BFC Accounts have landed

Next accounts published will be for this season. Season ticket sales in the summer will be reflected in the following set of accounts, 2025/6 published likely in March 2027.

 

When do player wages get hauled back and in line with what clubs can afford - until then it’s just average players being payed **** tons of cash that clubs can’t actually afford it’s ludicrous.

 

I’d not picked up on merchandise being down, not surprised with Fanatics if they are even in the reporting period? Also not surprised with the tat they sell ! Wakey Trinity have a far greater catalogue, we’ve had some shocking kits too ( obviously awful grey away and obnoxious pink not in this period), perhaps the last year of the Puma deal spin may one day be truthful.

 

That's one theory. Another would be that this was the year of the star spangled shambles kit wasn't it? I'm not saying everyone hated it, but many did. If your major product is so divisive then you have to expect a serious drop in sales.

 

It'll be the same. And we've been warned about it all year. The difference is in these accounts the operating loss was mostly offset by player sales, in the next it will be offset by the owners purchasing more shares. But one is no better than the other, it's money you can't rely on and will dry up.

 

Does our home kit account for such a proportion of our overall merchandising sales? It was bloody horrible though, so I suspect you're right that it probably did chip away some sales.

Was that the first season JAQ was in charge of the 'design' side of our kits?

 

I'll await a summary from you, or @Archerfield, in simple terms, for those of us who max out on Quicken.

 

The operating loss is an eye watering. £9.7m!!!

A reduction of £500k in turnover £9.5m to £9m. Players wages up £2m, £9.3m to £11.3m and administrative expenses up a million to £4m explains the change in operating loss.

Player sales partially offset this with a profit of £6.8m.

Unfortunately there is a lot worse to come…

 

I don't know, but surely it's the primary product. It's the home kit, the brand identifier, and we picked one that a lot of people hated the first time around. With a product like that you aim for mass appeal, something a bit bland that won't offend anyone. I'm sure there were some people that loved that starry atrocity (there's no accounting for taste) but that's no good if 75% of people hate it.

 

Aye an thats why we av to be thankful for their commitment.

 

This is obviously an issue, but it is very difficult to be critical, as the owners would be criticized, whichever option they had taken.
1. Sell the 4 in January to make some asset stripping / greedy b*****d move when in promotion contention, and be slated by the fan base.
2. Don't sell the 4 in January when in promotion contention; miss out on promotion and be slated by the fan base.

 

Yeah, the people who love it aren't going to buy two.

I imagine sales of kids strips must have been awful. I had a kit every year growing up but wouldn't have dreamed of wearing that, painting a target on your own back for piss taking.

 

I thought that the club had repeatedly told us that the transfer money from player sales for Andersen, pitching etc couldn't be spent to sign good players because they were structured in such a way that it was installments coming in over a number of years.

With that in mind why is everyone saying that the accounts for this year will be much worse because there's no transfer money coming in? Shouldn't it be coming in for those players in the previously mentioned installments?


And if we are making post player sales losses of a few million why do the club tell us that they are going cap in hand to the owners for three quarters of a million a month? That suggests much higher losses than flatman told a fans forum and many times higher than our posted losses are

Or am I as usual missing something?

 

Three quarters of a million per month is 9 million per year, which is very similar to the operating loss posted here.

 

But why are our owners funding the operating losses when player trading covers the majority of it?

 

I work on the phone, salesman, I was told by someone whom was from Mansfield and claimed to be good friends with DKD, that DKD signing on fee was £800k and wage was £9k p/w. Of course this wouldn’t reflect on this years accounts but if so, that’s some wages to be paying players.

 

My summary would be that the sales last year were exceptional yet the club still lost £3m.

Next year there will not be the level of sales to offset against a £10m operating loss.

 

The accounts don't make great reading and to put into context how messed up football is, these are some of the losses posted by other clubs for the same 23-24 period (according to Keiran Maguire on Twitter):

Scunthorpe £499k
Oldham (Including Norwood) £3.2m
Salford in L2: £5.3m
Donny in L2: over £3m
Port Vale down from L1: £3.8m
Stockport up from L2: £7m
Swansea in Champ: £15.2m

Then Preston who are often compared to Barnsley, have been losing £1m per month over the last 4 years to tread water in mid table.

 

It did for these accounts, it won't next year.

Player sales tend to be a lump sum plus installments. And we don't know how long the installment period is.