Just got hold of the accounts for 2009

 

Loss of ?13.2m compared to loss of ?8.1m for 2008

 

Group Turnover ?59.3m slightly up

 

Football Operations Turnover ?51.3m (up 3%)

 

Gate receipts down ?5.2m

 

Corporate hospitality ?1.8m down 22%

 

Attendances 22,845 (increase of 8%)

 

?49 season ticket for children increase ST kids numbers by 53%

 

Average ticket price ?11.29 (?13.63 last year)

 

Players bought ?5,079,067 players sold ?9,648,730

 

 

Of note, and I'm not an accountant

 

"Going concern

 

In ensuring that the group has sufficient liquid resources to meet its liabilities as they fall due, the directors have reviewed in detail the business's cash flow projections....they show a shortfall in the current level of facilities. However, the directors are currently in discussions with lenders regarding the potential securitisation of future guaranteed broadcast revenues"

 

Duckworth pay ?483,000 (up from ?376,000)

 

More to follow

In fairness, we don't know what goes on behind the scenes.

 

We have no idea what Gartside & Duckworth do for their pay.

For all we know, they might be underpaid.

I would imagine Eddie Davies is happy with the running of the club otherwise he would not sanction these payments and would get rid of the pair of them, therefore one could conclude that they are doing a good job.

 

sanity

In fairness, we don't know what goes on behind the scenes.

 

We have no idea what Gartside & Duckworth do for their pay.

For all we know, they might be underpaid.

 

indeed

 

without them we MIGHT have lost 50 million last year

 

none of us know

 

ED is nearer to it and he paid them a bonus

Sorted: Pinks playing at the ground next summer. Job well done to Mr Gartsides team getting her there.

That should sweeten the pill

In fairness, we don't know what goes on behind the scenes.

 

We have no idea what Gartside & Duckworth do for their pay.

For all we know, they might be underpaid.

We could end up like Charlton if it wasnt for Gartys mob.

in comparison to other league chairmen, I'm sure garty is. At the end of the day what's 100k here or there in relation to the millions being dealt with.

Peter Kenyon was on ?2m a year basic at Chelsea, before any bonuses.

Charlton's Richard Murray is on the minimum wage.

Some great posts on here today - I think Wways is getting back to its best

 

Anyway...

 

Suprised some of you think it is not a worry that we are securing loans on future TV payments. Leeds were one of the first clubs to use this, the clubs who do, are usually in trouble. The cash you get upfront is less than you would get if you waited as there is an element of risk for the loan provider (club may be relegated, Sky go out of business, Eddie die with no life assurance, etc)

 

If we went down, we may well not get a parachute payment as it will go to loan provider then we are left with at maximum ?5m gate income and ?60m debts. Eddie has about ?90m from the last Sunday Times Rich List, which isn't a great deal of cash (relatively speaking) so if we can't move players on or get promoted we are really, really in trouble

 

I now know why Gartside employed Megson. Gartside knew what was coming and to be fair, has done a good job keeping us in the Prem, he knew we would be on a downward spiral after Big Sam and he wanted someone who was a lad, who would take the shit off the fans, but who would not throw his toys out of the pram when told there is fcuk all cash (ala O'Leary) and would be grateful for the job

 

When you make a profit on transfers of ?4m yet lose an extra ?5m, it speaks volumes about our immediate transfer kitty.

Megson has spent nowt in the summer because he now clearly had nowt to play with and he will have only pennies to spend in January unless he sells Cahill

Some great posts on here today - I think Wways is getting back to its best

 

Anyway...

 

club may be relegated, Sky go out of business, Eddie die with no life assurance, etc)

 

You missed out the earth being hit by an asteroid.

 

We aren't much different to all Premiership clubs and in a better position than quite a few..

 

We are reliant on Eddie Davies who owns the club and seems to have got some funding when the banks want out of football.

 

Thank goodness that he is there. If so, I can't get too worked up.

phil gartside takes ?584k this year from the loss making football club he is a fan of?

 

personally i'd like to hear him justify that

phil gartside takes ?584k this year from the loss making football club he is a fan of?

 

personally i'd like to hear him justify that

 

Why?

 

It's his salary, he doesn't award it to himself. If you want it justifying, Mr Davies is your man.

But as already said on here, ED seems happy with the job done by PG.

 

 

Because the club makes a loss, should PG work for nothing?

phil gartside takes ?584k,

 

That has to be the sickest joke since seeing croziers wage at the Royal Mail.

phil gartside takes ?584k,

 

That has to be the sickest joke since seeing croziers wage at the Royal Mail.

 

Really?

 

Quite a large chunk of that was deferred pay that the club owed him.

I think Mr. Davies is a very shrewd business man and knows exactly what he is doing

Really?

 

Quite a large chunk of that was deferred pay that the club owed him.

[/quote

 

Why compare kenyon to gartside?

 

Is the fucker worth 584K?

 

yes or no will do.

yes.

Ha! no wonder football is fucked.

member no. what exactly.

Ha! no wonder football is fucked.

member no. what exactly.

 

Pardon?

Eddie has about ?90m from the last Sunday Times Rich List...

 

You're out of date Hutch - he's only worth ?65 million these days.

 

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/busi...icle6146531.ece

Really?

 

Quite a large chunk of that was deferred pay that the club owed him.

 

Why compare kenyon to gartside?

 

Is the fucker worth 584K?

 

yes or no will do.

 

You're new so I'll humour you. Young un by any chance?

 

Phil Gartside has presided over the most successful period in the clubs history post 1958. There is an argument to say it is the most successful period, even though it's been trophyless unlike earlier eras. As many have found out, merely surviving in the Premier League is no mean feat and when you look at things like qualification for Europe and a sustained period in the most diificult league to survive in anywhere in the world, I don't think there is any doubt that the man is worth whatever Eddie Davies sees fit to pay him.

 

As already pointed out, some of it is deferred pay anyway.

 

The only possible explanations for Gartside haters are 1) Never experienced the doldrum years, 2) Missed out on a free drink in Belgrade or 3) Because he appointed Gary Megson.

 

Which is it in your case?

Suprised some of you think it is not a worry that we are securing loans on future TV payments. Leeds were one of the first clubs to use this, the clubs who do, are usually in trouble. The cash you get upfront is less than you would get if you waited as there is an element of risk for the loan provider (club may be relegated, Sky go out of business, Eddie die with no life assurance, etc)

 

If we went down, we may well not get a parachute payment as it will go to loan provider

 

We get roughly ?32 million from Sky in the Premier LEague

We would get roughly ?16 million each of the first two seasons out of the Premier League

 

You seriously think Bolton would pay ?16 million fees to pay a loan on the ?32 million? ::

I think Mr. Davies is a very shrewd business man and knows exactly what he is doing

 

Exactly. You dont get rich being stupid, unless your Paris Hilton.

Phil Gartside has presided over the most successful period in the clubs history post 1958.

 

 

Why was finishing 16th and 13th under Megson more successful than finishing 4th in 1959 and 6th in 1960?