Apologies if posted previously, one extremely detailed run down of 19/20 accounts taken from twitter, give it a read.
20/21 clubs accounts will be an interesting read. The ifollow +'s and -'s taken into account with clubs having different strategies. Barnsley I believe will have fared far better than most.
My worry is that in a "normal" COVID free world we would be in a great position to capitalize on the fact we are run within our means, as many other clubs would have to seriously cut back and other will be already docked points for Chansiri-ing their running of the clubs. But because clubs are using COVID as an excuse for the losses they would have made anyway(granted, they may not have been as bad), they will get away without any financial punishments, and once again we will be penalised for doing things the right way...
I don't think the lack of any penalties for clubs overspending is going to be our problem. I think it's that they won't have the funds to buy our players and as we rely on player sales to survive, I don't see how we're going to. Almost every other club in our league have owners putting money in. We have owners taking money out. Most people seem to be treating this as cause for celebration. I am of the exact opposite opinion.
Read the accounts. 750,000 went out to pay the Crynes. There is also substantial director remuneration.
It’s not exactly unusual business practice even in the football world. There’s no doubt that the next few years are going to be tough for clubs across the EFL but I’d back our club set up against pretty much any other to come out of it stronger than before.
Isn't the director remuneration as simple as Dane, James Cryne and Rob Zuk? Maybe not even Dane. It's down on the previous year as well and hardly out of sync with other clubs in the Championship. Even those paying less aren't necessarily leaving 'more in' so to speak. We might have increased costs in this area compared to others because of James Cryne's involvement - but that's me speculating at best.
We were towards the top of the table for Director's remuneration, with many clubs paying absolutely nothing. I'm not totally opposed to paying the director's well, if it's simply limited to the likes of Murphy and the others that are actually employed to run the club, rather than those who "own" it. A good director can earn the club much, much more than they are paid, so they don't come cheap. The owner though, they should only take a dividend when the club actually makes a profit(and only then a significant profit).
I can't remember who the Directors were on the last accounts but Dane answered it very openly in the Trust Q&A that was available online and on the club website. I remember thinking there was nothing untoward there and all made relative sense. My memory doesn't link to it being the owners taking money out or those not involved getting a salary - but I could be wrong.
That's fair enough. The likes of Dane Murphy are employees, so need paying. I'm not sure what the going rate is for a Director at a football club, but I can't imagine your going to get a good one on the cheap. I've not even got any issues with the owners taking dividends out of the club if it makes a decent profit, doesn't affect the financial liquidity of the club and the profit that is made translates into success on the pitch.
Dane Murphy is CEO - paid director. Rob Zuk is Finance Director/General Manager - paid director James Cryne is Recruitment Director* - paid director Like you, I wouldn't say that's money being taken out of the club in the negative sense. I would say they all work for the club and all get paid for their roles. You could argue they get too much if you have that opinion, but then at that level I don't think they do. We've probably got more day to day directors than other clubs, hence being further up the ladder on that particular aspect. * I know James isn't the recruitment director. But we use his model, his algorithm, etc.
