Fan's View Fan's View 23/24 - No. 6 - Charlton at home

[Paul B]

Fan's View 23/24 - No.6 - Charlton at home

 

[ChamonixOx]

Fan's View 23/24 - No.6 - Charlton at home

Great read as always Paul. Totally agree on the full backs and Harris’ work rate. Very interesting the historical murky world of Charlton’s ownership and Methven’s role in the current consortium. Thanks for spending the time writing it as I would certainly miss it each week if you didn’t.

 

[Paul B]

Great read as always Paul. Totally agree on the full backs and Harris’ work rate. Very interesting the historical murky world of Charlton’s ownership and Methven’s role in the current consortium. Thanks for spending the time writing it as I would certainly miss it each week if you didn’t.

Thank you. Praise for the Charlton stuff is for Colin of course. I learned a lot reading that. Football finances and ownership can be a murky world indeed.

 

[SteMerritt]

Fab read as always, thanks for continuing to take the time to do this. The additional section with the finances is a great read as well, thanks @Colin B. One request, the finances breakdown image, would it be possible to add in a column for OUFC, so we can compare the results for the team being discussed with our club? I would find it interesting seeing how others score using us as a baseline.

 

[Colin B]

Fab read as always, thanks for continuing to take the time to do this. The additional section with the finances is a great read as well, thanks @Colin B. One request, the finances breakdown image, would it be possible to add in a column for OUFC, so we can compare the results for the team being discussed with our club? I would find it interesting seeing how others score using us as a baseline.

I was going to do a kind of grand reveal of the Oxford United numbers toward the end of the season, but happy to add an extra column and post them now, if people think it worthwhile? The OUFC numbers probably need their own introduction first though, to give them some context as to how we arrived at where we are. I'm waiting on two or three elements of further detail, for the last financial year, and would want to wait for that before analysing it, line by line, next to my full five year breakdown of everything in our finances.

I also don't want to take over Paul's excellent reviews, so am mindful that I keep things relatively succinct.

 

[SteMerritt]

I was going to do a kind of grand reveal of the Oxford United numbers toward the end of the season, but happy to add an extra column and post them now, if people think it worthwhile? The OUFC numbers probably need their own introduction first though, to give them some context as to how we arrived at where we are. I'm waiting on two or three elements of further detail, for the last financial year, and would want to wait for that before analysing it, line by line, next to my full five year breakdown of everything in our finances.

That sounds good, I'll happily wait for that.

 

[ChamonixOx]

Thank you. Praise for the Charlton stuff is for Colin of course. I learned a lot reading that. Football finances and ownership can be a murky world indeed.

That is a very good point, thanks @Colin B. It is a fascinating insight (and Paul for publishing it).

 

[Foley]

Excellent report Paul.
Like you, I am enjoying how we are playing and our position, but I am cautious to not be too over the top in excitement!
Very interesting finances and owner details as well. I am of the view that there should be laws to stop owners selling clubs and keeping the grounds. There have been numerous examples of clubs being ruined by unscrupulous owners and it seems far too easy for these owners to simply separate the ground from the club.

 

[NottsYellow]

Paul, and Colin, that is a brilliant informative write up, thank-you.
The wages to income % can easily be skewed depending on whether profit on sale of players is included, or excluded, from turnover/income. ie if you re-arrange those figures it could be made to look a whole lot worse!
Income £10,268,000
Wages £10,622,000 which is then a staggering 103% of "day to day" recurring income
Other costs £10,369,000
Loss (£10,723,000)
Then Profit on sale of players £3,306,000 reduces the loss to (£7,417,000) and back to the same answer above.
And we thought Oxford losses were bad!

 

[Colin B]

Paul, and Colin, that is a brilliant informative write up, thank-you.
The wages to income % can easily be skewed depending on whether profit on sale of players is included, or excluded, from turnover/income. ie if you re-arrange those figures it could be made to look a whole lot worse!
Income £10,268,000
Wages £10,622,000 which is then a staggering 103% of "day to day" recurring income
Other costs £10,369,000
Loss (£10,723,000)
Then Profit on sale of players £3,306,000 reduces the loss to (£7,417,000) and back to the same answer above.
And we thought Oxford losses were bad!

Yes, you're right, and that is the way most football clubs do report.

However I think it's a bit disingenuous when clubs exclude player trading, as it is a part of the financial landscape for clubs, particularly at our level. I know it isn't recurring income, but it could be argued that nothing is truly recurring income, as you only ever get it once. I'd say everything, including player trading, can be budgeted for, although all budgets can be missed. Don't forget some player trading is made up of sell on clauses, appearance clauses, promotion clauses and performance clauses. So it's reasonable to budget at the end of a year that a player who you've sold a year ago, whereby you're entitled to receive, say, an extra £500,000 if he makes 25 appearances for his new club, and at season's end he'd made 24, that you are almost certain that he'll make that extra appearance and you'll receive the £500,000 in the coming year. If it were me, I'd budget for that income.

