Huw Jenkins... you might hate him?

'The club made a normalised operating profit of £0.5m (a loss of £1.7m in 2010 and a loss of £4.3m in 2009).'

Turnover is turnover.

'Normalised' means 'excluding exceptional costs' -adjusted probably for their stadium upgrade expenditure etc... and is the more comparable figure.

Did you not read the lines that said

The figures up to the year ending May 31 2011 showed a £4m loss.

But that was down to the welcome situation of the club having to pay out more than £4.3m in player and staff bonuses when promotion to the Premier League was achieved.

And those bonuses were from a team new to the Championship and not one who had finished in the top 8 for the previous two seasons.

I really do fail to see the point you are trying to make here.

I'd already moved on to this link

http://www.edp24.co.uk/sport/norwich-ci ... _1_1090986


The accounts were adjusted to show a £0.5m loss


That £4m bonus just shows what rubbish your mate was spouting. It makes no odds whether they had just come up or not.
He said everyone pays £10m - I proved that's not true.

Of course you would avoid seeing that.

As it seems you are unable to see that "normalised profit" excludes the "exceptional costs" of the promotion bonuses to players of £4.5m as stated in my link. Try clicking on the table underneath the graph on your link.

Of course it makes a difference if you have just come up or not. Many Norwich players would have still been on the same contract as they were in League one. What sort of promotion to the Premier League clause do you think you would have had in that ffs?

And that figure does not include transfer clauses such as the one we had to pay for Chelsea for Sinclair.

Quote from the accounts analysis...
'The loss is almost entirely down to the club having to pay out more than £5m in bonuses to players and staff as a result of this year’s promotion to the Premier League - plus £1.3m in “incremental” payments to clubs from which the Canaries bought players, and which had clauses that demanded more money if promotion followed.'

There you go... total cost £6.3m.

Thats nowhere near £10m and that was monkey's figure.

Try to spin it how you want -he's wrong.


By the way, I saw the table - where does it state the exceptional costs were promotion bonuses -there was a hell of a lot else going on there. Not saying they weren't but there would have been adjustments up and down for many of the items listed in the article.

Were they treated as 'exceptionals' in Swansea's accounts ?

Where did I say the figure of £10m was right? Although I do think it's a fairly reasonable benchmark.

That £6.3m figure is just under £1m short of ours despite the fact we'd had an extra 2 years in the Championship where we had to renegotiate contracts.

Again I ask, what is your point?

And as a secondary I ask this, what do you think CCFC's loss will be if you get to the Premier League?

God if you still miss the point you must be one-eyed.
The POINT was your mate said £10m and I proved -easily that Norwich, the first club I looked at did it for significantly less. SImple really.


FINALLY !

So you now state that Swansea's bonuses were £7m ish - so you would still have made a loss ? Even after the bonus of the play-off semi (worth appx £500k), so no wonder you wouldn't post the figure, again it backs up what I said that you would have made a loss without it. Another article actually stated the loss as £11.2m but without the accounts I won't be able to see why Maybe next time we debate this I'll invest the effort into getting the accounts.

Even with a loss of £1-£2m or whatever you would have had to cut costs, and with players out of contract it would have been tougher for you the next season to break even. As it is you went up, so we will never know, but really you should admit I have a point. Your mate has abandoned you -out of his depth

As for us, CCFC we've been badly run for years and would have made a huge loss- like QPR (take a look), but I can't see anyone holding us up as an example

Anyway off to bed before I'm divorced.

I've missed out on my footy teams big night out tonight, as I've got a kidney infection so 12 pints wouldn't have been a good move, might explain my argumentative mood.

God if you still miss the point you must be one-eyed.
The POINT was your mate said £10m and I proved -easily that Norwich, the first club I looked at did it for significantly less. SImple really.


FINALLY !

So you now state that Swansea's bonuses were £7m ish - so you would still have made a loss ? Even after the bonus of the play-off semi (worth appx £500k), so no wonder you wouldn't post the figure, again it backs up what I said that you would have made a loss without it. Another article actually stated the loss as £11.2m but without the accounts I won't be able to see why Maybe next time we debate this I'll invest the effort into getting the accounts.

