Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

IF YOU CAN'T SIGN IN, CLEAR COOKIES FROM YOUR BROWSER CACHE

If you aren't sure how to do that, see this thread: whu606.com/discussion/7162/why-am-i-having-trouble-signing-in

If you still can't log in, email whu***@gmail.com (where *** is replaced by numbers I am sure you can work out.) giving the name of the browser and whether you are on PC or mobile device.
Categories +
Table +
PhysioRoom +

Club finances - last year's figures released

Figure it could do with its own discussion.
imagelost
«13

Comments

  • Peter Jamieson


    @PeterJamieson1
    8h8 hours ago
    More
    West Ham are late filing accounts so will incur a £150 late filing fee from HMRC.

    Dave Sullivan has offered £30 up front with £20 a season over the next 6 years

    Well it made me laugh. ;biggrin
    MrsGreyHammerwombatLukerzswhtsimagelostPrestonHammerOutcastLondonerPearces_Left_FootbillybondsbeardAdamBertQuigleysweepy23Trondheimrob
  • Some interesting points from the accounts so far - lifted from KUMB

    • Turnover up £40m to £183m, but about £32m of that increase is due to TV money. So the move to the LS has only led to c£8m increase in turnover. Brady’s Review Notes that “it is worth noting that the Club would have made a similar profit at the old stadium as the majority of the profit for the year has been generated by the new broadcast agreeement and by profit of player sales”.
    • A profit of £8.7m was made on the sale of the Boleyn. Broadly we sold it for a little under £40m, and it was in the books around £30m. The proceeds from the sale were used to pay off the mortgage of £14.8m on the ground (part of this debt was held by Sullivan) and to pay the £15m contribution to costs at the LS.
    • We bought players for £80.8m in the period (that’s the agreed total price including instalments, not the cash out the door) and sold Payet & Tomkins for around £40m generating a profit of £28m.
    • Overall there’s a profit of £43m after tax and interest. If you strip out the profit on the Boleyn we’ve made nearly £35m after tax and interest.
    • £4.2m of the loans from Gold and Sullivan were repaid in the year, along with £2.2m of interest. Post 31 May 2017, a further £10m of these loans were repaid. The loans accrue interest at rates between 4% and 6% per annum. Brady has subsequently said that the loans have been made interest free, which probably fits with the American putting money in on interest free loan.
    • The Icelandic bank sold their shares in September 2017 to a company owned by J Albert Smith. That company has advanced a £9.5m loan on non-interest bearing terms to the Club.
    • The accounts were signed on 13 October 2017. They’ve sat on them for nearly 5 months, as they know what the reaction will be to these figures.

    The accounts are also out for Galliard, and basically the sale of the Boleyn was flipped to Barratt homes on the same day....
  • we would of earned the same at UP
    well wasnt all this worth it
    Slaven_Cups_His_Beardbillybondsbeard
  • An £8m increase in turnover since the move to the OS. Is that it?!

    Makes selling our home and heritage completely worthwhile...
    ClaretandBlueforLifeSlaven_Cups_His_BeardLukerzbillybondsbeard
  • It is odd that the Accounts are published and added to the OS but not mentioned in the Latest News. ;hmm

    https://www.whufc.com/news/club-accounts-published-for-2016-17
  • Looks like there is an interview with Gold on Ex’s podcast. I don’t normally listen but it should be interesting to hear what he has to say (without being abused, of course).
    MunichHammer
  • Why would you think there'd be a massive increase in turnover at the new stadium? Yes we are getting nearly 20,000 more fans but if each one of those paid £1000 it would only generate £20M. As a lot of those seats are at cheaper rates I can see why it's a lot less than £20M.
  • edited March 6
    Thorn, because I thought that was the point of moving; to generate more income to be able to compete in the upper tier of the PL. I appreciate that ticket prices are lower than they could be, but for me an £8m increase in turnover is not enough to warrant moving from the Boleyn as it won't bring us closer to where we want to be.
    Macca85Slaven_Cups_His_BeardLukerzimagelostbillybondsbeard
  • Will be very interesting to see what happens in the summer if we stay up. Sully has said:

    "In each of the last two seasons we have broken our transfer record and improvements in our overall financial position will help us to increase investment again this summer."

