Club accounts up to 30th June 2023

Rob7Lee said:

The championship is a whole other level of financial pain if you want to be competitive.

"Millwall has lost more than £137 million since the Club started trading. Championship is the most brutal division in football with all 24 clubs losing money in day to day basis & losses averaging £400k+ a week"

And there's the rub.  Most Charlton fans would have been delighted to be challenging for the championship top six and "sod the cost" but cost it does.

So while Charlton are failing both on the pitch AND financially are the Scottish East Enders deemed a success or not?

Huskaris said:

I find it baffling that this situation even exists. 

It's not like if these guys weren't footballers they would be earning 6 figures somewhere else...

If all clubs just decided to live within their means collectively, all clubs would be fine because the driver of it all is paying players far more than those people would actually get up and work 

Bizarre comment. 

blackpool72 said:

Rob7Lee said:

The championship is a whole other level of financial pain if you want to be competitive.

This is of course true. 
But if you get it right the rewards of Premier league football makes it worth it.

For the players…

Not sure many owners ever get to cash in though. 

Huskaris said:

MrOneLung said:

Huskaris said:

I find it baffling that this situation even exists. 

It's not like if these guys weren't footballers they would be earning 6 figures somewhere else...

If all clubs just decided to live within their means collectively, all clubs would be fine because the driver of it all is paying players far more than those people would actually get up and work 

Bizarre comment. 

Imagine how cheap it would be to make a film and how little you could charge the cinema going public if people like Tom Cruise didn’t get paid millions of pounds. Not like he would earn same if he was a shop assistant. 

Right, but the films still make big profits don't they? If Tom Cruise was regularly paid more than the entire film was earning in revenue, they wouldn't keep making films, or Tom Cruise would be paid less going forward. 

I can't think of many other industries (don't get industries confused with where a firm is in the lifecycle eg funding losses early on through venture capital/private equity for future growth) where there is a systematic loss built in. 

Not bizarre, economics :-)

Movies and football are a very good analogy, as @MrOneLung points out. 

The top movie stars (e.g. Tom Cruise) get paid enormous amounts, and their movies invariably turn profits. But most movies don't make money, in the same way that most football clubs don't make money.  

And, when I say "most films" don't make money, it's the vast majority: somewhere in the region of 80%.  And, for "independent" movies, it's closer to 90%.  

If there's an analogy between blockbuster movies and the Premier League teams (where the star of the movie and the best players get paid eye-watering amounts of money), there's also an analogy between independent movies and the EFL (where the cast and crew of the movie get paid more than the movie takes at the theatre; and the players get paid more than the revenue derived from attendance).  

Further, while every Premier League and EFL team gets to play in front of paying audiences to drive (pretty much) guaranteed revenue, the majority of movies don't get a theatrical release: in other words, no-one ever pays to go and see the movie at a cinema.  

Most movies lose money; most football clubs lose money.  But there's another similarity.  Most movies are made because the movie-maker has a passion to get the work done, to release the movie and for others to see the artistic work he or she creates.  And most football clubs are owned by people who have - to some extent - owners with a passion to "create" football that outweighs their inability to drive profits from doing so.  

I think @MrOneLung has it spot on. 

Chizz said:

Huskaris said:

MrOneLung said:

Huskaris said:

I find it baffling that this situation even exists. 

It's not like if these guys weren't footballers they would be earning 6 figures somewhere else...

If all clubs just decided to live within their means collectively, all clubs would be fine because the driver of it all is paying players far more than those people would actually get up and work 

Bizarre comment. 

Imagine how cheap it would be to make a film and how little you could charge the cinema going public if people like Tom Cruise didn’t get paid millions of pounds. Not like he would earn same if he was a shop assistant. 

Right, but the films still make big profits don't they? If Tom Cruise was regularly paid more than the entire film was earning in revenue, they wouldn't keep making films, or Tom Cruise would be paid less going forward. 

I can't think of many other industries (don't get industries confused with where a firm is in the lifecycle eg funding losses early on through venture capital/private equity for future growth) where there is a systematic loss built in. 

Not bizarre, economics :-)

Movies and football are a very good analogy, as @MrOneLung points out. 

The top movie stars (e.g. Tom Cruise) get paid enormous amounts, and their movies invariably turn profits. But most movies don't make money, in the same way that most football clubs don't make money.  

And, when I say "most films" don't make money, it's the vast majority: somewhere in the region of 80%.  And, for "independent" movies, it's closer to 90%.  

If there's an analogy between blockbuster movies and the Premier League teams (where the star of the movie and the best players get paid eye-watering amounts of money), there's also an analogy between independent movies and the EFL (where the cast and crew of the movie get paid more than the movie takes at the theatre; and the players get paid more than the revenue derived from attendance).  

