| Sky reporting we have no money for transfers 23:24 - Dec 29 with 3500 views | thornabyswan |
I read the Jenkins article a and I am sure he stated the surplus money from the summer could be made available
Which is correct please. |  |
| |  |
| Sky reporting we have no money for transfers on 23:29 - Dec 29 with 3021 views | JoshTheJack |
It's the surplus from the summer,No extra money from the Yanks is what Sky were getting at. [Post edited 29 Dec 2017 23:31]
|  | | |
| Sky reporting we have no money for transfers on 23:33 - Dec 29 with 2965 views | thornabyswan |
| Sky reporting we have no money for transfers on 23:29 - Dec 29 by JoshTheJack |
It's the surplus from the summer,No extra money from the Yanks is what Sky were getting at. [Post edited 29 Dec 2017 23:31]
|
20 odd million surplus plus 25 million for Mawson that's 9 new players then. | |
| |
| Sky reporting we have no money for transfers on 23:34 - Dec 29 with 2950 views | Porthcawlswan |
| Sky reporting we have no money for transfers on 23:29 - Dec 29 by JoshTheJack |
It's the surplus from the summer,No extra money from the Yanks is what Sky were getting at. [Post edited 29 Dec 2017 23:31]
|
Not completely true. Jenkins said we had summer money and of we really needed more it's up to Americans or something to the effect of those words. That's not defending anyone I can't stand the bunch of them at the moment | | | |
| Sky reporting we have no money for transfers on 23:35 - Dec 29 with 2938 views | jacksfullaces |
I think the sub text here is that not a huge amount is going to be thrown at our survival. which may disappoint one or two, and wake up a few of the fair weather fans to what has been going on, albeit a bit too late.
hedge fund owners don't inject cash into a football club, they simply cream off the profits.
and continue to look at ways of making profit from whatever they are left with? | | | |
| Sky reporting we have no money for transfers on 23:44 - Dec 29 with 2867 views | scruffyjack |
| Sky reporting we have no money for transfers on 23:35 - Dec 29 by jacksfullaces |
I think the sub text here is that not a huge amount is going to be thrown at our survival. which may disappoint one or two, and wake up a few of the fair weather fans to what has been going on, albeit a bit too late.
hedge fund owners don't inject cash into a football club, they simply cream off the profits.
and continue to look at ways of making profit from whatever they are left with? |
No question mark needed at the end. | | | |
| Sky reporting we have no money for transfers on 23:46 - Dec 29 with 2856 views | longlostjack |
What was the surplus on transfers - £ 25m ? |  |
| |
| Sky reporting we have no money for transfers on 23:48 - Dec 29 with 2842 views | JoshTheJack |
| Sky reporting we have no money for transfers on 23:34 - Dec 29 by Porthcawlswan |
Not completely true. Jenkins said we had summer money and of we really needed more it's up to Americans or something to the effect of those words. That's not defending anyone I can't stand the bunch of them at the moment |
So, is the money available to strengthen in January?
“There is money available for January and it will be the money left over from the summer. That money has not gone anywhere.”
But, beyond that, any signings would have to be funded by sales?
“If we wanted to go beyond that, it’s what we have always done and how we have always worked.
The risks are less because of those financial bits that are covered and they are important.” | | | |
| Sky reporting we have no money for transfers on 23:49 - Dec 29 with 2828 views | Swanjaxs |
| Sky reporting we have no money for transfers on 23:46 - Dec 29 by longlostjack |
What was the surplus on transfers - £ 25m ? |
31m wasn't it? .... if they spend half of it I'll eat my underpants |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Sky reporting we have no money for transfers on 00:02 - Dec 30 with 2768 views | longlostjack |
| Sky reporting we have no money for transfers on 23:49 - Dec 29 by Swanjaxs |
31m wasn't it? .... if they spend half of it I'll eat my underpants |
We need to be keeping the sum in mind and bloody holding him to it. Come on Wathan you arse, how about a headline tomorrow "Jenkins commits to spending £30m in January !" [Post edited 30 Dec 2017 0:05]
| |
| |
| Sky reporting we have no money for transfers on 00:33 - Dec 30 with 2648 views | Brynmill_Jack |
No. I think you'll find E20 Jack has said we're skint. And I'm sure Mr Box office will be along soon to back him up. |  |
| Each time I go to Bedd - au........................ |
| |
| Sky reporting we have no money for transfers on 01:03 - Dec 30 with 2558 views | Loyal |
Not inc gate money, commercial and tv deal money and top whack premierleague cash as well. |  |
| Nolan sympathiser, clout expert, personal friend of Leigh Dineen, advocate and enforcer of porridge swallows.
