It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
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
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
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.
thornburyiron said: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.
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.
Vorselaarhammer said: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....
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....
8h8 hours ago
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
• 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....
well wasnt all this worth it
Makes selling our home and heritage completely worthwhile...
"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
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.
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
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
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
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