VINCENT TAN ANNOUNCES HIS BUSINESS PLAN

Roath Magic is Agent Dimi from CCMB, and whatever numerous monikers he used on there

Why can't they just enjoy having top flight status without obsessing over whether we're skint or not

f*cking oddball

errr not true.

next.

Roath Magic is indeed a Jack who used to post on Planet Swamp as Sherrifadz and then got kicked off there (for being a cock) only to resurface here as Agent Dimi.

What gave the game away for me was an old post on PSwamp where he was arguing with someone and posted that he had a friend in the Welsh FA who dealt with players contracts. Exactly the same thing he's posted on here!

Why he's being such a knob trying (and failing) to convince City fans he's one of us is beyond me. Perhaps he gets his cock out and a roll of Kleenex when he's in here??

Him denying it only makes him look even more of a pillock

Ps I actually agree with some of his points

Again, spectacularly incorrect. I'm sure there are many with a friend in the faw considering they are based in Cardiff. Not that it matters of course as I could be bill Clinton and it wouldn't impact on my point slightly, let alone if I was whoever else you said I am.

But I appreciate you acknowledge I'm talking sense.

You are thinking we are going to get the same income as Stoke

Our income would be around £52 million. Lets do some maths.....

OUTGOINGS

£9-£10 million in contractual promotion base bonuses and transfer fees, or in turn survival fees hould we avoid the drop..
£23 million in increased wage bill.
£13 million average spend of a newly promoted side just to compete.
£14.4 million shortfall (not incluing wages of new signings)
...........................................
£60.4 million
...........................................

Thats a loss of £8 million per year. Assuming we will buck our trend of not over paying our players and spending more of a % of income than most.

SO THE POINT BEING..... How in Gods name is Tan going to make a profit from this club without doing what is blatently obvious he is going to do? Shirt sales was his plan wasnt it?

Some more FACTS...

Liverpool sell the most shirts in Asia, 700,000 to be exact making £7 million per annum. They make £10 per shirt, far more than most clubs can negotiate with their manufacturers, the bigger the club the bigger the cut. Ours is most likely to be around the £5-6 mark. In order to negate our loss this term we will have to sell 3 million shirts, nearly 5 times that of Liverpool. To put that in perspective, we currently sell around 8,000 per year.

Thats just to break even....

Could you please provide some straight answers/explanations on the claims you make in your post. Of course although I have provided far more evidence for my argument than you have to yours.. the only piece of evidence to back up your claims are heavily distorted figures due to the bonuses, which needless to say is as pointles to your argument as a hot freezer.

1) where do I say we would get the same income as Stoke? I merely quoted what Stoke`s income was in 2010/11 and that I considered us to be a similar size team as them attendance wise. A lot of their income would have come from their relatively high league finishing position as each place above rock bottom is worth £720k.
However , any team in the Premier from 2013/14 season onwards will earn considerably more than that Stoke figure as the minimum TV money from that season will be £61m a club. You clearly alluded to the fact we would have a similar income to Stoke otherwise why would you say it and then compare them to us? I notice you didnt let us know the income of Man City. You are very quick to want to add figures to your point and then when challenged quickly retract them under the guise of ''I meant nothing by those figures''.
2) you quote £9m to £10m "survival fees" and a £23m increase in wage costs correct

a) are you not double counting here , based on your previous posts? No. im proving they are recurring costs and not one off payments. On promotion we will have to pay the figure for promotion bonuses and upon survival we would have to pay them as survival bonuses and fees. But only one £10 million cost has been added to the yearly outgoing calculation as is plain to see.
b) despite several requests , you have so far failed to provide any evidence of newly promoted teams in recent years actually incurring such a level of increased wage costs. Apart from Blackpool you mean? and Swansea however you just wish not to believe me, which is your choice. Blackpools wage bill was less than Swanseas in the Championship and upon promotion it was £25 million as shown by my link. So that alone i around the £20 million increase mark. You however have not given me any evidence to refute the claim. If you can give me a club that has gone up that was not recieving parachute payments to continue their Premier League wage structure that didnt incur such an increase upon promotion then that really would be a good place to start Keith, as of yet you have provided nothing.

3) you now bring a new "average" - an average spend "just to compete" I do indeed

a) do you mean a transfer cost for new players? I do
b) if yes to a) , again what data do you base your claimed figure on? transfer fees paid, its pretty straight forward.
c) were you aware that the cost in the annual accounts is based on an amortisation of the transfer fee over the length of contract given to the player signed?. Therefore , for players signed on a 4 year contract , you are assuming a transfer spend of 4x £13m = £52m.So You are getting confused with value of contract i.e wages. That is covered in the wages section suprise suprise and is the reason for the £20 million+ hike. Also this is not in the accounts as a total over the 4 years, this is worked out on a yearly basis
d) Do you really believe that newly promoted clubs have to spend £52m on transfer fees of new players the year they are promoted? No the average spend is around £13 million as you have been told
e) Can you name us clubs that have done so? Yes, Swansea last year spent £13.8 million

4) you also introduce another new figure into your "maths" - a £14.4m "shortfall" would be silly not to

a) what is that figure supposed to represent as it doesn`t agree with the recorded loss for 2010/11? The Malaysians have been pumping in £1.2 million a month to cover our financial shortfall. That is £14.4 million a year is it not? Or are you calling Carl, The Malayians and the club liars? All have documented evidence of claiming this. Any increased wages will be added straight on to this also.
b) how have you oterwise calculated the figure? as above, not a tricky sum as im sure you will agree

Quite happy to discuss both real reported figures and the quality of your arithmetic with you , but could you at least respond with some kind of supporting evidence to support your side of the argument .You seem extremely reluctant to do so. I have always given my evidence when requested. You however have failed to produce anything of note as of yet to back up your counter argument.



p.s. I actually agree with you that shirt sales in the Far East will not be at all lucrative for the club , and have been saying so since the rebranding issue raised its ugly head. It isnt meant to be. In my opinion it is to make the club more attractive to sell on to the Chinese market.

