Football betting site Betway

Where has all the money gone?

Here, bookmakers Paddy Power crunched the numbers to take a look at each Championship club and their net spend over the last decade – and there are some pretty shocking results.

The Swans Total net spend over the last 10 years: +£63,420,000


«13

Comments

  • Transfer net spend wow how insightful.

  • Yet more numbers designed to wind up the fans but without any detail behind them.

    Firstly, how do they know our net spend ? I can't remember when we actually published what we bought/sold a player for. It's been 'undisclosed fee' for what seems an eternity and I'm sure that started before the Yanks arrived. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

    On the face of it the numbers do look worrying, but do they include signing on fees, agents fees, loan fees or bonuses for example ? £63M over 10 years, average of £6.3m per year. I have no doubt that the signing on fees, agents fees and bonuses would be well in excess of that.

    Articles such as this are just put out there to set the hare running....

  • I think it more enlightening to explain that over the last 10 years we have made a profit of over 60M in transfers, this also includes loan fees.

    We did lose money on some players but made a packet on others. Even Sam Clucus wasn't a massive loss, We bought him for 13M because we had 3M for Knighton. we sold him for 6M, so in theory we lost 7M however at the same time we made 5M profit on Cork, so effectively a 2M loss on that players position.

    We even made money on A Ayew as we bought him for 2.5M less than we sold him.

    Even J Ayew only 2M was exchanged in cash as we sold Taylor, we then sold him to CP for 2.5M and lost his wages for the season before on loan.

    In fact we have been brilliant in the transfer market as we never lost, perhaps it never spilled into success on the field though.

    And of coarse the TV money in the premier league always covered wages plus we had season ticket and other sales.

    Since the relegation loads of transfer sales, parachutes season tickets, high wages deferred on loans with only Bony 6months and Ayew 12 months being paid by us.

    The answers from the deniers will always be " You don't know how much it costs to run a football club" they will mention depreciation and all sorts of non disclosed expenses but the fact remains.

    We earned far more than enough from TV and ticket sales for all expenses, we sold far more than we bought.

    Either these Yanks have made quite a few quid, or they are the worst business men ever

    SeaJack
  • The whole article was designed as click bait and naturally contains a juicy link back to the Paddy Power website.

    Enough said from my perspective 🙄

  • Phillip

    No doubt you'll classify me in the denier category, but you really are selective in your assertions. You bandy figures around as though you were party to the contract details. Do you really think we made money on the A Ayew deal ? You say that we bought him for less than what we sold him but you conveniently forgot to mention that he came to us on a 'free transfer' as he was at the end of his contract. That 'free contract' will have cost us many £ millions in a signing on fee and I have no doubt there will have been another when he re-signed. What about his agents fees on all three transfers, that would undoubtedly have been seven figures.

    That is just one example of you conveniently forgetting to include significant sums in your calculations.

    I've said it before and I'll say it again, you ask some very pertinent questions but imo, you lose credibility with these back of a fag packet spreadsheets

  • There are figures in the accounts for fee's, they are not broken down but neither is anything.

    In the transfer dealings, there are numerous different sites most of the figures are the same and they also include loan fees, however these only account for players coming from bigger clubs. Players such as Gomis signing on fee Abraham loan fee to name 2

    In contrast we don't see any amounts for players we loan out, we must however assume that loan players are paid by the club they are loaned to.

    Being selective on figures submitted is not really selective is it,

    The only denial explanation is assumption based on nothing submitted.

    So agents fees are included and amounts used to be published, so did loan fees, all of a sudden they become huge expenses that people like me didn't consider, when in fact they have been.

    Shares are being distributed amongst Yanks like pass the parcel, the club gets nothing each time, however deniers believe they are passing money to others in a grand gesture of saving the club and making nothing.

    Financial Investors ( Not Football Investors) buy shares to make money and nothing else, being very clever at it shouldn't be a reason to believe otherwise.

    Concentrate on the amounts and figures we know and make an educated assessment of who benefits, not figures you don't know and assess where you think it might go.

    SeaJack
  • If the money makers aren’t making any money then that begs the question what are they here for? My guess is they are certainly not doing it for the benefit of their health.

  • If it was Ego, they would be here all the time spouting off how good we are doing, so it must be deflated ego

  • @Phillip

    Do you remember the next level speech? that's ego since then they have been taught some lessons and yes deflated ego now.

  • The “next level” pronouncements, the “we have the funds” press release.

    Then just like politicians who promise the Earth during an election campaign and then pronounce austerity as the only way forward, we had the “hard medicine” statement after they were bedded in as owners.

    Forgive me if I don’t believe a word that they say.

    garythenotrashcougar
  • 'believe nothing of what you hear, and only half of what you see.'

    An old warning but wise.