Even with a loss of £1-£2m or whatever you would have had to cut costs, and with players out of contract it would have been tougher for you the next season to break even. As it is you went up, so we will never know, but really you should admit I have a point. Your mate has abandoned you -out of his depth

As for us, CCFC we've been badly run for years and would have made a huge loss- like QPR (take a look), but I can't see anyone holding us up as an example

Anyway off to bed before I'm divorced.

I've missed out on my footy teams big night out tonight, as I've got a kidney infection so 12 pints wouldn't have been a good move, might explain my argumentative mood.

Next time you want to debate it I would indeed you suggest getting the accounts as then it can actually be an informed debate rather than this nonsense. Especially you you seem to completely misunderstand how Swansea City is run.

God if you still miss the point you must be one-eyed.
The POINT was your mate said £10m and I proved -easily that Norwich, the first club I looked at did it for significantly less. SImple really.


FINALLY !

So you now state that Swansea's bonuses were £7m ish - so you would still have made a loss ? Even after the bonus of the play-off semi (worth appx £500k), so no wonder you wouldn't post the figure, again it backs up what I said that you would have made a loss without it. Another article actually stated the loss as £11.2m but without the accounts I won't be able to see why Maybe next time we debate this I'll invest the effort into getting the accounts.

Even with a loss of £1-£2m or whatever you would have had to cut costs, and with players out of contract it would have been tougher for you the next season to break even. As it is you went up, so we will never know, but really you should admit I have a point. Your mate has abandoned you -out of his depth

As for us, CCFC we've been badly run for years and would have made a huge loss- like QPR (take a look), but I can't see anyone holding us up as an example

Anyway off to bed before I'm divorced.

I've missed out on my footy teams big night out tonight, as I've got a kidney infection so 12 pints wouldn't have been a good move, might explain my argumentative mood.

Next time you want to debate it I would indeed you suggest getting the accounts as then it can actually be an informed debate rather than this nonsense. Especially you you seem to completely misunderstand how Swansea City is run.

mmmmm no idea who is right/wrong but swans accounts seem to be unclear to say the least! recently didnt you want to borrow 3mil until january ? this was explained away as being sound buisness sense, by a swans fan! why use own money which can earn interest in clubs bank! better to borrow it and pay interest on whats borrowed! mmm is that good practice? anyway just thought i would add my pennies worth to debate before bed

God if you still miss the point you must be one-eyed.
The POINT was your mate said £10m and I proved -easily that Norwich, the first club I looked at did it for significantly less. SImple really.


FINALLY !

So you now state that Swansea's bonuses were £7m ish - so you would still have made a loss ? Even after the bonus of the play-off semi (worth appx £500k), so no wonder you wouldn't post the figure, again it backs up what I said that you would have made a loss without it. Another article actually stated the loss as £11.2m but without the accounts I won't be able to see why Maybe next time we debate this I'll invest the effort into getting the accounts.

Even with a loss of £1-£2m or whatever you would have had to cut costs, and with players out of contract it would have been tougher for you the next season to break even. As it is you went up, so we will never know, but really you should admit I have a point. Your mate has abandoned you -out of his depth

As for us, CCFC we've been badly run for years and would have made a huge loss- like QPR (take a look), but I can't see anyone holding us up as an example

Anyway off to bed before I'm divorced.

I've missed out on my footy teams big night out tonight, as I've got a kidney infection so 12 pints wouldn't have been a good move, might explain my argumentative mood.

Next time you want to debate it I would indeed you suggest getting the accounts as then it can actually be an informed debate rather than this nonsense. Especially you you seem to completely misunderstand how Swansea City is run.

mmmmm no idea who is right/wrong but swans accounts seem to be unclear to say the least! recently didnt you want to borrow 3mil until january ? this was explained away as being sound buisness sense, by a swans fan! why use own money which can earn interest in clubs bank! better to borrow it and pay interest on whats borrowed! mmm is that good practice? anyway just thought i would add my pennies worth to debate before bed

Thanks for your contribution.

