Wolves 22/23 accounts

[SingYourHeartsOut]

As we paid out £10m on interest isn’t that to Fosun??

Don't know is the honest answer, I image the loans that we've taken that haven't been converted to equity still require interest, but then it's only moving money around inside Fosun. There's quite a bit of money owed outside Fosun though I think.

 

[Timberwolf]

The real question is why did Shi take leave of his senses in summer 2022?

He kept Lage after a terrible end to the previous season, and green lighted spunking millions on Guedes (mediocre player who had been turned down for several years and plainly had little enthusiasm for the move), Nunes (a luxury signing that clubs at our level shouldn't be making) and Sasa who already had one serious knee injury and had no serious alternative bidders as a result.

That was just madness and we are extremely fortunate to have seemingly come through that unscathed - though the squad available to O'Neill as a result is far from unscathed.

I also think we were very lucky to get the fees we did last summer - only De Bruyne getting injured meant Pep panicked and told City to get Nunes (who has been just as poor for them), Neves's fee was solely due to the new Saudi push with their domestic league (and him being open to going there) and quite why Brentford - a generally prudent operator in the transfer market - decided to make Nathan Collins their record signing will always remain puzzling.

We can only hope with Hobbs at the helm that things will return to some level of sanity now.

Wow! Is hindsight your only superpower?

 

[Timberwolf]

Don't know is the honest answer, I image the loans that we've taken that haven't been converted to equity still require interest, but then it's only moving money around inside Fosun. There's quite a bit of money owed outside Fosun though I think.

View attachment 40896

I would imagine that was to Macquarie?

 

[Mile End Wanderer]

I would imagine that was to Macquarie?

Didn’t we take a loan off the uk government

 

[North West Wanderer]

I would imagine that was to Macquarie?

I think so too, and it wasn't cheap.

 

[Timberwolf]

Didn’t we take a loan off the uk government

Did we? Like a COVID loan?

 

[Mile End Wanderer]

Did we? Like a COVID loan?

No Wolves secure £99m government loan

 

[Timberwolf]

No Wolves secure £99m government loan

I’d missed that. Thanks.
That loan wouldn’t be on these published accounts though, would it? May to May I believe.

 

[Mile End Wanderer]

I’d missed that. Thanks.
That loan wouldn’t be on these published accounts though, would it? May to May I believe.

Absolutely

 

[SuperGran]

Absolutely

That loan was last season wasn’t it not a recent one

 

[Mile End Wanderer]

That loan was last season wasn’t it not a recent one

Will be on the next set of accounts then?

 

[SuperGran]

Will be on the next set of accounts then?

No idea

 

[SingYourHeartsOut]

Will be on the next set of accounts then?

If you check the article, although it's published July 23, it says the loan was taken out nearly 12 months previously. I'm going to guess that's the £89m owed to 'other creditors' - maybe? The £100m being Macquarie against staggered payment of sales to help cash flow?

 

[Perton Wolf]

They seem to make for grim reading.

Shi very lucky to still be in post. How we managed to avert disaster last summer with our sales and loss of manager is beyond me, but you can certainly now see why it had to happen, too many poor financial decisions had preceded it.

 

[Northampton_wolf]

We will be a little less than we expected as we paid of Jonny but still within pfp and we still would have been with loan for alberto

 

[Northampton_wolf]

Interest payments were to outstanding debt liabilities

 

[Jd132]

For financial year 23/24 we will almost certainly be £30-£40mill in profit minus the Lopetegui and co payoff so probably around £20mill profit in the end. The club clearly expect their finances will more than cover the £18mill profit for 20/21.

Then with only small fees committed and massive wages saved, our amortised fees and wages for 24/25 will surely be very low, with some room to add to. That, along with the fact we could in theory lose up £46mill (although obviously no-one wants to dig the same hole) means there should be cash to spend even without major sales.

 

[SingYourHeartsOut]

For financial year 23/24 we will almost certainly be £30-£40mill in profit minus the Lopetegui and co payoff so probably around £20mill profit in the end. The club clearly expect their finances will more than cover the £18mill profit for 20/21.

