And yet the fans there are absolutely livid with the way the club is being run.
Goes to show that when fans say "lets get promoted for the money" or "I'd snap their hands off for that offer" and the like, it really is a load of nonsense. Fans on the whole care about the football.
And yet the fans there are absolutely livid with the way the club is being run.
Goes to show that when fans say "lets get promoted for the money" or "I'd snap their hands off for that offer" and the like, it really is a load of nonsense. Fans on the whole care about the football.
So they have totally slashed playing budgets, got rid of every high earning player, probably paid nowt in transfer fees and yet player costs for the year are £8.4M.
Their turnover was £18M which if the post above is accurate, includes £12M parachute payments so long term sustainable turnover is £6M?
Whilst profiteering at thee expense of an old and great football club is disgraceful I think these underlying figures show what a mess Championship football is. Clubs should probably spend more than c.70% of turnover on wages which would mean c. £4.2M for Blackpool if those figures are correct...half what they spent this season on the worst squad by a country mile.
If that had been invested in the playing side, they may not be in their current precarious position.
And Oyston would still have his profit.
So are you saying the Oyston's should not pay tax which is owed and just tell HMRC they spunked it on footballers? Isn't that the Leeds United business model?
If that had been invested in the playing side, they may not be in their current precarious position.
And Oyston would still have his profit.
So are you saying the Oyston's should not pay tax which is owed and just tell HMRC they spunked it on footballers? Isn't that the Leeds United business model?
No, you pay CT on your profits. If he had spent more on the squad the profit would have been lower and therefore the tax liability.
So they have totally slashed playing budgets, got rid of every high earning player, probably paid nowt in transfer fees and yet player costs for the year are £8.4M.
Their turnover was £18M which if the post above is accurate, includes £12M parachute payments so long term sustainable turnover is £6M?
Whilst profiteering at thee expense of an old and great football club is disgraceful I think these underlying figures show what a mess Championship football is. Clubs should probably spend more than c.70% of turnover on wages which would mean c. £4.2M for Blackpool if those figures are correct...half what they spent this season on the worst squad by a country mile.
These are the accounts for last season, not the current season.
If that had been invested in the playing side, they may not be in their current precarious position.
And Oyston would still have his profit.
So are you saying the Oyston's should not pay tax which is owed and just tell HMRC they spunked it on footballers? Isn't that the Leeds United business model?
They are paying tax on their parachute payments. That is just stupid.
The payments are made to help the relegated club cover their higher costs in a lower league. Not to provide a windfall to HMRC.
What's the point of showing a profit if your team is then relegated again? It makes no business sense, unless you happen for example to own several businesses to which you can cream that profit, and/or be involved in the family property business and might want to run the club into the ground before reaping the value of the land.
Someone accused them of that once, but it seems way too far-fetched to be a possibility...
So they have totally slashed playing budgets, got rid of every high earning player, probably paid nowt in transfer fees and yet player costs for the year are £8.4M.
Their turnover was £18M which if the post above is accurate, includes £12M parachute payments so long term sustainable turnover is £6M?
Whilst profiteering at thee expense of an old and great football club is disgraceful I think these underlying figures show what a mess Championship football is. Clubs should probably spend more than c.70% of turnover on wages which would mean c. £4.2M for Blackpool if those figures are correct...half what they spent this season on the worst squad by a country mile.
These are the accounts for last season, not the current season.
Ah, makes some sense then. Although that said, last season they finished 4th bottom even with those wages.
If that had been invested in the playing side, they may not be in their current precarious position.
And Oyston would still have his profit.
So are you saying the Oyston's should not pay tax which is owed and just tell HMRC they spunked it on footballers? Isn't that the Leeds United business model?
They are paying tax on their parachute payments. That is just stupid.
The payments are made to help the relegated club cover their higher costs in a lower league. Not to provide a windfall to HMRC.
