Huw Jenkins... you might hate him?

Enough of it that it wasn't an issue. A few hundred grand.

So, you admit you were wrong. Thanks.

No. My point was that most of Swansea's loss would be down to the promotion bonuses - which it was.

Can you just let me know in advance if you are going to turn this into your usual childish thread

It's not at all. You have chosen 3 of the lowest 4 payers in the last 5 years. If you want to get QPR, Newcastle, West Ham figures etc then I'm sure you will see it turns out at around £10m per club if every promoted club is taken into consideration rather than the low spenders.

But anyway, like I said I'm glad we now all agree the the figure was pretty much down to the cost of promotion

Its 3 in 2 years you dopey faggot.

I haven't even gone back beyond that, looking more recnetly given Southampton had a very big squad , but a wage bill of only £16m extract - 'Elsewhere the accounts show total revenue excluding transfers rose by 11% to £16.4m and that group wages made up 93% of turnover'. )they would most likely have been less too, AND Reading too. Check their figures out. you will have to think a bit because these clubs aren't using the bonuses as an excuse !

West ham and Newcastle had parachute payments, so they had far more scope to pay what they wanted.

You should have just agreed with my original statement which has been proven right -and even you are still proving it more and more right with each post.

Doesn't matter if its 3 of the 9 promoted clubs in the last 3 years, football didnt start 3 years ago. I'm sure Southampton and reading both had figures again close to the benchmark figure I stated. £5m seems to be the average player and staff bonuses plus whatever bonuses written into contracts from signings made in the championship, the more signings the more bonuses. Either way £10m will be about right.

I'm happy with my figure, if your not then thats fine no need to get angry. Bottom line is we all realise that the £8.2m loss was pretty much made up of bonuses. Which is what the thread is about. Well done everyone and well done Huw Jenkins.

Interestingly Southampton only had £1.4m of 'one-off costs' according to this quote form the BBC article...

Extract

' But Rogers said supporters should not be concerned about the latter figure.

"In isolation you could say it's a very scary figure, but in the context of the [five-year] plan it was expected. It includes £1.4m of one-off payments that won't re-occur." '

No. My point was that most of Swansea's loss would be down to the promotion bonuses - which it was.

Can you just let me know in advance if you are going to turn this into your usual childish thread

Nah, you're changing your argument now. You were wrong.

Usual? Thought you were new?!

It's not at all. You have chosen 3 of the lowest 4 payers in the last 5 years. If you want to get QPR, Newcastle, West Ham figures etc then I'm sure you will see it turns out at around £10m per club if every promoted club is taken into consideration rather than the low spenders.

But anyway, like I said I'm glad we now all agree the the figure was pretty much down to the cost of promotion

Its 3 in 2 years you dopey faggot.

I haven't even gone back beyond that, looking more recnetly given Southampton had a very big squad , but a wage bill of only £16m extract - 'Elsewhere the accounts show total revenue excluding transfers rose by 11% to £16.4m and that group wages made up 93% of turnover'. )they would most likely have been less too, AND Reading too. Check their figures out. you will have to think a bit because these clubs aren't using the bonuses as an excuse !

West ham and Newcastle had parachute payments, so they had far more scope to pay what they wanted.

You should have just agreed with my original statement which has been proven right -and even you are still proving it more and more right with each post.

Doesn't matter if its 3 of the 9 promoted clubs in the last 3 years, football didnt start 3 years ago. I'm sure Southampton and reading both had figures again close to the benchmark figure I stated. £5m seems to be the average player and staff bonuses plus whatever bonuses written into contracts from signings made in the championship, the more signings the more bonuses. Either way £10m will be about right.

I'm happy with my figure, if your not then thats fine no need to get angry. Bottom line is we all realise that the £8.2m loss was pretty much made up of bonuses. Which is what the thread is about. Well done everyone and well done Huw Jenkins.

Interestingly Southampton only had £1.4m of 'one-off costs' according to this quote form the BBC article...

Extract

' But Rogers said supporters should not be concerned about the latter figure.

"In isolation you could say it's a very scary figure, but in the context of the [five-year] plan it was expected. It includes £1.4m of one-off payments that won't re-occur." '

That could be final stages of amortisation. It certainly won't be bonuses. As I've said the figured are always toward the £10m mark or their equivalent economical figure depending on the year.

No. My point was that most of Swansea's loss would be down to the promotion bonuses - which it was.

Can you just let me know in advance if you are going to turn this into your usual childish thread

Nah, you're changing your argument now. You were wrong.

Usual? Thought you were new?!

Why would you think I was new?

And no I'm not changing it. As long as everyone can see the £8.2 loss was made up nearly all by bonuses then I'm happy. That was my point. Ill leave you to argue over semantics.