In the morning look up cashflow

Push the button

"I can't debate, get rid" boo hoo

How do you know what that even means, thought you were new?

You're tripping yourself up, you weird and odious little creep.

You only discovered this board 4 months ago then? 1700 posts? Really?

Haha chuckles, are both of the account yours, play acting here?

I think £10m is more than a fair bench mark. You have picked 3 of the 4 lowest payers and spender that have been promoted in recent history (Burnley being the other) and we have got an average figure of around £7 million odd between them.

If you took an average promotion cost of all the promoted teams in the last 5 years it's pretty obvious that it will be around and probably above the conservative £10m stated going what we know of the bottom end of the scale.

Allen-

The figures are not unclear at all. Which part is confusing you and ill try and explain the best I can.
As for the loan. It's a cash flow loan. If a company makes £14m profit as Swansea have, it won't be sat under the mattress. It will be in a high interest account earning more money. The thing with these accounts however usually come with withdrawal limits and if you are to touch the money put in then you can lose the interest for that year and at very least that month.
It makes far better financial sense to take a loan out for a month and pay the interest on £3m rather than take your own money out and lose the interest of £14m

I think £10m is more than a fair bench mark. You have picked 3 of the 4 lowest payers and spender that have been promoted in recent history (Burnley being the other) and we have got an average figure of around £7 million odd between them.

If you took an average promotion cost of all the promoted teams in the last 5 years it's pretty obvious that it will be around and probably above the conservative £10m stated going what we know of the bottom end of the scale.

Jesus. New account and you are still trying to justify your bollox.

You didn't state average. You said all.

You know you are wrong so stop squirming.

God if you still miss the point you must be one-eyed.
The POINT was your mate said £10m and I proved -easily that Norwich, the first club I looked at did it for significantly less. SImple really.


FINALLY !

So you now state that Swansea's bonuses were £7m ish - so you would still have made a loss ? Even after the bonus of the play-off semi (worth appx £500k), so no wonder you wouldn't post the figure, again it backs up what I said that you would have made a loss without it. Another article actually stated the loss as £11.2m but without the accounts I won't be able to see why Maybe next time we debate this I'll invest the effort into getting the accounts.

Even with a loss of £1-£2m or whatever you would have had to cut costs, and with players out of contract it would have been tougher for you the next season to break even. As it is you went up, so we will never know, but really you should admit I have a point. Your mate has abandoned you -out of his depth

As for us, CCFC we've been badly run for years and would have made a huge loss- like QPR (take a look), but I can't see anyone holding us up as an example

Anyway off to bed before I'm divorced.

I've missed out on my footy teams big night out tonight, as I've got a kidney infection so 12 pints wouldn't have been a good move, might explain my argumentative mood.

Next time you want to debate it I would indeed you suggest getting the accounts as then it can actually be an informed debate rather than this nonsense. Especially you you seem to completely misunderstand how Swansea City is run.

I was being kind then.

As I've been proved right on the point I was arguing I don't need anything of the sort.

In future you should choose who you back up more carefully , rather than just blindly backing up someone who posts something which might mildly back your position up. So you can shove your suggestion where the sun doesn't shine.

'Misunderstand how Swansea is run'..... don't be a cock. FFS its not Microsoft.

All a bit of a waste of time when you think £6m is £10m

By the way...Reading are another who went up with a smaller loss than you.

Allen-

The figures are not unclear at all. Which part is confusing you and ill try and explain the best I can.
As for the loan. It's a cash flow loan. If a company makes £14m profit as Swansea have, it won't be sat under the mattress. It will be in a high interest account earning more money. The thing with these accounts however usually come with withdrawal limits and if you are to touch the money put in then you can lose the interest for that year and at very least that month.
It makes far better financial sense to take a loan out for a month and pay the interest on £3m rather than take your own money out and lose the interest of £14m

There were loans made in the year you were in the Championship - the year you went up.

