sad saints fan Posted 14 December, 2009 Share Posted 14 December, 2009 Last year when we were in financial trouble I seem to be able to remember a break even attendance ,at home games,of around 16 or 17 thousand. Now that the mortgage on the stadium is no longer an issue has that number decreased and are we in fact making money on attendances much lower. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 14 December, 2009 Share Posted 14 December, 2009 I don't suppose we shall ever know in any detail. It all depends on how the club is capitalised. I never could find a detailed Profit & loss account under the old regime so with this one it's going to be impossible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glasgow_Saint Posted 14 December, 2009 Share Posted 14 December, 2009 13,000 is my prediction of 'break-even' this is based on some very complex calculations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 14 December, 2009 Share Posted 14 December, 2009 13,000 is my prediction of 'break-even' this is based on some very complex calculations. did your teacher never tell you to show your workings out..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ludwig Posted 14 December, 2009 Share Posted 14 December, 2009 did your teacher never tell you to show your workings out..? Ask Riemann where he kept his working out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 14 December, 2009 Share Posted 14 December, 2009 did your teacher never tell you to show your workings out..? Funny you should say that, I find myself walking out with my flies open quite a lot these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krissyboy31 Posted 14 December, 2009 Share Posted 14 December, 2009 I don't know about actually making money but I suspect that the average crowds are well above what was originally expected and budgeted for. Think that is probably one of the reasons, they have brought forward the plans for Staplewood and the fact that Cortese said the cost would be coming out of this year's operating budget. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Saint Posted 14 December, 2009 Share Posted 14 December, 2009 did your teacher never tell you to show your workings out..? He was wrong Never leave a trail... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glasgow_Saint Posted 14 December, 2009 Share Posted 14 December, 2009 did your teacher never tell you to show your workings out..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krissyboy31 Posted 14 December, 2009 Share Posted 14 December, 2009 Ah! I can see where you went wrong now!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 14 December, 2009 Share Posted 14 December, 2009 if only rupert hired you do look after the books... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glasgow_Saint Posted 14 December, 2009 Share Posted 14 December, 2009 if only rupert hired you do look after the books... he does! Thats how I know we are the Man City of L1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint_clark Posted 14 December, 2009 Share Posted 14 December, 2009 And yet you still can't work out that we beat Torquay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 14 December, 2009 Share Posted 14 December, 2009 And yet you still can't work out that we beat Torquay. Why all this obsession with 'winning'? Why can't we all be equals in a world of equanimity? Rather than 'beat' can't you say 'differently lost'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eelpie Posted 14 December, 2009 Share Posted 14 December, 2009 if only rupert hired you do look after the books... Did you mean ' to DO the books'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VectisSaint Posted 14 December, 2009 Share Posted 14 December, 2009 Why all this obsession with 'winning'? Why can't we all be equals in a world of equanimity? Rather than 'beat' can't you say 'differently lost'? Don't you mean positively drew? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Landrew Posted 14 December, 2009 Share Posted 14 December, 2009 13,000 is my prediction of 'break-even' this is based on some very complex calculations. did your teacher never tell you to show your workings out..? Yes, but now he's an adult [i think], which means it costs you money to see his figures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintBobby Posted 14 December, 2009 Share Posted 14 December, 2009 To return - vaguely seriously - to the OP's question, I'd imagine the break even point is easily being surpassed. Am assuming our salary bill is about the same as last year. I don't know what the break even point was last year, call it X. This year we don't have the mortgage on the stadium, which I gather was costing about £3m pa. Assuming an average cost of £20 a ticket, that amounts to 150,000 tickets we don't need to sell to cover the mortgage. Assuming 25 games at St. Mary's (ok, it's more than this, but some are priced much cheaper than 20 quid a head), this means we can "lose" 4,800 fans a game. So, whatever break even point was last year, it's (X - 4,800) per game this year. Do I get points for showing my working out even if my answer is wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 15 December, 2009 Share Posted 15 December, 2009 To return - vaguely seriously - to the OP's question, I'd imagine the break even point is easily being surpassed. Am assuming our salary bill is about the same as last year. I don't know what the break even point was last year, call it X. This year we don't have the mortgage on the stadium, which I gather was costing about £3m pa. Assuming an average cost of £20 a ticket, that amounts to 150,000 tickets we don't need to sell to cover the mortgage. Assuming 25 games at St. Mary's (ok, it's more than this, but some are priced much cheaper than 20 quid a head), this means we can "lose" 4,800 fans a game. So, whatever break even point was last year, it's (X - 4,800) per game this year. Do I get points for showing my working out even if my answer is wrong? Average ticket price paid for the 20k that have been turning up is probably alot lower than £20. All season ticket holders (Adult/kid/Young Adult/OAP's) price per game is much lower than £20 and then add all the matchday concessions(kids/young adults/OAP's) all have tickets below £20. