|
|
Post by Frankiesleftpeg on Aug 9, 2019 12:59:29 GMT 1
According to Transfermarkt.co.uk huddersfc, Fulham have spent Zero....dunno how reliable or accurate the figures are but..... We are +£9.85m (I think). I think you inserted an "m" there by mistake  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2019 19:34:47 GMT 1
Over the two EPL seasons, income from the EPL was around £200m, we spent around £100m on wages and £100m on fees, addons and bonuses, plus around £12m+ on stadium improvements necessary for the EPL. Outgoings were around £250m in total over the two years, Dean had to inject £15m of his own money as the £200m alone from the EPL plus commercial and ticket revenue didn’t cover the outgoings. Then now....whilst you’ve mentioned wages going down by 40%, the parachute is 55% of last years EPL payment...so this summer we’re in a position where we’ve had to get rid of some earners just to ensure the club doesn’t disappear up its own backside. Get used to it. We have to transform into being a pretty low earning Championship club as quickly as possible otherwise we’re screwed. 🤔🤔🤔  Yes, I’ve seen that, I’m just quoting what Phil Hodgkinson has said re the finances, which went unquestioned at the Q&A when he explained the position. (there is a comment in the accounts summary about transfer dealings after the June accounting deadline that would likely mean director investment required...I took this to mean that the operating profit reported in the accounts is potentially wiped out and then some by post June commitments). A sensible person would question the veracity of what Phil has said. If you go back and look, I and others decided by the way he phrased certain things in his initial briefings that we don’t really like the cut of his gib and he has plenty to DO before he earns our respect. Similar to Jan. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2019 19:59:07 GMT 1
I think this explanation gives some indication of the reality of the situation in terms of having to focus on projected revenues and expenditures without promotion back into the PL otherwise Bolton beckons....
|
|
|
|
Post by kayeb222 on Aug 10, 2019 3:58:38 GMT 1
Our official accounts for the first season in the PL show we made a profit of £20m plus Hodgkinson said at his q & a that this season's parachute money was all accounted for but we didn't need to sell any players, which would suggest that any money made from transfers would be purely profit. Given that our total sales/loan fees are likely to be well in excess of £20m then we should have a tidy sum left, having spent bugger all in comparison on incomings. So we're either building up a large war chest for the future or we're using the transfer income to pay off DH's loans . ....IF all the money that Dean (or any other chairman for that matter) has put in to the club is actually intended as "LOANS"....and they require paying back....then his nett financial input is ZERO !! ...which is less than I spend on HTAFC !! Can this be true  (If so, I can afford to be chairman!!) If u can afford to be chairman an loan the club 15 mil too, is there any chance u can loan me a couple hundred? my car tax is due an i dont get paid til next friday. cheers |
|
|
|
Finances
Aug 10, 2019 7:52:58 GMT 1
via mobile
Post by terrier2019 on Aug 10, 2019 7:52:58 GMT 1
perhaps they have all been paid back thats why where skint.plus the club said few weeks ago we ad to generate funds to buy new players we the sold billing and smith combined £19 million and wev spent next to nothing.sumat doesnt add up to me.why would dean hoyle give club to somebody who doesnt in my eyes have the financial clout to take us forward when there was other suitors who probley could.theres total lack of transparency around the club at the moment.and lack direction in my eyes.we sold mooy then jarvis releases a statement telling us all to stick together not one peep out new chairman.anyway lets hope we get a positive result today at qpr utt 👏🐑👏🐑👏🐑
|
|
|
|
Post by htafctaunton on Aug 15, 2019 9:28:40 GMT 1
Yep, that's what DH said on the "And He Takes That Chance" podcast. Almost everything went on transfers and wages whilst we were in the PL. I think it was then that he realised that he/we weren't in the same league financially. If the amount of money which you spend at the club dictated how much say you had in the club's running, then PH has no competitors. He spends thousands, if not millions on the club, yet most fans give a maximum of say £500 by way of SC and souvenirs etc. What right does that give them to criticise a guy who has but thousands of times what they have put in. I know it's a sign of today's open attitude but I am a firm believer that as far as HTAFC policy etc is concerned, less is more ....I have absolutely no idea what PH has 'spent' on HTAFC. But what I would like confirming is "does he actually SPEND his money, or LOAN his money to the club"? ? (a very big difference between the two concepts!!) |
|
|
|
Post by htafctaunton on Aug 15, 2019 9:53:45 GMT 1
We invest £000's of £ over our life watching the team (tickets, travel costs etc). We invest hours and hours of devotion watching our club, travelling to watch our club etc. ...but you think the finances are "None of our business". Could you explain and justify your point (please). On the other hand we pay really really low SC card prices and have done for years If we had to pay the going rate I reckon 50% would walk away. The way things are going that might happen anyway and we’ll end up back with the inelastic position ....as far as SC prices are concerned, ours are "reasonably priced"....we don't pay the crazy, extortionate prices that other clubs charge. And the way things have gone in football, the 'gate' money now is far less significant with regard to the total income of football clubs, especially at the top-end of the pyramid. (Even a team like Man U, who get 70,000 attendances, their total income through the turnstiles will barely pay the wages of just TWO players - Sanchez / Pogba - the world's gone mad!!) |
|
|
|
Post by detox on Aug 15, 2019 10:02:11 GMT 1
If the amount of money which you spend at the club dictated how much say you had in the club's running, then PH has no competitors. He spends thousands, if not millions on the club, yet most fans give a maximum of say £500 by way of SC and souvenirs etc. What right does that give them to criticise a guy who has but thousands of times what they have put in. I know it's a sign of today's open attitude but I am a firm believer that as far as HTAFC policy etc is concerned, less is more ....I have absolutely no idea what PH has 'spent' on HTAFC. But what I would like confirming is "does he actually SPEND his money, or LOAN his money to the club" (a very big difference between the two concepts!!) He loans it to the club obviously...so he draws his cash out of his bank account and pays it into the clubs bank account...it goes on the clubs accounts as a debt, to Phil. Going forward this debt might never be repaid, may be repaid in part or in full or simply written off by Phil in the future. Where Phil gets his cash from (assuming he doesn't have any) might include him 'borrowing' it from elsewhere...that's HIS debt, personally...but might well be secured against HIS assets, which includes HTAFC Ltd. If he defaults on his loans received (assuming there isn't an immediate repayment term) then the company that loaned him that money can seize/sell assets he owns... There is the biggest risk to Town. |
|
|
|
Post by htafctaunton on Aug 16, 2019 16:51:05 GMT 1
[/quote]He loans it to the club obviously...so he draws his cash out of his bank account and pays it into the clubs bank account...it goes on the clubs accounts as a debt, to Phil. Going forward this debt might never be repaid, may be repaid in part or in full or simply written off by Phil in the future. Where Phil gets his cash from (assuming he doesn't have any) might include him 'borrowing' it from elsewhere...that's HIS debt, personally...but might well be secured against HIS assets, which includes HTAFC Ltd. If he defaults on his loans received (assuming there isn't an immediate repayment term) then the company that loaned him that money can seize/sell assets he owns... There is the biggest risk to Town.
