PNE Online
Welcome to PNE-Online. Why not register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox! You can also join up as a forum Patron to help support in the running costs of the forum.

Operating loss

I think criticism of the amount of money Hemmings has put in is misguided and he will have to continue this level most probably.

Criticism of how and when this money has been spent is perfectly valid. Staff costs (i.e. wages) have risen from £14.5m to £19.2m - 32%, a massive increase. Problem is, most of this is probably keeping up with the Jones.

I'm torn. He's basically paying for us to watch championship football as opposed to league 1 or 2 football. We should be grateful but the seeming lack of willingness to positively push for me when we aren't far away in combination with the massive training ground PR shambles is maddening.
 
sure, but in the context of Madferret's post, the club is insolvent without TH's loans. And in the absence of making a profit, we rely lock, stock & barrel on the big man and are already massively 'in debt' already. So it's not as if further investment would make us go down the 'loading itself with debt route'. We're already there.
Yep.

The club is most definitely already "technically insolvent" - and the club's accounts basically confirm that fact every year (I quoted part of this year's accounts above, but it's the same copy/pasted blurb every year).

Which of course begs the question: "so what?"

To which the answer is - exactly. So what? It's TH's problem. Or it's the problem of the guy who owes him all that money.... oh wait, that's TH too... etc... etc...
 
An interest-free loan to yourself is not really a debt, except possibly for tax purposes.

Similarly a "loss" which is actually an interest-free loan to yourself is not really a "loss" - except possibly for tax purposes.

It’s hard to think this needs saying but, TH doesn’t loan money to himself now does he? The money is lent from TH’s chosen source to PNE Ltd and it is very much a debt
 
Yep.

The club is most definitely already "technically insolvent" - and the club's accounts basically confirm that fact every year (I quoted part of this year's accounts above, but it's the same copy/pasted blurb every year).

Which of course begs the question: "so what?"

To which the answer is - exactly. So what? It's TH's problem. Or it's the problem of the guy who owes him all that money.... oh wait, that's TH too... etc... etc...
I'm fairly ambivalent to all this financial madness. The numbers are mind-boggling, way beyond the scale of most people here. Owning a football club is just an expensive hobby for the mega-rich, and we're generally in no position to understand them or second-guess their motives.

It isn't like running most other businesses. (I run one.)

But the one thing I DO wonder is why he sets the spend level (or loss level) at the point he does? Why is a £6M injection of funds more acceptable than £10M? Is it a purely arbitrary level or is it related to / dependent on another set of figures?

And unless any of us know this, then who are we to demand or expect anything whatsoever?
 
I'm fairly ambivalent to all this financial madness. The numbers are mind-boggling, way beyond the scale of most people here. Owning a football club is just an expensive hobby for the mega-rich, and we're generally in no position to understand them or second-guess their motives.

It isn't like running most other businesses. (I run one.)

But the one thing I DO wonder is why he sets the spend level (or loss level) at the point he does? Why is a £6M injection of funds more acceptable than £10M? Is it a purely arbitrary level or is it related to / dependent on another set of figures?

And unless any of us know this, then who are we to demand or expect anything whatsoever?
From what we have been told over the years it depends on what side of the bed he wakes up on. Prepared to spend £3.75m on Armstrong but not the wages to match. Won't spend £1.5m on a striker but will on a virtually unknown squad midfielder
 
From what we have been told over the years it depends on what side of the bed he wakes up on. Prepared to spend £3.75m on Armstrong but not the wages to match. Won't spend £1.5m on a striker but will on a virtually unknown squad midfielder

I think we all have some of this in us.
 
It’s hard to think this needs saying but, TH doesn’t loan money to himself now does he? The money is lent from TH’s chosen source to PNE Ltd and it is very much a debt
Yeah, obviously the model I presented on here is simplified and I haven't had time to build it to scale or to paint it, but what's missing from this whole picture of TH the friendly bloke in a flat cap (on the one hand) and PNE the football club that lost £42m over the last 10 years (on the other hand) is the £1,025m wealth of that same TH bloke in a flat cap, who made £125m in the year 2016-17 and £175m from 2017-19.

Which kinda makes this whole "£42m loan over 10 years" kinda a mere bagatelle in comparison.

I'm fairly ambivalent to all this financial madness. The numbers are mind-boggling, way beyond the scale of most people here. Owning a football club is just an expensive hobby for the mega-rich, and we're generally in no position to understand them or second-guess their motives.

It isn't like running most other businesses. (I run one.)

But the one thing I DO wonder is why he sets the spend level (or loss level) at the point he does? Why is a £6M injection of funds more acceptable than £10M? Is it a purely arbitrary level or is it related to / dependent on another set of figures?

And unless any of us know this, then who are we to demand or expect anything whatsoever?
I believe the level of annual injection of funds fundamentally links the wage bill to the turnover of the football club, but it is otherwise at the sole discretion of the owner.

Historically we don't tend to stray above about 110% of turnover (we went above 130% in 2008/09 and again upon relegation in 2011/12), so obviously 2018/19's wage bill reaching 143% of turnover will (we can safely assume) need correction in 2019/20, or very shortly thereafter, in the shape of player sales (or Prem millions).
 
Yeah, obviously the model I presented on here is simplified and I haven't had time to build it to scale or to paint it, but what's missing from this whole picture of TH the friendly bloke in a flat cap (on the one hand) and PNE the football club that lost £42m over the last 10 years (on the other hand) is the £1,025m wealth of that same TH bloke in a flat cap, who made £125m in the year 2016-17 and £175m from 2017-19.

