|
Post by Hugo the Elder on May 9, 2018 7:30:48 GMT
Walsall have made a profit every year for twelve years (latest financial results announced Oct 2017) on an average attendance of 4,816 and spent eleven of those twelve years in League 1 compared to our five. Don't they make a fortune from the giant adverts on top of their stadium right next to the motorway?
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on May 9, 2018 7:42:16 GMT
Walsall have made a profit every year for twelve years (latest financial results announced Oct 2017) on an average attendance of 4,816 and spent eleven of those twelve years in League 1 compared to our five. Don't they make a fortune from the giant adverts on top of their stadium right next to the motorway? What like the ones we are going to have a the Colony, planning permission required i would suspect Could pay for the Colony Project in the long run.......
|
|
|
Post by oldgas on May 9, 2018 7:50:07 GMT
Walsall have made a profit every year for twelve years (latest financial results announced Oct 2017) on an average attendance of 4,816 and spent eleven of those twelve years in League 1 compared to our five. Don't they make a fortune from the giant adverts on top of their stadium right next to the motorway? Yeah, and all you can see as you drive from the M5 onto the M6 is "TOPPS TILES" which is emblazoned on the seats of that high stand at the end of the ground where the home fans sit. It's almost as if Walsall deliberately built the giant stand at that end with a view to selling advertising to the highest bidder. I wonder how many millions of people see that advert every year as they drive that stretch of road? And the bonus, from the adveriser's point of view, must be the writing is still clearly visible even on a match day, so sparse is the crowd in the stadium.
|
|
|
Post by oldgas on May 9, 2018 7:53:38 GMT
I feel our saving grace here is that we're owned by a bunch of bankers who you'd hope the last thing any of them will want on their CV's is that they allowed an English club to go into admin by letting the club spend well beyond its means. If we were owned by Indian chicken farmers I'd be a bit more concerned, although as Blackburn fans have found out there's little you can do about it anyway. This makes a lot of sense. Let's hope the Al Quadi family, in the form of AJIB, can also rustle up some decent finance at an affordable interest rate. Wael needs to start tapping up their royal family, they must be worth a few Shekels.
|
|
|
Post by tbonegas on May 9, 2018 7:58:15 GMT
Has he signed anybody yet?
|
|
|
Post by axegas on May 9, 2018 7:58:23 GMT
Don't they make a fortune from the giant adverts on top of their stadium right next to the motorway? What like the ones we are going to have a the Colony, planning permission required i would suspect Could pay for the Colony Project in the long run....... Henbury, every post you make alludes to something different. You either know something or you don’t, which one is it? At least Gascinder ect have the decency to claim that they are ITK.
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on May 9, 2018 8:07:21 GMT
What like the ones we are going to have a the Colony, planning permission required i would suspect Could pay for the Colony Project in the long run....... Henbury, every post you make alludes to something different. You either know something or you don’t, which one is it? At least Gascinder ect have the decency to claim that they are ITK. i have said all along that I KNOW NOTHING all i can repeat is what other people have told me, but cannot provide definitive proof of what i've been told which people on here would like, Sorry
|
|
nsgas
Reserve Team
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
Posts: 209
|
Post by nsgas on May 9, 2018 8:11:55 GMT
Walsall have made a profit every year for twelve years (latest financial results announced Oct 2017) on an average attendance of 4,816 and spent eleven of those twelve years in League 1 compared to our five. Don't they make a fortune from the giant adverts on top of their stadium right next to the motorway? I can't find specific figures for the advertising revenues from the stadium top signs, but Walsall's most recently reported turnover figure is comparable to ours on much lower gates, suggesting that commercial revenue is significant. However, the turnover versus profit/loss numbers show clearly how Walsall's costs are significantly lower than ours. Walsall turnover 2016/2017: £6,637,000. Profit: £215,000. Bristol Rovers Turnover 2016/2017: £6,226,859 Loss: £3,046,563 (of which £916,324 was wriitten off due to the UWE Stadium project). www.saddlers.co.uk/contentassets/d318ee469c1c423cb6c27500e2e322f4/audit-2017_final-accounts-low-res.pdfwww.bristolpost.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/bristol-rovers-finances-3m-loss-1375064
|
|
|
Post by faggotygas on May 9, 2018 8:12:23 GMT
Walsall have made a profit every year for twelve years (latest financial results announced Oct 2017) on an average attendance of 4,816 and spent eleven of those twelve years in League 1 compared to our five. Thought that was interesting, so I did a bit of analysis based on both club's 2017 accounts.
The summary is - Walsall made a net profit on transfers during the period of £2m. We didn't. That's the only difference, in net.
In details - total receipts are very similar for both clubs. We get more in through match receipts, they get more in through commercial activities - the motorway advertising, also they hold concerts at their ground. take out the transfer fees, and they receive bout a million pounds a year more than us in commercial activities. We receive almost £3m a year more in match receipts.