  • They certainly do have the funds but are not prepared to throw good money after bad.

    This is what we all do in our own lives, making judgements, sustainability is the name of the game, always has been at Swansea, why do you want that to change?

  • Perhaps that's why Kaplan has taken a back seat, health?

  • Well the owners are still making money or they would have sold the club by now

    Exactly how they are taking the money out is another question

  • @jollyboy

    Perhaps they believe its easier to be sustainable in League 1 as there is a salary cap there, or course that wont get them their share investment back. The only way to get close to their investment back is to win promotion to the PL.

    Logically then they should not sell Joe and make £2m-£3m available to SC to finish strengthening our squad.

    This year will be a better opportunity than next year for promotion as there is no parachute money next year.

    SeaJack
  • Granted sustainability is important. However they proclaimed very brazenly that “they have the funds” to take us to “the next level”. There was also mention that they were in a position financially to be better placed to carry the club during any lean years. So far I’ve seen no evidence of this. After all the previous board and owners did a fine job so much so that the club was £50mil in the black when they took us to the Premier League. I’m not asking them to throw good money after bad. Is it the case that they don’t have faith in their own investment and by extension the manager and players that are pitch side and on the pitch? If that is the case then they need to invest in a manager and players who they feel they can have faith in to take them back to the next level that they bought in to.

    ColinNorthampton
  • Phillip,

    Jason Levien, Julian Winter, Jake Silverstein, Sam Porter, Huw Jenkins, Martin Morgan, Stuart McDonald (supporters director), Romie Chaudhari, Bobby Hernreich, Gareth Davies

    Director of Business and Legal Affairs - Sam Porter

    Associate Directors - David Morgan and Cath Dyer

    Of the 10 people listed on the club's website how many would you think are non-executive directors. That is, a director who isn't responsible should the club's bank ask the club to repay a debt. I would think that Winter, McDonald and Davies are such named directors and no doubt the same applies to Jenkins and Morgan.


    Whatever sites you have found that give out players' salaries I would think that they are not far off regarding a player's basic wage but would it account for the various bonuses agents negotiate for their clients.

    Also, where on the balance sheet other than miscellaneous would you find the following payment taken from.

    https://www.itv.com/news/wales/2018-07-10/swansea-city-ordered-to-pay-108k-in-compensation-for-unfairly-sacking-two-directors

  • Fair, but they already have to make money available just to keep us afloat, adding another £2/3M would be nice and would give us a better chance, although, there are no guarantees (Stoke), plus you run the risk of FFP, rules, look at Sheffield Wednesday, for instance. We all have to realise, it is a business, keeping Ayew is not by choice, his near £100k a week salary is holding us back, that said, Joe will only happen if Spurs meet our valuation, we will not be held over a barrel, thanks to our owner.

  • Don't listen to Philip, running a championship club is not done on a back of a fag packet.

  • edited October 8

    @jollyboy

    As you know its Risk -v- Reward. Its clear imo the existing owners want out, but can't really afford to do so unless the club is in the PL.

    So they can do nothing and hope we can get promoted but take the risk we dont or invest a relatively small amount of extra to get a better chance of promotion. What likely return would they get from the additional investment is for them to think about. Do nothing and we will struggle.

    Without extra players we will struggle with next 18 matches over 62 days. there will be injuries, loss of form or sales ( i hope not )

  • I wasn't talking about directors but shareholders. The point being Jenkins/Morgan are still shareholders. Kaplan a major shareholder.

    Directors are accountable to shareholders, so putting numpty names up gives them immunity for responsibility or accountability.

    As a director you cannot delegate responsibility.

    As for the other people's comments about fag packet maths, all figures I have quoted are based on their summarised accounts, press releases and statements to us and the Trust.

    Anyone believing they have made nothing and are doing this for love of football is screaming mad, delusional and in denial.

    These type of people do not give X amount of millions for shares without an immediate return. Note I put X amount because they have never released a statement stating how much they paid, which they should have owing to others holding shares.

    These are shady money men with no interest in Swansea City.

    SeaJackgarythenotrashcougar
  • Thank you Phillip for confirming my point. As you rightly state, there are figures for fees in the accounts and you recognise that there is no breakdown of those figures. Yet you assert that 'We even made money on A Ayew as we bought him for 2.5M less than we sold him.' How can you suggest that we made money on Ayew when you don't include any signing on fee (twice) nor any agents fees paid (possibly three times) ? Who knows there may even be bonuses to add to the equation.

    That is of course only one example of the misrepresentations in your financial musings.

    You also say that loan outs are paid for by the club loaned to. That is correct, to an extent. Loaning clubs often part fund the players salary, and this was certainly rumoured when Ayew went to Turkey, although I have nothing to substantiate it.

