York City reveal £467,000 losses from promotion-winning season (From York Press)

rogue84 wrote:
not a huge surprise at this figure, there was a large turnover of staff on the playing side, including quite a few who barely played in 11/12 (Ashikodi, Potts, Henderson etc).
the fortunate thing is that we have regained our place in the league, so earning £35,000 per month compared to annually is a bonus.
I am just amazed that teams like Luton, Wrexham, Grimsby etc can still continue with the transfer fees and wages that they are spending down in the BSP. there must be a few teams there who are a few years away from being unable to continue.

I would like to say thankyou to the McGill family as well. Others may criticise, but there's no argument that we wouldn't have YCFC right now if it wasn't for them.

south bronx red 2 wrote:
All secured against the remainder value of Bootham Cres.
No move, no money back.

atorycouncil2014 wrote:

south bronx red 2 wrote:
All secured against the remainder value of Bootham Cres.
No move, no money back.

Has that money not been promised to the building of the stadium? They were supposed to be contributing £2 million to the new stadium from the sale of BC. That was revised down to about £1.5 million. Now they are saying that all that will ogo back to pay the directors off?

Guess the tax payer gets stung with the £2 million black hole then?

YCFC115 wrote:

rogue84 wrote:
not a huge surprise at this figure, there was a large turnover of staff on the playing side, including quite a few who barely played in 11/12 (Ashikodi, Potts, Henderson etc).
the fortunate thing is that we have regained our place in the league, so earning £35,000 per month compared to annually is a bonus.
I am just amazed that teams like Luton, Wrexham, Grimsby etc can still continue with the transfer fees and wages that they are spending down in the BSP. there must be a few teams there who are a few years away from being unable to continue.

I would like to say thankyou to the McGill family as well. Others may criticise, but there's no argument that we wouldn't have YCFC right now if it wasn't for them.

Its amazing how blinkered some people are.

"The losses have been covered by club owners JM Packaging, who have again loaned the money on an interest-free basis repayable on the move to a new stadium. That sum now stands at £1.32 million."

I'm sure an interest rate of 11% was agreed in the smash and grab takeover contract. Has that contract been amended to read an interest free loan?

So YCFC now owe JM Packaging 1.32 MILLION pounds, sounds like a no lose gamble to me and like Duffy has rightly pointed out how close the McGills came to bankrupting the club again. I wonder how many McGill lovers would have appreciated that? If we hadn't been promoted then we probably wouldn't have a YCFC right now thanks to a family playing real life football chairmanship!!!!

They have far too much power in this club.

Dr Brian wrote:
Very worrying announcement for the future of York City

Yes they are to receive £35000 a month (£420000 per year) from the football league but that is less than the amount lost in the last season.

Costs in the league will be higher - wages will be higher there is no money from Wembley trips. Crowds have not increased significantly this season from last so it does not take a financial genius to work out the club will make another big loss this season.

Nobody knows who will benefit from new income flows at the new stadium - CoY Council? The stadium owners? The football or rugby clubs? I cannot see cost being reduced significantly for York City when they move to the Community stadium.

Bleak times - unless they can get some success on the field (but with no money to spend I see that as a difficult task!)

Dr Brian wrote:
Very worrying announcement for the future of York City Yes they are to receive £35000 a month (£420000 per year) from the football league but that is less than the amount lost in the last season. Costs in the league will be higher - wages will be higher there is no money from Wembley trips. Crowds have not increased significantly this season from last so it does not take a financial genius to work out the club will make another big loss this season. Nobody knows who will benefit from new income flows at the new stadium - CoY Council? The stadium owners? The football or rugby clubs? I cannot see cost being reduced significantly for York City when they move to the Community stadium. Bleak times - unless they can get some success on the field (but with no money to spend I see that as a difficult task!)

YCFC115 wrote:

rogue84 wrote: not a huge surprise at this figure, there was a large turnover of staff on the playing side, including quite a few who barely played in 11/12 (Ashikodi, Potts, Henderson etc). the fortunate thing is that we have regained our place in the league, so earning £35,000 per month compared to annually is a bonus. I am just amazed that teams like Luton, Wrexham, Grimsby etc can still continue with the transfer fees and wages that they are spending down in the BSP. there must be a few teams there who are a few years away from being unable to continue. I would like to say thankyou to the McGill family as well. Others may criticise, but there's no argument that we wouldn't have YCFC right now if it wasn't for them.

