The Famous Aberdeen - Season 2022/23

[Don exotic]

8 hours ago, HarleyQuinn said:

Aberdeen FC announce profits of £1.1million in annual financial report as player sales see boost in coffers

https://www.aberdeenlive.news/sport/football/football-news/aberdeen-fc-announce-profits-11million-8914813

 

Presumably next year we will post a bigger profit with the European money ,even without player sales. A cup final win would certainly help financially and to give the management team more time.

[Bogbrush1903]

16 hours ago, Rodhull said:

No doubt but i'm sure even if it had been huge numbers they would say it was a small number to save face anyway.

I'm not sure why it's taken over three days, you would've thought that a simple database query could've found in a couple of seconds those with loyalty points beneath a defined threshold that had purchased tickets for the Final.

Indeed, it would be interesting to know the search conditions they implemented to highlight those Attila suspicious purchases.

Burrows citing "human error" in the ticket office publicly is unlikely to have created a harmonious atmosphere.

I still have doubts whether I'll get a ticket but I live in hope.

Either way, the whole thing has been a monumental fuck up

Edited November 18, 2023 by Bogbrush1903

[coprolite]

4 minutes ago, Don exotic said:

Presumably next year we will post a bigger profit with the European money ,even without player sales. A cup final win would certainly help financially and to give the management team more time.

It looks likely to be about the same all else being equal. Last year roughly 0. 5 m Europe +7.5m sales =8m, this year 5.5m Europe +£1 m sales, but season tickets up and additional revenue from home games in Europe should roughly match total incomings. Don't think we'd get massive prize money fpr a cup win but the feel good factor would generate more sales elsewhere. 

Hard to guess what expenses might do and depends on whether we have management compo again. 

Obviously Back to back hat tricks for Bojan against Italy and England and we'll be building the new stadium out of gold so it's all subject to events. 

Expect us to be relativley steady next year. Would be nice if we could make it through the season without a shareholder bail out, but at least this year's is only a temporary sub. Self sufficiency has to be the goal. 

A strategy of expecting operating losses and covering them with player sales does worry me, as the player sales will be way less consistent than losses. Potentially a high reward strategy though, one superstar could fund a decade. 

At least the club is communicating these things transparently and apparently honestly. Less scrupulous clubs may have sought to hoodwink fans, press and investors by including player sales above the operating profit/loss line.

 

[Dons_1988]

8 hours ago, HarleyQuinn said:

Aberdeen FC announce profits of £1.1million in annual financial report as player sales see boost in coffers

https://www.aberdeenlive.news/sport/football/football-news/aberdeen-fc-announce-profits-11million-8914813

 

Haven’t read the full annual report yet but the headlines make me uneasy. £6m operating loss propped up by player sales isn’t sustainable. 

it’ll likely be better next year but again it’ll be propped up by what could be one-off income.

Not doomsday stuff but unless we have a vision to fill the operating gap beyond gambling on player sales and European money (which will likely be further away in a couple of years) then we have a long term problem.  

[coprolite]

12 minutes ago, Dons_1988 said:

Haven’t read the full annual report yet but the headlines make me uneasy. £6m operating loss propped up by player sales isn’t sustainable. 

it’ll likely be better next year but again it’ll be propped up by what could be one-off income.

Not doomsday stuff but unless we have a vision to fill the operating gap beyond gambling on player sales and European money (which will likely be further away in a couple of years) then we have a long term problem.  

That's the stated strategy. "Player trading model" where operating losses are propped up by regular player sales. 

I'm not hugely comfortable with it in principle but I'm a bit more comfortable having read the accounts that it's been properly considered. 

I'd agree that it's definitely not sustainable at 2023 levels of operating loss but if we tick along just under break even it wouldn't be too concerning.  A McCrorie every couple of years is a more realistic basis for the budget than a Ramsay. 

[Dons_1988]

6 minutes ago, coprolite said:

That's the stated strategy. "Player trading model" where operating losses are propped up by regular player sales. 