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintBobby Posted 15 December, 2009 Share Posted 15 December, 2009 Average ticket price paid for the 20k that have been turning up is probably alot lower than £20. All season ticket holders (Adult/kid/Young Adult/OAP's) price per game is much lower than £20 and then add all the matchday concessions(kids/young adults/OAP's) all have tickets below £20. That's true, but to balance it off: (a) we will play more than 25 games at home this season (we're already at 29 for certain by my count, and there'll be more if we beat Norwich and/or Luton and/or get to the play-offs) (b) there is revenue over and above ticket sales - programmes, beer, hot dogs, Megastore sales etc. So I reckon 20 quid a head over 25 games is a far guess at an overall income stream - even if average ticket price is about 15 quid. HTH. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stockportsaint Posted 15 December, 2009 Share Posted 15 December, 2009 did your teacher never tell you to show your workings out..? Some of these people showed their workings, much good it did them: http://www.masalatime.com/?p=419 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanadaSaint Posted 15 December, 2009 Share Posted 15 December, 2009 This year we don't have the mortgage on the stadium, which I gather was costing about £3m pa. Assuming an average cost of £20 a ticket, that amounts to 150,000 tickets we don't need to sell to cover the mortgage. Not all of the mortgage payment counts as an expense - just the interest portion. The principle portion pays for an asset that the club owns and holds on its books - offset by the loan (liability) that enabled it to buy that asset in the first place. Each principle repayment basically cancels itself out by reducing the debt by the same amount. So, the saving by not having a mortgage is $3 million in Cash Flow terms (money in and money out) but a lot less than $3 million in Profit & Loss terms (revenues and expenses). I don't think things are that much different - perhaps $500,000 or so in saved interest, with the huge exception that we don't owe outsiders any money. But, in the other direction, I'm sure that someone of the calibre of Mr. Cortese doesn't come cheap. Having said that, I'd be very surprised if Marcus holds SFC as some kind of standalone entity unrelated to his broader business interests. It's much more likely that his accountants are treating the club as one part of a broad businesses portfolio. If they are, they could legitimately allocate expenses to SFC that could change the financial scenario significantly. But then I don't think Marcus or his accountants ever saw this is an investment in an English third tier team. They saw it as a long term investment in a team destined to return to the Premiership, so they're probably not too hung up on Profit & Loss numbers right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John D Posted 15 December, 2009 Share Posted 15 December, 2009 With us continuing to operate a premiership infrastructure in terms of stadium and acadamy and support staff plus a reasonable outlay on transfers and wages and reduced ticket prices etc the break even figure is higher than I originally thought it would be. Markus is bankrolling us for the next few seasons until we return to the premier league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david in sweden Posted 15 December, 2009 Share Posted 15 December, 2009 Now that's more impressive - but what does it mean ..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 15 December, 2009 Share Posted 15 December, 2009 Now that's more impressive - but what does it mean ..? It looks like random musings done to impress. There are various equations relating to gravitational attraction and they've even managed to squeeze in Einstein's relativity. To me it indicates a troubled mind, maybe someone who has difficulty sleeping? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John B Posted 15 December, 2009 Share Posted 15 December, 2009 (edited) Not all of the mortgage payment counts as an expense - just the interest portion. The principle portion pays for an asset that the club owns and holds on its books - offset by the loan (liability) that enabled it to buy that asset in the first place. Each principle repayment basically cancels itself out by reducing the debt by the same amount. So, the saving by not having a mortgage is $3 million in Cash Flow terms (money in and money out) but a lot less than $3 million in Profit & Loss terms (revenues and expenses). I don't think things are that much different - perhaps $500,000 or so in saved interest, with the huge exception that we don't owe outsiders any money. But, in the other direction, I'm sure that someone of the calibre of Mr. Cortese doesn't come cheap. Having said that, I'd be very surprised if Marcus holds SFC as some kind of standalone entity unrelated to his broader business interests. It's much more likely that his accountants are treating the club as one part of a broad businesses portfolio. If they are, they could legitimately allocate expenses to SFC that could change the financial scenario significantly. But then I don't think Marcus or his accountants ever saw this is an investment in an English third tier team. They saw it as a long term investment in a team destined to return to the Premiership, so they're probably not too hung up on Profit & Loss numbers right now. Surely the £3 million had to found from somewhere to pay the banks so the club now has more money to invest in players. Or is that too simplistic Edited 15 December, 2009 by John B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 15 December, 2009 Share Posted 15 