I see your point although parachute payments are also there (so we are meant to believe) to help ease your move into a division with lower turnover generation so cutting costs so you are ahead of the curve in a normal business world would not necessary be a bad thing. Clearly they have cut too far and too fast but then as Rikofold points out they are likely looking to divert funds/profits to other businesses. I really do feel sorry for the Blackpool fans must be heart breaking.
So they have totally slashed playing budgets, got rid of every high earning player, probably paid nowt in transfer fees and yet player costs for the year are £8.4M.
Their turnover was £18M which if the post above is accurate, includes £12M parachute payments so long term sustainable turnover is £6M?
Whilst profiteering at thee expense of an old and great football club is disgraceful I think these underlying figures show what a mess Championship football is. Clubs should probably spend more than c.70% of turnover on wages which would mean c. £4.2M for Blackpool if those figures are correct...half what they spent this season on the worst squad by a country mile.
These are the accounts for last season, not the current season.
Ah, makes some sense then. Although that said, last season they finished 4th bottom even with those wages.
Yes but they were still in the promotion hunt in December, with some expensive players (eg Tom Ince and Ricardo Fuller). They also had two managers in the season.
If it wasn't for the parachute payment, they would have posted a £3m loss. They've cut back significantly since. As you say, it shows Championship football as a mess.
So they have totally slashed playing budgets, got rid of every high earning player, probably paid nowt in transfer fees and yet player costs for the year are £8.4M.
Their turnover was £18M which if the post above is accurate, includes £12M parachute payments so long term sustainable turnover is £6M?
Whilst profiteering at thee expense of an old and great football club is disgraceful I think these underlying figures show what a mess Championship football is. Clubs should probably spend more than c.70% of turnover on wages which would mean c. £4.2M for Blackpool if those figures are correct...half what they spent this season on the worst squad by a country mile.
There's was an article in, I think, the Guardian a couple of seasons ago that went through the Championship clubs one by one and outlined their financial status. The only one that wasn't either in a right bloody mess or being propped up by a sugar daddy of some sort was Blackpool and that was because they were mercilessly slashing costs and still had their parachute payments.
True Blackpool could be spending a bit more with possibly zero net effect on the bottom line, but if is correct that possibly the most miserly run club in the Football League would still make a loss without the extra post Premiership relegation income then it would appear that total sustainability and competiveness are almost mutually exclusive in English football right now, at least outside the top flight.
Even at Premiership level, I'm not sure many clubs are actually breaking even and finishing consistently mid table and above.
Comments
I wasn't aware they'd ever seen clear skies...
Goes to show that when fans say "lets get promoted for the money" or "I'd snap their hands off for that offer" and the like, it really is a load of nonsense. Fans on the whole care about the football.
That "profit" included a £12mn parachute payment.
Doubt many season ticket holders will renew.
If that had been invested in the playing side, they may not be in their current precarious position.
And Oyston would still have his profit.
Their turnover was £18M which if the post above is accurate, includes £12M parachute payments so long term sustainable turnover is £6M?
Whilst profiteering at thee expense of an old and great football club is disgraceful I think these underlying figures show what a mess Championship football is. Clubs should probably spend more than c.70% of turnover on wages which would mean c. £4.2M for Blackpool if those figures are correct...half what they spent this season on the worst squad by a country mile.
I presume that's what was meant.
The payments are made to help the relegated club cover their higher costs in a lower league. Not to provide a windfall to HMRC.
Someone accused them of that once, but it seems way too far-fetched to be a possibility...
If it wasn't for the parachute payment, they would have posted a £3m loss. They've cut back significantly since. As you say, it shows Championship football as a mess.
True Blackpool could be spending a bit more with possibly zero net effect on the bottom line, but if is correct that possibly the most miserly run club in the Football League would still make a loss without the extra post Premiership relegation income then it would appear that total sustainability and competiveness are almost mutually exclusive in English football right now, at least outside the top flight.
Even at Premiership level, I'm not sure many clubs are actually breaking even and finishing consistently mid table and above.