| Financial results from last year 13:39 - Mar 25 with 3813 views | itfcjoe |
Really good growth in lots of areas, despite the monster loss a lot of that is infrastructure improvement but wages falling below revenue for first time in forever.
But a note, last years wage bill of £19.8m was £5.9m/42% higher than what it was when we finished 6th in the Championship in 2014/15.
Can see why we were able to build a Championship team in league 1, I knew the money floating around here was high, but really illustrates it. Our highest wage bill in 20 years!
A great thread on it all here via X:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1771431686460588294.html |  |
| |  |
| Financial results from last year on 13:44 - Mar 25 with 3560 views | tractorboy1978 |
Shows how well they have done in increasing revenue - ME never seemed to grasp that this was 50% of the equation.
The most interesting thing in the accounts is the FFP reconcilation which shows we've got FFP losses of £20.6m for the last 3 years. £1.9m relate to 2020/21 so on a rolling cycle we have an FFP loss of £20.3m to play with this season. More comfortable than I was expecting to be honest!
Revenue of £21.7m last season. That will easily be over £30m for this season with improved TV deal, increased commercial income etc. And we've 'only' spent £4m on transfer fees - Taylor on a 3 year deal and Al-Hamadi/Hirst on 4 year deals so those fees will be well amortised.
In short we look pretty well set and if we don't go up, we shouldn't have to do any urgent business before 30th June to meet FFP. |  | | |
| Financial results from last year on 13:49 - Mar 25 with 3525 views | JakeITFC |
But only £12.7m on playing wages - I bet that was probably not far off 14/15 (as everything else was so threadbare, although MM was on a fair whack).
Was clear to see we were a financial juggernaut relative to most of League One last year (January's signings blew most out of the water) but nowhere near breaching spending rules as some rivals teams fans had suggested. |  | | |
| Financial results from last year on 13:49 - Mar 25 with 3525 views | itfcjoe |
| Financial results from last year on 13:44 - Mar 25 by tractorboy1978 |
Shows how well they have done in increasing revenue - ME never seemed to grasp that this was 50% of the equation.
The most interesting thing in the accounts is the FFP reconcilation which shows we've got FFP losses of £20.6m for the last 3 years. £1.9m relate to 2020/21 so on a rolling cycle we have an FFP loss of £20.3m to play with this season. More comfortable than I was expecting to be honest!
Revenue of £21.7m last season. That will easily be over £30m for this season with improved TV deal, increased commercial income etc. And we've 'only' spent £4m on transfer fees - Taylor on a 3 year deal and Al-Hamadi/Hirst on 4 year deals so those fees will be well amortised.
In short we look pretty well set and if we don't go up, we shouldn't have to do any urgent business before 30th June to meet FFP. |
Taylor is actually in last years figures too so even less in that regard
Us, Leeds, Sunderland and Derby only teams to ever post £20m+ as revenue in 3rd tier - proper clubs there really.
The bulk of the losses is just infrastructure costs as just not spent anything in a decade so playing catch up.
Staff costs very high, youth spending doubled but it's the price of doing business if we want to get where we are going | |
| |
| Financial results from last year on 13:51 - Mar 25 with 3499 views | itfcjoe |
| Financial results from last year on 13:49 - Mar 25 by JakeITFC |
But only £12.7m on playing wages - I bet that was probably not far off 14/15 (as everything else was so threadbare, although MM was on a fair whack).
Was clear to see we were a financial juggernaut relative to most of League One last year (January's signings blew most out of the water) but nowhere near breaching spending rules as some rivals teams fans had suggested. |
There must have been at least £3m on staffing costs in there so still a substantial chunk more.
It would have been very difficult had we not gone up last year as may have had to scale things back a bit which could have really halted progress | |
| |
| Financial results from last year on 14:04 - Mar 25 with 3420 views | Keno |
two comments
Firstly on the wages looking at the BofE inflation calculator if you have £14mill in 2015 inflation would make that £18 mill now so in real terms thats not a huge increase
Also when you consider how little had been spent on infrastructure over the past decade the new owners were always going to have spend more now to put things rights. |  |
| |
| Financial results from last year on 14:19 - Mar 25 with 3321 views | tractorboy1978 |
| Financial results from last year on 13:49 - Mar 25 by itfcjoe |
Taylor is actually in last years figures too so even less in that regard
Us, Leeds, Sunderland and Derby only teams to ever post £20m+ as revenue in 3rd tier - proper clubs there really.
