The championship is a whole other level of financial pain if you want to be competitive.
"Millwall has lost more than £137 million since the Club started trading. Championship is the most brutal division in football with all 24 clubs losing money in day to day basis & losses averaging £400k+ a week"
And there's the rub. Most Charlton fans would have been delighted to be challenging for the championship top six and "sod the cost" but cost it does.
So while Charlton are failing both on the pitch AND financially are the Scottish East Enders deemed a success or not?
I find it baffling that this situation even exists.
It's not like if these guys weren't footballers they would be earning 6 figures somewhere else...
If all clubs just decided to live within their means collectively, all clubs would be fine because the driver of it all is paying players far more than those people would actually get up and work for.
In reality, £100k a year for a Championship footballer... It's not like they would go and become a plumber instead is it? And you couldn't even claim it's unfair if that's what it takes for a club to break even. If it was like some sports (UFC comes to mind) where there are massive profits and competitors barely paid, I get why that could upset players, but all football is doing is turning billionaires into millionaires.
Collectively it's the clubs fault (all clubs that is) they are in this situation, chasing a dream of PL money which is more and more of a pipe dream.
I think there needs to be a reset and some sort of new FFP/salary cap, because most importantly, we might then end up with a new generation of owners who aren't psychopathically full of self confidence without any ability to go with it. Almost anyone who would buy a football club that's losing the kind of money football clubs are, is probably not the kind of person you want in charge of a business...
I find it baffling that this situation even exists.
It's not like if these guys weren't footballers they would be earning 6 figures somewhere else...
If all clubs just decided to live within their means collectively, all clubs would be fine because the driver of it all is paying players far more than those people would actually get up and work
Bizarre comment.
Imagine how cheap it would be to make a film and how little you could charge the cinema going public if people like Tom Cruise didn’t get paid millions of pounds. Not like he would earn same if he was a shop assistant.
I find it baffling that this situation even exists.
It's not like if these guys weren't footballers they would be earning 6 figures somewhere else...
If all clubs just decided to live within their means collectively, all clubs would be fine because the driver of it all is paying players far more than those people would actually get up and work
Bizarre comment.
Imagine how cheap it would be to make a film and how little you could charge the cinema going public if people like Tom Cruise didn’t get paid millions of pounds. Not like he would earn same if he was a shop assistant.
Right, but the films still make big profits don't they? If Tom Cruise was regularly paid more than the entire film was earning in revenue, they wouldn't keep making films, or Tom Cruise would be paid less going forward.
I can't think of many other industries (don't get industries confused with where a firm is in the lifecycle eg funding losses early on through venture capital/private equity for future growth) where there is a systematic loss built in.
I find it baffling that this situation even exists.
It's not like if these guys weren't footballers they would be earning 6 figures somewhere else...
If all clubs just decided to live within their means collectively, all clubs would be fine because the driver of it all is paying players far more than those people would actually get up and work
Bizarre comment.
Imagine how cheap it would be to make a film and how little you could charge the cinema going public if people like Tom Cruise didn’t get paid millions of pounds. Not like he would earn same if he was a shop assistant.
Right, but the films still make big profits don't they? If Tom Cruise was regularly paid more than the entire film was earning in revenue, they wouldn't keep making films, or Tom Cruise would be paid less going forward.
I can't think of many other industries (don't get industries confused with where a firm is in the lifecycle eg funding losses early on through venture capital/private equity for future growth) where there is a systematic loss built in.
Not bizarre, economics :-)
Movies and football are a very good analogy, as @MrOneLung points out.
The top movie stars (e.g. Tom Cruise) get paid enormous amounts, and their movies invariably turn profits. But most movies don't make money, in the same way that most football clubs don't make money.
And, when I say "most films" don't make money, it's the vast majority: somewhere in the region of 80%. And, for "independent" movies, it's closer to 90%.
If there's an analogy between blockbuster movies and the Premier League teams (where the star of the movie and the best players get paid eye-watering amounts of money), there's also an analogy between independent movies and the EFL (where the cast and crew of the movie get paid more than the movie takes at the theatre; and the players get paid more than the revenue derived from attendance).
Further, while every Premier League and EFL team gets to play in front of paying audiences to drive (pretty much) guaranteed revenue, the majority of movies don't get a theatrical release: in other words, no-one ever pays to go and see the movie at a cinema.