You said it was all down to promotion, which was a lie.

Why new? Well your join date and post count would imply that.

But we all know who you really are.

No don't be silly, I'm not new. But on annis' advice, pm me if you wish to explore that. I'm here to talk about football.

I said swanseas losses were all down to promotion? Really? Where did I say that?

Check your posts.

It's not at all. You have chosen 3 of the lowest 4 payers in the last 5 years. If you want to get QPR, Newcastle, West Ham figures etc then I'm sure you will see it turns out at around £10m per club if every promoted club is taken into consideration rather than the low spenders.

But anyway, like I said I'm glad we now all agree the the figure was pretty much down to the cost of promotion

Its 3 in 2 years you dopey faggot.

I haven't even gone back beyond that, looking more recnetly given Southampton had a very big squad , but a wage bill of only £16m extract - 'Elsewhere the accounts show total revenue excluding transfers rose by 11% to £16.4m and that group wages made up 93% of turnover'. )they would most likely have been less too, AND Reading too. Check their figures out. you will have to think a bit because these clubs aren't using the bonuses as an excuse !

West ham and Newcastle had parachute payments, so they had far more scope to pay what they wanted.

You should have just agreed with my original statement which has been proven right -and even you are still proving it more and more right with each post.

Doesn't matter if its 3 of the 9 promoted clubs in the last 3 years, football didnt start 3 years ago. I'm sure Southampton and reading both had figures again close to the benchmark figure I stated. £5m seems to be the average player and staff bonuses plus whatever bonuses written into contracts from signings made in the championship, the more signings the more bonuses. Either way £10m will be about right.

I'm happy with my figure, if your not then thats fine no need to get angry. Bottom line is we all realise that the £8.2m loss was pretty much made up of bonuses. Which is what the thread is about. Well done everyone and well done Huw Jenkins.

Interestingly Southampton only had £1.4m of 'one-off costs' according to this quote form the BBC article...

Extract

' But Rogers said supporters should not be concerned about the latter figure.

"In isolation you could say it's a very scary figure, but in the context of the [five-year] plan it was expected. It includes £1.4m of one-off payments that won't re-occur." '

That could be final stages of amortisation. It certainly won't be bonuses. As I've said the figured are always toward the £10m mark or their equivalent economical figure depending on the year.

You really haven't got a clue.

It would NOT be amortisation, which is not an exceptional item.

Trust me, I'm a qualified accountant -you clearly aren't.

From the article its far more likely to be the bonus figure they had to pay out - lucky them.

The rest of your sentence is just waffle and makes no sense at all


Reading -if you research them also managed to do it with no noticable increase in wage bill, although they lost £5m -after £5m of player amortisation and losing their parachute payments.

Honeslty I don't see why you have to do this. You should just admit.

a. You don't really understand accounts
b. Not all clubs pay 10m+ bonuses when they get up
c. Swansea would have made a loss had they not gone up, and the next season could have been more difficult.

Not unreasonable things at all.

One day when I'm bored I'll get the accounts and calculate it for you.

Really you just be satisfied it all worked out and things are going really well for you.

You really haven't got a clue.

It would NOT be amortisation, which is not an exceptional item.

Trust me, I'm a qualified accountant -you clearly aren't.

From the article its far more likely to be the bonus figure they had to pay out - lucky them.

The rest of your sentence is just waffle and makes no sense at all


Reading -if you research them also managed to do it with no noticable increase in wage bill, although they lost £5m -after £5m of player amortisation and losing their parachute payments.

Honeslty I don't see why you have to do this. You should just admit.

a. You don't really understand accounts
b. Not all clubs pay 10m+ bonuses when they get up
c. Swansea would have made a loss had they not gone up, and the next season could have been more difficult.

Not unreasonable things at all.

One day when I'm bored I'll get the accounts and calculate it for you.

Really you just be satisfied it all worked out and things are going really well for you.

I didnt say it was did I? I said it could be. Ill bow to your claimed superior knowledge that it isn't. It definately isn't bonuses though as I've said all figures are close to £10m. If you want to pull up their accounts then that may make a decent debate, but up until then it's your guess vs mine,

The rest wasn't waffle. It was me telling you that 10 years ago a promoted team may have had similar expenditure on promotion but due to the economy it would have been equivalent £10m rather than the figure of £10m. Inflation if you will.

As for your a, b, c.

A. Yes I do.
B. most pay around at figure. Some pay more, some less. But the average would be around £10m
C. would, could, should. You don't know what the losses were offset against. Do you know any of their deals struck for the next financial season? How do you know they weren't getting an extra 400k from new sponsorship for example?