Walton
0
Not sure but I think that they own the stadium but lease the land it stands on?
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.
Uncle Trev.
- Thread starter Farmboy
- Start date
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2013
- Messages
- 376
The club DO NOT own Deepdale. PNE have a long-term lease on the land with a condition that it must be used as a football stadium. If it ceases to be a football stadium the lease reverts to the Local Authority.
The question is interesting but it's a new point. [Thanks for clarifying WW]
The club still owns now what it did in 2010, rather the tangible assets being sold to cover virtually an equivalent amount of debt.
Examples of where it went sour: I recall that Brighton and Portsmouth ended up not owning their grounds. Coventry almost the same situation.
The club still owns now what it did in 2010, rather the tangible assets being sold to cover virtually an equivalent amount of debt.
Examples of where it went sour: I recall that Brighton and Portsmouth ended up not owning their grounds. Coventry almost the same situation.
pne4ever
0
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2009
- Messages
- 2,812
I thought PNE bought the lease some time ago and now own the site. The condition of the sale was that the site could only be used for sport therefore prohibiting TH or any future owner flogging the site for development.
The lease has still got over 100 years left and is at a nil rent so PNE do effectively own it. As said though it can only used as a football stadium under this lease.
I rather think Coventry FC are tenants of the rugby club.
Lambo
0
I have heard from sources in the states that there is interest in the club which involves a five year plan which would
achieve promotion and then have the club put into the fans ownership model. Trevor Hemmings would have to
consider an offer that would attract that kind of investment and let a Barcelona business model be the future and
not rely on a wealthy owner
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2006
- Messages
- 8,174
Someone told me months ago that there was interest from America but no other details.
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2017
- Messages
- 818
Would not want investment from America ,personally. It may raise money and possibly more of a chance of getting to the PL but if things go wrong we could be discarded like a used toy.
Yoowell, I feel it's worth examining what happens in specific cases. Take Ellis Short at Sunderland.
A billionaire who put about 250m into the club. The money was taken from him so quickly that the club went backwards. Relegated twice.
That money didn't touch the sides.
These are facts. So something more intelligent is required. Clearly.
A billionaire who put about 250m into the club. The money was taken from him so quickly that the club went backwards. Relegated twice.
That money didn't touch the sides.
These are facts. So something more intelligent is required. Clearly.
Lambo
0
Cannot discard the club if purchased under a future date of fan ownership. All the investment would be lost after 5 years when the fans would control the club. Same situation that would exist if Th or family
walked away. If promotion achieved US
investment would be repayed over the 3 years from promotion. What's not to like
with that deal. Any club that operates with the third smallest budget might make it
one year but will not sustain Premier
League status on the long term
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2017
- Messages
- 818
Don't see how fan ownership could work at Championship level, how would the money be raised to keep us afloat at that level. Portsmouths fan ownership has resurrected their club to some extent but they've still brought in an American investor to try and take it to the next level and even he's only willing to put in 5 million.
We need someone who is willing to lose millions most years , and who manages the financial side sensibly and is in it for the long hall.
Hemmings is a good perfect fit for us,imo.
If we do make it to the PL we don't want to riddled with debts that could cripple us in future years.
Burnleys owners have managed their finances superbly over a number of years, would follow their business model if successful.
We need someone who is willing to lose millions most years , and who manages the financial side sensibly and is in it for the long hall.
Hemmings is a good perfect fit for us,imo.
If we do make it to the PL we don't want to riddled with debts that could cripple us in future years.
Burnleys owners have managed their finances superbly over a number of years, would follow their business model if successful.
Lambo
0
Club would not be under fan ownership in the Championship, only when promotion
achieved and settled would the initial investment be paid back over three years
when the club would receive TV payments and Parachute in worse case.
Burnley been a yo-yo for fifty years, grab some millions back down.
North End fifty years with TH no top league status, he pays more in
Vets, Stable costs and Oats than the football gets.
If fans happy with that they'll never see success.
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2018
- Messages
- 422
What sense does it make for someone to buy PNE for X, invest Y in the club to get promotion and then once they gey X+Y back to give the investment to the fans?
If something like this were to happen, the investors would want a significant return on their investment.
Putting the club in control of the fans would be an interesting experiment.
You would need an extremely good management team and a structure that didn't allow the fans to sack them every time things were going badly.