B ut can I again correct you on a few (unsupported)claims you make about Liverpool in this regard By all means.

a) they don`t sell 700,000 shirts a year in Asia , that is their worldwide sales figure I concede on this point, however being wrong on this makes my point even better as its clear our potential market there is smaller than even I gace credit for.
b) Liverpool don`t sell the most shirts in Asia - Man Utd do That wasnt the case a few seasons ago, do you have any evidence to support that? I know they sell more worldwide, I think the figure is around £1.2 million.
c) they make nothing like £10 a shirt. According to their FD , they make about £3 a shirt . Most of the profits go to the retailer , wholesaler and manufacturer (as would be the case of the profits going to Vincent Tan`s companies rather than the club in CCFC`s case Again this is what I was led to believe when they switched from Reebok to Adidas, they have been in a stronger position of negotiation to most clubs due to the sheer volume they sell. But of course if presented with evidence on this I will concede that point, but again if conceded it would prove my point even strongerm meaning we would not have to sell 3 million shirts but more like 6 millon.

Keith

Bottom 5 Wage Bills for 2010/11

Wigan £40 million
Birmingham £38 million
Wolves £38 million
WBA £37 million
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<Our projected bill
Blackpool £25 million

As you can see an increase of £20 million on to our existing £14-£15 million wage bill making it £34-£35 million would still see us as head and shoulders one of the worst payers in the league.

In the 2010/11 season only Blackpool would have been lower which is hardly surprising given their policy.

Considering they went down and were replaced with QPR (massive wage bill), Swansea and Norwich - it would be fair to say under my figures only Swansea and Norwich would be worse payers last term if we went up.

This figure of £20 million increase really isnt something to argue over as anyone who thinks we wouldnt fall into line with Premier League wages is an utter maniac, especially given our reputation of over paying our players and dedicating far more of our income to wages than is normal or indeed healthy (isnt it currently close to 100% of income spent on wages?).

Your argument is based solely on the 14.4m injection having to continue every year. If other clubs can run without this, such as your beloved swansea, they why can't Cardiff? You don't know the reasons behind the need for the injection so you don't know how much was one off expenditure or how much that figure will be reduced or eradicated by the Malaysians. A chunk may have been interest payments that will reduce with the debt to equity deal or by the reduction of the Langston and other debts.

But we don't operate without this so your point is mute. The reasons behind it are simple, we spend more than we earn and expect others to pick up the tab. However instead of a business plan to reduce outgoings, we seem to be increasing overheads if the reported transfer targets are acquired.

We aren't currently servicing Langston so there is no monthly payment, the interest payments to the Malaysians is also recurring and not being serviced.

The point is far from mute. We operated with the 14.4m injection in the past but what says we have to in the future? Why do we need it yet other clubs don't? Unless you understand thus you cannot simply extrapolate this forward and this is what much if your future potential loss scenario is based on

Oh and you also missed the point from Since62 that you don't expense transfer fees but amortise them. So spending 13.8m in a year would result in generally a quarter going through the accounts. So that takes off 10m

The point is far from mute. We operated with the 14.4m injection in the past but what says we have to in the future? Why do we need it yet other clubs don't? Unless you understand thus you cannot simply extrapolate this forward and this is what much if your future potential loss scenario is based on

The point certainly is mute. Thats like saying why can we buy players for £30 million like other clubs. They spend what they earn, we spend what we earn and an awful lot more.

100% of our income goes on wages, so our other overheads need to be paid by an outside party or we go bust. it really is that simple. Right now its the Malysians who are picking up the tab at a cost of 7%.

Other clubs dont need it as they live within their means. They dont buy Kenny Miller and pay him 25k a week and Bellamy and pay him 40k a week or Ramsey and pay him 20k a week when they cant afford it.... they live within their means.

The only way to go forward and not rely on £14.4 million cash loan in to cut expenditure, yet if we aquire the targets we are after expenditure will be increased not decreased.

Also if you read Tans statement he also says he has given us a further loan to cover the shortfall for the coming 12 months, I cant remember what the figure was off the top of my head but ill check and come back to update...

Ok here we go....

Tan told us that he is to loan us a further £35 million. £10 million is to be set aside for Langston, and also in that figure will be a budget for players. It doesnt give an exact figure but we shall be generous and say around £8 million for playing staff this year.

That means the club and Tan accept there is a £17 million shortfall that needs to be obligated this year ending May 2013. It is clear this is a very real thing and not something that will go away. This is why it is included in projected accounts and cant simply be left off under the notion that ''other clubs dont need the cash injection so why do we'', the fact is we overspend so we do.

Also if I provide a link to his statement, you can see the figures I stated in page 1 (I think) are startlingly accurate having totted up that Tans investment should be near £40 million where in fact Tan has stated its actually £40.8 million.

http://thelonegunmanblog.blogspot.co.uk/

Ok here we go....

Tan told us that he is to loan us a further £35 million. £10 million is to be set aside for Langston, and also in that figure will be a budget for players. It doesnt give an exact figure but we shall be generous and say around £8 million for playing staff this year.

That means the club and Tan accept there is a £17 million shortfall that needs to be obligated this year ending May 2013. It is clear this is a very real thing and not something that will go away. This is why it is included in projected accounts and cant simply be left off under the notion that ''other clubs dont need the cash injection so why do we'', the fact is we overspend so we do.

Also if I provide a link to his statement, you can see the figures I stated in page 1 (I think) are startlingly accurate having totted up that Tans investment should be near £40 million where in fact Tan has stated its actually £40.8 million.

http://thelonegunmanblog.blogspot.co.uk/

You still assume the injection is required every year in the future but you don't know that's the case. The guy knows how to run a business so I'll put my faith in him rather than your assumptions on top of assumptions

Ok here we go....

Tan told us that he is to loan us a further £35 million. £10 million is to be set aside for Langston, and also in that figure will be a budget for players. It doesnt give an exact figure but we shall be generous and say around £8 million for playing staff this year.

That means the club and Tan accept there is a £17 million shortfall that needs to be obligated this year ending May 2013. It is clear this is a very real thing and not something that will go away. This is why it is included in projected accounts and cant simply be left off under the notion that ''other clubs dont need the cash injection so why do we'', the fact is we overspend so we do.