  • I believe it’s being very dismissive of Phillip’s calculations to describe them as back of the fag packet maths. Time and time again he makes some valid points about the running of the club by the current owners and the financial aspects therein.

    I seem to remember way back when we were a Championship club the first time around and about to enter the Premier League for the very first time that it was widely publicised that we were in the black to the tune of £50mil.

    I’m a non smoker myself so, borrowing someone else’s fag packet for a second, if you were to take into consideration the £90mil that was generated from the win at the Wembley Championship final, the £15 mil that was generated from the sale of Joe Allen and the £5 mil compensation for Brendan Rogers, that amounts to roughly £160mil.

    I remember thinking at the time what a good solid place we were off and on the pitch to mount our campaign in the Premier League.

    The next thing we learn is that money was so tight in 2016 that the club had to sell Jonjo Shelvey to balance the books and thus prevent us from going into the red.

    Looking back this was a huge financial nosedive that I feel can’t be accounted for. To this day I am completely baffled by the numbers behind Huw Jenkins’s confession which to me revealed how incompetent the previous board were at handling vast sums of money.

    Maybe the truth will out one day as to how this downward trend in the finances came to be. I would certainly like to know, whether it’s explained to me on the back of a fag packet or a professionally illustrated spreadsheet.

    garythenotrashcougar
  • Maybe the truth is already out there but the conspiracists won't look further than their own nose, to run a professional sports team costs a packet and Phillip doesn't add in any extras, there's no doubt that expensive mistakes were made on the likes of Clucas, Bony, Baston, Messa, Ayew and so on, but you cannot embezzle money out of a football club unless you are prepared for jail time. For it to happen you'd need your chief accountant in on it, your financial director, the auditor, the banks, the Inland Revenue, any other lender and more importantly, the Trust, unless they are all in on it, then that's not going to happen, the Trust see's the accounts on a monthly basis, any money being embezzled would stand out like a sore thumb.

    As an example, and like Phillip I'm using the back of a fag packet but lets look and an away match in the PL, flight, £25k, hotel and food for 45 people, £25k, coach journey and food on coach £15k (there's a coach to Rhoose, then say we were playing Liverpool, there'd be another coach at John Lennon Airport to transport the team to hotel, and to and from game on match day)

    Roughly £65k per away game x 20 games = £1.3m, and I bet I'm being conservative, my point is there are lots of little add ons that Phillip forgets to put in to any of his equations.

  • SeaJack

    Yes, I'd agree that Phillip does make some valid points about the owners and the lack of clarity and/or any detail of what is happening, and for that he is to be commended. However, he lets himself down badly by the 'bag of a fag packet' mathematics that he often uses to support his assertions.

    Take his post earlier in this thread as an example. He states that 'We even made money on A Ayew as we bought him for 2.5M less than we sold him.' He later accepts that fees are included elsewhere in the accounts. Of course no one here knows what is included in those fees, but somewhere there will be fees that include signing on fees ( x 2), agents fees (x2 or maybe x3) and possibly any bonuses that may be due to him. But he doesn't include those fees in his 'calculation' that we made money on Ayew.

    He is quite clearly someone who has some financial knowledge, yet he refuses to include those costs in his attempt to make it look as though the club made money on Ayew. The only conclusion I can come to, is that to admit that we lost money on Ayew wouldn't suit his narrative.

    Those figures do not of course include Ayew's salary, but that's another subject for another day.

    SeaJack
  • You will find I have included fixed expenses into the equation, its in the accounts.

    Then you will see other expenses, don't know what they are but huge in the last couple of years.

    As for agents fees, they are not times 2 only the buying club pays agents fees.

    Some on here also use imaginary figures on fag packets 25K for a coach journey, 25K for meals for 45 15K for coach meals.

    Players share rooms in hotels, 99% they only stay 1 night, that would have to be over £1000 a room when its fully known they don't stay in the Savoy but normally reasonable style that you or I could stay in for £150 a night but give it the benefit of the doubt and call it £300 a room that's under 7K and its well known they don't stay at that level.

    25K for meals, they arrive midday so say lunch evening meal and breakfast the next day before a game that's 135 meals at £185 a meal. 15K for meals on coaches do they have a chef for 45 on the bus.

    These are not fag packet maths, they are outrageously ridiculous and brings to bear that those that criticise my figures haven't the faintest idea on what things cost never mind running a business or football club. These really are made up.

    Just to enlighten some who think they know how a club costs here is an inflated example to the extreme. A top executive VIP coach to hire ( 75 seat to allow for kit etc ) range from 580 -1040 a day plus £4.50 a mile, so 2 day hire at the top end with a 600 mile round trip is under 5K that's top whack but they book 23 in advance and get great deals, same with hotels and meals.