Away from budgeting, but looking at historical accounts analysis, one thing is certain with money received from player trading. It IS spent, and it is almost certainly spent on the largest part of most football clubs' outgoings, namely wages! So for those reasons I prefer to include it to give a more realistic total income and percentage figure, as they HAVE received the money and they HAVE. spent it.

Statistics, lies, lies, and damned statistics.

 

[Paul B]

I was going to do a kind of grand reveal of the Oxford United numbers toward the end of the season, but happy to add an extra column and post them now, if people think it worthwhile? The OUFC numbers probably need their own introduction first though, to give them some context as to how we arrived at where we are. I'm waiting on two or three elements of further detail, for the last financial year, and would want to wait for that before analysing it, line by line, next to my full five year breakdown of everything in our finances.

I also don't want to take over Paul's excellent reviews, so am mindful that I keep things relatively succinct.

No worries on my part about being taken over. People can read which bits they want if they don't want to go through the whole thing. Some have even said they are more interested in the beer / pubs than the football.

 

[jfp]

You and I both used the word imperious to describe McGuane's first half performance, I am sadly not a regular attendee but this had to be one of the best all round midfield displays seen for many a long year?

 

[wolvercoteyellow]

Excellent report again, and thanks so much for the very interesting and insightful financial analysis. Like SteMerritt I'd be very interested to see a comparison with our own financials included each time.

 

[Victor1986]

Excellent as usual Paul. Colin's input equally impressive.
Care to explain why you are no longer a "patron" Colin? Is there a also a worrying change in the way things are being handled at our club?

 

[Oxford84]

Excellent as usual Paul. Colin's input equally impressive.
Care to explain why you are no longer a "patron" Colin? Is there a also a worrying change in the way things are being handled at our club?

saw the name, knew there would be this style of post!

 

[Golden Dr Otto]

Yes, you're right, and that is the way most football clubs do report.

However I think it's a bit disingenuous when clubs exclude player trading, as it is a part of the financial landscape for clubs, particularly at our level. I know it isn't recurring income, but it could be argued that nothing is truly recurring income, as you only ever get it once. I'd say everything, including player trading, can be budgeted for, although all budgets can be missed. Don't forget some player trading is made up of sell on clauses, appearance clauses, promotion clauses and performance clauses. So it's reasonable to budget at the end of a year that a player who you've sold a year ago, whereby you're entitled to receive, say, an extra £500,000 if he makes 25 appearances for his new club, and at season's end he'd made 24, that you are almost certain that he'll make that extra appearance and you'll receive the £500,000 in the coming year. If it were me, I'd budget for that income.

Away from budgeting, but looking at historical accounts analysis, one thing is certain with money received from player trading. It IS spent, and it is almost certainly spent on the largest part of most football clubs' outgoings, namely wages! So for those reasons I prefer to include it to give a more realistic total income and percentage figure, as they HAVE received the money and they HAVE. spent it.

Statistics, lies, lies, and damned statistics.

Big debate at Deloitte about how you account for footballers on the asset sheets too. I believe they run them down as intangible assets but it’s a murky old world…see Chelsea for further details

 

[SteMerritt]

Big debate at Deloitte about how you account for footballers on the asset sheets too. I believe they run them down as intangible assets but it’s a murky old world…see Chelsea for further details

An intangible footballer eh... We've had a few over the years that haven't had much of a physical presence, but never one totally intangible...

 

[Berliner]

An intangible footballer eh... We've had a few over the years that haven't had much of a physical presence, but never one totally intangible...

Pekalski? Yoav Sade?

 

[SteMerritt]

Pekalski? Yoav Sade?

The footballing equivalents of Vapourware.

 

[Colin B]

Big debate at Deloitte about how you account for footballers on the asset sheets too. I believe they run them down as intangible assets but it’s a murky old world…see Chelsea for further details

Yes, they amortise the value of players on the balance sheet over the duration of their contract. What it means is that if a player is bought for, say £1m, on a four year contract, he appears on the balance sheet as an intangible asset with a value of £1m in the first year, but then "depreciates" at the rate of £250,000 per year, until at the end of year four he has a balance sheet value of zero. If the player was sold at the end of year two (when he had a balance sheet value of £500,000) for £750,000 then the club would show a balance sheet profit of £250,000 at that point.

It's why Chelsea, and some others, have started putting players on eight year contracts, to spread the depreciation over several years, as a way of getting around FFP. However I believe the football authorities have now wised up to it and said that, whatever the contract length, the player can only be amortised over (I think?) five years maximum.

It's a murky old world indeed...............