The official inventor of the tit w@nk. | | Poll: | Who should be Swansea number 1 |
| |
| Sky reporting we have no money for transfers on 01:08 - Dec 30 with 2538 views | Smellyplumz |
sHOCK,HORROR,amazement ... not |  |
|
""Although I cannot promise or predict the future, I can guarantee one thing - the current board of directors will always fight, as we have done over the last 12 years, to work together as one with the Supporters Trust to make 100% sure that Swansea City football club remains the number one priority in all our thoughts and in every decision we make." | | Poll: | Huw Jenkins |
| |
| Sky reporting we have no money for transfers on 01:13 - Dec 30 with 2530 views | LeonWasGod |
Doesn't work like that though does it. There's the small matter of costs, and we've one of the highest wage:revenue ratios in the league. And the last books showed a £15m loss, which further soaks up some of whatever is left over.
Huw's "money left over" could mean pretty much anything when all the expected and unexpected (Clement's and his staff payoffs) costs are accounted for. And it also depends on the structure of ingoing and outgoing deals.
Who knows how much is available, but I suspect we'll be buying cheap (although the Clucas deal broke that mold). |  | | |
| Sky reporting we have no money for transfers on 01:41 - Dec 30 with 2479 views | E20Jack |
| Sky reporting we have no money for transfers on 01:13 - Dec 30 by LeonWasGod |
Doesn't work like that though does it. There's the small matter of costs, and we've one of the highest wage:revenue ratios in the league. And the last books showed a £15m loss, which further soaks up some of whatever is left over.
Huw's "money left over" could mean pretty much anything when all the expected and unexpected (Clement's and his staff payoffs) costs are accounted for. And it also depends on the structure of ingoing and outgoing deals.
Who knows how much is available, but I suspect we'll be buying cheap (although the Clucas deal broke that mold). |
Correct, people don't like hearing the obvious facts though.
We will have around £15m left over from the summer dealings. People completely forget about agents fees, signing on fees, managerial pay-offs and staffing - far easier to add up sales and purchases and scream "we are rich". Amazing how many do this considering I wouldn't even expect it off a 12 year old schoolchild.
We have very little money. These are the facts.
To the person above stating "gate reciepts and PL cash" - that goes on overheads. As LeonwasGod has said, our wage budget is nigh on £80m per year isn't it? Since we have been in the PL we have had to sell in order to spend, that will never change - ever. And nor should it.
Now people will see why we cant go blowing £30m on ageing players. In order for us to continue to spend we must continue to buy and then sell to recycle the money, its clear how quickly people start throwing their toys out of the pram when the money inevitably dries up. |  |
| |
| Sky reporting we have no money for transfers on 02:33 - Dec 30 with 2407 views | bermudajack |
| Sky reporting we have no money for transfers on 01:41 - Dec 30 by E20Jack |
Correct, people don't like hearing the obvious facts though.
We will have around £15m left over from the summer dealings. People completely forget about agents fees, signing on fees, managerial pay-offs and staffing - far easier to add up sales and purchases and scream "we are rich". Amazing how many do this considering I wouldn't even expect it off a 12 year old schoolchild.
We have very little money. These are the facts.
To the person above stating "gate reciepts and PL cash" - that goes on overheads. As LeonwasGod has said, our wage budget is nigh on £80m per year isn't it? Since we have been in the PL we have had to sell in order to spend, that will never change - ever. And nor should it.