Truth is, there WAS an element of gamble that year, but it was covered by Morgan, and paid off after promotion. Its unlikely it would have been if you hadn't gone up.

He clearly was happy to loan it, at the time, but may well have wanted it back the season after. It most likely would have meant a cut in the wage bill for the next season or sales of players -or manager (which had helped to balance the books in previous years).

Its crazy how neither you nor NJ73 are prepared to accept ANY question of HJ even though he screwed his own company over when he had to work without the backing of Morgan and others, and when the evidence is there for all to see.

God if you still miss the point you must be one-eyed.
The POINT was your mate said £10m and I proved -easily that Norwich, the first club I looked at did it for significantly less. SImple really.


FINALLY !

So you now state that Swansea's bonuses were £7m ish - so you would still have made a loss ? Even after the bonus of the play-off semi (worth appx £500k), so no wonder you wouldn't post the figure, again it backs up what I said that you would have made a loss without it. Another article actually stated the loss as £11.2m but without the accounts I won't be able to see why Maybe next time we debate this I'll invest the effort into getting the accounts.

Even with a loss of £1-£2m or whatever you would have had to cut costs, and with players out of contract it would have been tougher for you the next season to break even. As it is you went up, so we will never know, but really you should admit I have a point. Your mate has abandoned you -out of his depth

As for us, CCFC we've been badly run for years and would have made a huge loss- like QPR (take a look), but I can't see anyone holding us up as an example

Anyway off to bed before I'm divorced.

I've missed out on my footy teams big night out tonight, as I've got a kidney infection so 12 pints wouldn't have been a good move, might explain my argumentative mood.

Next time you want to debate it I would indeed you suggest getting the accounts as then it can actually be an informed debate rather than this nonsense. Especially you you seem to completely misunderstand how Swansea City is run.

I was being kind then.

As I've been proved right on the point I was arguing I don't need anything of the sort.

In future you should choose who you back up more carefully , rather than just blindly backing up someone who posts something which might mildly back your position up. So you can shove your suggestion where the sun doesn't shine.

'Misunderstand how Swansea is run'..... don't be a cock. FFS its not Microsoft.

All a bit of a waste of time when you think £6m is £10m

By the way...Reading are another who went up with a smaller loss than you.

Reading's loss included £5m + of player depreciation.

I'm not wrong at all. There was a debate about how much clubs pay when promoted due to the £8.2m loss Swansea made. I said that £10m is what clubs pay when they go up, which is true. You have picked the lowest payers in modern history to try and disprove it.

Why you are so annoyed by Huw Jenkins I don't know. What his previous business was like is of no concern, Alan sugar has had some businesses fail, Richard Branson the same. In fact even closer to home so has Tan. Swansea have been run exemplary, and the fact you have changed your whole argument over the course of this thread and it now clinging on that mystical £10m mark (which was and still is a more than fair benchmark figure) says it all about exactly how well he has done.

Push the button

"I can't debate, get rid" boo hoo

How do you know what that even means, thought you were new?

You're tripping yourself up, you weird and odious little creep.

You only discovered this board 4 months ago then? 1700 posts? Really?

Haha chuckles, are both of the account yours, play acting here?

No.

Jesus Christ, he's got another account.

I'm not wrong at all. There was a debate about how much clubs pay when promoted due to the £8.2m loss Swansea made. I said that £10m is what clubs pay when they go up, which is true. You have picked the lowest payers in modern history to try and disprove it.

Why you are so annoyed by Huw Jenkins I don't know. What his previous business was like is of no concern, Alan sugar has had some businesses fail, Richard Branson the same. In fact even closer to home so has Tan. Swansea have been run exemplary, and the fact you have changed your whole argument over the course of this thread and it now clinging on that mystical £10m mark (which was and still is a more than fair benchmark figure) says it all about exactly how well he has done.

