grasshopper 12:13 Wed Sep 29
£150m debt
|
|
https://www.google.no/amp/s/www.westhamzone.com/news/david-sullivan-west-ham-are-150m-in-debt/%3famp
Blaming COVID, yet we seem to be the only club complaining.
|
|
|
Replies - Newest Posts First ( Show In Chronological Order)
Full Claret Jacket
1:12 Fri Oct 1
Re: £150m debt
|
TV Money has pretty much all gone into the players and agents pockets. I bet if you compare wage bills with 2010 then it is obscene.TV money is no longer going up and players still want more money.
Fans of course all want the good players paid more so they don't leave.
|
Westside
11:29 Fri Oct 1
Re: £150m debt
|
Turnover in 2010
£71.7 million
Turnover in 2019
£190.7 million
Very little to do with the owners, but the collective bargaining of the Premier League, selling TV rights.
Our TV income 2010 £39 million, 2019, £127 million.
|
Westside
11:24 Fri Oct 1
Re: £150m debt
|
Westside
The player contracts would sit as a liability surely?
The outstanding salary aspect I mean
Would the future depreciation of each players value against his remaining contract too?
Crassus, players wages are charged to the profit and loss account as the fall due, they are not ever provided for as a liability. If a purchased player has "add ons", eg, a bonus for 100 appearances, winning a trophy (yeah right) or England caps, this would be noted in the accounts but not provided for.
When a player is purchased, his costs is written off, in equal annual instalments*, over the length of his contract. the un written off amount, sits as an asset in the accounts.
e.g, buy a £50 million player on a 5 year deal. Each year £10 million is charged to the profit and loss account ("amortised"). At the end of year one, the carrying value of his registration is £40 million. And so on each year. If sold before 5 years, there will be a profit or loss, depending on what he is sold for.
Home grown players e.g. Declan Rice, have no value in the accounts. So when he is sold, all the proceeds will be booked as profit.
Brown would always accentuate the negative, saying the cost of buying a player, is transfer fee and future salary.
The salary isn't all booked at once in the accounts, only when it's earned, but TB used his calculator, to try and dampen our transfer spending expectations.
He was sort of right, in that if you know you are spending £100 million a year on wages say, that money isn't available to pay for transfers. He seemed to conveniently ignore, future saved wages, on players we sold.
* Derby County have got into trouble, by predicting a "residual value" for purchased players, carrying on their balance sheet, thus reducing the amortisation, each year. Players will generally have such a value, but this is not allowed to done in the accounts of a football company, for players.
|
,
1:26 Fri Oct 1
Re: £150m debt
|
It’s not the debt that matters but rather the ability to service it.
|
Lee Trundle
9:05 Thu Sep 30
Re: £150m debt
|
Full Claret Jacket 8:43 Thu Sep 30
Congratulations to Tottenham for finally winning something!
|
Kaiser Zoso
8:50 Thu Sep 30
Re: £150m debt
|
Turnover in 2010
£71.7 million
Turnover in 2019
£190.7 million
|
Crassus
8:45 Thu Sep 30
Re: £150m debt
|
Westside
The player contracts would sit as a liability surely?
The outstanding salary aspect I mean
Would the future depreciation of each players value against his remaining contract too?
I remember Brown claiming all sorts of accounting wizardry by merely selling a players, removing their future salary liability, depreciation and with the added bonus of an inbound fee
|
Full Claret Jacket
8:43 Thu Sep 30
Re: £150m debt
|
Loads of clubs with way higher debt issues. People are just looking for things to whinge about. They want us to sign decent players but not increase debt. I'm afraid in football that's not how it works and why top clubs have massive debts.
I'd be more worried if I was a supporter of many of these sides - particularly those borrowing from government to prop themselves up. Not sure why it isn't counted as state aid to be honest.
Position Club Debt
1 Tottenham £1.2 billion
2 Barcelona £1 billion
3 Atletico Madrid £804 million
4 Manchester United £771 million
5 Inter Milan £757 million
6 Juventus £752 million
7 Real Madrid £651 million
8 Arsenal £405 million
9 Liverpool £386 million
10 Everton £353 million
|
Westside
8:32 Thu Sep 30
Re: £150m debt
|
Isn't the debt higher now than when they bought the club and "saved it from administration"?
The Dildos bought us in January 2010. The May 2010 accounts, showed we had £13 million of net ASSETS. May 2020, net LIABILITIES of £85 million. So a near £100 million swing in 10 years.
Of which they have funded nearly half, with £44 million in loans (plus £9.5 million from another shareholder).
|
goose
4:58 Thu Sep 30
Re: £150m debt
|
Debt isn't necessarily a bad thing.
I have a problem with G&S charging the club interest on those debts (loans), and I have a problem with them lying about how we would be 'debt free' for the move to the LS.
Isn't the debt higher now than when they bought the club and "saved it from administration"?
|
Crassus
4:51 Thu Sep 30
Re: £150m debt
|
£150m debt
The context of that 'debt' would be interesting
If it's all liabilities then this has the whiff of the fabled Terry Brown calculator about it
The accounts will reveal more but I won't be loosing any sleep
|
Westside
3:35 Thu Sep 30
Re: £150m debt
|
Aren't you meant to use someone else's money? I
£44 million of it is their money (Gold and Sullivan), that they've lent the club.
Plus another £9.5 million, from another shareholder.
|
Pagey
11:18 Wed Sep 29
Re: £150m debt
|
I highly doubt that we’re the only club in the league who have had a bit of a whinge about the impact of Covid!
|
VirginiaHam
11:14 Wed Sep 29
Re: £150m debt
|
Aren't you meant to use someone else's money? If Spuds are GBP1.2 billion in debt, with Barcelona not far behind, what's the problem?
|
Rio or Anton or Les
10:54 Wed Sep 29
Re: £150m debt
|
Don't worry about the debt, its not our concern.
We are winning on the pitch.
We have upgraded our players.
Anderson/Haller/Reid (thank you)/ probably Yarmolenko/Lanzini on their way.
Vlasic/Benrahma/Zouma/Dawson plus other bargains in!
No need to moan about anything enjoy the ride.
|
Jasnik
9:54 Wed Sep 29
Re: £150m debt
|
I do find them having 3-4% loans very galling as they are just siphoning money out of WHU.
As surely in this day you could find a better rate than that?
|
Kaiser Zoso
9:30 Wed Sep 29
Re: £150m debt
|
Haller cost more than the Boleyn was sold for, so it wasn’t that much of an asset
|
Side of Ham
8:55 Wed Sep 29
Re: £150m debt
|
Fucking hell, as always our owners are fucking smalltime compared to Tottenham.......
|
Jaan Kenbrovin
8:51 Wed Sep 29
Re: £150m debt
|
In comparison Spurs have a 1.2 BILLION debt.
|
muskie
7:46 Wed Sep 29
Re: £150m debt
|
You should consider that they pledged to reduce the debt but in spite of selling off the clubs major asset they've massively increased it.
You should also consider that the main beneficiaries of the debt are themselves.
And some dimwits wonder why there are demonstrations.
|
Sven Roeder
12:47 Wed Sep 29
Re: £150m debt
|
How much of the £150m is external & how much owed to G&S?
If that bit is £100m
DR Shareholders Loans £100m
CR Issued Capital £100m
CRISIS OVER
|
| 