Which kinda makes this whole "£42m loan over 10 years" kinda a mere bagatelle in comparison.


I believe the level of annual injection of funds fundamentally links the wage bill to the turnover of the football club, but it is otherwise at the sole discretion of the owner.

Historically we don't tend to stray above about 110% of turnover (we went above 130% in 2008/09 and again upon relegation in 2011/12), so obviously 2018/19's wage bill reaching 143% of turnover will (we can safely assume) need correction in 2019/20, or very shortly thereafter, in the shape of player sales (or Prem millions).
Very illuminating. So let's hope TH has had an epiphany and is happy with a new, higher ratio. Or we get promoted.
 
Yeah, obviously the model I presented on here is simplified and I haven't had time to build it to scale or to paint it, but what's missing from this whole picture of TH the friendly bloke in a flat cap (on the one hand) and PNE the football club that lost £42m over the last 10 years (on the other hand) is the £1,025m wealth of that same TH bloke in a flat cap, who made £125m in the year 2016-17 and £175m from 2017-19.

Which kinda makes this whole "£42m loan over 10 years" kinda a mere bagatelle in comparison.


I believe the level of annual injection of funds fundamentally links the wage bill to the turnover of the football club, but it is otherwise at the sole discretion of the owner.

Historically we don't tend to stray above about 110% of turnover (we went above 130% in 2008/09 and again upon relegation in 2011/12), so obviously 2018/19's wage bill reaching 143% of turnover will (we can safely assume) need correction in 2019/20, or very shortly thereafter, in the shape of player sales (or Prem millions).

Cheers for the analysis that’s quite interesting. We’re almost in “venture capital” territory in that our budget is set and can only be changed if the venture founders decide they think it’s a viable decision. (And the only way the venture capitalist can turn a profit is by promotion or a sale based on our progress)
 
Amazing how the club release these figures in the wake of the u restore the training ground fiasco.
The plot at North End is bitter and twisted but I reckon TH and his companies are using the club as much as we have ever used him.
Agreed, and I am sure that TH and his advisors are desperately looking around for other opportunities where they can 'lose' 43m in a handful of years for tax purposes :rolleyes:.
 
Anyone else find the TH debate a bit boring? We all know how it works. If someone wants to do something about it, either forcing him to go or stay, fair play, but at the moment we're all (quite rightly IMO) putting up with it and it seems pointless endlessly debating how annoyed we should be about it. I get Ingols a bit different because fans (especially JK) put a lot of effort into it, but it seems like the general debate has been done to death and is never going to come to anything one way or the other.
 
Anyone else find the TH debate a bit boring? We all know how it works. If someone wants to do something about it, either forcing him to go or stay, fair play, but at the moment we're all (quite rightly IMO) putting up with it and it seems pointless endlessly debating how annoyed we should be about it. I get Ingols a bit different because fans (especially JK) put a lot of effort into it, but it seems like the general debate has been done to death and is never going to come to anything one way or the other.
This is quite right. Anybody with half a brain realises that there’s currently nobody else prepared to put £6 m plus into the club every year with the slim hope of a payback so basically we should be grateful and move on.
 
Anyone else find the TH debate a bit boring? We all know how it works. If someone wants to do something about it, either forcing him to go or stay, fair play, but at the moment we're all (quite rightly IMO) putting up with it and it seems pointless endlessly debating how annoyed we should be about it. I get Ingols a bit different because fans (especially JK) put a lot of effort into it, but it seems like the general debate has been done to death and is never going to come to anything one way or the other.
tbh, I find the "should Gally take corners?" and "should Fisher be starting?" and "do Harrop's goals in the cups matter?" and a million other "debates" on here equally a bit boring and done to death and never going to come to anything one way or the other.

But we're kind of stuck with them all regardless because - just like the "TH debate" - they relate to the football club we all support and log onto this site to talk about and all that boring stuff.
 
tbh, I find the "should Gally take corners?" and "should Fisher be starting?" and "do Harrop's goals in the cups matter?" and a million other "debates" on here equally a bit boring and done to death and never going to come to anything one way or the other.

But we're kind of stuck with them all regardless because - just like the "TH debate" - they relate to the football club we all support and log onto this site to talk about and all that boring stuff.
Aye it's fair enough to have to debate and aint trying to police the forum just chucking my two pence in, the difference I see with it is that there'll be a decision on whether Gally takes corners or Fisher starts pretty soon, nowts gonna happen with TH soon and no one is going to make stuff happen so it seems like the conversation goes round in circles. I'm free to not click on the threads so it's my own fault really :LOL:
 
tbh, I find the "should Gally take corners?" and "should Fisher be starting?" and "do Harrop's goals in the cups matter?" and a million other "debates" on here equally a bit boring and done to death and never going to come to anything one way or the other.

But we're kind of stuck with them all regardless because - just like the "TH debate" - they relate to the football club we all support and log onto this site to talk about and all that boring stuff.
What is a training ground?
 
I'm fairly ambivalent to all this financial madness. The numbers are mind-boggling, way beyond the scale of most people here. Owning a football club is just an expensive hobby for the mega-rich, and we're generally in no position to understand them or second-guess their motives.

It isn't like running most other businesses. (I run one.)

But the one thing I DO wonder is why he sets the spend level (or loss level) at the point he does? Why is a £6M injection of funds more acceptable than £10M? Is it a purely arbitrary level or is it related to / dependent on another set of figures?

And unless any of us know this, then who are we to demand or expect anything whatsoever?

Quickest way for a Billionaire to become a Millionaire?

Own a football club.
 
Top