If we are successful it is fine. However when you don’t then we hit a buffer the TIA post above explains it better.
We also spent a fair bit that summer including a straight release clause deal for Dom. Effectively it’s why we didn’t do much last summer
We blew out the wage structure… but again, I believe it was necessary to keep a player of Mo’s caliber and to keep the club competitive and to climb back to the Champions League.
And while a £57M loss can’t be overlooked, we have also been relatively conservative with our spending over the years that we can still absorb this loss for now. And I believe we should continue to be prudent although that might mean the loss of a few players who might choose to go elsewhere for more money (i.e., not giving players whatever they want).
On the flip side, the unsustainability of some of the other clubs in the PL makes me wonder whether there will be another Leeds in the next few years.
Does anyone know if this loss has something to do with the costs of the ARE expansion? It didn’t go very well towards the end, the end of the construction work was delayed and the company went bankrupt.
Regardless it has a lot to do with no CL. Thats going be more inflated over time and the fact we did spend a fair bit yes we recouped but the expenditure upfront on a release clause won’t help.
I’m not sure when bonuses come into play but if you aren’t playing champions league but the players are achieving as they did the following year bonuses will be accrued on that. I think it does explain why we wouldn’t be massively spending last summer and also why these contracts have taken so long.
My concern isn’t for us also didn’t we lose many months on that being open for that season so we will have lost revenue there too.
It is for other clubs who seem to have a similar spending pattern and yet never even get near Europe.
Good initiative I’ve benefited from this at times including the LFC 4-3 a few seasons ago against Man City.
For all the prudence and record revenues and the strongest PL brand, we have only one season that recorded a pre tax profit in the last 5 years, I think. And that for an a small amount of 7mil.
This is the reality for those who lament the stingy owners. Do we really be a club that is beholden to the owners whims and fancies or a club that is trying to be self sustaining.
Considering how much they have re-imvested into the club infrastructure, am surprised the losses are that low and the debt that low.
Main stand 114mil
ARE stand 80mil
Kirkby 50mil
Melwood (net) 3mil (sold for 10, rebuy for 13)
That’s 250mil they have spent in a decade, above/beyond normal operating costs.
Our wages are on the higher side. And usually increase with performance based incentives kicking in.
Infrastructure cost don’t count towards fair play? or has that change or never been the case?
This isn’t about Fair Play though is, this is the clubs annual accounts.
Here is the Swiss ramble analysis
The main points are 1) broadcasting revenue down (largely because we weren’t in the CL for the period these accounts cover 2) the wage bill and operating costs went up 3) book money lost through player amortisation.
Not great, but nothing much to worry about.
Every time I see that word, I think of ARD.
I hope he’s well, wherever he is.
Fond memories of his accounting work to try and prove we could afford both Salah and Mbappe.
Taps the sign…
…because NIKE were going to pay for Mbappe so we didnt have to.
Should we even have American owners nowadays? Isn’t it basically the same as Russians?
Have any of the FSG had any involvement in politics? I’m not going to hate on someone merely through association.
Was tongue in cheek Whips 
Yeah, it was more of a genuine question. They seem happy to avoid the spotlight, so I was wondering if that is also something that they avoid.
They seem to, and it’s probably wise. They get enough grief from Red Sox fans as it is.
Mind you I’m not sure how comfortable I’d be with Russian owners and the lines are certainly blurring.
I just had a look, and Henry doesn’t appear to have any personal political affiliations, but he does own the Boston Globe, which tends to endorse Democratic presidential candidates.
Werner appears to have made some donations to Democrat candidates.
Ultimately, they are running a sports business, not a political front. I’m happy enough for them to keep those interests separate.