Further, while every Premier League and EFL team gets to play in front of paying audiences to drive (pretty much) guaranteed revenue, the majority of movies don't get a theatrical release: in other words, no-one ever pays to go and see the movie at a cinema.  

Most movies lose money; most football clubs lose money.  But there's another similarity.  Most movies are made because the movie-maker has a passion to get the work done, to release the movie and for others to see the artistic work he or she creates.  And most football clubs are owned by people who have - to some extent - owners with a passion to "create" football that outweighs their inability to drive profits from doing so.  

I think @MrOneLung has it spot on. 

But who funds ‘most movies’ by comparison?

Looking back at the Clear Ocean Capital accounts for the previous season (the latest ones have been put back 3 months with the period extended to 30 September 2023) showed that Op Expenses of £19,934k for 21/22 included £11,535k for staff costs; and that the year on year increase of £7,152k was primarily due to the previous year being played behind closed doors and 21/22 having fans back in the stadium; but that only £1.4m of that was for an increase in matchday operational costs; and £2m had been ‘football overheads’ so there’s another £3.7m ‘fans back in the stadium’ increase season on season not explained. 

letthegoodtimesroll said:

Looking back at the Clear Ocean Capital accounts for the previous season (the latest ones have been put back 3 months with the period extended to 30 September 2023) showed that Op Expenses of £19,934k for 21/22 included £11,535k for staff costs; and that the year on year increase of £7,152k was primarily due to the previous year being played behind closed doors and 21/22 having fans back in the stadium; but that only £1.4m of that was for an increase in matchday operational costs; and £2m had been ‘football overheads’ so there’s another £3.7m ‘fans back in the stadium’ increase season on season not explained. 

Did the Pompey Op expenses figures include staff costs ?

yes

Chizz said:

valleynick66 said:

Chizz said:

Huskaris said:

MrOneLung said:

Huskaris said:

I find it baffling that this situation even exists. 

It's not like if these guys weren't footballers they would be earning 6 figures somewhere else...

If all clubs just decided to live within their means collectively, all clubs would be fine because the driver of it all is paying players far more than those people would actually get up and work 

Bizarre comment. 

Imagine how cheap it would be to make a film and how little you could charge the cinema going public if people like Tom Cruise didn’t get paid millions of pounds. Not like he would earn same if he was a shop assistant. 

Right, but the films still make big profits don't they? If Tom Cruise was regularly paid more than the entire film was earning in revenue, they wouldn't keep making films, or Tom Cruise would be paid less going forward. 

I can't think of many other industries (don't get industries confused with where a firm is in the lifecycle eg funding losses early on through venture capital/private equity for future growth) where there is a systematic loss built in. 

Not bizarre, economics :-)

Movies and football are a very good analogy, as @MrOneLung points out. 

The top movie stars (e.g. Tom Cruise) get paid enormous amounts, and their movies invariably turn profits. But most movies don't make money, in the same way that most football clubs don't make money.  

And, when I say "most films" don't make money, it's the vast majority: somewhere in the region of 80%.  And, for "independent" movies, it's closer to 90%.  

If there's an analogy between blockbuster movies and the Premier League teams (where the star of the movie and the best players get paid eye-watering amounts of money), there's also an analogy between independent movies and the EFL (where the cast and crew of the movie get paid more than the movie takes at the theatre; and the players get paid more than the revenue derived from attendance).  

Further, while every Premier League and EFL team gets to play in front of paying audiences to drive (pretty much) guaranteed revenue, the majority of movies don't get a theatrical release: in other words, no-one ever pays to go and see the movie at a cinema.  

Most movies lose money; most football clubs lose money.  But there's another similarity.  Most movies are made because the movie-maker has a passion to get the work done, to release the movie and for others to see the artistic work he or she creates.  And most football clubs are owned by people who have - to some extent - owners with a passion to "create" football that outweighs their inability to drive profits from doing so.  

I think @MrOneLung has it spot on. 

But who funds ‘most movies’ by comparison?

Complex, multi-participant, disparate groups of (often American), wealthy shareholders.  Whereas football clubs...

BUT...the difference is films are funded as one off / individual projects. Separate legal entities created just for 1 film so that the 'investors' recognise the speculative nature of what they are supporting.

For Football its  a multi year commitment and ongoing costs and you are bound by the rules of FFP (or equivalent). But in film the wealthy guys are simply taking a one off punt - albeit with a risk the film runs out of money begore its finished.

That's why I don't really agree with the analogy - it is not comparable albeit I agree wit the sentiment football is expensive because we overpay too many players.

blackpool72 said:

EveshamAddick said:

blackpool72 said:

Rob7Lee said:

The championship is a whole other level of financial pain if you want to be competitive.

This is of course true. 
But if you get it right the rewards of Premier league football makes it worth it.