The bulk of the losses is just infrastructure costs as just not spent anything in a decade so playing catch up.
Staff costs very high, youth spending doubled but it's the price of doing business if we want to get where we are going |
Yeah it is just going to be a case of getting within FFP. The headline loss is somewhat irrelevant as we have owners that are willing to fund those losses and they are investing via equity rather than debt.
It's a fairly healthy set of accounts IMO. We've really built value in the squad. The true resale value of the squad is well in excess of the carrying net book value in the accounts. It's when clubs have a couple of bad transfer windows and suddenly don't have the next one in line to sell at a tidy profit that they seem to fall into trouble. [Post edited 25 Mar 14:20]
| | | |
| Financial results from last year on 14:20 - Mar 25 with 3312 views | Steve_M |
Cheers for linking that thread Joe, really informative.
Some things stand out though, aside from the high recent numbers (and how much did the mismanagement in Summer 21 have on some of those?) but it's not difficult to see why McCarthy struggled to keep us competitive at the top end of the Championship:
|  |
| |
| Financial results from last year on 14:31 - Mar 25 with 3246 views | Churchman |
Thanks Joe.
It’s the first bit of analysis that’s made any sort of sense to me.
The figures are not at first look out of kilter with what Ashton and co have been saying and we look well set to me. The first thing I noticed was the figures for ‘Other Expenses’ for 22-23. Massive difference. As you indicate, infrastructure investment following years of stagnation. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Financial results from last year on 14:50 - Mar 25 with 3131 views | OldFart71 |
Do we get a fair play rebate for the last few years under Evans ? | | | |
| Financial results from last year on 15:20 - Mar 25 with 3022 views | _clive_baker_ |
Wages below revenue, and also playing wages specifically at 58% of revenue is an interesting take away. I would imagine player wages to have increased this season, owing to promotion related uplifts and new signings (not least the loan players), but so too will revenue increase. Probably to north of £30m, so it wouldn't surprise me if we see a similar ratio for the current years trading.
c. 1/3 of our wage bill is non playing, which will also no doubt increase, but not necessarily as drastically as playing wages as a result of operating at a higher level. There's efficiencies of scale that will be realised here moving forward as the top line grows. Our revenue in L1 was probably sub-scale relative to the investment, but now it won't be. It's probably the single most refreshing aspect of the Gamechanger tenure though for me, the extent to which we've upskilled and beefed up our support structure. Not just the obvious areas, but all across the operation from finance to operations to strength & conditioning and analysis.
We've really invested in getting things right off the pitch, to the extent we've been mocked by opposition managers (was it Joey Barton who made a quip about bringing a coach load of people with laptops and equipment?). That's partly about capital investment in infrastructure projects, but as much about having the right people, which of course contributes to the increased operational expenditure across non playing staff. You get what you pay for though. You don't get such a physically fit, well drilled side by having a support structure that the Dog & Duck Sunday team would laugh at. It was my biggest gripe under ME, he seemed intent in throwing mud at the wall by way of players with a complete disregard for giving them the tools to do their jobs. Then we wondered why the treatment table was so busy. |  | | |
| Financial results from last year on 16:04 - Mar 25 with 2817 views | HighgateBlue |
| Financial results from last year on 13:49 - Mar 25 by itfcjoe |
Taylor is actually in last years figures too so even less in that regard
Us, Leeds, Sunderland and Derby only teams to ever post £20m+ as revenue in 3rd tier - proper clubs there really.
The bulk of the losses is just infrastructure costs as just not spent anything in a decade so playing catch up.
Staff costs very high, youth spending doubled but it's the price of doing business if we want to get where we are going |
I'm not sure it's quite right to explain away the scale of the losses as just playing catch up on infrastructure. It's certainly not the 'bulk' of losses.
Operating loss was £19.8m. The capital expenditure figure was £7.3m.
We had the highest wage bill in the division, and the second highest wage bill ever recorded in the division.
And player additions were £8m, which is only a little less than the other 23 clubs put together. |  | | |
| Financial results from last year on 16:23 - Mar 25 with 2731 views | itfcjoe |
| Financial results from last year on 16:04 - Mar 25 by HighgateBlue |
I'm not sure it's quite right to explain away the scale of the losses as just playing catch up on infrastructure. It's certainly not the 'bulk' of losses.
Operating loss was £19.8m. The capital expenditure figure was £7.3m.
We had the highest wage bill in the division, and the second highest wage bill ever recorded in the division.