Now people will see why we cant go blowing £30m on ageing players. In order for us to continue to spend we must continue to buy and then sell to recycle the money, its clear how quickly people start throwing their toys out of the pram when the money inevitably dries up. |
From reading the text several times, it does suggest that the £80M wage bill every year, overheads, running costs means there’s very little money s left for purchasing the required talent to stay in this division.
It seems we’ve been struggling due to not having billionaire owners who throw money around, not having a huge gate receipt, reduced commercial revenue compared to most.
None of the above is gonna change any time soon, so it seems like we have little option but to go down to reduce wage costs dramatically, (is thus why the focus has been on developing the u23 squad)?
The US investors can only make more money by increasing matchday revenue - expansion, increasing commercial income via sales & sponsorship, or dilution of shares,
Huw clearly states they will not put money into the playing budget and as always it must remain self sufficient, TV revenue, buy & sell...(That includes parachute payments)
Mistakes have been made, people can be blamed, but ultimately we’ve been punching way above our weight for years, this will be the biggest reality check of all... at least we all have a better understanding of how the club works...and can understand why things have been done the way they have.
Huw will be gone soon enough, but the financial set up will remain in place for the next DOF.
Getting rid of the yanks will mean we have no security if we wish to borrow against future TV revenue to improve the squad (from what I can gather...)
Let’s give our new manager a great welcome on Tuesday- hopefully we can at least get our football identity back 👠|  |
| |
| Sky reporting we have no money for transfers on 08:13 - Dec 30 with 2055 views | Thornburyswan |
| Sky reporting we have no money for transfers on 01:41 - Dec 30 by E20Jack |
Correct, people don't like hearing the obvious facts though.
We will have around £15m left over from the summer dealings. People completely forget about agents fees, signing on fees, managerial pay-offs and staffing - far easier to add up sales and purchases and scream "we are rich". Amazing how many do this considering I wouldn't even expect it off a 12 year old schoolchild.
We have very little money. These are the facts.
To the person above stating "gate reciepts and PL cash" - that goes on overheads. As LeonwasGod has said, our wage budget is nigh on £80m per year isn't it? Since we have been in the PL we have had to sell in order to spend, that will never change - ever. And nor should it.
Now people will see why we cant go blowing £30m on ageing players. In order for us to continue to spend we must continue to buy and then sell to recycle the money, its clear how quickly people start throwing their toys out of the pram when the money inevitably dries up. |
This. At best we have circa £15M plus any sales (less any exit costs for PC & his team) - with relegation so highly likely can't see us looking to the Banks or the Yanks for anymore £££ as way too risky. | | | |
| Sky reporting we have no money for transfers on 08:19 - Dec 30 with 2028 views | AnotherJohn |
| Sky reporting we have no money for transfers on 02:33 - Dec 30 by bermudajack |
From reading the text several times, it does suggest that the £80M wage bill every year, overheads, running costs means there’s very little money s left for purchasing the required talent to stay in this division.
It seems we’ve been struggling due to not having billionaire owners who throw money around, not having a huge gate receipt, reduced commercial revenue compared to most.
None of the above is gonna change any time soon, so it seems like we have little option but to go down to reduce wage costs dramatically, (is thus why the focus has been on developing the u23 squad)?
The US investors can only make more money by increasing matchday revenue - expansion, increasing commercial income via sales & sponsorship, or dilution of shares,
Huw clearly states they will not put money into the playing budget and as always it must remain self sufficient, TV revenue, buy & sell...(That includes parachute payments)
Mistakes have been made, people can be blamed, but ultimately we’ve been punching way above our weight for years, this will be the biggest reality check of all... at least we all have a better understanding of how the club works...and can understand why things have been done the way they have.
Huw will be gone soon enough, but the financial set up will remain in place for the next DOF.
Getting rid of the yanks will mean we have no security if we wish to borrow against future TV revenue to improve the squad (from what I can gather...)