What rewards would they be - given that all bar 3 of the Prem have lost money (and lost more than us!).

The value of the club.
Reach the premier league and you could sell at a profit. 

But few clubs are actually sold at a profit on reaching the PL in reality.

Rob7Lee said:

Henry Irving said:

AFKABartram said:

If you want a comparative, look at Administrative Expenses

Oxford - £5.4m,
Portsmouth - £4.5m
Bolton - £9.1m
Peterborough’s £12.1m
Derby -£13.4m 
Charlton - £19.9m

Derby’s turnover is more than double ours though

Not seen the other club's accounts but our "administrative costs" appear to cover everything bar transfers.

Is that the same in other accounts?

Portsmouth is one I look at each year.

For 2022 their turnover was £12m (£12.5m for 23), cost of sales of £9.3m (10.5m for 23) with a further £2.7m (£2m for 23) Op expenses, so broadly break even. About a 3m loss after amortisation etc, 23 was broadly the same figure.

But their Turnover is a third more than ours, expenses on a like for like are £12m v's nearly £20m. They also have a decent amount of fixed asset of just over £20m (£28m for 23), compared to our £2m.

Whilst we are a London club and therefore just like any other profession cost of living in London means generally higher salaries, that's a huge difference to ultimately fall short of them on the pitch. 

We also have 60 more staff........

Academy?

Given that EFL Lge 1 clubs are prohibited (on pain of points deductions and financial penalties) from spending more on wages than 60% of Operating turnover plus 100% of player sales revenue
How is CAFC faring if its wages bill has been more than total turnover for the last several years?
Has the new ownership group got a massive headache in that area, since they're not allowed to fund any shortfall with borrowings ("debt" eg bank loans) they have to fund it with equity i.e. put more cash in by buying more shares which gives them absolutely zero security they'd get any of it back? 

Rob7Lee said:

Airman Brown said:

Rob7Lee said:

Henry Irving said:

AFKABartram said:

If you want a comparative, look at Administrative Expenses

Oxford - £5.4m,
Portsmouth - £4.5m
Bolton - £9.1m
Peterborough’s £12.1m
Derby -£13.4m 
Charlton - £19.9m

Derby’s turnover is more than double ours though

Not seen the other club's accounts but our "administrative costs" appear to cover everything bar transfers.

Is that the same in other accounts?

Portsmouth is one I look at each year.

For 2022 their turnover was £12m (£12.5m for 23), cost of sales of £9.3m (10.5m for 23) with a further £2.7m (£2m for 23) Op expenses, so broadly break even. About a 3m loss after amortisation etc, 23 was broadly the same figure.

But their Turnover is a third more than ours, expenses on a like for like are £12m v's nearly £20m. They also have a decent amount of fixed asset of just over £20m (£28m for 23), compared to our £2m.

Whilst we are a London club and therefore just like any other profession cost of living in London means generally higher salaries, that's a huge difference to ultimately fall short of them on the pitch. 

We also have 60 more staff........

Academy?

Portsmouth have an academy as well.

It’s Category 3, which will have significantly fewer staff.

Rob7Lee said:

Airman Brown said:

Rob7Lee said:

Airman Brown said:

Rob7Lee said:

Henry Irving said:

AFKABartram said:

If you want a comparative, look at Administrative Expenses

Oxford - £5.4m,
Portsmouth - £4.5m
Bolton - £9.1m
Peterborough’s £12.1m
Derby -£13.4m 
Charlton - £19.9m

Derby’s turnover is more than double ours though

Not seen the other club's accounts but our "administrative costs" appear to cover everything bar transfers.

Is that the same in other accounts?

Portsmouth is one I look at each year.

For 2022 their turnover was £12m (£12.5m for 23), cost of sales of £9.3m (10.5m for 23) with a further £2.7m (£2m for 23) Op expenses, so broadly break even. About a 3m loss after amortisation etc, 23 was broadly the same figure.

But their Turnover is a third more than ours, expenses on a like for like are £12m v's nearly £20m. They also have a decent amount of fixed asset of just over £20m (£28m for 23), compared to our £2m.

Whilst we are a London club and therefore just like any other profession cost of living in London means generally higher salaries, that's a huge difference to ultimately fall short of them on the pitch. 

We also have 60 more staff........

Academy?

Portsmouth have an academy as well.

It’s Category 3, which will have significantly fewer staff.

But would it account for the 60 staff differential and a large part of the expenses difference? I don't know, but they still have a turnover roughly 1/3rd greater than ours as well as a lot less expense. Also not sure our CAT 2 when you also include the likely cost to run has faired that much better than their Cat 3.

Attract more fans, sell more refreshments, programmes, merchandise and get enough fans coming along and you don’t need to give so many tickets away for free.