And player additions were £8m, which is only a little less than the other 23 clubs put together. |
£7.3m of capital expenditure, plus non-playing staff costs up to £8.3m which is all part of the infrastructure spending.
Obviously the latter of those costs will hang about - but we've spent as though we are a top half Championship side in all the non-playing items, and our figures sit against those - it's account which show growth in all areas and importantly the revenues are outstripping the main ongoing metrics | |
| |
| Financial results from last year on 16:26 - Mar 25 with 2712 views | Churchman |
| Financial results from last year on 16:04 - Mar 25 by HighgateBlue |
I'm not sure it's quite right to explain away the scale of the losses as just playing catch up on infrastructure. It's certainly not the 'bulk' of losses.
Operating loss was £19.8m. The capital expenditure figure was £7.3m.
We had the highest wage bill in the division, and the second highest wage bill ever recorded in the division.
And player additions were £8m, which is only a little less than the other 23 clubs put together. |
I quote:
“Biggest driver of #ITFC increased pre-tax loss was a big increase in other expenses (i.e. non-staff costs), which rose over 80% to £18.3m
Few specifics here, but reflects high-inflation environment as well as owners building up operations across the club”
The conclusion is interesting:
“On face of it, #ITFC racking up £30m+ losses from two seasons in third tier is shocking. But look below surface and new ownership are carrying out a clear plan both on and off-field - and transparent disclosure of club's FFP compliance is a welcome rarity.
If promotion not achieved in next year or two #ITFC will have to rein in spending unless able to increase sales. Club acknowledge losses will increase "in absence of any player trading"
But equity funding model minimises club risk, and recent investment reflects a club on the up” | | | |
| Financial results from last year on 16:33 - Mar 25 with 2661 views | tractorboy1978 |
| Financial results from last year on 16:26 - Mar 25 by Churchman |
I quote:
“Biggest driver of #ITFC increased pre-tax loss was a big increase in other expenses (i.e. non-staff costs), which rose over 80% to £18.3m
Few specifics here, but reflects high-inflation environment as well as owners building up operations across the club”
The conclusion is interesting:
“On face of it, #ITFC racking up £30m+ losses from two seasons in third tier is shocking. But look below surface and new ownership are carrying out a clear plan both on and off-field - and transparent disclosure of club's FFP compliance is a welcome rarity.
If promotion not achieved in next year or two #ITFC will have to rein in spending unless able to increase sales. Club acknowledge losses will increase "in absence of any player trading"
But equity funding model minimises club risk, and recent investment reflects a club on the up” |
Like every club without parachute payments, player trading is going to be the most important thing for us whilst we are at this level. Nothing new though - that's how we had to operate under Burley. A player went every summer to fund the next season. Only difference is it is selling to get within the £39m loss limit rather than to balance the books. | | | |
| Financial results from last year on 16:41 - Mar 25 with 2605 views | CBMTOBWMMBG |
| Financial results from last year on 16:33 - Mar 25 by tractorboy1978 |
Like every club without parachute payments, player trading is going to be the most important thing for us whilst we are at this level. Nothing new though - that's how we had to operate under Burley. A player went every summer to fund the next season. Only difference is it is selling to get within the £39m loss limit rather than to balance the books. |
'Only difference is it is selling to get within the £39m loss limit rather than to balance the books.'
Which is totally mad really when you think about it. We will have to sell players to meet an artificial target of losing a still vast amount of money. And we're seen as one of the best run ones!
This is not a comment about us, by the way, but about football. It is a totally mad, mad world, funded by hope, debt and ego's. | | | |
| Financial results from last year on 17:10 - Mar 25 with 2488 views | _clive_baker_ |
| Financial results from last year on 16:41 - Mar 25 by CBMTOBWMMBG |
'Only difference is it is selling to get within the £39m loss limit rather than to balance the books.'
Which is totally mad really when you think about it. We will have to sell players to meet an artificial target of losing a still vast amount of money. And we're seen as one of the best run ones!
This is not a comment about us, by the way, but about football. It is a totally mad, mad world, funded by hope, debt and ego's. |
It is nuts, it really is. The concept of celebrating an organisation that turns over c. £30m a year and spends £40m is alien to me, but that's probably where we're at as we speak. Losing £1m a month in pursuit of the premier league honey pot. Even once there the ability to extract the honey for more than a few years is generallycontingent on investing vast sums on wages to be competitive.