December, 2009 Ask Riemann where he kept his working out. Ah yes Intuitive Reasoning, after the method of his mentor Dirichlet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horley CTFC Saint Posted 15 December, 2009 Share Posted 15 December, 2009 I don't know about actually making money but I suspect that the average crowds are well above what was originally expected and budgeted for. Think that is probably one of the reasons, they have brought forward the plans for Staplewood and the fact that Cortese said the cost would be coming out of this year's operating budget. Agreed I reckon the club is currently being run at a 'managable loss' - the big win is if they get into the Premier League (and can stay there) in a relatively short period of time. If that happens I would expect a change in ownership or additional external capital coming in - failing that I would guess that the strategy might change if say 3-5 years if we are still trundling along in the lower echelons and running with a managable loss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 15 December, 2009 Share Posted 15 December, 2009 I would expect with crowds of around 20k then the club is not actually losing money provided that the owner is not expecting an immediate return on his investment. Indeed, the break-even point may be a lot lower than that with any residual earnings ploughed back into the development of the club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ringwood Posted 15 December, 2009 Share Posted 15 December, 2009 well at least we don't appear to be borrowing against next years tv money or scrambling around each month to pay the wages because we don't have more than one home game in the months fixture list. given that the club must be turning over more than last year on more than just gate receipts, factor in all the merchandise then I'd guess break even somewhere near the 12 to 13k mark. it highlights why season ticket sales are so important to clubs all the club needs to do is make more money than the interest on the sum invested and Markus will be happy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanadaSaint Posted 15 December, 2009 Share Posted 15 December, 2009 Surely the £3 million had to found from somewhere to pay the banks so the club now has more money to invest in players. Or is that too simplistic You're right on both counts - it had to be found but that is (sadly for all of us) too simplistic. It had to be found largely from Cash Flow, which is all the inflows less all the outflows. However, not all of the inflows and outflows are revenues and expenses. The mortgage is an outflow but it consist of two parts - a principle repayment (which is not an expense because it's essentially repayment of a loan) and the interest component (which is an expense). So, when we lose the stadium mortgage we're a lot better off in Cash Flow terms but not much better off in Profit & Loss terms. In theory, though, players are assets, just like the stadium. Yes, we could invest more in players but they usually depreciate (fall in value) much faster than a stadium, and the amount by which they depreciate becomes a loss. If the depreciation on additional players exceeds the interest we were paying on the mortgage, the loss would become greater under ML (if the revenues don't go up as a result). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmel Posted 15 December, 2009 Share Posted 15 December, 2009 You're right on both counts - it had to be found but that is (sadly for all of us) too simplistic. It had to be found largely from Cash Flow, which is all the inflows less all the outflows. However, not all of the inflows and outflows are revenues and expenses. The mortgage is an outflow but it consist of two parts - a principle repayment (which is not an expense because it's essentially repayment of a loan) and the interest component (which is an expense). So, when we lose the stadium mortgage we're a lot better off in Cash Flow terms but not much better off in Profit & Loss terms. In theory, though, players are assets, just like the stadium. Yes, we could invest more in players but they usually depreciate (fall in value) much faster than a stadium, and the amount by which they depreciate becomes a loss. If the depreciation on additional players exceeds the interest we were paying on the mortgage, the loss would become greater under ML (if the revenues don't go up as a result). Unless of course (As per the the last lot) the stadium was a seperate company, who billed the holding company for it's services (Now of course you could do the books across the group) but as a stand alone company the loan and interest would be the expense and profit or loss would be a straight calculation against, takings to outgoings.(With all of the other acccountacy rules thrown into the mix) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SO16_Saint Posted 15 December, 2009 Share Posted 15 December, 2009 so the crux of all the ramblings above is this: we dont have a fecking clue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John B Posted 15 December, 2009 Share Posted 15 December, 2009 so the crux of all the ramblings above is this: we dont have a fecking clue And unlikely to find out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanadaSaint Posted 15 December, 2009 Share Posted 15 December, 2009 Unless of course (As per the the last lot) the stadium was a seperate company, who billed the holding company for it's services (Now of course you could do the books across the group) but as a stand alone company the loan and interest would be the expense and profit or loss would be a straight calculation against, takings to outgoings.(With all of the other acccountacy rules thrown into the mix) Right. As I said in my first post a lot of it depends how the club is handled within the broader Liebherr business structure. Regardless, though, they're likely in this as a longer term investment which would pay off in the Prem, although it's great to see that they're still smart enough to see the vital importance of the Academy. But Marcus's presence at games makes it pretty clear that the club is more to him than just a business investment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