Most movies lose money; most football clubs lose money. But there's another similarity. Most movies are made because the movie-maker has a passion to get the work done, to release the movie and for others to see the artistic work he or she creates. And most football clubs are owned by people who have - to some extent - owners with a passion to "create" football that outweighs their inability to drive profits from doing so.
I find it baffling that this situation even exists.
It's not like if these guys weren't footballers they would be earning 6 figures somewhere else...
If all clubs just decided to live within their means collectively, all clubs would be fine because the driver of it all is paying players far more than those people would actually get up and work
Bizarre comment.
Imagine how cheap it would be to make a film and how little you could charge the cinema going public if people like Tom Cruise didn’t get paid millions of pounds. Not like he would earn same if he was a shop assistant.
Right, but the films still make big profits don't they? If Tom Cruise was regularly paid more than the entire film was earning in revenue, they wouldn't keep making films, or Tom Cruise would be paid less going forward.
I can't think of many other industries (don't get industries confused with where a firm is in the lifecycle eg funding losses early on through venture capital/private equity for future growth) where there is a systematic loss built in.
Not bizarre, economics :-)
Movies and football are a very good analogy, as @MrOneLung points out.
The top movie stars (e.g. Tom Cruise) get paid enormous amounts, and their movies invariably turn profits. But most movies don't make money, in the same way that most football clubs don't make money.
And, when I say "most films" don't make money, it's the vast majority: somewhere in the region of 80%. And, for "independent" movies, it's closer to 90%.
If there's an analogy between blockbuster movies and the Premier League teams (where the star of the movie and the best players get paid eye-watering amounts of money), there's also an analogy between independent movies and the EFL (where the cast and crew of the movie get paid more than the movie takes at the theatre; and the players get paid more than the revenue derived from attendance).
Further, while every Premier League and EFL team gets to play in front of paying audiences to drive (pretty much) guaranteed revenue, the majority of movies don't get a theatrical release: in other words, no-one ever pays to go and see the movie at a cinema.
Most movies lose money; most football clubs lose money. But there's another similarity. Most movies are made because the movie-maker has a passion to get the work done, to release the movie and for others to see the artistic work he or she creates. And most football clubs are owned by people who have - to some extent - owners with a passion to "create" football that outweighs their inability to drive profits from doing so.
Not seen the other club's accounts but our "administrative costs" appear to cover everything bar transfers.
Is that the same in other accounts?
Portsmouth is one I look at each year.
For 2022 their turnover was £12m (£12.5m for 23), cost of sales of £9.3m (10.5m for 23) with a further £2.7m (£2m for 23) Op expenses, so broadly break even. About a 3m loss after amortisation etc, 23 was broadly the same figure.
But their Turnover is a third more than ours, expenses on a like for like are £12m v's nearly £20m. They also have a decent amount of fixed asset of just over £20m (£28m for 23), compared to our £2m.
Whilst we are a London club and therefore just like any other profession cost of living in London means generally higher salaries, that's a huge difference to ultimately fall short of them on the pitch.
Looking back at the Clear Ocean Capital accounts for the previous season (the latest ones have been put back 3 months with the period extended to 30 September 2023) showed that Op Expenses of £19,934k for 21/22 included £11,535k for staff costs; and that the year on year increase of £7,152k was primarily due to the previous year being played behind closed doors and 21/22 having fans back in the stadium; but that only £1.4m of that was for an increase in matchday operational costs; and £2m had been ‘football overheads’ so there’s another £3.7m ‘fans back in the stadium’ increase season on season not explained.
Did the Pompey Op expenses figures include staff costs ?
I find it baffling that this situation even exists.
It's not like if these guys weren't footballers they would be earning 6 figures somewhere else...
If all clubs just decided to live within their means collectively, all clubs would be fine because the driver of it all is paying players far more than those people would actually get up and work
Bizarre comment.
Imagine how cheap it would be to make a film and how little you could charge the cinema going public if people like Tom Cruise didn’t get paid millions of pounds. Not like he would earn same if he was a shop assistant.
Right, but the films still make big profits don't they? If Tom Cruise was regularly paid more than the entire film was earning in revenue, they wouldn't keep making films, or Tom Cruise would be paid less going forward.
I can't think of many other industries (don't get industries confused with where a firm is in the lifecycle eg funding losses early on through venture capital/private equity for future growth) where there is a systematic loss built in.