Then with only small fees committed and massive wages saved, our amortised fees and wages for 24/25 will surely be very low, with some room to add to. That, along with the fact we could in theory lose up £46mill (although obviously no-one wants to dig the same hole) means there should be cash to spend even without major sales.

Just one point on this (I may have made before). People thinking that 24/25 can be like 21/22 on a rolling 3 year basis are ignoring the likelihood that the rules will change. The scariest part for me is that we were apparently running at 131% of player costs to income. We might well have to have cut that to 80% by next season, so I don't expect a big loss. We should probably welcome this anyway though as I don't think Fosun think a £35m annual loss is a great plan.

 

[Jd132]

Just one point on this (I may have made before). People thinking that 24/25 can be like 21/22 on a rolling 3 year basis are ignoring the likelihood that the rules will change. The scariest part for me is that we were apparently running at 131% of player costs to income. We might well have to have cut that to 80% by next season, so I don't expect a big loss. We should probably welcome this anyway though as I don't think Fosun think a £35m annual loss is a great plan.

That is an interesting point, but one thing to mention is that the accounts published today, have our wage spend for 22/23 at £123.8mill.

Many sites have recently published comparator PL wage bills for 23/24 with Wolves coming out at somewhere between £43 and £53mill. I am aware that won't include Directors and other staff remuneration, but even if that is another £10mill, it looks likely we may have already got the wage bill under control in line with the 70% target of PSR.

22/23 will have Lage's payoff and 23/24 will have Lopetegui's payoff which I am taking as broadly netting each other off.

And it makes sense when you think King, Doc, Bueno, Doyle and JRB were the incomings, their wages are all probably covered simply by Raul leaving. With us then removing the wages of Neves, Nunes, Costa, Moutinho, Adama that £184k a week loss being mentioned will have been wiped away by the end of the Summer.

 

[SingYourHeartsOut]

That is an interesting point, but one thing to mention is that the accounts published today, have our wage spend for 22/23 at £123.8mill.

Many sites have recently published comparator PL wage bills for 23/24 with Wolves coming out at somewhere between £43 and £53mill. I am aware that won't include Directors and other staff remuneration, but even if that is another £10mill, it looks likely we may have already got the wage bill under control in line with the 70% target of PSR.

23/23 will have Lage's payoff and 23/24 will have Lopetegui's payoff which I am taking as broadly netting each other off.

And it makes sense when you think King, Doc, Bueno, Doyle and JRB were the incomings, their wages are all probably covered simply by Raul leaving. With us then removing the wages of Neves, Nunes, Costa, Moutinho, Adama that £184k a week loss being mentioned will have been wiped away by then end of the Summer.

If we really have halved the wage bill and kept amortisation low while generating a substantial profit then it was a marvellous trick.

My doubts about this are that I can't make it work in my mind! In very round numbers, if we have income of £170m or so plus player trading of another £80m+ this season and our wages are £50m and amortisation is maybe £80m (totally plucking a number out of the air), how are we not turning a huge profit?

 

[Adrian_Monk]

He kept Lage after a terrible end to the previous season, and green lighted spunking millions on Guedes (mediocre player who had been turned down for several years and plainly had little enthusiasm for the move), Nunes (a luxury signing that clubs at our level shouldn't be making) and Sasa who already had one serious knee injury and had no serious alternative bidders as a result.

after already blowing the best part of £70m on a right back and a teenager two seasons before, watching how that turned out, then turning off the taps until suddenly panic buying all of the above towards the end of the transfer window.

I'd love to have been a fly on the wall during this period. Given Shi basically handed the reigns to Hobbs from last January, with his only input being a (constantly changing) budget, hopefully this is evidence he's given up trying to play real life championship manager and is now leaving things to people who know what they're doing

 

[Jd132]

If we really have halved the wage bill and kept amortisation low while generating a substantial profit then it was a marvellous trick.

My doubts about this are that I can't make it work in my mind! In very round numbers, if we have income of £170m or so plus player trading of another £80m+ this season and our wages are £50m and amortisation is maybe £80m (totally plucking a number out of the air), how are we not turning a huge profit?