Bournemouth are another example of how to run a club well. Although it cost them a fortune (£38million in their promotion season) to get into the Premier League.
Lambo
0
If an ex-player was in the position to fund the investment and be drip fed a modest return in the years after promotion and act as safety net
for the fans who would own and manage the club. This would provide the club to be owned and not relying on a wealthy individual to secure
the future of the club. The richest club in the world is run on this arrangement. What an exciting journey that would be for everyone.
A quick summary of the accounting figures for DPNE 2017-18. All figures £ m.
Summary of cost of operations : .... 4.1
Player trading costs : ..................... 1.1
Purchase of tangibile fixed assets : 2.2
Repayments : ................................. 0.1
Total : .............................................. 7.50
Cash reserves used : ... 1.82
Loan required : ...............5.68
Total : ............................. 7.50
As far as I know, the tangible fixed asset is the land purchase for 1.5m plus 0.7m other.
If those purchases hadn't been made, the interest-free loan made by the owner would be 2.2m less, to make the book balance.
I think you know what I'm saying ....
Summary of cost of operations : .... 4.1
Player trading costs : ..................... 1.1
Purchase of tangibile fixed assets : 2.2
Repayments : ................................. 0.1
Total : .............................................. 7.50
Cash reserves used : ... 1.82
Loan required : ...............5.68
Total : ............................. 7.50
As far as I know, the tangible fixed asset is the land purchase for 1.5m plus 0.7m other.
If those purchases hadn't been made, the interest-free loan made by the owner would be 2.2m less, to make the book balance.
I think you know what I'm saying ....
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2004
- Messages
- 880
Burnley got very lucky, their financial situation was worse than ours when they got promoted under Coyle, to the extent that their chairman (Kilby ?) had admitted privately that they would almost certainly have got relegated from the Championship the following season if they hadn't gone up. Once your in the Prem I think you've got to be pretty incompetent to wrack up large debts with the amount of money you have coming in; which I suppose that tells you all you need to know about the boards who are running a lot of clubs who are in the Prem and some of those who have been relegated to the Championship.
Sedds ran an article on the 2017-18 accounts for North End. Then, about a week later he ran another, which is quoted below.
www.lep.co.uk
I said I would make some further comments and here they are.
These accounts show NE making a loss of 7.1m before player trading is considered. Some questions that might occur to the reader are :
i) is this higher than normal ?
ii) if it's higher, why is it higher ?
iii) should we be looking at something else instead ?
Last year the same figure was 5.8m and in 2016 it was 4.4m, so there's an upward trend.
The biggest reason for that is the paper loss called 'player registration amortisation'. Sounds complex (like most accounting terms) but it's a relatively simple concept. For example, you buy a player for 800K on a 4-year contract. That value is written off over 4 years at 200K per year. After 4 years the value is 0. This is how accounts deal with the Bosman ruling (and aging players).
However, if the club doesn't allow the contract to expire, this paper loss vanishes.
In the 2017 accounts this paper loss was 2.2m (from the various players combined) and in 2018 the figure was 2.8m. (This simply indicates that the club has been spending more on players.) If you don't include the 2.8m in the loss, it is only a 4.2m loss. Technically, that's called Loss from Operations before player trading and amortisation. (Loss before PTA).
So far, questions (i) and (ii) have been answered.
Dave Seddon’s PNE pressview: Wages the big challenge for Preston and all the clubs in the ‘bear pit’ of the Championship
The latest set of financial figures from Preston North End might not make for bedtime reading but they are interesting to say the least when studied in the cold light of day.
www.lep.co.uk
I said I would make some further comments and here they are.
These accounts show NE making a loss of 7.1m before player trading is considered. Some questions that might occur to the reader are :
i) is this higher than normal ?
ii) if it's higher, why is it higher ?
iii) should we be looking at something else instead ?
Last year the same figure was 5.8m and in 2016 it was 4.4m, so there's an upward trend.
The biggest reason for that is the paper loss called 'player registration amortisation'. Sounds complex (like most accounting terms) but it's a relatively simple concept. For example, you buy a player for 800K on a 4-year contract. That value is written off over 4 years at 200K per year. After 4 years the value is 0. This is how accounts deal with the Bosman ruling (and aging players).
However, if the club doesn't allow the contract to expire, this paper loss vanishes.
