Jump to content

 

 

Dave King gives an update.


Recommended Posts

Two years ago our total ticketing income for an average of 41,444 was £12,361,000. Now that is similar to the number of season ticket holders we have now. So how much has the increase in price in the last two years? 20% this year, how much last year? 10%.

 

Lets just use a plausible example of 30% and you get £16m. Now that will be added to by the 6k or so buying individual match tickets and hospitality, but we're talking only about season ticket income here.

 

In addition, a lot of the increased income we will receive this year from TV, sponsorship and prize money will not be prepaid, and so we don't have that money yet, as well as the individual match tickets. So we will probably have a bit more money in January, and even more at the end of the season.

 

However, I still expect us to make a loss of up to £5m that will have to be covered by shareholders. That could be a share issue but I think we are waiting to resolve the Ashley situation first.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot has been said regarding finances and in this situation prudence has to supercede above all else.

Once we get rid of the burden imposed on us via the retail situation then we might be able to look to spend,it's a waiting game in that respect.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If there was no money for players he should have said that and not telling everyone there was a sizeable transfer kitty. It is funny he is now changing his tune and putting any money back to January now that the season tickets have been sold. Warburton has said the January window is very difficult. The league could be well gone by January. I am not attacking him for not investing he has just not been honest in what he has been telling us.

 

Last year the staff costs were £13.3m (for all staff), this year that will increase quite a bit due to players' wages. That is the transfer in today's parlance. Transfer fees are a different animal these days, and now it's about the total cost of a player and so including wages and signing on fee, with residual transfer out values pretty much ignored as they are not tangible nor reliable.

 

I think the points for transfer fees is that the money will be raised if it's needed for the right player and therefore can be justified.

 

Our total expenditure last year was £26.8M on an income of £16.5m, so all fees will be raised by the shareholders. It's about whether Warburton finds the right players to spend it on. His brief is to get value for money, especially for this season as we still have very low income. As was pointed out, qualification to Europe would have allowed a little bit of speculate to accumulate.

 

Instead of looking at transfer fees, I think it's more accurate to look at the quality of player coming in, and the value and cost of that.

 

I think a lot of what we're trying to do here is similar to the 80-20 rule - where the theory is that for a lot of goals, you can achieve 80% of the results for 20% of the investment - be that money or effort or whatever. But maybe it's more like 90-40.

 

We have to do that because we have 40% of the money we used to have.

 

I think maybe the problem for you is the way DK has said things, and possibly also the way Warburton has spent them money, without much in the way of fees.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont disagree with what people have stated.

However Mr King did say we would need to "frontload"our spending.Has he frontloaded enough to allow us to make a proper challenge.?

Personally,i really dont know,but im sure its what he said.By saying "frontload",he obviously means debt.(provided by himself )

Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont disagree with what people have stated.

However Mr King did say we would need to "frontload"our spending.Has he frontloaded enough to allow us to make a proper challenge.?

Personally,i really dont know,but im sure its what he said.By saying "frontload",he obviously means debt.(provided by himself )

 

Agreed.

 

But the one variable that we are still not completely noticing is Warburton.

 

Do we know for sure that King wont provide the financial means if Warburton spots that one player he needs ? Could it be that Warburton simply hasn't been able to determine the player he wants ? Is it Warburton who doesn't want to spend large chunks of money on a fee for a player ?

 

We cant look at what King has done or not done in isolation - I think we also have to consider the wishes of the management team too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed.

 

But the one variable that we are still not completely noticing is Warburton.

 

Do we know for sure that King wont provide the financial means if Warburton spots that one player he needs ? Could it be that Warburton simply hasn't been able to determine the player he wants ? Is it Warburton who doesn't want to spend large chunks of money on a fee for a player ?

 

We cant look at what King has done or not done in isolation - I think we also have to consider the wishes of the management team too.

Yep,thats pretty fair comment.

Did the boy get away ok,Craig? Must be hard mate,im sure it will be fine though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep,thats pretty fair comment.

Did the boy get away ok,Craig? Must be hard mate,im sure it will be fine though.

 

Aye, there were some tears G but they landed in London safe and sound this morning. Might be time to actually start trying to save some cash so I can move back home to be closer to him - not sure I fancy living back home right enough - sacrifices and all that I guess though :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont disagree with what people have stated.

However Mr King did say we would need to "frontload"our spending.Has he frontloaded enough to allow us to make a proper challenge.?

Personally,i really dont know,but im sure its what he said.By saying "frontload",he obviously means debt.(provided by himself )

 

true but we need this cash medium term to fund the shortfall

 

the club's still a financial basket case due to ashley's carry on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.