On the expenses side, our staff costs in 2017 were about £1.7m higher. A fair bit of this is likely to be due to bonuses paid due to our promotion. Player and coaches were similar in number, but we have bar staff, stewards etc listed but they don't. Not sure why this is. Other operating costs were similar.
Ultimately then we could make a profit - by selling our best players for a lot more money. If Walsall are to be seen as the dream operating model, then we aren't doing too badly, as ignoring transfer fees we are in a very similar net position.
|
|
|
Post by tbonegas on May 9, 2018 8:17:17 GMT
Walsall have made a profit every year for twelve years (latest financial results announced Oct 2017) on an average attendance of 4,816 and spent eleven of those twelve years in League 1 compared to our five. Thought that was interesting, so I did a bit of analysis based on both club's 2017 accounts.
The summary is - Walsall made a net profit on transfers during the period of £2m. We didn't. That's the only difference, in net.
In details - total receipts are very similar for both clubs. We get more in through match receipts, they get more in through commercial activities - the motorway advertising, also they hold concerts at their ground. take out the transfer fees, and they receive bout a million pounds a year more than us in commercial activities. We receive almost £3m a year more in match receipts.
On the expenses side, our staff costs in 2017 were about £1.7m higher. A fair bit of this is likely to be due to bonuses paid due to our promotion. Player and coaches were similar in number, but we have bar staff, stewards etc listed but they don't. Not sure why this is. Other operating costs were similar.
Ultimately then we could make a profit - by selling our best players for a lot more money. If Walsall are to be seen as the dream operating model, then we aren't doing too badly, as ignoring transfer fees we are in a very similar net position.
Except that their nets are red whereas ours are blue.
|
|
|
Post by faggotygas on May 9, 2018 8:20:06 GMT
Don't they make a fortune from the giant adverts on top of their stadium right next to the motorway? I can't find specific figures for the advertising revenues from the stadium top signs, but Walsall's most recently reported turnover figure is comparable to ours on much lower gates, suggesting that commercial revenue is significant. However, the turnover versus profit/loss numbers show clearly how Walsall's costs are significantly lower than ours. Walsall turnover 2016/2017: £6,637,000. Profit: £215,000. Bristol Rovers Turnover 2016/2017: £6,226,859 Loss: £3,046,563 (of which £916,324 was wriitten off due to the UWE Stadium project). www.saddlers.co.uk/contentassets/d318ee469c1c423cb6c27500e2e322f4/audit-2017_final-accounts-low-res.pdfwww.bristolpost.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/bristol-rovers-finances-3m-loss-1375064As per my post - Walsall made a profit by selling players.
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on May 9, 2018 8:29:02 GMT
|
|
|
Post by LJG on May 9, 2018 8:37:43 GMT
Walsall have made a profit every year for twelve years (latest financial results announced Oct 2017) on an average attendance of 4,816 and spent eleven of those twelve years in League 1 compared to our five. Thought that was interesting, so I did a bit of analysis based on both club's 2017 accounts.
The summary is - Walsall made a net profit on transfers during the period of £2m. We didn't. That's the only difference, in net.
In details - total receipts are very similar for both clubs. We get more in through match receipts, they get more in through commercial activities - the motorway advertising, also they hold concerts at their ground. take out the transfer fees, and they receive bout a million pounds a year more than us in commercial activities. We receive almost £3m a year more in match receipts.
On the expenses side, our staff costs in 2017 were about £1.7m higher. A fair bit of this is likely to be due to bonuses paid due to our promotion. Player and coaches were similar in number, but we have bar staff, stewards etc listed but they don't. Not sure why this is. Other operating costs were similar.
Ultimately then we could make a profit - by selling our best players for a lot more money. If Walsall are to be seen as the dream operating model, then we aren't doing too badly, as ignoring transfer fees we are in a very similar net position.
Very interesting. So by scouting well and developing youth we could easily recoup the costs of the new appointments that people are complaining about ... y'know those ones whose job it is to improve our scouting and youth set ups.
|
|
nsgas
Reserve Team
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
Posts: 209
|
Post by nsgas on May 9, 2018 8:40:04 GMT
I can't find specific figures for the advertising revenues from the stadium top signs, but Walsall's most recently reported turnover figure is comparable to ours on much lower gates, suggesting that commercial revenue is significant. However, the turnover versus profit/loss numbers show clearly how Walsall's costs are significantly lower than ours. Walsall turnover 2016/2017: £6,637,000. Profit: £215,000. Bristol Rovers Turnover 2016/2017: £6,226,859 Loss: £3,046,563 (of which £916,324 was wriitten off due to the UWE Stadium project). www.saddlers.co.uk/contentassets/d318ee469c1c423cb6c27500e2e322f4/audit-2017_final-accounts-low-res.pdfwww.bristolpost.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/bristol-rovers-finances-3m-loss-1375064As per my post - Walsall made a profit by selling players. They've made a profit for twelve consecutive years - if every year of profit was down selling players then we should be showing a very close interest in how they achieve it.