For 23/24, I can only see that we must have turned a big profit. All those elements you mention are correct plus the amortised fees for Nunes and Collins (probably circa £14mill a season) have been removed and the amortised fees for JRB and Santi won't have got anywhere near replacing them (probably £4mill a season max). Therefore, I'd expect the amortisation of player registrations to be back down to at least £70mill too.

There is little to explain why the books should not look great for 23/24. Except the cost of Lopetegui's exit and generally doubting Shi's overall competence.

 

[Wisdomwolf]

They seem to make for grim reading.

Shi very lucky to still be in post. How we managed to avert disaster last summer with our sales and loss of manager is beyond me, but you can certainly now see why it had to happen, too many poor financial decisions had preceded it.

Just one point on this (I may have made before). People thinking that 24/25 can be like 21/22 on a rolling 3 year basis are ignoring the likelihood that the rules will change. The scariest part for me is that we were apparently running at 131% of player costs to income. We might well have to have cut that to 80% by next season, so I don't expect a big loss. We should probably welcome this anyway though as I don't think Fosun think a £35m annual loss is a great plan.

23/24 accounts will show that trajectory with lower earners replacing the higher earners.

 

[Bill S Preston Esq.]

I think so too, and it wasn't cheap.

Only it was cheap. Far cheaper by all accounts than the loans taken out with Macquarie.

 

[Wisdomwolf]

No, as I understand it (not an accountant!) they basically say they bought an asset (us for £45m), spent £200m on us, and now they have an asset worth £245m. So on the books we've broken even and don't owe them anything.

Not quite, that asset is generally valued at circa £400m, so in theory the margin is greater.

 

[SingYourHeartsOut]

For 23/24, I can only see that we must have turned a big profit. All those elements you mention are correct plus the amortised fees for Nunes and Collins (probably circa £14mill a season) have been removed and the amortised fees for JRB and Santi won't have got anywhere near replacing them (probably £4mill a season max). Therefore, I'd expect the amortisation of player registrations to be back down to at least £70mill too.

There is little to explain why the books should not look great for 23/24. Except the cost of Lopetegui's exit and generally doubting Shi's overall competence.

This is my question though. If we're to believe that wages are c£50m and amortisation is c£70m and profit on player trading must be £50m+ with income of c£160m that looks like a huge profit (even with other staff costs maybe c£20m that would be £80m). Apparently though it isn't the case so I must have something wrong.

 

[wolvesjoe]

For 23/24, I can only see that we must have turned a big profit. All those elements you mention are correct plus the amortised fees for Nunes and Collins (probably circa £14mill a season) have been removed and the amortised fees for JRB and Santi won't have got anywhere near replacing them (probably £4mill a season max). Therefore, I'd expect the amortisation of player registrations to be back down to at least £70mill too.

There is little to explain why the books should not look great for 23/24. Except the cost of Lopetegui's exit and generally doubting Shi's overall competence.

That's a prope r analysis.

the huge surplus in player trading this season plus the big cuts in player wages leave wolves in an excellent position re. PS r already this season, and even more so for the next two seasons as this year's surplus will still influence the calculations.

the possibility of having to adopt a salary cap in the future to harmonise with the monopolistic UEFA measures is a threat for the future. But remember that the premier league also wants to protect the competitive advantage of its products. Far from clear what the outcome of current talks will be.

 

[Ned]

This stuff goes completely over my head and I generally go off of what most people tell me because I’m a sheep. So, for the mathematically inept, how much could we conceivably have had to spend in January please?

 

[JadeWolf]

This stuff goes completely over my head and I generally go off of what most people tell me because I’m a sheep. So, for the mathematically inept, how much could we conceivably have had to spend in January please?

About £5m apparently, which went down to £2.5m when we paid off Jonny’s contract.

 

[WeAreTheWolvesII]

About £5m apparently, which went down to £2.5m when we paid off Jonny’s contract.

That’s if we finish 17th, which we highly likely won’t.

Even acting with extreme caution, we should have been in a position where we can say we were £7-8m under the limit.

If we bought a £10-15m striker on a 5-year deal we would put £2-3m for this year on the books.

We were perfectly capable of buying at least one player within that range in January and not worrying about PSR.

 

[North West Wanderer]

That’s if we finish 17th, which we highly likely won’t.