    I have never said they embezzle I have said they have numerous ways of taking out money, contract deals and fees are just one, percentage of asset value is another, all written in their undisclosed documents and because this is all contract law and money changing hands under contract, there is no way on earth they could go to jail for that, apart from the point they are in the USA.

    All this wheeling and dealing comes under contract law, its Civil Law not Criminal law, provided the contracts are legal there is sod all that can be done.

    Problem is that they don't disclose this under their rules of disclosure which means they don't.

    As for accountants they just summarise Income v Expenditure calculates correct under general headings.

    How many accountants have we had, how man internal and paid auditors have we had, they change all the time.

    People who really believe that in the last 4 years we have had to sell all these players, taken all the TV money, season ticket money, commercial money, share investors money, numerous loans in 4 years, just to remain just above solvency are barking up the wrong tree.

    Our total wages, inflated employees (non playing for 2 years) should have raised more eyebrows, the massive other expenses for 2 years should have had alarm bells ringing, some have raised these issues but there is nothing we can do but to mock people who raise these issues shows an incredible loyalty to people they dont know and a business they have even less knowledge in.

    This is the first time someone tried to explain expenses that I apparently didn't consider or got wrong.

    Based on this example who do you think is correct. I await more examples but forget loan fees sign on fees, compensation ( which goes both ways) because I have covered those many times.

    Wake up we have dodgy owners

  • @Phillip you have been full of s(*t for too long now

  • That's not an explanation to where the money goes, I read your summaries with interest and find them as unconvincing as others.

    Too many people keep adding things like I forgot bonuses, sign on, agent fees etc, and then put them as a reasonable cause for added expenditure.

    Well bonuses are included in wages, its in the players contracts, that's why its total wages.

    Things like sign on fees are included in one form of expenses, fee's and other.

    The amounts tally, its just where they go is questionable to say the least.

    As for the latest comical reasoning for something I hadn't taken into account, I would say that is full of shit and considering you haven't jumped on that and ridiculed it, it would appear you agree with the coach and meal thing and therefore you are as full of shit has him.

    You took time and effort coming to your findings, no one mocked you, probably because they either don't understand or they were presented well. I could have picked holes in many points, like the accounts, however it was you effort which many supported due to respect of other things you have said.

    You had a system that counted down where and when we would balance out, I noticed that stopped when, all the high earners went, latest transfers came in, players were released and undisclosed investors money came in. Probably because it looked like we were in the black even using your assessment

    I have also seen in the past ridiculous amounts quoted as players wages, they are miles out. James never earned more than 3K a week, VDH 11K in the premier league, Mawsen 15K, players wages are calculated on their transfer fee or market value, even the top clubs do this plus possibly a little more, this is why Ayew is on 80K a week, 13K more than James at Man Utd

    This isn't full of shit figures and explanations, they are calculated based on reasonable understanding and comparisons

  • Following on from what Phillip and Deekay have written I’ll bring it back to when it was widely publicised that Swansea City AFC was already £50mil to the good when we had won promotion to the Premier League.

    My question is how was it possible for such a small club that had risen up from the lower leagues into the Championship to have accumulated what appeared to be a surplus of £50mil?

    Now, I may be wrong in my assumptions but this amount coupled with the the £15mil paid to the club for Joe Allen and the (was it) £5mil for Brendan Rodgers leaving to become the Liverpool manager made for a very healthy war chest to draw on going into a Premier League campaign. Nigh on £70mil in fact.

    To me at the time, I thought, even if the £90mil TV money would be a future windfall at the end of the Prem season, the £70mil that would need to be used for the current one would cover the costs handsomely and then some. No need for any loans I thought.

    Then there was talk of starting an academy and building the facilities and grounds to house this. I’m not sure what this amounted to but once again I thought what a good idea this was to use some of the £70mil accumulated so far to invest in the future of the club going forward and in the medium to long term driving down costs thereby allowing the club to remain as shrewd and prudent as they already have been.

    Good sound management, I thought, the kind of management that would see us right in the Premier League financially if not on the footballing side of things (although that was going well also).

    In fact you could argue (and I don’t see many saying otherwise) that the two go hand in hand anyway and if we can get the off pitch side of things right then that means good things for the on pitch aspects as well.

    Fast forward a considerable amount of years (9 to be exact), and you can imagine my amazement, disappointment and exasperation at what amounts to a complete and utter turnaround of the club’s fortunes from a healthy and happy business model and football fraternity to a dark and dismal place financially and possibly from a football perspective (the Rodon saga still being an ongoing concern at the moment).

    This then begs the question if what was achievable coming up through the lower leagues and on into the Premier League was made possible by the previous owners, then why couldn’t it be repeated dropping down from the top tier of football with owners who apparently have more financial clout than those that were at the helm of the club previously?

    Answers on the back of a fag packet I suppose.

Sign In or Register to comment.