Jump to content
Neil G

Go fuck yourselves FSG

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, Barrington Womble said:

We've been through all this a million times on here. It's fucking tedious and everyone who wants to believe the club is lilly white, will continue to believe this. 


Delicious irony. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Scott_M said:


Delicious irony. 

It is isnt it? I mean someone posts on the interweb and it's taken they're an 'expert' on the subject matter? Yeah, I'll take it someone is an expert when they posting on Accounting Web or their accounting company's blog.

 

I dont think anyone claims the club is pure as the driven snow and it's a case of people producing facts that the club is up to 'fraudulent' activity. Because that's what manipulating accounts to hid money being taken out and presumably avoiding tax at the very least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, dockers_strike said:

I agree with your first bit. It's their company. They could take as much money out of it as they wanted, legally and just like the Glazers.

 

I personally think the breakdown of wages is a pipedream though. Why should the players or any individual have the amount they earn splattered all over the shop just to placate the people who claim our wage bill is inflated, ergo the players arent on big wedges?

 

Arent they allowed to have this stuff private (that's not a question directed at you)?

 

Many companies consider discussing how much you earn with colleagues to be a breach of confidential info. Yeah, in the case of mundane jobs we have or have had, it's a method for controlling wage inflation.

 

But, at the risk of repeating myself, I want to see hard evidence of financial misconduct within the club else I dont take on board what others say about an 'over inflated wage bill.'

 

Swiss Rambler does excellent analysise of club accounts but even he doesnt know how the club's performance related bonuses to the players is structured.

 

Some people still believed Wijnaldum was on the same 75 grand a week 5 years after he signed for us and despite being integral to the team that got to play in a Europa League Final, 2 Champions League Finals, winning one, finishing 2nd in the PL with a then club record points total, winning the PL the season after plus also winning the FIFA World Club Championship and UEFA Super Cup, the latter two likely having a far smaller bonus payment that the major achievements.

I don't think an itemised breakdown is what's being suggested, though may be wrong/can't speak for anyone else 

But do we even have a basic breakdown between, say, directors, management staff, coaching staff, playing staff, admin staff, match day staff?

If we do, great where?  If not then I think the wage bill is the crux of the matter, a lot can come under that heading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Moo said:

I don't think an itemised breakdown is what's being suggested, though may be wrong/can't speak for anyone else 

But do we even have a basic breakdown between, say, directors, management staff, coaching staff, playing staff, admin staff, match day staff?

If we do, great where?  If not then I think the wage bill is the crux of the matter, a lot can come under that heading.

They’d report how much they’re paying their directors, but probably wouldn’t split out the staff remuneration. What’s your concern?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, redinblack said:

I think the problem with audits are that they are only a fraction of the work, so if PWC, KPMG etc are auditing these big companies and also doing consulting and project work for the same client as well its going to be a big call for them to qualify an audit or say something bad. And has history has shown, they wont.

Over here the SEC has teeth, hence arthur andersens no longer exist for example.   Perhaps the UK is more laissez faire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, aRdja said:

They’d report how much they’re paying their directors, but probably wouldn’t split out the staff remuneration. What’s your concern?

That although they're not paying themselves in dividends (or a small amount), instead paying themselves a wage.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Moo said:

I don't think an itemised breakdown is what's being suggested, though may be wrong/can't speak for anyone else 

But do we even have a basic breakdown between, say, directors, management staff, coaching staff, playing staff, admin staff, match day staff?

If we do, great where?  If not then I think the wage bill is the crux of the matter, a lot can come under that heading.

Im no expert on company accounts. The accounts say the directors dont take a divi. The highest paid director is on about £1.3m according to page 25 of the accounts.

 

It's interesting to note of the £325m often quoted as 'the wage bill,' this is made up of £34m in Social Security and just over £2m 'pension costs.' The total wage bill is spread over nearly 900 people employed by the club but clearly, the lion's share of money will be taken by the players.

 

Current UK law is a company must file accounts. However, the law permits the general public to view or obtain abbreviated accounts only such as what you can get from the club or Companies House. The more detailed accounts are kept in house because the info is commercially sensitive.

 

That applies to all UK companies as far as Im aware although micro companies can be different.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Moo said:

That although they're not paying themselves in dividends (or a small amount), instead paying themselves a wage.  

It’ll be in the notes.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, m0e said:

Can anyone please sum this up for me?


Scott_M is getting paid by FSG to put their propaganda out on this and the transfer thread, but they don’t know that he’s using the fortune they’re paying him to buy blag football gear off DH Gate instead of official merchandise. If they find out there could be trouble ahead for our naughty little scamp.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, s(k)aturation said:

 

Our Boston chaps will be very happy to finish fourth.