Also if I provide a link to his statement, you can see the figures I stated in page 1 (I think) are startlingly accurate having totted up that Tans investment should be near £40 million where in fact Tan has stated its actually £40.8 million.

http://thelonegunmanblog.blogspot.co.uk/

You still assume the injection is required every year in the future but you don't know that's the case. The guy knows how to run a business so I'll put my faith in him rather than your assumptions on top of assumptions

there is no assuming, its just sensible rational thinking.

There is no sensible reason that the shortfall will stop. This figure is our 12 month operating costs, the only reason it would not be required is if we slash our operating costs by £17 million a year.

Kimbo is on £1.2 million wages per year and Bellamy likely to be on £1.6 million a year thats before Keogh, Mutch et al... tell me how we are cutting expenditure to the tune of £17 million a year and then you may have a point. But right now its just silly.

You are thinking we are going to get the same income as Stoke

Our income would be around £52 million. Lets do some maths.....

OUTGOINGS

£9-£10 million in contractual promotion base bonuses and transfer fees, or in turn survival fees hould we avoid the drop..
£23 million in increased wage bill.
£13 million average spend of a newly promoted side just to compete.
£14.4 million shortfall (not incluing wages of new signings)
...........................................
£60.4 million
...........................................

Thats a loss of £8 million per year. Assuming we will buck our trend of not over paying our players and spending more of a % of income than most.

SO THE POINT BEING..... How in Gods name is Tan going to make a profit from this club without doing what is blatently obvious he is going to do? Shirt sales was his plan wasnt it?

Some more FACTS...

Liverpool sell the most shirts in Asia, 700,000 to be exact making £7 million per annum. They make £10 per shirt, far more than most clubs can negotiate with their manufacturers, the bigger the club the bigger the cut. Ours is most likely to be around the £5-6 mark. In order to negate our loss this term we will have to sell 3 million shirts, nearly 5 times that of Liverpool. To put that in perspective, we currently sell around 8,000 per year.

Thats just to break even....

Could you please provide some straight answers/explanations on the claims you make in your post. Of course although I have provided far more evidence for my argument than you have to yours.. the only piece of evidence to back up your claims are heavily distorted figures due to the bonuses, which needless to say is as pointles to your argument as a hot freezer.

I have provided several pieces of evidence , and clearly set out what the source of that evidence is.
On the other hand you have given no examples supported by verifiable sources.

1) where do I say we would get the same income as Stoke? I merely quoted what Stoke`s income was in 2010/11 and that I considered us to be a similar size team as them attendance wise. A lot of their income would have come from their relatively high league finishing position as each place above rock bottom is worth £720k.
However , any team in the Premier from 2013/14 season onwards will earn considerably more than that Stoke figure as the minimum TV money from that season will be £61m a club. You clearly alluded to the fact we would have a similar income to Stoke otherwise why would you say it and then compare them to us? I notice you didnt let us know the income of Man City. You are very quick to want to add figures to your point and then when challenged quickly retract them under the guise of ''I meant nothing by those figures''.


I have retracted nothing. I listed ALL income figures for Premier clubs in 2010/11 and referred to Stoke being a similar sized club (support wise) to us. As are WBA , as were Birmingham.
2) you quote £9m to £10m "survival fees" and a £23m increase in wage costs correct

a) are you not double counting here , based on your previous posts? No. im proving they are recurring costs and not one off payments. On promotion we will have to pay the figure for promotion bonuses and upon survival we would have to pay them as survival bonuses and fees. But only one £10 million cost has been added to the yearly outgoing calculation as is plain to see.

But in another argument , you say the bonus figure has to be deducted to support your claim that the average wage increase on promotion is £23m (otherwise you are saying the increase is £33m).

b) despite several requests , you have so far failed to provide any evidence of newly promoted teams in recent years actually incurring such a level of increased wage costs. Apart from Blackpool you mean? and Swansea however you just wish not to believe me, which is your choice. Blackpools wage bill was less than Swanseas in the Championship and upon promotion it was £25 million as shown by my link. So that alone i around the £20 million increase mark. You however have not given me any evidence to refute the claim. If you can give me a club that has gone up that was not recieving parachute payments to continue their Premier League wage structure that didnt incur such an increase upon promotion then that really would be a good place to start Keith, as of yet you have provided nothing.

So you are now claiming that Blackpool`s wage bill in the Championship was £5m , or your "increase" of £20m to £25m would be untrue. In fact , as well documented in their accounts , their wage bill for 2009/10 was £12.6m.

3) you now bring a new "average" - an average spend "just to compete" I do indeed

a) do you mean a transfer cost for new players? I do
b) if yes to a) , again what data do you base your claimed figure on? transfer fees paid, its pretty straight forward.
c) were you aware that the cost in the annual accounts is based on an amortisation of the transfer fee over the length of contract given to the player signed?. Therefore , for players signed on a 4 year contract , you are assuming a transfer spend of 4x £13m = £52m.So You are getting confused with value of contract i.e wages. That is covered in the wages section suprise suprise and is the reason for the £20 million+ hike. Also this is not in the accounts as a total over the 4 years, this is worked out on a yearly basis


Trust me , as someone who has dealt with the accounts of several football clubs over a few decades now , I do not get confused between wages and the amortisation of transfer fees. It would appear from your comments , however , that you have not grasped the concept at all.

d) Do you really believe that newly promoted clubs have to spend £52m on transfer fees of new players the year they are promoted? No the average spend is around £13 million as you have been told
e) Can you name us clubs that have done so? Yes, Swansea last year spent £13.8 million

As I say above , you don`t appear to understand how such things are treated in football club accounts. If the Swansea figure you quote is correct , and it relates to players signed on a 3 year contract , then that total cost of £13.8m will be spread as a cost in the profit and loss account over 3 years at £4.6m a season.

4) you also introduce another new figure into your "maths" - a £14.4m "shortfall" would be silly not to

a) what is that figure supposed to represent as it doesn`t agree with the recorded loss for 2010/11? The Malaysians have been pumping in £1.2 million a month to cover our financial shortfall. That is £14.4 million a year is it not? Or are you calling Carl, The Malayians and the club liars? All have documented evidence of claiming this. Any increased wages will be added straight on to this also.

