Jon
Admin 
Posts: 6,913
|
Post by Jon on Jan 31, 2009 11:34:10 GMT
The Herald tells us that the club made a small profit on the 2007/08 season. But that ended seven months ago and seven months is a long time!
It also confirms what was widely rumoured that "we have already had some support from directors this season".
It just goes to show, as I have said many times before, that no matter how good you are at running a football club you can only afford to be "ambitious" if you have the financial backing to see you through the lean times.
Despite the great successes of the last 18 months, we would have been dead in the water before Xmas without the right backing and guarantees in place.
|
|
Rob
TFF member
Posts: 3,607
Favourite Player: Asa Hall
|
Post by Rob on Jan 31, 2009 12:11:44 GMT
Very true Jon. Only a small profit of 10k even if you include a Wembley appearance ( I presume). And gates down considerably. It's encouraging to hear Buckle is looking to get an experienced forward in over the next couple of days, though it is not something we should necessarily expect in the current climate. Good job the directors are fans.
Contrast previously big-spending R&D. It seems their Board has simply upped and left for Weymouth at the drop of a hat.
|
|
petef
Match Room Manager
Posts: 4,627
|
Post by petef on Jan 31, 2009 12:16:44 GMT
It realy does emphasise the financial tightrope clubs walk even when succesful.
What narks me is the supporters who sound off suggesting we throw our money around as in the Hearald Postbag yesterday when it was suggested in as many words we go out and find a proven goalscorer no other club wants in mid season after the woeful display in front of goal against Coventry City.
We have a caring and responsible board and management team who are willing when neccesary to dip into their own funds,and I trust them to make the right decisions both in the short and long term. Obviously some think that Paul Buckle has a cupboard full of Magic Wands and oofle dust
|
|
|
|
Post by Budleigh on Jan 31, 2009 13:27:59 GMT
At least at our club we don't have the ridiculous situation of the Chairman and/or board members interferring on the playing front. They trust the CE & manager** to look at, evaluate, and go for the players they see fit whilst doing their own job of running the business side of the club. It seems to work well enough compared with clubs where prima donna chairmen want to be manager, coach, selection committee at al but when it goes pear shaped blame the coaching staff...
(** who, despite the comments from the other 'dark side', do actually get on with each other!)
|
|
merse
TFF member
Posts: 2,684
|
Post by merse on Jan 31, 2009 13:37:11 GMT
The Herald tells us that the club made a small profit on the 2007/08 season. But that ended seven months ago and seven months is a long time! It also confirms what was widely rumoured that "we have already had some support from directors this season".  That's "right on the money" if I may say so Jon. Fiscal support from the board usually comes in the form of standing guarantor for additional bank overdraft facilities or physically "getting the cheque books out" either way it is genuine and practical support and a direct contrast to the bellicose rantings one hears about "chucking" Trophy games and the like...................these idiots don't have to pay the bills, and as one who has had his own fingers severely burned in the past from "standing guarantor" for a third party; I can tell you that it can be bloody painful at times! |
|
|
|
Post by aussie on Jan 31, 2009 13:46:42 GMT
Our board is awesome, second to none on the commitment front, I`m extremely happy with them! Not t happy about some of the cups, in that I mean the schedualing of the finals before the play-offs, I do feel the play-offs should be held first then the cup finals.
|
|
merse
TFF member
Posts: 2,684
|
Post by merse on Jan 31, 2009 13:51:47 GMT
At least at our club we don't have the ridiculous situation of the Chairman and/or board members interferring on the playing front. As at Cambridge United you mean then Lee? George Rolls has been a pain in the arse to various management there ever since his company became main sponsors a few years ago. This self styled "former Leyton Orient player" - he was on schoolboy forms as a goalkeeper, never made full pro' nor any where near the first team - has recently been named the "worst person I have ever had to deal with in football" by Barry Fry over the Mark Rendell farce and undermined previous and none too unsuccessful manager Jimmy Quinn to such an extent the whole playing side was blown apart in the summer. He then ludicrously offered a contract to fat Lee McHeavily whom Quinn had told had no future under him at the club, even though they had yet to appoint a new manager (Garry Brabin) who promptly had to get rid of the guy AGAIN before Christmas had arrived. I'd rather have a Trabant than a "Rolls" thank you!  |
|
|
|
Post by Budleigh on Jan 31, 2009 14:04:37 GMT
Exactly Merse! And further up the ladder if stories are to be believed... Newcastle come to mind...
|
|
Dave
TFF member
Posts: 13,081
|
Post by Dave on Jan 31, 2009 14:24:48 GMT
The club making a small profit has to be so much better than those clubs who are making big loses. It makes you wonder just what went on the season before for the club to lose 470 grand. Yes we know who was in charge and we did not enjoy any real cup success,but when you look at the cuts Roberts was making, things really do not add up that well for me.