I'm not hugely comfortable with it in principle but I'm a bit more comfortable having read the accounts that it's been properly considered. 

I'd agree that it's definitely not sustainable at 2023 levels of operating loss but if we tick along just under break even it wouldn't be too concerning.  A McCrorie every couple of years is a more realistic basis for the budget than a Ramsay. 

Oh 100% agree if we could break even on an operating basis then we’ve justified the cost base and that’s fine. 

You could even go as far to say that breaking even on an operating basis with profits on player trading going into the infrastructure of the club is just about the perfect model. Profits going into the pockets of shareholders is a bit of a tragedy too so would be the right balance. 

My concern is we haven’t got proof the player trading model actually works yet. The majority of the profits are from homegrown talent (yes Ferguson and mccrorie from trading so I suppose they count). Ramadani was good business but beyond miovski, duk and clarkson need to justify their investment all over again and beyond that you’ve got sokler, gueye and Rubezic who as yet don’t necessarily look like big money sell ons. 

As I say I haven’t read the accounts in full yet so maybe they’ll give me more comfort…

[coprolite]

18 minutes ago, Dons_1988 said:

Oh 100% agree if we could break even on an operating basis then we’ve justified the cost base and that’s fine. 

You could even go as far to say that breaking even on an operating basis with profits on player trading going into the infrastructure of the club is just about the perfect model. Profits going into the pockets of shareholders is a bit of a tragedy too so would be the right balance. 

My concern is we haven’t got proof the player trading model actually works yet. The majority of the profits are from homegrown talent (yes Ferguson and mccrorie from trading so I suppose they count). Ramadani was good business but beyond miovski, duk and clarkson need to justify their investment all over again and beyond that you’ve got sokler, gueye and Rubezic who as yet don’t necessarily look like big money sell ons. 

As I say I haven’t read the accounts in full yet so maybe they’ll give me more comfort…

Small operating loss should be sustainable. To be a nerd, i think break even at EBITA level would be ideal, because that eliminates a large part of the player trading from the results. 

[Dons_1988]

34 minutes ago, coprolite said:

Small operating loss should be sustainable. To be a nerd, i think break even at EBITA level would be ideal, because that eliminates a large part of the player trading from the results. 

I’m happy to be nerdy on financial statements, what is the EBITDA? 

[coprolite]

5 minutes ago, Dons_1988 said:

I’m happy to be nerdy on financial statements, what is the EBITDA? 

As a number? About £1.5 m lower losses than the reported operating loss (EBIT). 

I didn't miss the D by accident though. The EBITA (earnings before interest tax and amortisation) would be the current operating loss less £1.1m of amortisation which is entirely made up of transfer and signing fees being expensed and spread over the length of a contract. 

Obviously if those fees have been paid, that's still part of the underlying cost that has to be met by the company so it's not conceptually perfect to compartmentalise player trading from the rest of operations. 

But it's not realistic to completely separate the two things. Obviously if we buy higher profile or better players we should have better results (therefore higher prize money and ticket sales and more likely access to Europe) but also higher wages.

Paying higher wages for homegrown (eg McKenna, Wright) helps protect their value for sale as does out bidding other clubs wages for frees. 

There's also even less financial, more integrated factors, like training facilities and scouting that affect both sides of the operation. Also maybe having better players around develops youngsters more and playing in europe might increase their value. 

So there are costs and benefits of the model that either don't show in the accounts or can't be separately identified. 

I'm just thinking in very narrow terms of looking at the results to see if we can pay for things without splashing transfer cash to get transfer cash. But it's only one perspective. 

[Dons_1988]

51 minutes ago, coprolite said:

As a number? About £1.5 m lower losses than the reported operating loss (EBIT). 

I didn't miss the D by accident though. The EBITA (earnings before interest tax and amortisation) would be the current operating loss less £1.1m of amortisation which is entirely made up of transfer and signing fees being expensed and spread over the length of a contract. 