    So with a record profit of £43m in their pockets, I wonder if we'll see a significant increase in outlay compared to the c£30m they've spent in each of the last two years ;hmm
    Slaven_Cups_His_Beard
  • I always thought they said the stadium would only generate an extra £12m a season in revenue so less than thought but we do give an extra 20,000 fans a game a chance to watch us . I never bought into the champions league in 7 years as a promise but more a vague ambition, hopefully we can see the increase in funds invested in the team in the summer
  • IronHerb said:

    It is odd that the Accounts are published and added to the OS but not mentioned in the Latest News. ;hmm

    https://www.whufc.com/news/club-accounts-published-for-2016-17

    Not that odd. The website has a long history of ineptitude.
  • MrsGrey said:

    IronHerb said:

    It is odd that the Accounts are published and added to the OS but not mentioned in the Latest News. ;hmm

    https://www.whufc.com/news/club-accounts-published-for-2016-17

    Not that odd. The website has a long history of ineptitude.
    The Insider ;wahoo
  • edited March 6
    ;lol

    I was thinking more about articles that appear only in 1 category and aren't tagged for 'latest' or articles containing broken links or videos which don't play. And the shockingly poor design of the 'gallery' feature .... and how much space is given to the sponsor logos. And the user-unfriendly layout and operation of the fixtures page.
    BertQuigleybillybondsbeard
  • Ive just noticed that when you go to the home 'splash' page, there's the scrolling list of latest articles.

    But if you use the navigation tabs/menu to bring up a list of 'News/Latest' pages, you get a different list of articles - they don't match. ;hmm
  • MrsGrey said:

    IronHerb said:

    It is odd that the Accounts are published and added to the OS but not mentioned in the Latest News. ;hmm

    https://www.whufc.com/news/club-accounts-published-for-2016-17

    Not that odd. The website has a long history of ineptitude.
    Didn't think ;doh
  • I still think we attract better caliber of player at the new stadium. It’s been a hard move football wise, but I think will benefit long term.
    MunichHammerWhitehorsehammer
  • Ian
    The Bowl as a motivating factor for a player to come to us has precisely Zero points as far as I am concerned.
    Mainly : Wages, other players in the team, likelyhood of honours/titles - come way way before.
    The only thing in its favour is that it is in London IMO
    BubblesNeverDiesSlaven_Cups_His_Beard
  • BBB I think the stadium does have a bearing. A potential signing would I'm sure think that playing in front of 57,000 fans is a selling point as opposed to 37,000.
  • edited March 6
    Although playing in front of 37000 and 20000 empty seats would be a bit of a downer.
    billybondsbeardSlaven_Cups_His_BeardClaretandBlueforLife
  • Thorn
    A really top player will be used to those sorts of attendances anyway - 45k plus would be the norm. The ground would only be a factor IMO if all of the other variables I mentioned are met.
    Then - probably the players wife makes the descision !! ;wink
    ClaretandBlueforLife
  • BBB if you're talking really top class players then I think they'd probably be reluctant to join us even if we played in front of 157,000
    billybondsbeard
  • Why would you think there'd be a massive increase in turnover at the new stadium? Yes we are getting nearly 20,000 more fans but if each one of those paid £1000 it would only generate £20M. As a lot of those seats are at cheaper rates I can see why it's a lot less than £20M.

    Because they told everyone before the move that by going to the LS our transfer kitty would jump to around £40m net before sales....

    More utter guff from the owners base on the last 2 seasons, while they were taking back their money and interest they were underbidding on certain players, what a surprise
    swhtsLukerzPrestonHammerbillybondsbeard
  • So from that you inferred there'd be a massive increase in turnover because I didn't. Maybe the £40M was made up of the usual £30M plus at best an extra £10
  • Well you’re not going to the next level on £30m a season transfer spend.
    Slaven_Cups_His_Beard
  • We could have made a lot more from the stadium move by doubling ticket prices but I suspect that may have generated a problem of two....
    MunichHammer
  • We could have made a lot more from the stadium move by doubling ticket prices but I suspect that may have generated a problem of two....

    To watch dross,,,
  • Did you mean bros I owe you nothing, or there’s a cat amongst the pidgions, you couldn’t double the price of tickets for them lol
  • Tbf I reckon ticket income is fairly low for most clubs because tv income is so extremely high. I haven't taken a look at the exact figures but if you strip away tv income I expect the growth of income to look a lot better. Sure, they could probably have got a similar amount staying at UP but that would have meant ticket price increases. And on top of that, if any stand needed repairs the attendance and thus the income would have dropped dramatically.
  • Lucky we sold Payet or we would of made very little
Sign In or Register to comment.