Not bizarre, economics :-)
Movies and football are a very good analogy, as @MrOneLung points out.
The top movie stars (e.g. Tom Cruise) get paid enormous amounts, and their movies invariably turn profits. But most movies don't make money, in the same way that most football clubs don't make money.
And, when I say "most films" don't make money, it's the vast majority: somewhere in the region of 80%. And, for "independent" movies, it's closer to 90%.
If there's an analogy between blockbuster movies and the Premier League teams (where the star of the movie and the best players get paid eye-watering amounts of money), there's also an analogy between independent movies and the EFL (where the cast and crew of the movie get paid more than the movie takes at the theatre; and the players get paid more than the revenue derived from attendance).
Further, while every Premier League and EFL team gets to play in front of paying audiences to drive (pretty much) guaranteed revenue, the majority of movies don't get a theatrical release: in other words, no-one ever pays to go and see the movie at a cinema.
Most movies lose money; most football clubs lose money. But there's another similarity. Most movies are made because the movie-maker has a passion to get the work done, to release the movie and for others to see the artistic work he or she creates. And most football clubs are owned by people who have - to some extent - owners with a passion to "create" football that outweighs their inability to drive profits from doing so.
However I would like to suggest that ‘stars’ rarely appear at the top fully formed. Actors for example might have got better in regional Theatres, doing ads, soap opera minor characters, small TV parts and so on. A lot of technical skill in the film and TV industry rides on the back of rather humble training at the BBC and other places before it becomes world leading. Konsa and Gomez and any others depend on the wider infrastructure at the bottom of the pyramid in order to then rise to the top. I suppose my point is that money should be much better shared around in order to continue to nurture talent.
I find it baffling that this situation even exists.
It's not like if these guys weren't footballers they would be earning 6 figures somewhere else...
If all clubs just decided to live within their means collectively, all clubs would be fine because the driver of it all is paying players far more than those people would actually get up and work
Bizarre comment.
Imagine how cheap it would be to make a film and how little you could charge the cinema going public if people like Tom Cruise didn’t get paid millions of pounds. Not like he would earn same if he was a shop assistant.
Right, but the films still make big profits don't they? If Tom Cruise was regularly paid more than the entire film was earning in revenue, they wouldn't keep making films, or Tom Cruise would be paid less going forward.
I can't think of many other industries (don't get industries confused with where a firm is in the lifecycle eg funding losses early on through venture capital/private equity for future growth) where there is a systematic loss built in.
Not bizarre, economics :-)
Movies and football are a very good analogy, as @MrOneLung points out.
The top movie stars (e.g. Tom Cruise) get paid enormous amounts, and their movies invariably turn profits. But most movies don't make money, in the same way that most football clubs don't make money.
And, when I say "most films" don't make money, it's the vast majority: somewhere in the region of 80%. And, for "independent" movies, it's closer to 90%.
If there's an analogy between blockbuster movies and the Premier League teams (where the star of the movie and the best players get paid eye-watering amounts of money), there's also an analogy between independent movies and the EFL (where the cast and crew of the movie get paid more than the movie takes at the theatre; and the players get paid more than the revenue derived from attendance).
Further, while every Premier League and EFL team gets to play in front of paying audiences to drive (pretty much) guaranteed revenue, the majority of movies don't get a theatrical release: in other words, no-one ever pays to go and see the movie at a cinema.
Most movies lose money; most football clubs lose money. But there's another similarity. Most movies are made because the movie-maker has a passion to get the work done, to release the movie and for others to see the artistic work he or she creates. And most football clubs are owned by people who have - to some extent - owners with a passion to "create" football that outweighs their inability to drive profits from doing so.
Looking back at the Clear Ocean Capital accounts for the previous season (the latest ones have been put back 3 months with the period extended to 30 September 2023) showed that Op Expenses of £19,934k for 21/22 included £11,535k for staff costs; and that the year on year increase of £7,152k was primarily due to the previous year being played behind closed doors and 21/22 having fans back in the stadium; but that only £1.4m of that was for an increase in matchday operational costs; and £2m had been ‘football overheads’ so there’s another £3.7m ‘fans back in the stadium’ increase season on season not explained.
Did the Pompey Op expenses figures include staff costs ?
I find it baffling that this situation even exists.
It's not like if these guys weren't footballers they would be earning 6 figures somewhere else...