Obviously if those fees have been paid, that's still part of the underlying cost that has to be met by the company so it's not conceptually perfect to compartmentalise player trading from the rest of operations. 

But it's not realistic to completely separate the two things. Obviously if we buy higher profile or better players we should have better results (therefore higher prize money and ticket sales and more likely access to Europe) but also higher wages.

Paying higher wages for homegrown (eg McKenna, Wright) helps protect their value for sale as does out bidding other clubs wages for frees. 

There's also even less financial, more integrated factors, like training facilities and scouting that affect both sides of the operation. Also maybe having better players around develops youngsters more and playing in europe might increase their value. 

So there are costs and benefits of the model that either don't show in the accounts or can't be separately identified. 

I'm just thinking in very narrow terms of looking at the results to see if we can pay for things without splashing transfer cash to get transfer cash. But it's only one perspective. 

Yeah agree with all of that and I think it’s viable as a medium term strategy as long as shareholders are willing to make up the shortfall if things don’t go to plan (which I think generally they are but that can’t last forever). 

We have clearly invested in infrastructure such as cormack park and recruitment which is positive but with that also comes increased cost and increases the pressure to earn through on-field success. 

Longer term you have to meet that increased cost base with more reliable/sustainable turnover that isn’t reliant on on-field results. I think we see we want that with stated aims of 15k ST holders, working with other clubs to market the game more broadly and even being a top 100 uefa clubs. The problem is these are very ambitious to the point I’m not always convinced they’re achievable. 

[Thenorthernlight]

Figures won’t include £5m or thereabouts from Europe.  
£1.1m from Ramadani sale.

Plus, a likely Miovski sale of multi-millions too.

So quite strong possibility of about £12m+ to be added to the balance next year.

So that’s a big positive.

Two concerns though:

- The wages to turnover is too high.

- We’re heavily reliant on “player trading”. 

Miovski & his sale value don’t come around too often. 
A lot of pressure on the HoR & his scouts to come up with more.

We do have a few good assets other than him though, & it’s important the team has a few with good value in the years ahead.

Let’s be honest the £5m from the Conference League will likely disappear after next summer with the co-efficient dropping like a stone. 

 

Edited November 18, 2023 by Thenorthernlight

[scthommo]

Looking for some help please. Bought these for my father-in-law. Does anyone recognise the signatures? Also, who's that with Willie Miller? Thanks very much 

[Thenorthernlight]

Next to God is (I think) Pierre Janssen, the captain of Waterschei. 
Don’t quote me on that though 

[naegoodinthedark]

6 hours ago, scthommo said:

Looking for some help please. Bought these for my father-in-law. Does anyone recognise the signatures? Also, who's that with Willie Miller? Thanks very much 

Lucky father in law. 

[scthommo]

4 hours ago, Thenorthernlight said:

Next to God is (I think) Pierre Janssen, the captain of Waterschei. 
Don’t quote me on that though 

Thanks very much.

[Rodhull]

Ruby starting and scoring for Montenegro away to Hungary this afternoon.

[Thenorthernlight]

19 minutes ago, Rodhull said:

Ruby starting and scoring for Montenegro away to Hungary this afternoon.

Unfortunately they’re reliant on Serbia losing at home to a pish Bulgaria in order to qualify.

Serbia 1-0 up. 

[Dons_1988]

44 minutes ago, Rodhull said:

Ruby starting and scoring for Montenegro away to Hungary this afternoon.

The daily record has approached kyogo for comment. 

[Thenorthernlight]

Just now, Dons_1988 said:

The daily record has approached kyogo for comment. 

That fanny Mark Pirie currently coming out of his bunker to see if he’s done anything naughty.

That’s assuming of course he’s watching the correct game this time. 

 

[kingjoey]

2 hours ago, Thenorthernlight said:

That fanny Mark Pirie currently coming out of his bunker to see if he’s done anything naughty.

That’s assuming of course he’s watching the correct game this time. 

 

He did get a fairly early booking. Although I’ve seen his goal, tap in header, haven’t caught his booking.