Something that crops up in many debates is how our spending in the transfer market has gone over the last 5 years and several posters have asked me questions about this stuff.
This isn't a comparison between Megson and Coyle, but just to put the exact facts, from the last 5 years accounts and statements, out there and dispel any myths.
All figures relate to net player trading from Jun to Jun and summer and January transfer window spending is extrapolated, very accurately, from subsequent events that show net spending in the summer after balance sheets are produced in June, thus enabling an accurate spending figure for January from the following years player net trading figure.
The figures cannot indicate individual transfer figures, nor do they have to for financial purposes.
So after a few hours of headbending, here goes:
Jun 2007
Subsequent events - £5,064,277 (summer spending by Sammy Lee)
Jun 2008
Player trading - £347,000 profit (Jan spending from Megson £5,411,277 profit)
Sebsequent events - £1,002,000 profit (summer spending by Megson)
Jun 2009
Player trading - £4,644,000 loss
Subsequent events - £13,480,068 loss (summer spending by Megson)
Jun 2010
Player trading - £15,805,000 loss
Subsequent events - £3,358,000 loss
Jun 2011
Player trading - £13,067,000 loss
Subsequent events - £6,510,000
From these figures, net amounts spent by our managers are:
Sammy Lee - £5,064,277
Gary Megson - £12,712,791
Owen Coyle - £21,181,932
The figures include purchases, sales, "frees" & loan fees.
I'm pretty amazed at these figures but going off estimated sales (due to undisclosures) , Gary Megson sold 30.5m worth and Coyle has sold £8m worth.
Accurate spending figures
posted on 20/12/11
"posted 10 minutes ago
back to the point tho bricks
it doesnt reflect anybodies performance"
And it's not accurate... Which is the issue for people here...
posted on 20/12/11
1) & 2)
Jun 2007
Book value - £15,076,000
Directors estimated value - £39,100,000
Jun 2008
Book value - £35,008,000
Directors estimated value - £54,100,000
Jun 2009
Book value - £24,802,000
Directors estimated value - £66,050,000
Jun 2010
Book value - £24,091,000
Directors estimated value - £64,050,000
Jun 2011
Book value - £18,851,000
Directors estimated value - £61,500,000
5)
Staff wages upto
Jun 2006 - £28,553,000
Jun 2007 - £30,715,000
Jun 2008 - £39,033,000
Jun 2009 - £40,892,000
Jun 2010 - £54,971,000
Jun 2011 - £56,064,000
posted on 20/12/11
And it's not accurate... Which is the issue for people here...
---
Tell me what's not accurate Mallorca.
I've provided you with the figures that HMRC view as accurate & accurately reflect the payments from BWFC's bank account.
In Megson's tenure, £12,712,791 went walkies from our bank account overall on players.
In Coyle's tenure, £22,442,032, unless Megson sneeked into Gartsides office after he was binned to write checks.
posted on 20/12/11
Bricks,
'The amortisation costs I have provided are from section 6 of the financial statements "loss on ordinary activities before taxation" as "amortisation of intangible fixed assets".
Player trading is totally separate on the profit/loss statement.
Please don't make me scan these pages onto the site, but I will if you want me to.'
The player trading figures are jusrt a note to the accounts they form part of the overall loss.
The note a the bottom of page 14 expalins how they are made up and the figure includes amortisation.
Dont make me scan the accounts
I know what I'm talking about and I've no axe to grind here Bricks.
Anyway this is my last post on the subject. Off for pre game beers.
Apologies to anyone whose questions I could't get to.
posted on 20/12/11
Bricks, when I've got Roadrunner explaining it, I can confirm its not accurate..
He seems to know what he's on about fella..
posted on 20/12/11
The note a the bottom of page 14 expalins how they are made up and the figure includes amortisation.
---
The note at the bottom of page 14 states that it includes amortisation of aquiring players registrations.
posted on 20/12/11
RRVF
Goto 2010 pl.
2 columns
1st - Operations excluding player trading
2nd - Player trading
3rd - Total of these 2 which show our loss that year and hence our debt increase by £35,441,000
You should no that amortistion of player contracts is an operational loss and not a cost from player trading, I would have thought.
posted on 20/12/11
Player registrations appear on the balance sheet not players themselves.
It's not considered cricket for a business to own a person.
There's none so blind as those who will not see.
posted on 20/12/11
Bricks - mate you are entirely missing the point.
The figures are accurate, and yes hmrc and super duper deloittes agree that they are, but its what they represent that you are missing the point on. They do not reflect a managers performance.... a company i worked for made 16 million pound profit and 3 months later went into administration..... P&Ls rarely represent a businesses worth.
RRVM is qualified, im part qualified and we are both telling you that the figures do not support your perceived argument.
the fact that you say " left bwfcs bank account in the year" shows you know nothing about accounts.... you can make a profit in a year and actually be in a bad position. Exactly why accountants know that BWFC's loss of 35 mill or whatever it was, sounds worse than it actually is.
posted on 21/12/11
I cannot fathom how such a poorly constructed article has had so many comments.
In terms of the squads worth, that has nothing to do with Coyle, or as it disnt with Megson or Lee. Players amortisation reduces each year.
In terms of staff wages, they all started to rise incredibly under Megson, doubling from 2005-2009. But last year we had to pay off Riga an Shittu to end contracts and we also paid Megson and his backroom staff for 12 months aswell.
This figures have nothing to do with what your trying to say.. Your trying to say something but using something that isn't related to prove it.
Like me saying, I'm the best at football because Bricks likes cupcakes. Not really related. Good effort of putting the whole thing together, but unfortunately, the actual player by players stats would have been a more interesting article.