once_bitterne Posted 15 December, 2009 Share Posted 15 December, 2009 I don't suppose we shall ever know in any detail. It all depends on how the club is capitalised. I never could find a detailed Profit & loss account under the old regime so with this one it's going to be impossible. That brings up an interesting point. When we were a plc the accounts had to be published and were freely available to all. Even though we are now owned by a ltd company we would still have to file accounts which can be downloaded from the companies house website for a small fee. (I'm sure Guided Missle will do this for us!). From the announcement that was on the O/S from Fry when the takeover occurred the company name that was used to buy SLH was 'DMWSL613 Limited'. A quick check shows this company is still active: http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/7687c39f49435456f9739f2053c2e0eb/compdetails It will be very interesting to see, what with having no mortgage repayments or loans to repay and the higher crowds we have been getting this season, if the club are running at break even point or are being subsidised to run at a loss by ML. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derry Posted 15 December, 2009 Share Posted 15 December, 2009 I was at a meeting last spring where Leon Crouch talked about the annual mortgage payment, I can't remember the actual figure but I think it was £2.8m. I am pretty certain it was over £2m. Added to that, the savings on the grossly overpaid players like Euell, Raziak, John etc, plus the interest on a £6m overdraft, the debt free club will have a fairly low break even, despite still having Saganowski and Thomas on high wages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanadaSaint Posted 15 December, 2009 Share Posted 15 December, 2009 Added to that, the savings on the grossly overpaid players like Euell, Raziak, John etc, plus the interest on a £6m overdraft, the debt free club will have a fairly low break even, despite still having Saganowski and Thomas on high wages. For sure these are bigger savings than the mortgage interest (which probably only amounted to half a million or so). We are much healthier in so many ways but January should give us a really good insight into their business plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John D Posted 15 December, 2009 Share Posted 15 December, 2009 That brings up an interesting point. When we were a plc the accounts had to be published and were freely available to all. Even though we are now owned by a ltd company we would still have to file accounts which can be downloaded from the companies house website for a small fee. (I'm sure Guided Missle will do this for us!). From the announcement that was on the O/S from Fry when the takeover occurred the company name that was used to buy SLH was 'DMWSL613 Limited'. A quick check shows this company is still active: http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/7687c39f49435456f9739f2053c2e0eb/compdetails It will be very interesting to see, what with having no mortgage repayments or loans to repay and the higher crowds we have been getting this season, if the club are running at break even point or are being subsidised to run at a loss by ML. We are running at a reasonable loss and are being subsidised by ML for next few years until we reach premier league Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toofarnorth Posted 15 December, 2009 Share Posted 15 December, 2009 I think if I remember correctly Liebherr said when he bought the club, that he understood we would be loss making in league 1. He would be looking to break even in the Championship and be profit making in the Premiership. I may just be imagining this but I think I remember something along those lines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 15 December, 2009 Share Posted 15 December, 2009 I think if I remember correctly Liebherr said when he bought the club, that he understood we would be loss making in league 1. He would be looking to break even in the Championship and be profit making in the Premiership. I may just be imagining this but I think I remember something along those lines. I would love to see the cashflow projections. It's a horrible thought but what if the big crowds in League 1 mean that it is more profitable to stay there with lower players' wages? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanadaSaint Posted 15 December, 2009 Share Posted 15 December, 2009 I would love to see the cashflow projections. It's a horrible thought but what if the big crowds in League 1 mean that it is more profitable to stay there with lower players' wages? Anyone called Grandad will surely remember how convinced we all were that some "powers that be" didn't want to see us promoted out of the Third Division (South). The more things change, the more they remain the same, eh? However, one of the reasons I love seeing Markus Liebherr at the games is that it means he isn't just in it for the money. He's also a fan, and fans just love success on the pitch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 15 December, 2009 Share Posted 15 December, 2009 Anyone called Grandad will surely remember how convinced we all were that some "powers that be" didn't want to see us promoted out of the Third Division (South). The more things change, the more they remain the same, eh? However, one of the reasons I love seeing Markus Liebherr at the games is that it means he isn't just in it for the money. He's also a fan, and fans just love success on the pitch. Just think of the money the football clubs' owners used to make when there was the wage cap. Thanks for the reassurance, I shall sleep better tonight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now