You are confusing cashflows with profits here. The amount the Malaysians put in is to cover the cash requirements of the business , it is not the annual loss figure. It will include funding the cash hole caused by such losses , but will also include cash to pay off historical debts (PMG etc) . up front transfer fees payable (through the p&l account over a longer period - see above) etc.

b) how have you oterwise calculated the figure? as above, not a tricky sum as im sure you will agree

Quite happy to discuss both real reported figures and the quality of your arithmetic with you , but could you at least respond with some kind of supporting evidence to support your side of the argument .You seem extremely reluctant to do so. I have always given my evidence when requested. You however have failed to produce anything of note as of yet to back up your counter argument.

You have provided NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER on your claim of average wage increases of £23m on promotion. If you are so sure of your figure , you have been given ample opportunity to quote specific examples for specific clubs but have been unable to do so. Go back and look at the actual figures for clubs recently promoted over the last few seasons (I did so for 2009/10 to 2010/11 which didn`t support your claim at all) and point me in the direction of figures that support your claim. I suspect that you are unable to find such evidence , which is why you keep dodging a straight answer.



p.s. I actually agree with you that shirt sales in the Far East will not be at all lucrative for the club , and have been saying so since the rebranding issue raised its ugly head. It isnt meant to be. In my opinion it is to make the club more attractive to sell on to the Chinese market.

B ut can I again correct you on a few (unsupported)claims you make about Liverpool in this regard By all means.

a) they don`t sell 700,000 shirts a year in Asia , that is their worldwide sales figure I concede on this point, however being wrong on this makes my point even better as its clear our potential market there is smaller than even I gace credit for.
b) Liverpool don`t sell the most shirts in Asia - Man Utd do That wasnt the case a few seasons ago, do you have any evidence to support that? I know they sell more worldwide, I think the figure is around £1.2 million.
c) they make nothing like £10 a shirt. According to their FD , they make about £3 a shirt . Most of the profits go to the retailer , wholesaler and manufacturer (as would be the case of the profits going to Vincent Tan`s companies rather than the club in CCFC`s case Again this is what I was led to believe when they switched from Reebok to Adidas, they have been in a stronger position of negotiation to most clubs due to the sheer volume they sell. But of course if presented with evidence on this I will concede that point, but again if conceded it would prove my point even strongerm meaning we would not have to sell 3 million shirts but more like 6 millon.

Keith

We have now gathered that Swanseas wage bill was around £8 million. We also know that Blackpools was less than this.

Blackpool wage bill was £25 million when they got promoted. An increase of at least £18 million and they were the lowest payers in recent history. Ive told you Swanseas wage bill is around the £30 million mark, making an increase of £22 million, you just chose not to believe me. I have also given you the wage bills of all the Premier League sides for 2010/11 in which all the smaller clubs barring Blackpool, who are an obvious exception, had wage bills of £37 million to £40 million. Ours is currently around £15 million. Just to fall into line with the sallest clubs in the Prem it would mean we would increase our wage bill by £22- ~£25 million.

This is plain for all to see. If you disagree then thats fine by me although all figures point to me being correct. But we do seem to be going in circles here.

You still havent answered my question however on what you woud expect our Premier League wage bill to be judging on what we know, Tans ambitions and what our previous record of spending on wages would be.

wonder why.

We have now gathered that Swanseas wage bill was around £8 million. We also know that Blackpools was less than this.

Blackpool wage bill was £25 million when they got promoted. An increase of at least £18 million and they were the lowest payers in recent history. Ive told you Swanseas wage bill is around the £30 million mark, making an increase of £22 million, you just chose not to believe me. I have also given you the wage bills of all the Premier League sides for 2010/11 in which all the smaller clubs barring Blackpool, who are an obvious exception, had wage bills of £37 million to £40 million. Ours is currently around £15 million. Just to fall into line with the sallest clubs in the Prem it would mean we would increase our wage bill by £22- ~£25 million.

This is plain for all to see. If you disagree then thats fine by me although all figures point to me being correct. But we do seem to be going in circles here.

You still havent answered my question however on what you woud expect our Premier League wage bill to be judging on what we know, Tans ambitions and what our previous record of spending on wages would be.

wonder why.

Any chance of any specific answers to any of the questions I raise in my earlier posts , like

a) listing actual wage increases for recently promoted clubs

b) do you understand how transfer fees are treated in annual profit and loss accounts

c) do you see how you have double counted promotion bonuses with other wage increases in your arguments (where you cliam £10m + £23m in arriving at a £61m "cost" figure

d) your reconciliation of joiners/leavers/payrises to get to your claimed £30m wage bill for Swansea last season - a figure which the club`s auditors aren`t even aware of.

I HAVE answered your question about what I expect a Premier league wage bill to be for us in an earlier post. I said that , if we agree that it would rise to somewhere between your claim (still not proven - see d0 above) of £30m for Swansea and £37m for WBA. then at £34m , this would represent an increase in the current CCFC wage bill of £16m of £18m (well below your claim of £23m). I also pointed out that the increase in TV income alone on a promotion to the Premier would be a minimum of £34m. Do you disagree with these figures? If so , on what basis?

Keith

We have now gathered that Swanseas wage bill was around £8 million. We also know that Blackpools was less than this.

Blackpool wage bill was £25 million when they got promoted. An increase of at least £18 million and they were the lowest payers in recent history. Ive told you Swanseas wage bill is around the £30 million mark, making an increase of £22 million, you just chose not to believe me. I have also given you the wage bills of all the Premier League sides for 2010/11 in which all the smaller clubs barring Blackpool, who are an obvious exception, had wage bills of £37 million to £40 million. Ours is currently around £15 million. Just to fall into line with the sallest clubs in the Prem it would mean we would increase our wage bill by £22- ~£25 million.

This is plain for all to see. If you disagree then thats fine by me although all figures point to me being correct. But we do seem to be going in circles here.

You still havent answered my question however on what you woud expect our Premier League wage bill to be judging on what we know, Tans ambitions and what our previous record of spending on wages would be.

wonder why.