Let’s give our new manager a great welcome on Tuesday- hopefully we can at least get our football identity back 👠|
"Getting rid of the yanks will mean we have no security if we wish to borrow against future TV revenue to improve the squad (from what I can gather...) "
Can you explain in detail what you think these financial guarantees mean in practice? [Post edited 30 Dec 2017 9:05]
| | | |
| Sky reporting we have no money for transfers on 08:59 - Dec 30 with 1889 views | Private_Partz |
| Sky reporting we have no money for transfers on 02:33 - Dec 30 by bermudajack |
From reading the text several times, it does suggest that the £80M wage bill every year, overheads, running costs means there’s very little money s left for purchasing the required talent to stay in this division.
It seems we’ve been struggling due to not having billionaire owners who throw money around, not having a huge gate receipt, reduced commercial revenue compared to most.
None of the above is gonna change any time soon, so it seems like we have little option but to go down to reduce wage costs dramatically, (is thus why the focus has been on developing the u23 squad)?
The US investors can only make more money by increasing matchday revenue - expansion, increasing commercial income via sales & sponsorship, or dilution of shares,
Huw clearly states they will not put money into the playing budget and as always it must remain self sufficient, TV revenue, buy & sell...(That includes parachute payments)
Mistakes have been made, people can be blamed, but ultimately we’ve been punching way above our weight for years, this will be the biggest reality check of all... at least we all have a better understanding of how the club works...and can understand why things have been done the way they have.
Huw will be gone soon enough, but the financial set up will remain in place for the next DOF.
Getting rid of the yanks will mean we have no security if we wish to borrow against future TV revenue to improve the squad (from what I can gather...)
Let’s give our new manager a great welcome on Tuesday- hopefully we can at least get our football identity back 👠|
A post I find very little to disagree with other than the 'punching above our weight' comment. There are many sides in this league of equal size and smaller and they have no sugar daddy pumping money into them either.
Millions have been spent on incorrect and poor signings. Pay offs to managers who were either poor or not supported adequately. Players contracts awarded unnecessarily as they are at the end if their careers.
10 of millions wasted.
With a decent DOF and recruitment team we could have carried on improving from our mid table position by buying wisely and selling at a profit whilst slowly increasing the stadium size and commercial revenue.
Punching above our weight? More like punching with one hand tied behind our backs due to one man and his team. [Post edited 30 Dec 2017 9:01]
|  |
| You have mission in life to hold out your hand,
To help the other guy out,
Help your fellow man.
Stan Ridgway
|
| |
| Sky reporting we have no money for transfers on 09:07 - Dec 30 with 1848 views | awayjack |
| Sky reporting we have no money for transfers on 02:33 - Dec 30 by bermudajack |
From reading the text several times, it does suggest that the £80M wage bill every year, overheads, running costs means there’s very little money s left for purchasing the required talent to stay in this division.
It seems we’ve been struggling due to not having billionaire owners who throw money around, not having a huge gate receipt, reduced commercial revenue compared to most.
None of the above is gonna change any time soon, so it seems like we have little option but to go down to reduce wage costs dramatically, (is thus why the focus has been on developing the u23 squad)?
The US investors can only make more money by increasing matchday revenue - expansion, increasing commercial income via sales & sponsorship, or dilution of shares,
Huw clearly states they will not put money into the playing budget and as always it must remain self sufficient, TV revenue, buy & sell...(That includes parachute payments)
Mistakes have been made, people can be blamed, but ultimately we’ve been punching way above our weight for years, this will be the biggest reality check of all... at least we all have a better understanding of how the club works...and can understand why things have been done the way they have.
Huw will be gone soon enough, but the financial set up will remain in place for the next DOF.
Getting rid of the yanks will mean we have no security if we wish to borrow against future TV revenue to improve the squad (from what I can gather...)
Let’s give our new manager a great welcome on Tuesday- hopefully we can at least get our football identity back 👠|
Key point missing here is why were the wage bills so high on Huw's watch? You seem to forget the comments in Summer about cutting wages by £20m from the £80m in the 15 month accounting period in 2015, so £80m was slightly inflated.
Getting shot of a long list of Jenkins failures like Tabs, Gomis, Baston etc.. and selling our highest paid players like Ayew, Ash, Shelvey, Siggy and Lorrente.