I must confess that figures are not my thing and I know football clubs can't be compared to any other type of business. I do not know what % 10 thousand is of nearly two and a quarter million, but it must be very small. So most of the income has been swallowed up just in running costs and it opens your eyes to just how expensive running a club is in the BSP really is.
800 grand up on income has played a big part in turning in a small profit, the higher gates and cup money would have made up a big part of this extra income, but you do fear that we will struggle to come out so well in the next years accounts. Gates over a thousand down and while we have enjoyed some good cup money, will it add up to the same amount at the end of this season.
It really hits home just what was lost in the Coventry game, by not getting the goal we so deserved, just the prize money and then the gate plus TV we would have got in the next round, could have been the one thing that we get the books balanced for next year. Still it did not happen and the best we can hope for is another Wembley final and the money that will bring.
While it may seem better to go up as champions, I think winning a playoff final brings much higher cash rewards, so lets hope the club can get as much income as a result to what happens out on the pitch and that we see an improvement in gates at Plainmoor.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2009 7:58:44 GMT
Balance sheets can be both precise and vague at the same time. They also manage to hide as much as they reveal.
Turnover up from £1.4m to £2.2m as reported. Operating costs up as well - not staff costs (which are down) but "external charges" (up significantly). Compared to past TUFC balance sheets there's not much in the way of a detailed breakdown (this may be due to a change of auditor?).
An interesting section is always the ongoing profit and loss account. This showed a surplus of £215,000 as of June 2006. 2007's £470,000 loss turned this into a £255,000 deficit. 2008's profit reduces this shortfall to £245,000.
|
|
Jon
Admin
Posts: 6,913
|
Post by Jon on Feb 2, 2009 22:10:47 GMT
An interesting section is always the ongoing profit and loss account. This showed a surplus of £215,000 as of June 2006. 2007's £470,000 loss turned this into a £255,000 deficit. 2008's profit reduces this shortfall to £245,000. So it took us 85 years to stock up retained earnings of £215,000 - an average of some £2,500 per year. Roberts managed to lose more than double that in four months of madness / incompetence. Based on our historical running rate, it would take us 186 years to undo what Roberts did in four months. The good news is that if we can keep up the rate of profit achieved in 2007/08, it will only take 47 years to undo the Roberts damage! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2009 21:13:02 GMT
|
|
Dave
TFF member
Posts: 13,081
|
Post by Dave on Feb 3, 2009 22:00:05 GMT
I aways find these documents a bit hard to understand Barton, maybe you could break down the important parts, so as to give me a chance. ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2009 22:36:04 GMT
Dave, I think the first point is the sheer detail of those 1982 accounts listing everything from scouting costs to telephone and postage expenses, income from the social club, bank charges, etc through to takings from the Group Cup. The current accounts reveal very little by comparison.
Although we're talking 1982 prices the accumulated losses - each year's profit or loss added to a running total going back to the 1920s - amounted to £273,000. This is more than now! This figure had just grown significantly following a £114,000 loss in 1981 and a £73,000 shortfall in 1982.
The income from football activities in 1982 was £180,000 boosted by £83,000 from pools, lottery and bingo. That contrasts with £26,000 from advertising and TV.
Wages, etc amounted to £230,000 in 1982 (down from £274,000 in 1981) whereas staff costs were £1.2m in 2008 (and nearly £1.4m in 2007).
Beyond that I'm amateur really. I'm sure others are better-qualified to pass comment.
|
|
Dave
TFF member
Posts: 13,081
|
Post by Dave on Feb 3, 2009 23:01:35 GMT
Thanks Barton that helps a bit ;D I did not know the lose was a running total and that was the figure that scared me half to death |
|