Any chance of any specific answers to any of the questions I raise in my earlier posts , like

a) listing actual wage increases for recently promoted clubs. Yep Swansea went from £8 million to £30 million, an increase of £22 millon and Blackpool went from £7 million to £25 million, an increase of £18 million. Ours is currently £15 million and to fall in line with even the smallest payers in the Prem it would see an increase of aroun £20-£24 million.

b) do you understand how transfer fees are treated in annual profit and loss accounts. Of course, although you seem to be blanketing every transfer together and treating them as equal which isnt the case.

c) do you see how you have double counted promotion bonuses with other wage increases in your arguments (where you cliam £10m + £23m in arriving at a £61m "cost" figure. No, I have kept my bonuses and wage figures seperate. The £10 million bonuses are a one off payment that carried in the accounts of the year we are promoted which will add on to that years shortfall. The increase in wage (£20 odd million) will be for the accounts after our first year in the Prem.

d) your reconciliation of joiners/leavers/payrises to get to your claimed £30m wage bill for Swansea last season - a figure which the club`s auditors aren`t even aware of. The club of course know what their wage budget is. But I am confused as to why this is such a sticking point for you. WE KNOW Blackpools wage bill was £25m and we KNOW WBA was £37 million, what exactly are you expecting Swanseas wage bill to be?

I HAVE answered your question about what I expect a Premier league wage bill to be for us in an earlier post. I said that , if we agree that it would rise to somewhere between your claim (still not proven - see d0 above) of £30m for Swansea and £37m for WBA. then at £34m , this would represent an increase in the current CCFC wage bill of £16m of £18m (well below your claim of £23m). I also pointed out that the increase in TV income alone on a promotion to the Premier would be a minimum of £34m. Do you disagree with these figures? If so , on what basis? I made it clear it was an average and it would be ''around'' this figure. However the estimates you have given are based between 2 well run clubs that dont overpay and live within their means, the exact opposite of us hence the debt. Dont you think its safe to say we wont be an exact neutral and the economic trends tend to suggest it will be closer to my £23 milion figure than the £18 million figure based on the plit between the two well run clubs?

Keith

Ok here we go....

Tan told us that he is to loan us a further £35 million. £10 million is to be set aside for Langston, and also in that figure will be a budget for players. It doesnt give an exact figure but we shall be generous and say around £8 million for playing staff this year.

That means the club and Tan accept there is a £17 million shortfall that needs to be obligated this year ending May 2013. It is clear this is a very real thing and not something that will go away. This is why it is included in projected accounts and cant simply be left off under the notion that ''other clubs dont need the cash injection so why do we'', the fact is we overspend so we do.

Also if I provide a link to his statement, you can see the figures I stated in page 1 (I think) are startlingly accurate having totted up that Tans investment should be near £40 million where in fact Tan has stated its actually £40.8 million.

http://thelonegunmanblog.blogspot.co.uk/

You still assume the injection is required every year in the future but you don't know that's the case. The guy knows how to run a business so I'll put my faith in him rather than your assumptions on top of assumptions

there is no assuming, its just sensible rational thinking.

There is no sensible reason that the shortfall will stop. This figure is our 12 month operating costs, the only reason it would not be required is if we slash our operating costs by £17 million a year.

Kimbo is on £1.2 million wages per year and Bellamy likely to be on £1.6 million a year thats before Keogh, Mutch et al... tell me how we are cutting expenditure to the tune of £17 million a year and then you may have a point. But right now its just silly.

Again you miss the point. Unless you know why we need the injection then how can you know whether it will be required long term or not. You have no fact just assumptions and thats the silly bit. You're an amateur trying to post as some kind of financial guru. My faith is in VT and not a jack making numbers up to suit his own agenda

Oh and you were priced wrong about the treatment of transfer fees yet glossed over it. If you understood as you claim they why did you name the mistake in the first place

Ive tld you time and time again why we have a shortfall. We have had the £14.4 million shortfall for at least the past 12 months and according to Tan have an increased one for the next 12 months. The weird thing is why you think that will dissappear.

Its simply because our overheads outweigh our income by the amount stated, in fact it couldnt be simpler.

As for the transfers you aswell as Keith are assuming

a) all transfers are done in installments, and..
b) forgetting about intallemts of previous quarters

Ive tld you time and time again why we have a shortfall. We have had the £14.4 million shortfall for at least the past 12 months and according to Tan have an increased one for the next 12 months. The weird thing is why you think that will dissappear.

Its simply because our overheads outweigh our income by the amount stated, in fact it couldnt be simpler.

As for the transfers you aswell as Keith are assuming

a) all transfers are done in installments, and..
b) forgetting about intallemts of previous quarters

You are still misunderstanding a basic concept here and mixing up cash and profit again.

Its nothing to do with cash instalments payable on transfer fees , it is the way they are accounted for in the profit and loss account . The overwhelmimg majority of clubs account for such costs on an amortisation basis. (Swansea used to account for the whole transfer fee - in or out - in the year in which the transaction occurred rather than amortise , but changed their policy a few years ago as it distorted annual results too much).


CCFC`s total player carrying value in the accounts was only £2.4m (2010 £4.2m) , so the amortisation figure can`t be much higher than the £2.2m charge through the p&l account in 2010/11 .
Not sure what your reference to "previous quarters" is about - did you mean previous years? And do you now see how it has been taken into account already?

Ive tld you time and time again why we have a shortfall. We have had the £14.4 million shortfall for at least the past 12 months and according to Tan have an increased one for the next 12 months. The weird thing is why you think that will dissappear.

Its simply because our overheads outweigh our income by the amount stated, in fact it couldnt be simpler.

As for the transfers you aswell as Keith are assuming

a) all transfers are done in installments, and..
b) forgetting about intallemts of previous quarters

You are still misunderstanding a basic concept here and mixing up cash and profit again.

Its nothing to do with cash instalments payable on transfer fees , it is the way they are accounted for in the profit and loss account . The overwhelmimg majority of clubs account for such costs on an amortisation basis. (Swansea used to account for the whole transfer fee - in or out - in the year in which the transaction occurred rather than amortise , but changed their policy a few years ago as it distorted annual results too much).


CCFC`s total player carrying value in the accounts was only £2.4m (2010 £4.2m) , so the amortisation figure can`t be much higher than the £2.2m charge through the p&l account in 2010/11 .
Not sure what your reference to "previous quarters" is about - did you mean previous years? And do you now see how it has been taken into account already?