In the 2017 accounts this paper loss was 2.2m (from the various players combined) and in 2018 the figure was 2.8m. (This simply indicates that the club has been spending more on players.) If you don't include the 2.8m in the loss, it is only a 4.2m loss. Technically, that's called Loss from Operations before player trading and amortisation. (Loss before PTA).
So far, questions (i) and (ii) have been answered.
Arguably, 'Loss before PTA' is a more meaningful figure to examine. Over the last 2 years, that figure has gone up by 1.2m. Why ?
NE is receiving 2.4m more from TV revenue in 2018, compared to 2016. That has allowed the club to spend more on staff costs (mainly playing staff plus management).
However, staff costs have gone up by 4.4m in the same two years. Other expenses have gone up 0.2m, for a total of 4.6m.
The club has increased 'other revenue' by 1.0m. So putting those figures together :
4.6 - 2.4 - 1.0 = 1.2
The increased costs are not quite covered by the increased revenues.
The difference is made up by the owner.
In the last 2 years the club has been spending more on players' wages, possibly on management as well. (We only see the combined figure). It has also been spending more when it buys players. However, regarding transfer spending there's a reasonable expectation that the club will not lose that money. In fact it may make handsome gains which, generally speaking, have not yet appeared in the accounts. Two notable sales were Cunningham and Hugill, who both desired to leave. The club made the most from that situation.
That 7.1m loss figure, mentioned at the start, is scarier than it looks. The one to keep an eye on is staff costs.
The accounts do contain a warning about cash flow. It means that the costs are greater than the revenues, year by year. That could change but either way, the club will depend on either a) player sales or b) owner contributions in order for it to remain a going concern.
Personally, as long as the staff costs are under control, I think (b) is guaranteed. (And (a) will be transient.)
Technically, there is a profit this year but it is an artifact of how accounts are presented. The club hasn't been paid in full for the players sold, so we now have money owing. To meet the cash flow demand, the owner still had to put in 5.6m of new money last year.
As a final, general comment, I wouldn't expect NE to sell a player for 10m, then spend that same amount immediately. It doesn't work that way when you have an adverse cash flow. For another, that money hasn't necessarily come in to the club yet.
NE is receiving 2.4m more from TV revenue in 2018, compared to 2016. That has allowed the club to spend more on staff costs (mainly playing staff plus management).
However, staff costs have gone up by 4.4m in the same two years. Other expenses have gone up 0.2m, for a total of 4.6m.
The club has increased 'other revenue' by 1.0m. So putting those figures together :
4.6 - 2.4 - 1.0 = 1.2
The increased costs are not quite covered by the increased revenues.
The difference is made up by the owner.
In the last 2 years the club has been spending more on players' wages, possibly on management as well. (We only see the combined figure). It has also been spending more when it buys players. However, regarding transfer spending there's a reasonable expectation that the club will not lose that money. In fact it may make handsome gains which, generally speaking, have not yet appeared in the accounts. Two notable sales were Cunningham and Hugill, who both desired to leave. The club made the most from that situation.
That 7.1m loss figure, mentioned at the start, is scarier than it looks. The one to keep an eye on is staff costs.
The accounts do contain a warning about cash flow. It means that the costs are greater than the revenues, year by year. That could change but either way, the club will depend on either a) player sales or b) owner contributions in order for it to remain a going concern.
Personally, as long as the staff costs are under control, I think (b) is guaranteed. (And (a) will be transient.)
Technically, there is a profit this year but it is an artifact of how accounts are presented. The club hasn't been paid in full for the players sold, so we now have money owing. To meet the cash flow demand, the owner still had to put in 5.6m of new money last year.
As a final, general comment, I wouldn't expect NE to sell a player for 10m, then spend that same amount immediately. It doesn't work that way when you have an adverse cash flow. For another, that money hasn't necessarily come in to the club yet.
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2018
- Messages
- 422
The increasing difference between income and wages is worrying but in the Championship today normal.
This difference could be reduced if the club improved 'commercial & retail' activities.
The best comparison to PNE is probably Huddersfield, in their promotion season they had income of £2.3million from commercail activites and £0.99 from retail.
PNE don't get anywhere near these numbers.
This difference could be reduced if the club improved 'commercial & retail' activities.
The best comparison to PNE is probably Huddersfield, in their promotion season they had income of £2.3million from commercail activites and £0.99 from retail.
PNE don't get anywhere near these numbers.