If all clubs just decided to live within their means collectively, all clubs would be fine because the driver of it all is paying players far more than those people would actually get up and work
Bizarre comment.
Imagine how cheap it would be to make a film and how little you could charge the cinema going public if people like Tom Cruise didn’t get paid millions of pounds. Not like he would earn same if he was a shop assistant.
Right, but the films still make big profits don't they? If Tom Cruise was regularly paid more than the entire film was earning in revenue, they wouldn't keep making films, or Tom Cruise would be paid less going forward.
I can't think of many other industries (don't get industries confused with where a firm is in the lifecycle eg funding losses early on through venture capital/private equity for future growth) where there is a systematic loss built in.
Not bizarre, economics :-)
Movies and football are a very good analogy, as @MrOneLung points out.
The top movie stars (e.g. Tom Cruise) get paid enormous amounts, and their movies invariably turn profits. But most movies don't make money, in the same way that most football clubs don't make money.
And, when I say "most films" don't make money, it's the vast majority: somewhere in the region of 80%. And, for "independent" movies, it's closer to 90%.
If there's an analogy between blockbuster movies and the Premier League teams (where the star of the movie and the best players get paid eye-watering amounts of money), there's also an analogy between independent movies and the EFL (where the cast and crew of the movie get paid more than the movie takes at the theatre; and the players get paid more than the revenue derived from attendance).
Further, while every Premier League and EFL team gets to play in front of paying audiences to drive (pretty much) guaranteed revenue, the majority of movies don't get a theatrical release: in other words, no-one ever pays to go and see the movie at a cinema.
Most movies lose money; most football clubs lose money. But there's another similarity. Most movies are made because the movie-maker has a passion to get the work done, to release the movie and for others to see the artistic work he or she creates. And most football clubs are owned by people who have - to some extent - owners with a passion to "create" football that outweighs their inability to drive profits from doing so.
Complex, multi-participant, disparate groups of (often American), wealthy shareholders. Whereas football clubs...
BUT...the difference is films are funded as one off / individual projects. Separate legal entities created just for 1 film so that the 'investors' recognise the speculative nature of what they are supporting.
For Football its a multi year commitment and ongoing costs and you are bound by the rules of FFP (or equivalent). But in film the wealthy guys are simply taking a one off punt - albeit with a risk the film runs out of money begore its finished.
That's why I don't really agree with the analogy - it is not comparable albeit I agree wit the sentiment football is expensive because we overpay too many players.
Be interesting to know what a Premier League club, averaging around 24k attendances per week would be worth. Assuming everything is in order and there's minimal debt. Reckon Palarse and Fulham would be a decent comparison as far as attendances are concerned.
Reckon they'd also need to sell the Club with the assets to maximise their profit, so that would need to be figured in.
Not seen the other club's accounts but our "administrative costs" appear to cover everything bar transfers.
Is that the same in other accounts?
Portsmouth is one I look at each year.
For 2022 their turnover was £12m (£12.5m for 23), cost of sales of £9.3m (10.5m for 23) with a further £2.7m (£2m for 23) Op expenses, so broadly break even. About a 3m loss after amortisation etc, 23 was broadly the same figure.
But their Turnover is a third more than ours, expenses on a like for like are £12m v's nearly £20m. They also have a decent amount of fixed asset of just over £20m (£28m for 23), compared to our £2m.
Whilst we are a London club and therefore just like any other profession cost of living in London means generally higher salaries, that's a huge difference to ultimately fall short of them on the pitch.
£843K of transfer receipts since June '23. Who would that be; £300K for CBT and that is about all I can think. Would the rest be "add ons" of previous sales? Maybe we got nominal fees for Deji Elewere and Lavelle?
£630K paid out... So maybe; May £250K. Gillesphy £100k; Ramsey £100k; Taylor a development fee; and some loan fees?
The agents’ fees get counted in the expenditure, so probably a lot lower than £630k on outgoing player fees. But I’m not clear on loan fees being included, either way.
Given that EFL Lge 1 clubs are prohibited (on pain of points deductions and financial penalties) from spending more on wages than 60% of Operating turnover plus 100% of player sales revenue How is CAFC faring if its wages bill has been more than total turnover for the last several years? Has the new ownership group got a massive headache in that area, since they're not allowed to fund any shortfall with borrowings ("debt" eg bank loans) they have to fund it with equity i.e. put more cash in by buying more shares which gives them absolutely zero security they'd get any of it back?
