Well, it costs a lot to maintain a Premier League team and up until recently we weren't getting much from player transfers. We run at a loss generally.
Add Maupay and Knockaert and we're at £200M revenue from the past 24 months. Quite impressive when you consider our team is probably stronger now then ever before
Chelsea have already signed one and apparently signing our other Ecuadorean interest in the summer, obviously another Winstanly intervention.
Quite, But it only balances out the years previous when the club just spent and didn't receive much. It's only now the ground has been made up. Then when you add the previous losses it's clear that club is not really in a position to spend big unless Tony dips again. Which I would fully understand if he doesn't. I think the club are being really sensible and if things did go south I'm confident we would be back, even though the Championships is a tough place.
Yes, yes, exactly THIS!
A quite outstanding interpretation, although you did play both sides of the net so I really can’t claim any of the glory
Sleep well, and here’s to further glory
Although player transfer fees are annual amortisation costs spread over the term of the contract. Obviously the longer the deal the better for the accounting re Chelsea.
We're not making losses now. Accounts still to be released for last year, but with player sales of around 70m, finishing 9th and a full Amex every other week - ie no Covid related losses - we'll have made a few million. This season, player sales plus compo for Potter and his gang are at about 160-170m, so plenty of profit this year as well.
Maupay 20m
Actually, I think it’s fine regardless. This is a model of running a football club that understands that in sport there are good times and bad. The aim is the provision of professional football in Sussex, not participation in an arms race. If the conveyer belt dries up we stick with the plan and take a few years at a lower level.
You're correct that the a player's value is listed as an asset on the accounts which decreases proportionally each year depending on contract length. Our last set of accounts (Season 20-21) showed player amortisation slightly higher than your estimate of £46m. At the end of 20-21 the contracts of 2 expensive players, Izquierdo and Ryan, expired. And as these were combined fees of about 20m over 4 years this reduces the amortisation by about 5m. However we also signed 80m worth of players in 21-22, so on a average of a 4-year contract basis, the amortisation increases by 20m - or a net increase of 15m to around 60m per season!
I agree, we are not going to be paying very high transfer fees as it would also mean breaking the wage cap. A player that costs 35 million will be on (expecting) wages way over what we pay. Why would a player come here on a much lower wage than he could get at more than half the clubs in the division?
We WILL start going backwards at some stage, which it’s why it’s best to just enjoy the good times whilst we have them
My mate works for Network Rail and he reckons it’s the travel scheme
Not the depreciation on the 120m stadium and 30m training ground/academy, annual academy running costs of 5-10m, playing and non-playing staff employment costs of £110 or transfer fee amortisation of 45m+ per year then?
The biggest concern i have is that everyone we bring in from Ireland and South America that turns out to be a Moises or an Evan attracts the big six , who are starting to wait for us to identify a good prospect and beat us to the punch at the last moment . If these youngsters see us as a stepping stone to the top six that is one thing , but we will not attract any established players if they think all we want to achieve is treading water . There has to come a point where we are making a regular push for a European slot , if we don`t show we believe in ourselves to achieve that , why should they .
I wouldn't bank on the Ostigaard money. We don't, of course, know what the add-ons are for, but I imagine they include playing. Mostly, he isn't.