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on May 9, 2018 8:43:36 GMT
As per my post - Walsall made a profit by selling players. They've made a profit for twelve consecutive years - if every year of profit was down selling players then we should be showing a very close interest in how they achieve it. there are always things to learn from everywhere.
We have had new owners for just over 2 years and they are clearly implementing (at cost of initial outlay) things.
Prior to that we had old owners. How much money in 12 years has the club lost in terms of failed stadium projects?
I doubt Walsall were paying blokes £3k a week however may years ago etc
|
|
nsgas
Reserve Team
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
Posts: 209
|
Post by nsgas on May 9, 2018 8:57:32 GMT
They've made a profit for twelve consecutive years - if every year of profit was down selling players then we should be showing a very close interest in how they achieve it. there are always things to learn from everywhere.
We have had new owners for just over 2 years and they are clearly implementing (at cost of initial outlay) things.
Prior to that we had old owners. How much money in 12 years has the club lost in terms of failed stadium projects?
I doubt Walsall were paying blokes £3k a week however may years ago etc
My post was a response to those suggesting that there was no way of running a League 1 football club without losing lots of money every year rather than attack on the owners. I hope that our escalating losses are a blip whilst the mistakes of the past are sorted out, but at a time when the general consensus seems to be that DC has a small playing budget, the amount of money we are losing every year is concerning.
|
|
nsgas
Reserve Team
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
Posts: 209
|
Post by nsgas on May 9, 2018 9:02:55 GMT
Walsall have made a profit every year for twelve years (latest financial results announced Oct 2017) on an average attendance of 4,816 and spent eleven of those twelve years in League 1 compared to our five. Thought that was interesting, so I did a bit of analysis based on both club's 2017 accounts.
The summary is - Walsall made a net profit on transfers during the period of £2m. We didn't. That's the only difference, in net.
In details - total receipts are very similar for both clubs. We get more in through match receipts, they get more in through commercial activities - the motorway advertising, also they hold concerts at their ground. take out the transfer fees, and they receive bout a million pounds a year more than us in commercial activities. We receive almost £3m a year more in match receipts.
On the expenses side, our staff costs in 2017 were about £1.7m higher. A fair bit of this is likely to be due to bonuses paid due to our promotion. Player and coaches were similar in number, but we have bar staff, stewards etc listed but they don't. Not sure why this is. Other operating costs were similar.
Ultimately then we could make a profit - by selling our best players for a lot more money. If Walsall are to be seen as the dream operating model, then we aren't doing too badly, as ignoring transfer fees we are in a very similar net position.
Out of interest where did you get your £2m transfer profit figure from?
|
|
|
Post by faggotygas on May 9, 2018 9:14:35 GMT
Thought that was interesting, so I did a bit of analysis based on both club's 2017 accounts.
The summary is - Walsall made a net profit on transfers during the period of £2m. We didn't. That's the only difference, in net.
In details - total receipts are very similar for both clubs. We get more in through match receipts, they get more in through commercial activities - the motorway advertising, also they hold concerts at their ground. take out the transfer fees, and they receive bout a million pounds a year more than us in commercial activities. We receive almost £3m a year more in match receipts.
On the expenses side, our staff costs in 2017 were about £1.7m higher. A fair bit of this is likely to be due to bonuses paid due to our promotion. Player and coaches were similar in number, but we have bar staff, stewards etc listed but they don't. Not sure why this is. Other operating costs were similar.
Ultimately then we could make a profit - by selling our best players for a lot more money. If Walsall are to be seen as the dream operating model, then we aren't doing too badly, as ignoring transfer fees we are in a very similar net position.
Out of interest where did you get your £2m transfer profit figure from? transfermarkt
|
|
|
Post by faggotygas on May 9, 2018 9:26:14 GMT
As per my post - Walsall made a profit by selling players. They've made a profit for twelve consecutive years - if every year of profit was down selling players then we should be showing a very close interest in how they achieve it. it seems to mainly be due to having a very small wage bill. The question is then, how do they achieve that and stay up?
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on May 9, 2018 9:33:40 GMT
They've made a profit for twelve consecutive years - if every year of profit was down selling players then we should be showing a very close interest in how they achieve it. it seems to mainly be due to having a very small wage bill. The question is then, how do they achieve that and stay up? And the answer is 'by two points.' I think it's pretty much the universally most hated thing in all football, watching a poor team that makes a profit.
|
|