 

 

Fourth is the new Fourth.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Anubis said:


Scott_M is getting paid by FSG to put their propaganda out on this and the transfer thread, but they don’t know that he’s using the fortune they’re paying him to buy blag football gear off DH Gate instead of official merchandise. If they find out there could be trouble ahead for our naughty little scamp.


Shit, I’ve been rumbled!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, aRdja said:

With all due real to FrenchEyeGlass that’s anecdotal, and the article you posted actually refutes that. Take EY for example, the FRC found 70% of their work are of satisfactory quality and require no improvements, (worth noting that only one audit was identified to require significant improvements, which equates to 7%,  source posted below). However that was deemed not quite good enough, and they were instructed to implement urgent improvements. If anything this should provide you with some comfort that their work gets reviewed regularly and very high standards are expected and applied.

 

https://www.accountancydaily.co/aqi-2020-frc-finds-third-audits-need-improvement

What's anecdotal? His job. Stop it,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Barrington Womble said:

With a wage bill of 326m and a turnover at 500m, it's pretty hard to understand how we're skint. The stadium extension costs about £10m a year iirc. What are the rest of the running costs from there? Maintain the stadium, run a training ground (I am not sure if that's been done on credit or not but it would seem surprising if it wasn't), run an office in town, run one in London - anything else? It's a pretty simple business model. We're doing something wrong somewhere. 

£130 million or so lost from COVID, plus another £120 million or so for the new Anny Road isn’t it?
Why is it so hard to understand how we’re skint?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Barrington Womble said:

What's anecdotal? His job. Stop it,

I’ve used the source you provided to refute the conclusion that “all accounts are useless”. It’s a very broad and bold statement. On their own they’re probably not very useful to make investment decisions as you need to understand key drivers behind the numbers. Salary costs or matchday income on the other hand are quite straightforward, no? The testing for rem costs should be quite straightforward too, as they’re all automated now with ERP systems like Workday, SAP and Oracle. You just pick a couple of transactions, check they system postings against the payslips and the bank statements.

 

Maybe just give me an idea as to what do you think they’ve done and for what purpose. Do you think they’ve inflated the salary costs and paid themselves? Is that it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Jose Jones said:

£130 million or so lost from COVID, plus another £120 million or so for the new Anny Road isn’t it?
Why is it so hard to understand how we’re skint?

 

So why were we skint before covid? We spent nothing after winning the European cup because we "had to pay the bills". In the 2 years we were supposedly skint pre-covid, we made 125m profit and 42m profit. 

 

The road end is 60m, but they're not paying that now, they're borrowing it (and so they should, borrowing is cheap at the moment). Even with revenues down because of covid in the latest accounts (including the end of the season being played in the financial year yet to be released), we still turned over 490m, with a wage bill of 326m.

 

It's a simple question, what's the rest going on? It's not a complex business model. We maintain a small office in town. An even smaller footprint in Bloomsbury. All of our non-playing wage bill including directors is included in the 326m.  We made enormous profits pre pandemic, yet we were skint then. 

 

Suck up the "we're skint" story if you like, I think it's fucking nonsense. 

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, aRdja said:

I’ve used the source you provided to refute the conclusion that “all accounts are useless”. It’s a very broad and bold statement. On their own they’re probably not very useful to make investment decisions as you need to understand key drivers behind the numbers. Salary costs or matchday income on the other hand are quite straightforward, no? The testing for rem costs should be quite straightforward too, as they’re all automated now with ERP systems like Workday, SAP and Oracle. You just pick a couple of transactions, check they system postings against the payslips and the bank statements.

 

Maybe just give me an idea as to what do you think they’ve done and for what purpose. Do you think they’ve inflated the salary costs and paid themselves? Is that it?

Those automated systems do not publish your accounts. You're thinking of accounting like a bank statement. The allocation of spend is human driven, computers don't do it. As I said before, I can't be bothered arguing about it. If accounts were worth the paper they're written on, companies like carrilion wouldn't have gone bust. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, construction is obviously the same as football, so that’s the end of that debate. 
 

Obviously every company in the world just does accounts for shit and giggles. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Jose Jones said:

£130 million or so lost from COVID, plus another £120 million or so for the new Anny Road isn’t it?
Why is it so hard to understand how we’re skint?

 


And the profits we made on the back of the CL win, probably covered the previous 10 years of losses. 

 

It really is that simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Rotpeter said:

Over here the SEC has teeth, hence arthur andersens no longer exist for example.   Perhaps the UK is more laissez faire.

We don't have any money to buy French players.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×