As you say, no slight on us as a club or how we're operating. It's very much par for the course, and lets be honest we were still losing vast sums under Evans and were nowhere near where we're at now, but its still nuts. Mad industry is football. | | | |
| Financial results from last year on 18:28 - Mar 25 with 2261 views | Illinoisblue |
| Financial results from last year on 15:20 - Mar 25 by _clive_baker_ |
Wages below revenue, and also playing wages specifically at 58% of revenue is an interesting take away. I would imagine player wages to have increased this season, owing to promotion related uplifts and new signings (not least the loan players), but so too will revenue increase. Probably to north of £30m, so it wouldn't surprise me if we see a similar ratio for the current years trading.
c. 1/3 of our wage bill is non playing, which will also no doubt increase, but not necessarily as drastically as playing wages as a result of operating at a higher level. There's efficiencies of scale that will be realised here moving forward as the top line grows. Our revenue in L1 was probably sub-scale relative to the investment, but now it won't be. It's probably the single most refreshing aspect of the Gamechanger tenure though for me, the extent to which we've upskilled and beefed up our support structure. Not just the obvious areas, but all across the operation from finance to operations to strength & conditioning and analysis.
We've really invested in getting things right off the pitch, to the extent we've been mocked by opposition managers (was it Joey Barton who made a quip about bringing a coach load of people with laptops and equipment?). That's partly about capital investment in infrastructure projects, but as much about having the right people, which of course contributes to the increased operational expenditure across non playing staff. You get what you pay for though. You don't get such a physically fit, well drilled side by having a support structure that the Dog & Duck Sunday team would laugh at. It was my biggest gripe under ME, he seemed intent in throwing mud at the wall by way of players with a complete disregard for giving them the tools to do their jobs. Then we wondered why the treatment table was so busy. |
Ainsworth when Wycombe boss had a dig at us for “all our equipment” we brought. Still annoyed we lost that game. Still, who’s laughing now, rock star? |  |
| |
| Financial results from last year on 20:01 - Mar 25 with 2047 views | HighgateBlue |
| Financial results from last year on 16:23 - Mar 25 by itfcjoe |
£7.3m of capital expenditure, plus non-playing staff costs up to £8.3m which is all part of the infrastructure spending.
Obviously the latter of those costs will hang about - but we've spent as though we are a top half Championship side in all the non-playing items, and our figures sit against those - it's account which show growth in all areas and importantly the revenues are outstripping the main ongoing metrics |
I don't see staff wages as infrastructure. And I certainly don't see non playing staff costs of £8.3m as simply catching up with what any sensible owner would have been spending whilst mean old bad old Scrooge McEvans was letting us go to the dogs.
We're spending huge amounts on all sorts of things. It's an exciting time to be a Town fan, of course. But our losses in League One were absolutely eye-watering. We lost more money than any club ever in the history of league one. And the year before that we lost the fourth most of any club ever in the history of league one
(although at the time it was the third most of course). And we finished second. It was wonderful to get promoted for the first time in a quarter of a century, but with objective eyes it was an underperformance actually - biggest wage bill, biggest amount spent on player acquisitions, biggest financial loss, but not biggest number of points.
Our fans consider that we are one of the 'well run' clubs because things are going well on the pitch, and the feelgood factor is back. Yes, there is a hell of a lot going well (thanks to our incredible coach), and we have huge crowds and decent commercial revenue. But at the end of the day we are so similar to a lot of crash and burn clubs of the last few years - it's Premier League or bust. If we make it this year, and we may do, then things will be rosy for a while, maybe allowing Gamechanger to cash out. But if we don't manage to go up, then we will be in an almighty mess, and with owners that will not be as happy as Evans was to take an enormous loss.
There is lots that we need to cheer, but I don't think it does anyone any favours to try to sugarcoat numbers which are there in black and white (or actually in red...) by claiming that we're just catching up on prudent expenditure. | | | |
| Financial results from last year on 20:43 - Mar 25 with 1909 views | Freddies_Ears |
Excellent analysis. We are operating within a financial plan agreed between owners & club management.
This year's accounts will be fascinating. Presumably non-playing staff costs will increase but not by much. Player wages will be higher as planned (much, much higher if we go up again, as there must be huge promotion bonuses payable - was that also an element if our relative high wages last season?). But commercial revenues will be way up, tv/ media maybe 10m up... | | | |
| Financial results from last year on 20:46 - Mar 25 with 1903 views | nodge_blue |
Do infrastructure projects count against FFP?
