Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Those who visit RTG may have noticed recent posts by a rather savvy accountant who posts under the name Grumpy Old Man.

He is currently looking at the accounts and business "philosophies" of a cross section of clubs who are in, or were recently in, the Championship, covering Birmingham,Blackburn and Derby thus far.

It makes fascinating reading and shows how precarious the situation has become for some of our clubs.

 

Grumpy has been leading the charge for a while to explain to those RTG Dim Wits who think that Short is trousering all the "para shoot " (sic) money and all the Pickford money, and explaining how Short has been propping up the club year after year.  Of course anyone who even slightly challenges the notion that Short/Bain are to blame for the financial state and more so the state of the team, is immediately labeled a Mag and the pitchfork and torch Mob set upon them.

 

His new series of posts looking at the financial situation of several clubs are great - and really explain the predicament that Sunderland find themselves in.  The penny is now dropping for them (although based on their financial state, they might want to save those pennies)

 

Ooh, that provoked a bit of a long hard look in the mirror re some of our commentary on the unmentionable (without the c word) one...

Link to post
Share on other sites

For those of us who don't wish to venture into the wasteland that is RTG, what is the gist of this bloke's assessment? Is it mismanagement or, in the case of Sunderland, not enough bums on seats and regular fans to make enough from ticket sales? A dearth of sponsorships? Interested to hear where these clubs have gone wrong.

 

It's more money going out than coming in.  Primarily because they Buy-High and Sell-Low.  They pay high prices to get players in, and if/when they sell them the players value is always lower than what they paid and they lose money on the transfer.  It was something like only 3 players out of 38-ish who were sold for a higher price than they paid. 

 

But they are in denial about the costs incurred by their frequent manager changes (All Short's fault), and also in denial about the support/attendance.  They assume that 40K attendances in the PL means that their game day revenue is fine - they won't recognise that the FTM (Free Ticket Marras) is diluting their game day revenue as many of that 40K is not actually paying for the tickets. (RTG-"how can we be losing money with 40K attendances every week?")

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kinda :)

 

But it really points to the fact that Ashley has been working on a sustainable financial model (even if we don't like the results on a Saturday afternoon).  Fans want more that 17th or lower-mid-table, but is it a viable financial plan to "invest" $$$ when the pay off is only $$ (or more likely $).

 

These discussions do point out that fans see their clubs as a football club not as a business (but the business needs to be viable for the club to survive), and there are business decisions to be made that should be made with a business mindset.

 

I do like some of the RTG rantings, that are better observed from the outside looking in (probably similar things said on here too for NUFC/Ashley too but wheres the fun in that)

 

Invest - Short should invest more of his money in the team, and give us a team we deserve.    Translated to Short should keep tipping money into the pit without any hope of seeing a financial return. 

 

Administration - If we go into Administration its the fans who suffer the most.  Nope - I think its the shareholders who invested their money in the business and who lost it all who suffer the most.

 

Spend to get promotion - They only way out of this financial mess is to spend and get back to the PL.  That would be the same PL where SAFC was losing money every season.  And when you are already spending more than you earn...spending even more that that is probably not the best approach

 

But, see how the Mags spent their way to promotion, they spent 50M/80M on new players to get promoted - Yes, but they also sold 50/80M of players because they had bought quality players who they sold for a profit

 

We are truly fooked - Yes. Yes, you are.    But enjoy saying 9-1 and 6-in-a-row as that makes it all worth while.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the reasons (not the sole reason of course) that they are in this mess is that they have (and still continue in the lower league) abused the loan system. They've been bringing in too many players they don't own and helping develop them, to fix holes in their squad. These players are just taking first team opportunities away from your own youngsters or preventing them from seriously addressing holes through player purchases of their own.

 

They like to pat themselves on the backs for developing the likes of Welbeck and Rose, but this and the fact the the general quality of the loanee has not been at that level, look at the list of players they loaned last season, has just been papering over the deficiencies and not helping them build assets that they can sell for profit.

 

I'm glad we have not touched the loan market to much of an extent, and that on the rare occassion we do, we protect ourselves buy insisting on buyout clauses such as Atsu's and Merino's.

 

The state of Sunderland should be a warning to a lot of clubs who continue this short term policy. Honestly think that UEFA/FIFA or the FA need to tighten up on the regulations for loans, teams like Sunderland have become over reliant on them to their long term determent while teams like Chelsea have quite frankly been abusing it from the other side. There should be tighter limits on how many you can loan in and out, and to which clubs. Chelsea wouldn't stockpile all the best talent if they couldn't loan them to top flight clubs here and abroad. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...