Not seen the other club's accounts but our "administrative costs" appear to cover everything bar transfers.
Is that the same in other accounts?
Portsmouth is one I look at each year.
For 2022 their turnover was £12m (£12.5m for 23), cost of sales of £9.3m (10.5m for 23) with a further £2.7m (£2m for 23) Op expenses, so broadly break even. About a 3m loss after amortisation etc, 23 was broadly the same figure.
But their Turnover is a third more than ours, expenses on a like for like are £12m v's nearly £20m. They also have a decent amount of fixed asset of just over £20m (£28m for 23), compared to our £2m.
Whilst we are a London club and therefore just like any other profession cost of living in London means generally higher salaries, that's a huge difference to ultimately fall short of them on the pitch.
Not seen the other club's accounts but our "administrative costs" appear to cover everything bar transfers.
Is that the same in other accounts?
Portsmouth is one I look at each year.
For 2022 their turnover was £12m (£12.5m for 23), cost of sales of £9.3m (10.5m for 23) with a further £2.7m (£2m for 23) Op expenses, so broadly break even. About a 3m loss after amortisation etc, 23 was broadly the same figure.
But their Turnover is a third more than ours, expenses on a like for like are £12m v's nearly £20m. They also have a decent amount of fixed asset of just over £20m (£28m for 23), compared to our £2m.
Whilst we are a London club and therefore just like any other profession cost of living in London means generally higher salaries, that's a huge difference to ultimately fall short of them on the pitch.
We also have 60 more staff........
Academy?
Portsmouth have an academy as well.
It’s Category 3, which will have significantly fewer staff.
Not seen the other club's accounts but our "administrative costs" appear to cover everything bar transfers.
Is that the same in other accounts?
Portsmouth is one I look at each year.
For 2022 their turnover was £12m (£12.5m for 23), cost of sales of £9.3m (10.5m for 23) with a further £2.7m (£2m for 23) Op expenses, so broadly break even. About a 3m loss after amortisation etc, 23 was broadly the same figure.
But their Turnover is a third more than ours, expenses on a like for like are £12m v's nearly £20m. They also have a decent amount of fixed asset of just over £20m (£28m for 23), compared to our £2m.
Whilst we are a London club and therefore just like any other profession cost of living in London means generally higher salaries, that's a huge difference to ultimately fall short of them on the pitch.
We also have 60 more staff........
Academy?
Portsmouth have an academy as well.
It’s Category 3, which will have significantly fewer staff.
But would it account for the 60 staff differential and a large part of the expenses difference? I don't know, but they still have a turnover roughly 1/3rd greater than ours as well as a lot less expense. Also not sure our CAT 2 when you also include the likely cost to run has faired that much better than their Cat 3.
Not seen the other club's accounts but our "administrative costs" appear to cover everything bar transfers.
Is that the same in other accounts?
Portsmouth is one I look at each year.
For 2022 their turnover was £12m (£12.5m for 23), cost of sales of £9.3m (10.5m for 23) with a further £2.7m (£2m for 23) Op expenses, so broadly break even. About a 3m loss after amortisation etc, 23 was broadly the same figure.
But their Turnover is a third more than ours, expenses on a like for like are £12m v's nearly £20m. They also have a decent amount of fixed asset of just over £20m (£28m for 23), compared to our £2m.
Whilst we are a London club and therefore just like any other profession cost of living in London means generally higher salaries, that's a huge difference to ultimately fall short of them on the pitch.
We also have 60 more staff........
Academy?
Portsmouth have an academy as well.
It’s Category 3, which will have significantly fewer staff.
But would it account for the 60 staff differential and a large part of the expenses difference? I don't know, but they still have a turnover roughly 1/3rd greater than ours as well as a lot less expense. Also not sure our CAT 2 when you also include the likely cost to run has faired that much better than their Cat 3.
Attract more fans, sell more refreshments, programmes, merchandise and get enough fans coming along and you don’t need to give so many tickets away for free.
Comments
But if you get it right the rewards of Premier league football makes it worth it.
And there's the rub. Most Charlton fans would have been delighted to be challenging for the championship top six and "sod the cost" but cost it does.
So while Charlton are failing both on the pitch AND financially are the Scottish East Enders deemed a success or not?
It's not like if these guys weren't footballers they would be earning 6 figures somewhere else...