[/quote]
You say he loans it to the club "obviously"......that surely means that all the 'top' clubs, with their billionaire "benefactors" (Man C - sheik Mansour; Chelsea - Abramovic; etc) are all financed by LOANS.......when Abramovic finally gets fed up with his toy, and walks out, Chelsea are suddenly faced with a loan to repay of about a billion pounds - they are f**ked!!!!
These guys are NOT really benefactors....they just allow a club to run up debts that otherwise wouldn't occur?!!
And does this apply to our Phil?? ....worse still, does it apply to Dean???
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2019 17:35:55 GMT 1
You say he loans it to the club "obviously"......that surely means that all the 'top' clubs, with their billionaire "benefactors" (Man C - sheik Mansour; Chelsea - Abramovic; etc) are all financed by LOANS.......when Abramovic finally gets fed up with his toy, and walks out, Chelsea are suddenly faced with a loan to repay of about a billion pounds - they are f**ked!!!! These guys are NOT really benefactors....they just allow a club to run up debts that otherwise wouldn't occur?!! And does this apply to our Phil?? ....worse still, does it apply to Dean??? That’s not how most of the top clubs are structured at all. This is a couple of years out of date, but... www.theguardian.com/football/2018/jun/06/premier-league-finances-club-guide-2016-17No directors loans or debt at Burnley, Everton or Palace. Debt at Arsenal, Man City (incredibly), Soutthampton , Swansea, Watford West Brom, West Ham and Bournemouth similar (lower actually) to Towns, lowish debt at Leicester. Chelsea, Liverpool and Man Utd are obviously funded/supported with a massive loading of debt...I guess they’ll hope to get the value of that debt in future years much as Man City are doing now (Liverpool are probably on the verge of that situation). Abramavich funding probably should be considered separately as it’s so unusual. The intriguing thing for me is the clubs that have since crashed out of the EPL most dramatically and not returned, like Hull, Sunderland, Stoke, Middlesbrough, are the clubs who were carrying the kind of debt level when relegated that Town had. |
|
|
|
Finances
Aug 16, 2019 18:06:35 GMT 1
via mobile
Post by Headless Chicken on Aug 16, 2019 18:06:35 GMT 1
You say he loans it to the club "obviously"......that surely means that all the 'top' clubs, with their billionaire "benefactors" (Man C - sheik Mansour; Chelsea - Abramovic; etc) are all financed by LOANS.......when Abramovic finally gets fed up with his toy, and walks out, Chelsea are suddenly faced with a loan to repay of about a billion pounds - they are f**ked!!!! These guys are NOT really benefactors....they just allow a club to run up debts that otherwise wouldn't occur?!! And does this apply to our Phil?? ....worse still, does it apply to Dean??? That’s not how most of the top clubs are structured at all. This is a couple of years out of date, but... www.theguardian.com/football/2018/jun/06/premier-league-finances-club-guide-2016-17No directors loans or debt at Burnley, Everton or Palace. Debt at Arsenal, Man City (incredibly), Soutthampton , Swansea, Watford West Brom, West Ham and Bournemouth similar (lower actually) to Towns, lowish debt at Leicester. Chelsea, Liverpool and Man Utd are obviously funded/supported with a massive loading of debt...I guess they’ll hope to get the value of that debt in future years much as Man City are doing now (Liverpool are probably on the verge of that situation). Abramavich funding probably should be considered separately as it’s so unusual. The intriguing thing for me is the clubs that have since crashed out of the EPL most dramatically and not returned, like Hull, Sunderland, Stoke, Middlesbrough, are the clubs who were carrying the kind of debt level when relegated that Town had. Relying on benefactors, even loyal fans, is risky as personal circumstances change. This is especially so if you're a club like us or Bolton who aren't necessarily going to have new investors queuing up to take us on.....as we saw with Barry Rubery and Bolton more recently. |
|
(If so, I can afford to be chairman!!)