Even acting with extreme caution, we should have been in a position where we can say we were £7-8m under the limit.

If we bought a £10-15m striker on a 5-year deal we would put £2-3m for this year on the books.

We were perfectly capable of buying at least one player within that range in January and not worrying about PSR.

which we tried to do, and then pulled out when the agents in Brazil asked for more money.

 

[WeAreTheWolvesII]

which we tried to do, and then pulled out when the agents in Brazil asked for more money.

Of course we did.

I don’t mean this in a ****ty way but there’s no point going down this road again.

I personally don’t care about what we supposedly tried to do. Once they let two strikers go, they HAD to replace them in my opinion.

You think they tried and got unlucky again, fair enough, others will agree with you.

The only point I was making was that we without doubt had the financial room to sign a player in January.

 

[SingYourHeartsOut]

I didn't get an answer (that I noticed) from anyone last time, so I'll try again, maybe someone will have time to explain on a Sunday....

People are adding up the profit/ loss from the last 3 seasons accounts (years ending May 31st) and saying we snuck under the limits. However we sold Neves in June, so that's not in the accounts for 22/23, but is in the PSR calculation which goes up to the end of June.

That's all stuff I've been told on here, but not in any of the reporting I've seen, so presumably something is wrong?

 

[North West Wanderer]

Of course we did.

I don’t mean this in a ****ty way but there’s no point going down this road again.

I personally don’t care about what we supposedly tried to do. Once they let two strikers go, they HAD to replace them in my opinion.

You think they tried and got unlucky again, fair enough, others will agree with you.

The only point I was making was that we without doubt had the financial room to sign a player in January.

i have no wish to go and bang my head against a brick wall either, for my sake and the forum’s sake!

I don’t think they were unlucky, i think we tried and failed, for a reason i agree with.

you in the other hand are perhaps more cynical than me!

i agreed at the time and still agree we were one short, and now having all three first choice attackers out exasperated the situation.

 

[lets all have a disco]

About £5m apparently, which went down to £2.5m when we paid off Jonny’s contract.

Which is probably about the loan fee we offered for Broja or probably the fee etc we offered for the loan for Brazilian chap until his agent wanted a 1m more ...

In hindsight maybe taking a small fee for someone like Cundle which was rumoured was probably the thing to do.....but even that would have got some moaning, including me ...

 

[hollo]

Cundle seemed to be flourishing at Plymouth but not so much at stoke.

 

[North West Wanderer]

Cundle seemed to be flourishing at Plymouth but not so much at stoke.

a fractured club if ever I saw one.

 

[hollo]

We could raise 50 million this way and bring in 4 players with the proceeds. We have options. Take that ffp. Amortise us now!

Hoever 3 million
Cundle 1.5 million
Hodge 1 million
Bolla 1 million
Fabio 6 million
Chiquinho 3 million
Lembikisa 1 million
Podence 4.5 million
Mosquera 12 million
Guedes 10 million
Hugo Bueno 10 million

 

[Black Country Wanderer]

I didn't get an answer (that I noticed) from anyone last time, so I'll try again, maybe someone will have time to explain on a Sunday....

People are adding up the profit/ loss from the last 3 seasons accounts (years ending May 31st) and saying we snuck under the limits. However we sold Neves in June, so that's not in the accounts for 22/23, but is in the PSR calculation which goes up to the end of June.

That's all stuff I've been told on here, but not in any of the reporting I've seen, so presumably something is wrong?

As far as i know,and i know nothing,the Nunes and Neves money will be part of this years accounts
I havent seen anywhere where they are part of last years

 

[SingYourHeartsOut]

We could raise 50 million this way and bring in 4 players with the proceeds. We have options. Take that ffp. Amortise us now!

Hoever 3 million
Cundle 1.5 million
Hodge 1 million
Bolla 1 million
Fabio 6 million
Chiquinho 3 million
Lembikisa 1 million
Podence 4.5 million
Mosquera 12 million
Guedes 10 million
Hugo Bueno 10 million

I mean it's a plan, but roughly speaking Fabio has a book value of £11m, Guedes is £15m, so you're actually making a £10m loss on those two for a start.