Im not mixing anything up.

If we sign Kimbo for £2,5 it means we will have to pay £2.5m. If you put that in the accounts as 750k makes no difference.

It really is that simple.

We have now gathered that Swanseas wage bill was around £8 million. We also know that Blackpools was less than this.

Blackpool wage bill was £25 million when they got promoted. An increase of at least £18 million and they were the lowest payers in recent history. Ive told you Swanseas wage bill is around the £30 million mark, making an increase of £22 million, you just chose not to believe me. I have also given you the wage bills of all the Premier League sides for 2010/11 in which all the smaller clubs barring Blackpool, who are an obvious exception, had wage bills of £37 million to £40 million. Ours is currently around £15 million. Just to fall into line with the sallest clubs in the Prem it would mean we would increase our wage bill by £22- ~£25 million.

This is plain for all to see. If you disagree then thats fine by me although all figures point to me being correct. But we do seem to be going in circles here.

You still havent answered my question however on what you woud expect our Premier League wage bill to be judging on what we know, Tans ambitions and what our previous record of spending on wages would be.

wonder why.

Any chance of any specific answers to any of the questions I raise in my earlier posts , like

a) listing actual wage increases for recently promoted clubs. Yep Swansea went from £8 million to £30 million, an increase of £22 millon and Blackpool went from £7 million to £25 million, an increase of £18 million. Ours is currently £15 million and to fall in line with even the smallest payers in the Prem it would see an increase of aroun £20-£24 million.

We don`t know that Swansea`s wage bill went up to £30m - you still haven`t shown us the reconciliation of joiners/leavers etc to support that claim.
Blackpool`s wage bill in 2009/10 was £12.6m , so you are asking us to accept that £5.7m of that was a promotion bonus of over 80% of "normal" wages. Who gave you that figure?

b) do you understand how transfer fees are treated in annual profit and loss accounts. Of course, although you seem to be blanketing every transfer together and treating them as equal which isnt the case.

Why is it "blanketing"? Virtually all football clubs amortise transfer fees paid over the length of contract given to the player concerned in the profit and loss account , so a £3m signing on a 3 year contract would cost £1m a year for 3 years in the accounts of all those clubs.

c) do you see how you have double counted promotion bonuses with other wage increases in your arguments (where you cliam £10m + £23m in arriving at a £61m "cost" figure. No, I have kept my bonuses and wage figures seperate. The £10 million bonuses are a one off payment that carried in the accounts of the year we are promoted which will add on to that years shortfall. The increase in wage (£20 odd million) will be for the accounts after our first year in the Prem.

You may have shown the figures on seperate lines , but you HAVE double counted them. Look again at your post where you calculate a "cost" of £61m for a newly promoted club to the Premier. On one hand you say SCFC`s wage bill went up by a TOTAL of £22m to £30m, then on the other hand you say that the increase is £10m PLUS £23m. That would have taken Swansea`s wage bill up to £8m plus £33m to £41m and even you don`t claim it to be more than £30m. Can you now see where you have double counted?

d) your reconciliation of joiners/leavers/payrises to get to your claimed £30m wage bill for Swansea last season - a figure which the club`s auditors aren`t even aware of. The club of course know what their wage budget is. But I am confused as to why this is such a sticking point for you. WE KNOW Blackpools wage bill was £25m and we KNOW WBA was £37 million, what exactly are you expecting Swanseas wage bill to be?

I don`t know what Swansea`s wage bill was last season , and neither do you , you are just estimating it.

I HAVE answered your question about what I expect a Premier league wage bill to be for us in an earlier post. I said that , if we agree that it would rise to somewhere between your claim (still not proven - see d0 above) of £30m for Swansea and £37m for WBA. then at £34m , this would represent an increase in the current CCFC wage bill of £16m of £18m (well below your claim of £23m). I also pointed out that the increase in TV income alone on a promotion to the Premier would be a minimum of £34m. Do you disagree with these figures? If so , on what basis? I made it clear it was an average and it would be ''around'' this figure. However the estimates you have given are based between 2 well run clubs that dont overpay and live within their means, the exact opposite of us hence the debt. Dont you think its safe to say we wont be an exact neutral and the economic trends tend to suggest it will be closer to my £23 milion figure than the £18 million figure based on the plit between the two well run clubs?

The specific example I gave re CCFC showed that an increase to £34m would only be an increase of £18m from 2010/11 levels , not the £23m (or £33m in your calculations in another post)you refer to . leaving "headroom" of £5m for any inefficiences.

You also have made no response to the fact that an increase of £18m would be covered almost twice over by the £34m increase in TV revenues alone that would come from a promotion.

Keith

Blackpool`s wage bill in 2009/10 was £12.6m , so you are asking us to accept that £5.7m of that was a promotion bonus of over 80% of "normal" wages. Who gave you that figure?

Keith

Blackpool made their long-awaited return to the top flight in May


Blackpool's chairman has confirmed that his players have finally been given their bonuses for winning promotion to the Premier League in May.

Reports suggested some of the squad were unhappy at returning to pre-season training having still not been paid.

"I don't know if it caused dissent but we didn't get the first chunk of Premier League money until Thursday," Karl Oyston told the Blackpool Gazette.

"The players have received it. I'm delighted. I think they deserved it."

The Seasiders secured promotion to the top flight after beating Cardiff 3-2 in a play-off match that was said to be worth £90m to the winning club.

Oyston added: "Maybe one or two players thought we'd be there handing them a bagful of money as they walked off the pitch.


Some members of the squad are thought to have demanded their money - reported to be up to £400,000 each - when they returned to training in July. But the Professional Footballers' Association chief executive Gordon Taylor said on 31 July that players were not worried about the money and insisted they would receive their bonus by 6 August.

Having secured the payments for last season, Oyston is now hopeful that further bonuses can be earned with a successful spell in England's top division.

"I hope they earn another £5m this year by keeping us in the Premier League," he stated.