It'll be intereresting when the lies stop and we publish accounts how much of these savings have been offset by new payments to Yanks consultants, crap CEO/Board and hangers on / extended contracts for Jenkins mates like Routs and Dyer. Our cost controls were a shambles under Jenkins but I guess we should expect that from a failed roofer. |  | | |
| Sky reporting we have no money for transfers on 09:15 - Dec 30 with 1811 views | PawelAbbott |
It isn't surprising that our wage bill is so high when we are paying £5 million a year to Wilfred Bony alone.
That is £5M on a player who had barely played for 2 years.
Add to that whatever we are paying our record signings of Clucas and Borja neither of whom are making the team and that must be at least £12m a year on 3 players who hardly ever play. | | | |
| Sky reporting we have no money for transfers on 09:22 - Dec 30 with 1778 views | longlostjack |
| Sky reporting we have no money for transfers on 09:07 - Dec 30 by awayjack |
Key point missing here is why were the wage bills so high on Huw's watch? You seem to forget the comments in Summer about cutting wages by £20m from the £80m in the 15 month accounting period in 2015, so £80m was slightly inflated.
Getting shot of a long list of Jenkins failures like Tabs, Gomis, Baston etc.. and selling our highest paid players like Ayew, Ash, Shelvey, Siggy and Lorrente.
It'll be intereresting when the lies stop and we publish accounts how much of these savings have been offset by new payments to Yanks consultants, crap CEO/Board and hangers on / extended contracts for Jenkins mates like Routs and Dyer. Our cost controls were a shambles under Jenkins but I guess we should expect that from a failed roofer. |
Does the Trust have access to the management accounts ? If not, why not? | |
| |
| Sky reporting we have no money for transfers on 09:34 - Dec 30 with 1721 views | A_Fans_Dad |
All those talking about £80M in wages, please remind us all how much the Current TV payments are worth? | | | |
| Sky reporting we have no money for transfers on 09:35 - Dec 30 with 1714 views | Dewi1jack |
Yep.
Bad player acquisitions, extended contracts, consultancy fees paid to a person the Yanks said was underperforming, jobs for the boys rather than the best person employed, all this adds costs but not value.
The ex board ramping up unnecessary build costs on projects.
Contracts offered not to the best firm, but to the ones with very close ties.
Yet people wonder why the club is skint.
Looks like a few have had their snouts deep in the trough and still have.
“No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?” |  |
| If you wake up breathing, thats a good start to your day and you'll make many thousands of people envious. |
| |
| Sky reporting we have no money for transfers on 09:38 - Dec 30 with 1695 views | PawelAbbott |
| Sky reporting we have no money for transfers on 09:07 - Dec 30 by awayjack |
Key point missing here is why were the wage bills so high on Huw's watch? You seem to forget the comments in Summer about cutting wages by £20m from the £80m in the 15 month accounting period in 2015, so £80m was slightly inflated.
Getting shot of a long list of Jenkins failures like Tabs, Gomis, Baston etc.. and selling our highest paid players like Ayew, Ash, Shelvey, Siggy and Lorrente.
It'll be intereresting when the lies stop and we publish accounts how much of these savings have been offset by new payments to Yanks consultants, crap CEO/Board and hangers on / extended contracts for Jenkins mates like Routs and Dyer. Our cost controls were a shambles under Jenkins but I guess we should expect that from a failed roofer. |
Exactly!!
Huw can look no further than himself as to why we are in this mess.
There was an article a few months ago from spurs fans moaning that even we pay higher wages than them.
We pay higher wages than a top 4 team who play in the champions league!!!
We have apparently paid over £5m a year to Ayew, Gomis, Bony etc.
When our income is so low surely the clubs aim should be to sign good, low cost players in the Michu mould rather than the Clucas, Mesa, Bony type signings.
Also, there was the insistence that we had a grade 1 academy. An academy that requires 20-30 players and around 40 staff. An academy that has so far developed nothing. If money was so tight why did we bother?
We have to be wary about signing too many players when we are risking getting relegated, what about the enormous expense of the Academy? How will we pay for that when the parachute payments stop? It's not like we can sell it, or it's contract will end like a players. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