If all clubs just decided to live within their means collectively, all clubs would be fine because the driver of it all is paying players far more than those people would actually get up and work for.
In reality, £100k a year for a Championship footballer... It's not like they would go and become a plumber instead is it? And you couldn't even claim it's unfair if that's what it takes for a club to break even. If it was like some sports (UFC comes to mind) where there are massive profits and competitors barely paid, I get why that could upset players, but all football is doing is turning billionaires into millionaires.
Collectively it's the clubs fault (all clubs that is) they are in this situation, chasing a dream of PL money which is more and more of a pipe dream.
I think there needs to be a reset and some sort of new FFP/salary cap, because most importantly, we might then end up with a new generation of owners who aren't psychopathically full of self confidence without any ability to go with it. Almost anyone who would buy a football club that's losing the kind of money football clubs are, is probably not the kind of person you want in charge of a business...
Oxford - £5.4m,
Portsmouth - £4.5m
Bolton - £9.1m
Peterborough’s £12.1m
Derby -£13.4m
Charlton - £19.9m
Derby’s turnover is more than double ours though
I can't think of many other industries (don't get industries confused with where a firm is in the lifecycle eg funding losses early on through venture capital/private equity for future growth) where there is a systematic loss built in.
Not bizarre, economics :-)
Not sure many owners ever get to cash in though.
The top movie stars (e.g. Tom Cruise) get paid enormous amounts, and their movies invariably turn profits. But most movies don't make money, in the same way that most football clubs don't make money.
And, when I say "most films" don't make money, it's the vast majority: somewhere in the region of 80%. And, for "independent" movies, it's closer to 90%.
If there's an analogy between blockbuster movies and the Premier League teams (where the star of the movie and the best players get paid eye-watering amounts of money), there's also an analogy between independent movies and the EFL (where the cast and crew of the movie get paid more than the movie takes at the theatre; and the players get paid more than the revenue derived from attendance).
Further, while every Premier League and EFL team gets to play in front of paying audiences to drive (pretty much) guaranteed revenue, the majority of movies don't get a theatrical release: in other words, no-one ever pays to go and see the movie at a cinema.
Most movies lose money; most football clubs lose money. But there's another similarity. Most movies are made because the movie-maker has a passion to get the work done, to release the movie and for others to see the artistic work he or she creates. And most football clubs are owned by people who have - to some extent - owners with a passion to "create" football that outweighs their inability to drive profits from doing so.
I think @MrOneLung has it spot on.
Is that the same in other accounts?
For 2022 their turnover was £12m (£12.5m for 23), cost of sales of £9.3m (10.5m for 23) with a further £2.7m (£2m for 23) Op expenses, so broadly break even. About a 3m loss after amortisation etc, 23 was broadly the same figure.
But their Turnover is a third more than ours, expenses on a like for like are £12m v's nearly £20m. They also have a decent amount of fixed asset of just over £20m (£28m for 23), compared to our £2m.
Whilst we are a London club and therefore just like any other profession cost of living in London means generally higher salaries, that's a huge difference to ultimately fall short of them on the pitch.
We also have 60 more staff........
However I would like to suggest that ‘stars’ rarely appear at the top fully formed.
Actors for example might have got better in regional Theatres, doing ads, soap opera minor characters, small TV parts and so on.
A lot of technical skill in the film and TV industry rides on the back of rather humble training at the BBC and other places before it becomes world leading.
Konsa and Gomez and any others depend on the wider infrastructure at the bottom of the pyramid in order to then rise to the top.
I suppose my point is that money should be much better shared around in order to continue to nurture talent.
For Football its a multi year commitment and ongoing costs and you are bound by the rules of FFP (or equivalent). But in film the wealthy guys are simply taking a one off punt - albeit with a risk the film runs out of money begore its finished.
That's why I don't really agree with the analogy - it is not comparable albeit I agree wit the sentiment football is expensive because we overpay too many players.
Reach the premier league and you could sell at a profit.
Reckon they'd also need to sell the Club with the assets to maximise their profit, so that would need to be figured in.
How is CAFC faring if its wages bill has been more than total turnover for the last several years?
Has the new ownership group got a massive headache in that area, since they're not allowed to fund any shortfall with borrowings ("debt" eg bank loans) they have to fund it with equity i.e. put more cash in by buying more shares which gives them absolutely zero security they'd get any of it back?