Blackpool are back in the top flight for the first time since 1971 and are currently upgrading the East Stand at their Bloomfield Road stadium in a bid to raise capacity to 17,600.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... bonus.html

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/320 ... tion-bonus

http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/Bl ... 35903.html


should I go on?

Blackpool`s wage bill in 2009/10 was £12.6m , so you are asking us to accept that £5.7m of that was a promotion bonus of over 80% of "normal" wages. Who gave you that figure?

Keith

Blackpool made their long-awaited return to the top flight in May


Blackpool's chairman has confirmed that his players have finally been given their bonuses for winning promotion to the Premier League in May.

Reports suggested some of the squad were unhappy at returning to pre-season training having still not been paid.

"I don't know if it caused dissent but we didn't get the first chunk of Premier League money until Thursday," Karl Oyston told the Blackpool Gazette.

"The players have received it. I'm delighted. I think they deserved it."

The Seasiders secured promotion to the top flight after beating Cardiff 3-2 in a play-off match that was said to be worth £90m to the winning club.

Oyston added: "Maybe one or two players thought we'd be there handing them a bagful of money as they walked off the pitch.


Some members of the squad are thought to have demanded their money - reported to be up to £400,000 each - when they returned to training in July. But the Professional Footballers' Association chief executive Gordon Taylor said on 31 July that players were not worried about the money and insisted they would receive their bonus by 6 August.

Having secured the payments for last season, Oyston is now hopeful that further bonuses can be earned with a successful spell in England's top division.

"I hope they earn another £5m this year by keeping us in the Premier League," he stated.

Blackpool are back in the top flight for the first time since 1971 and are currently upgrading the East Stand at their Bloomfield Road stadium in a bid to raise capacity to 17,600.

Thanks for that.

I am now perfectly happy to accept that the bonus element of Blackpool`s tatal wage bill was indeed around £5m.

Any movement on answers to all my other questions , like the double counting of costs , the treatment of transfer fees in annual accounts , the additional income from TV at Premier level etc?

Ive coveed the treatment of trnsfer fees in accounts. If we pay £2.5m for Kimbo we have to pay £2.5m, whether you put that in the accounts as £750k matters little.

what other questions did you have?

Ive coveed the treatment of trnsfer fees in accounts. If we pay £2.5m for Kimbo we have to pay £2.5m, whether you put that in the accounts as £750k matters little.

what other questions did you have?

You didn`t answer the transfer fee point. Your initial post was about the level of losses the club would incur in the Premier as a consequence of increased costs in its profit and loss account. Because the cash treatment of transfer fees is different to that accounts treatment , it matters a lot how they are treated. You are just ignoring the difference between cash and underlying profitability of a club.

If we indeed were to sign a player for £2.5m and pay all the transfer fee up front , then cash would go down by £2.5m , but the asset value of players in the balance sheet (under intangibles) would go up by the same amount.

The other main questions were

1)about you clearly double counting £10m of bonus wage payments as well as your overall claimed increased figure of £23m (which INCLUDES that £10m) in your post where you did a calculation of £61m of "extra" costs

2) about you ignoring the extra minimum of £34m in TV income which comes on a promotion in arriving at a conclusion as to whether a club could or could not make a profit if promoted.
I pointed out that a wage increase of £18m for CCFC from the current £16m to £34m would be nearly twice covered by such an income increase.

Ive coveed the treatment of trnsfer fees in accounts. If we pay £2.5m for Kimbo we have to pay £2.5m, whether you put that in the accounts as £750k matters little.

what other questions did you have?

You didn`t answer the transfer fee point. Your initial post was about the level of losses the club would incur in the Premier as a consequence of increased costs in its profit and loss account. Because the cash treatment of transfer fees is different to that accounts treatment , it matters a lot how they are treated. You are just ignoring the difference between cash and underlying profitability of a club.

If we indeed were to sign a player for £2.5m

I disagree completely on this unfortunately and we will never agree. We are going around in cirles on this point

The other main questions were

1)about you clearly double counting £10m of bonus wage payments as well as your overall claimed increased figure of £23m (which INCLUDES that £10m) in your post where you did a calculation of £61m of "extra" costs

It does not include promotion bonuses at all. The figure of the Championship wage will include the promotion bonus. the increase of £23 million will include the survival one. they are roughly the same as the Blackpool chairman pointed out

2) about you ignoring the extra minimum of £34m in TV income which comes on a promotion in arriving at a conclusion as to whether a club could or could not make a profit if promoted.
I pointed out that a wage increase of £18m for CCFC from the current £16m to £34m would be nearly twice covered by such an income increase.

Firstly im dubious about your £18 million figure and am happy to continue with my £23 million figure given the economic trends of our club. Also the extra TV money still doesnt put the club in profit which lets not forget is the main point here. We are trying to deduce whether it is feasable that Tan can get hi money back simply by getting us promoted. Our detailed conversation, although disagreeing on some numbers, concludes that we can not make a profit thus Tans 'businses plan' is flawed.

If of course that is his business plan which I highly doubt.

Ive coveed the treatment of trnsfer fees in accounts. If we pay £2.5m for Kimbo we have to pay £2.5m, whether you put that in the accounts as £750k matters little.

what other questions did you have?

You didn`t answer the transfer fee point. Your initial post was about the level of losses the club would incur in the Premier as a consequence of increased costs in its profit and loss account. Because the cash treatment of transfer fees is different to that accounts treatment , it matters a lot how they are treated. You are just ignoring the difference between cash and underlying profitability of a club.

If we indeed were to sign a player for £2.5m

I disagree completely on this unfortunately and we will never agree. We are going around in cirles on this point

You started this debate on the basis of whether the club could make a PROFIT or not in the Premier. Indeed you reiterate the point at the bottom of this very post.
Profits are not the same as cashflows.The cost in the profit and loss account of signing a player on a 3 year contract will only be one-third of the transfer fee payable. - how can you disagree with this as it is factual , not an opinion.
In balance sheet terms , signing a player for £2.5m will make no difference to the net assets as cash will reduce by £2.5m , but the player asset (shown as intangibles in the balance sheet) will go up by the same amount.