If they dont then the loss we made on FFP terms would be alot less with the football pitches at the training ground and PR being circa 5 mil? |  |
| |
| Financial results from last year on 21:10 - Mar 25 with 1814 views | xrayspecs |
| Financial results from last year on 20:01 - Mar 25 by HighgateBlue |
I don't see staff wages as infrastructure. And I certainly don't see non playing staff costs of £8.3m as simply catching up with what any sensible owner would have been spending whilst mean old bad old Scrooge McEvans was letting us go to the dogs.
We're spending huge amounts on all sorts of things. It's an exciting time to be a Town fan, of course. But our losses in League One were absolutely eye-watering. We lost more money than any club ever in the history of league one. And the year before that we lost the fourth most of any club ever in the history of league one
(although at the time it was the third most of course). And we finished second. It was wonderful to get promoted for the first time in a quarter of a century, but with objective eyes it was an underperformance actually - biggest wage bill, biggest amount spent on player acquisitions, biggest financial loss, but not biggest number of points.
Our fans consider that we are one of the 'well run' clubs because things are going well on the pitch, and the feelgood factor is back. Yes, there is a hell of a lot going well (thanks to our incredible coach), and we have huge crowds and decent commercial revenue. But at the end of the day we are so similar to a lot of crash and burn clubs of the last few years - it's Premier League or bust. If we make it this year, and we may do, then things will be rosy for a while, maybe allowing Gamechanger to cash out. But if we don't manage to go up, then we will be in an almighty mess, and with owners that will not be as happy as Evans was to take an enormous loss.
There is lots that we need to cheer, but I don't think it does anyone any favours to try to sugarcoat numbers which are there in black and white (or actually in red...) by claiming that we're just catching up on prudent expenditure. |
The accounts show that we have been funded as a top half Championship team since the takeover. We have owners who have subsidised us £20m per season to invest in players and rebuild the broken infrastructure. Our new investors have effectively agreed to do the same for the next four to five years. That is where the £100m will be spent.
On and off the pitch we now look like a team that should be competing at the top end of the champ. Such is football finance, if our owners were not prepared to make that investment then we would be a bottom half Champ side, looking to cut costs and maybe fluke a good season. Those were the Evans days,
We are a well run club, that is evident both on and off the pitch. [Post edited 25 Mar 21:12]
| | | |
| Financial results from last year on 21:11 - Mar 25 with 1809 views | xrayspecs |
| Financial results from last year on 20:46 - Mar 25 by nodge_blue |
Do infrastructure projects count against FFP?
If they dont then the loss we made on FFP terms would be alot less with the football pitches at the training ground and PR being circa 5 mil? |
No. They are also not in our operating costs, they are treated as investments, so appear on our balance sheet and cash flow statement. | | | |
| Financial results from last year on 21:13 - Mar 25 with 1794 views | itfcjoe |
| Financial results from last year on 21:10 - Mar 25 by xrayspecs |
The accounts show that we have been funded as a top half Championship team since the takeover. We have owners who have subsidised us £20m per season to invest in players and rebuild the broken infrastructure. Our new investors have effectively agreed to do the same for the next four to five years. That is where the £100m will be spent.
On and off the pitch we now look like a team that should be competing at the top end of the champ. Such is football finance, if our owners were not prepared to make that investment then we would be a bottom half Champ side, looking to cut costs and maybe fluke a good season. Those were the Evans days,
We are a well run club, that is evident both on and off the pitch. [Post edited 25 Mar 21:12]
|
For me, clubs of a similar size to us have generally been Forest, Leiciester, Southampton, Derby and Norwich (give or take) - but pre takeover we've been nowhere near them off or on the pitch until Derby imploded.
Our infrastructure was miles behind, and we are starting to bridge that gap | |
| |
| Financial results from last year on 21:29 - Mar 25 with 1732 views | xrayspecs |
| Financial results from last year on 21:13 - Mar 25 by itfcjoe |
For me, clubs of a similar size to us have generally been Forest, Leiciester, Southampton, Derby and Norwich (give or take) - but pre takeover we've been nowhere near them off or on the pitch until Derby imploded.
Our infrastructure was miles behind, and we are starting to bridge that gap |
Was not so long ago that all of those teams were a division below us and smaller on most objective measures. Some have benefitted from owner investment, all have had Premier League money since we were last there.
I also remember Brighton, Bournemouth, Palace and others in a similar way. [Post edited 25 Mar 21:30]
| | | |
| Financial results from last year on 23:49 - Mar 25 with 1449 views | Marshalls_Mullet |
Any idea what activities have grown the commercial income by £4.4m (74%).
I guess Ed gives us a fairly generous deal as part of that. |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
