6.5m to £19.5m, £13m leaving net borrowing up £2m. Why borrow more from bet365 to effectively put it in SCFC's bank account? Maybe it's to do with tax for bet365 but once you add all the bits back together it all washes out. Of course any business with high cash balances is more of an interest to a potential buyer. Just saying. That was my conclusion to be fair. It does leave you pondering..... |
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Jan 19, 2015 11:11:35 GMT
I haven't read any other comments on this thread but the article got me thinking is why is our revenue so low?
I'm guessing part of that is down to excellent season ticket prices.
What are the other reason? Why do we lag?
|
|