The other main questions were

1)about you clearly double counting £10m of bonus wage payments as well as your overall claimed increased figure of £23m (which INCLUDES that £10m) in your post where you did a calculation of £61m of "extra" costs



It does not include promotion bonuses at all. The figure of the Championship wage will include the promotion bonus. the increase of £23 million will include the survival one. they are roughly the same as the Blackpool chairman pointed out

Lokk again at your £61m post. You have quite clearly included a cost of £10m AS WELL AS the £23m one which you say is the TOTAL wage increase to be incurred on a promotion , so you are saying that the wage bill would go up by a total of £33m. Yet in the same thread you are saying it will go up in total by the £23m figure. So you ARE double counting £10m of cost in the £61m.

2) about you ignoring the extra minimum of £34m in TV income which comes on a promotion in arriving at a conclusion as to whether a club could or could not make a profit if promoted.
I pointed out that a wage increase of £18m for CCFC from the current £16m to £34m would be nearly twice covered by such an income increase.

Firstly im dubious about your £18 million figure and am happy to continue with my £23 million figure given the economic trends of our club. Also the extra TV money still doesnt put the club in profit which lets not forget is the main point here. We are trying to deduce whether it is feasable that Tan can get hi money back simply by getting us promoted. Our detailed conversation, although disagreeing on some numbers, concludes that we can not make a profit thus Tans 'businses plan' is flawed.

OK , take your higher figure of £23m. Add to it the £12m annual loss which the club currently makes gets a figure of £35m. The extra Sky TV money alone of £34m virtually covers this. And that is not taking into account any increase in matchday revenues from higher attendances , or increased advertising or sponsorship money which would arise at a higher level. Nor does it take into account any saving in interest payable on conversion of any element of the Vincent Tan loans into shares.(in 2010/11 the club loss of £12m included £2m of interest costs.
Furthermore it takes no account of "one off" or "bonus" profits arising from the writing down of the debt due to Langston (if settled at £10m , that would be a profit of £17m) or the capital element of the VT loans converted into equity (at current loan levels , potentially another benefit of £35m through the profit and loss account).

If of course that is his business plan which I highly doubt.

Ive coveed the treatment of trnsfer fees in accounts. If we pay £2.5m for Kimbo we have to pay £2.5m, whether you put that in the accounts as £750k matters little.

what other questions did you have?

You didn`t answer the transfer fee point. Your initial post was about the level of losses the club would incur in the Premier as a consequence of increased costs in its profit and loss account. Because the cash treatment of transfer fees is different to that accounts treatment , it matters a lot how they are treated. You are just ignoring the difference between cash and underlying profitability of a club.

If we indeed were to sign a player for £2.5m

I disagree completely on this unfortunately and we will never agree. We are going around in cirles on this point

You started this debate on the basis of whether the club could make a PROFIT or not in the Premier. Indeed you reiterate the point at the bottom of this very post.
Profits are not the same as cashflows.The cost in the profit and loss account of signing a player on a 3 year contract will only be one-third of the transfer fee payable. - how can you disagree with this as it is factual , not an opinion.
In balance sheet terms , signing a player for £2.5m will make no difference to the net assets as cash will reduce by £2.5m , but the player asset (shown as intangibles in the balance sheet) will go up by the same amount.

The other main questions were

1)about you clearly double counting £10m of bonus wage payments as well as your overall claimed increased figure of £23m (which INCLUDES that £10m) in your post where you did a calculation of £61m of "extra" costs



It does not include promotion bonuses at all. The figure of the Championship wage will include the promotion bonus. the increase of £23 million will include the survival one. they are roughly the same as the Blackpool chairman pointed out

Lokk again at your £61m post. You have quite clearly included a cost of £10m AS WELL AS the £23m one which you say is the TOTAL wage increase to be incurred on a promotion , so you are saying that the wage bill would go up by a total of £33m. Yet in the same thread you are saying it will go up in total by the £23m figure. So you ARE double counting £10m of cost in the £61m.

2) about you ignoring the extra minimum of £34m in TV income which comes on a promotion in arriving at a conclusion as to whether a club could or could not make a profit if promoted.
I pointed out that a wage increase of £18m for CCFC from the current £16m to £34m would be nearly twice covered by such an income increase.

Firstly im dubious about your £18 million figure and am happy to continue with my £23 million figure given the economic trends of our club. Also the extra TV money still doesnt put the club in profit which lets not forget is the main point here. We are trying to deduce whether it is feasable that Tan can get hi money back simply by getting us promoted. Our detailed conversation, although disagreeing on some numbers, concludes that we can not make a profit thus Tans 'businses plan' is flawed.

OK , take your higher figure of £23m. Add to it the £12m annual loss which the club currently makes gets a figure of £35m. The extra Sky TV money alone of £34m virtually covers this. And that is not taking into account any increase in matchday revenues from higher attendances , or increased advertising or sponsorship money which would arise at a higher level. Nor does it take into account any saving in interest payable on conversion of any element of the Vincent Tan loans into shares.(in 2010/11 the club loss of £12m included £2m of interest costs.
Furthermore it takes no account of "one off" or "bonus" profits arising from the writing down of the debt due to Langston (if settled at £10m , that would be a profit of £17m) or the capital element of the VT loans converted into equity (at current loan levels , potentially another benefit of £35m through the profit and loss account).

If of course that is his business plan which I highly doubt.

On point one I have never disagreed with how it is written on the balance sheet, im diagreeing with the impact it hs no the club. As Tan will own the club and it is my belief that the only way he can get his money back is to asset strip then I see little value in offsetting the transfer fee with the added asset of the player, as it is Tans player not Cardiffs. The loss will be the clubs and any sale of the asset will be to the profit of Tan and not Cardiff - this is where we disagree and we will never agree on this. Again we are going around in circles.

point 2. Dont know how much more clearly I can say this. the £10 million is not included in the £23 million increase. We will pay £10 million cost of promotion AND THEN the wage bill will increase to around £35 million pounds, in this figure is the projected survival bonus, if we get relegated then its a mute point anyway.

And whats even more clear i the club till cannot make a profit from promotion. If the club cant make a profit, then neither can Tan. If The club makes a loss then its Tans job to cover it with a loan note. There is no value i continuing this cycle for Tan so the only way he will get his investment back is to sell assets. I dont know how this can be argued.