Skip to main content

Uncle Trev.

Uncle Trev.

I meant to include a link to the filing history. Both reports are on that page.

LiY: interesting comments.

PNE had 'Commercial and media revenue' of 1.1m in 2018 (p.18).

They also had 'Other operating income' of 0.7m in 2018 (p.7). That's more interesting because it's all new. In 2016 (and prior to that, I think) it was zero. It depends what it is.

If Huddersfield can get 3.3m in alternative revenues, that's noteworthy. Presumably there will be some staff admin costs to go with that.

Are you able to say more ?
 
epsilon said:
I meant to include a link to the filing history. Both reports are on that page.

LiY: interesting comments.

PNE had 'Commercial and media revenue' of 1.1m in 2018 (p.18).

They also had 'Other operating income' of 0.7m in 2018 (p.7). That's more interesting because it's all new. In 2016 (and prior to that, I think) it was zero. It depends what it is.

If Huddersfield can get 3.3m in alternative revenues, that's noteworthy. Presumably there will be some staff admin costs to go with that.

Are you able to say more ?
Click to expand...

It was just something I noticed when looking into the finances of clubs who have been promoted.

PNE appears to have subcontracted most of the retail activities and this is possibly short-sited.

Although the lease with the owners of the old club shop might have deterred investment in this area.

Huddersfield have a shop at the ground & in the town centre plus they run their own on-line shop.
 
epsilon said:
I meant to include a link to the filing history. Both reports are on that page.

LiY: interesting comments.

PNE had 'Commercial and media revenue' of 1.1m in 2018 (p.18).

They also had 'Other operating income' of 0.7m in 2018 (p.7). That's more interesting because it's all new. In 2016 (and prior to that, I think) it was zero. It depends what it is.

If Huddersfield can get 3.3m in alternative revenues, that's noteworthy. Presumably there will be some staff admin costs to go with that.

Are you able to say more ?
Click to expand...

Looking it at it again Huddersfield got a bit more money from TV and tickets in their promotion year but the big differecne of ~£2million is commercial & retail.

Commercial is probably sponsors, etc. retail is probably food and club shop sales. PNE might include franchising fees received from catering and club shop in commercial, and merchandising as a commission on sales from the club shop.

With a Hemmings sponsor for the shirts nearly every year, there is no incentive to go and look elsewhere. With other retail activities outsourced there is no incentive to promote things.

This suggests TH could either reduce his annual subsidy or the club would have more money if we actively looked to maximise commercial & retail income.

I suspect this is because the management at PNE have taken the easiest option available to them.
 
Just to fix a typo... in post #99, I meant to say :

'That 7.1m loss figure, mentioned at the start, looks scarier than it is. The one to keep an eye on is staff costs.'
 
For a couple of reasons, I'm posting the actual staff costs at NE for the last 3 accounting periods.
(These are again from the Deepdale PNE Holdings company, in £ m ).

2015-16 .... 9.0 ... 10.6
2018-17 ...11.7 ... 13.5
2017-18 ...12.9 ... 15.0

The first column is made up of player wages and management.

The second column is all wages, including admin.
 
Gue
epsilon said:
For a couple of reasons, I'm posting the actual staff costs at NE for the last 3 accounting periods.
(These are again from the Deepdale PNE Holdings company, in £ m ).

2015-16 .... 9.0 ... 10.6
2018-17 ...11.7 ... 13.5
2017-18 ...12.9 ... 15.0

The first column is made up of player wages and management.

The second column is all wages, including admin.
Click to expand...

Was Cunningham one of our highest earnest (Hugill too?) That would explain how we've gone down this season.
 
Corrected the typo below - in italics. Does that resolve the query MW ?

For a couple of reasons, I'm posting the actual staff costs at NE for the last 3 accounting periods.
(These are, again, from the Deepdale PNE Holdings company, in £ m ).

2015-16 .... 9.0 ... 10.6
2016-17 ...11.7 ... 13.5
2017-18 ...12.9 ... 15.0

The first column is made up of player wages and those of management staff.

The second column is all wages, including admin staff.
 
Thracia said:
Sorry, my mistake - I'd assumed you were trying to make a convincing and coherent argument.

As PNE fans have been saying since 1961. 🙂

I'm largely positive about what the team and the manager are doing.

I'm negative about our transfer strategy because it's a short-term cashflow solution for the owner, not a long-term plan for footballing success.

It also strikes me as something of a racket, whereby each big money sale deprives the team of quality, which is only then restored to the squad years later (if at all).

In that sense, we don't really "keep on improving year in year out" - our scope for improvement is actually very tightly and deliberately constrained.

That PNE fans are still queuing up to applaud this approach despite years of it getting us largely nowhere is one of life's little mysteries I suppose.
Click to expand...

Regarding the highlighted sentence, I'd say this is a pretty fair description of the situation which existed prior to 2010. There was scarcely a prospect of the team staying together long enough to improve.

Now the situation is different and the club is not compelled to sell players for the purpose of paying off debt.

(You may thank the owner for that Mr Thracia.)

The statement above doesn't apply today and even the improvements over 2019 apparently do nothing to alter the view of said poster.

The reason for posting this is that statements like the above need to be challenged, otherwise they can accumulate and, over time, be accepted as fact.

Some more fake facts that I've noticed being accepted:
- when the owner bought the club for about 200K he acquired a concern worth multi-millions of pounds
(not true - it had close to zero value. Someone, not the originator did restate this as though it was fact.)
- the owner's costs are mostly covered by tax concessions
(not even close)
 
epsilon said:
Regarding the highlighted sentence, I'd say this is a pretty fair description of the situation which existed prior to 2010. There was scarcely a prospect of the team staying together long enough to improve.

Now the situation is different and the club is not compelled to sell players for the purpose of paying off debt.

(You may thank the owner for that Mr Thracia.)

The statement above doesn't apply today and even the improvements over 2019 apparently do nothing to alter the view of said poster.

The reason for posting this is that statements like the above need to be challenged, otherwise they can accumulate and, over time, be accepted as fact.

Some more fake facts that I've noticed being accepted:
- when the owner bought the club for about 200K he acquired a concern worth multi-millions of pounds
(not true - it had close to zero value. Someone, not the originator did restate this as though it was fact.)
- the owner's costs are mostly covered by tax concessions
(not even close)
Click to expand...
Why are you quoting me in a different thread to the one I posted into?

Reply in the thread concerned or not at all.
 
Back
Top