This is your statement

'Every club that goes up will have to pay £10 million + '

My oringinal argument -and you might need to look back was
'Every club £10m what a load of bollox..... It will vary considerably from club to club and player to player.'

Yet after 3 examples proving me right and you of this being incorrect you are still not admitting its a lie.

FFS, your a saddo who goes on another teams board pretending to be a fan of their club and when you are shown up as a bullshitter you still can't admit you are wrong.

Even one of your fellow Jacks has PM'd me saying what a tosser you are


As for Jenkins -of course its relevent - if he could feck up a builder's merchants before things got really bad too then it hardly makes him businessman of the year

Nope sorry, I'm more than happy with my deduction that clubs will have to pay that figure. As with everything there are exceptions to that but the average will be above the figure I gave.

As for the insults, ill pass on the retort. I'm sure you know me well enough to know I don't care what anyone thinks of me. Ill continue to give my opinion regardless

So now we have established the swans loss was mainly made up by the cost of promotion what shall we discuss now?

Nope sorry, I'm more than happy with my deduction that clubs will have to pay that figure. As with everything there are exceptions to that but the average will be above the figure I gave.

As for the insults, ill pass on the retort. I'm sure you know me well enough to know I don't care what anyone thinks of me. Ill continue to give my opinion regardless

So now we have established the swans loss was mainly made up by the cost of promotion what shall we discuss now?

I don't think I do know you. Although I'm certain that you are a poster who changes his name every few weeks and bounces around CCFC messageboards pretending to be a Cardiff fan, but is clearly a Jack.

What I do know is you make a statement, which is easily exposed as a lie and then won't admit it, so you aren't much of a man.

Exception - 3 very recent examples - over 2 seasons, is half the teams that went up over that period !

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

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

So you've admitted yourself that it's not always 10 million..

Please, take some effort into your trolling. It's getting easy now.

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

So you've admitted yourself that it's not always 10 million..

Please, take some effort into your trolling. It's getting easy now.

No not always.

However the vast majority of teams will pay around that figure so it's a decent benchmark. Swans paid £7.6m I think, that's close enough to my £10 for me and they were notoriously low spenders and payers.

If you aren't happy with it then thats fine

I'm happy with the fact you've admitted you were wrong.

Close enough?! I'm glad you're not my "Financial Advisor"

I'm happy with the fact you've admitted you were wrong.

Close enough?! I'm glad you're not my "Financial Advisor"

No not wrong. I'm happy with my figure. I'm sure that would be the average figure every club will pay if every club promoted is taken into account.

As I said if your not happy with it then thats fine

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.

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.

I'm happy with the fact you've admitted you were wrong.

Close enough?! I'm glad you're not my "Financial Advisor"

No not wrong. I'm happy with my figure. I'm sure that would be the average figure every club will pay if every club promoted is taken into account.

As I said if your not happy with it then thats fine

That's not what you said though.

Keep digging pal.

I'm happy with the fact you've admitted you were wrong.

Close enough?! I'm glad you're not my "Financial Advisor"

No not wrong. I'm happy with my figure. I'm sure that would be the average figure every club will pay if every club promoted is taken into account.

As I said if your not happy with it then thats fine

That's not what you said though.

Keep digging pal.

Didnt realise my every word would be clung to. I said £10 m is the figure and I'm sure that's what the average amount every club will pay as we are at around the £7m mark now and we are talking about the clubs with the smallest budgets. Not much to argue about I'm afraid.

Well, you were wrong.

Thanks Adam.

Well, you were wrong.

Thanks Adam.

If it makes you happy. Annis has said that I shouldn't discuss anything g else with you, if you wish to throw petty insults then pm me. I'm here to talk football.

And it seems that Swansea's loss was down to the promotion bonuses as I've said.

Well, you were wrong.

Thanks Adam.

If it makes you happy. Annis has said that I shouldn't discuss anything g else with you, if you wish to throw petty insults then pm me. I'm here to talk football.

And it seems that Swansea's loss was down to the promotion bonuses as I've said.

Not totally.

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