Its amazing how blinkered some people are. "The losses have been covered by club owners JM Packaging, who have again loaned the money on an interest-free basis repayable on the move to a new stadium. That sum now stands at £1.32 million." I'm sure an interest rate of 11% was agreed in the smash and grab takeover contract. Has that contract been amended to read an interest free loan? So YCFC now owe JM Packaging 1.32 MILLION pounds, sounds like a no lose gamble to me and like Duffy has rightly pointed out how close the McGills came to bankrupting the club again. I wonder how many McGill lovers would have appreciated that? If we hadn't been promoted then we probably wouldn't have a YCFC right now thanks to a family playing real life football chairmanship!!!! They have far too much power in this club.

duffy wrote:

Dr Brian wrote:
Very worrying announcement for the future of York City Yes they are to receive £35000 a month (£420000 per year) from the football league but that is less than the amount lost in the last season. Costs in the league will be higher - wages will be higher there is no money from Wembley trips. Crowds have not increased significantly this season from last so it does not take a financial genius to work out the club will make another big loss this season. Nobody knows who will benefit from new income flows at the new stadium - CoY Council? The stadium owners? The football or rugby clubs? I cannot see cost being reduced significantly for York City when they move to the Community stadium. Bleak times - unless they can get some success on the field (but with no money to spend I see that as a difficult task!)

I would suggest it makes the move to the new stadium even more important. It's costing money every year to keep BC going and hopefully these costs are going to be reduced as tenants, we will also have corporate boxes actually facing the pitch and we are told extra revenue streams although we wait and see on that. Attendances are actually up I think around 20% with hopefully further increases to come when we move. I'm not sure it's quite as bleak as some are thinking given we can only spend 55% of income in future.

YCFC115 wrote:

rogue84 wrote:
not a huge surprise at this figure, there was a large turnover of staff on the playing side, including quite a few who barely played in 11/12 (Ashikodi, Potts, Henderson etc).
the fortunate thing is that we have regained our place in the league, so earning £35,000 per month compared to annually is a bonus.
I am just amazed that teams like Luton, Wrexham, Grimsby etc can still continue with the transfer fees and wages that they are spending down in the BSP. there must be a few teams there who are a few years away from being unable to continue.

I would like to say thankyou to the McGill family as well. Others may criticise, but there's no argument that we wouldn't have YCFC right now if it wasn't for them.

Its amazing how blinkered some people are.

"The losses have been covered by club owners JM Packaging, who have again loaned the money on an interest-free basis repayable on the move to a new stadium. That sum now stands at £1.32 million."

I'm sure an interest rate of 11% was agreed in the smash and grab takeover contract. Has that contract been amended to read an interest free loan?

So YCFC now owe JM Packaging 1.32 MILLION pounds, sounds like a no lose gamble to me and like Duffy has rightly pointed out how close the McGills came to bankrupting the club again. I wonder how many McGill lovers would have appreciated that? If we hadn't been promoted then we probably wouldn't have a YCFC right now thanks to a family playing real life football chairmanship!!!!

They have far too much power in this club.

YoRkIe59 wrote:
its pretty scary that we make a loss like that in a season we get to wembley twice.the other thought that occurs is if youre only alowed to spend 55 percent of your income on wages do clubs like Fleetwood have a steady goldmine income or something they hardly get what you could call big crowds,yes i know football clubs have other scouces of income but i hardly think they are gonna sell that much in their clubshop or whatever.their wage bill on a squad that size and salaries like whatever parkin must be on,their wage bill must be about 5 or 6 times their income.

tangwaynehall wrote:
The McGills have been running the footballbclub long enough now to have got a grip with finances. They have got rid of any potential income sources ie ClubShop Supporters Bar even the pie huts Travel Club so others made all the profit ????

tangwaynehall wrote:
What risk is JMP taking if City go bang BC sold and they get their coin back earlier!!
So how do City make profit from Club Shop, Travel Club etc when they no longer own them?
Genuine question and why weren't they run correctly under YCFC control?
Makes the new Stadium seem a nightmare then if the club as all these income revenue channels

tangwaynehall wrote:
What risk is JMP taking if City go bang BC sold and they get their coin back earlier!!
So how do City make profit from Club Shop, Travel Club etc when they no longer own them?
Genuine question and why weren't they run correctly under YCFC control?
Makes the new Stadium seem a nightmare then if the club as all these income revenue channels

yorkonafork wrote:

YCFC115 wrote:

rogue84 wrote:
not a huge surprise at this figure, there was a large turnover of staff on the playing side, including quite a few who barely played in 11/12 (Ashikodi, Potts, Henderson etc).
the fortunate thing is that we have regained our place in the league, so earning £35,000 per month compared to annually is a bonus.
I am just amazed that teams like Luton, Wrexham, Grimsby etc can still continue with the transfer fees and wages that they are spending down in the BSP. there must be a few teams there who are a few years away from being unable to continue.

I would like to say thankyou to the McGill family as well. Others may criticise, but there's no argument that we wouldn't have YCFC right now if it wasn't for them.

Its amazing how blinkered some people are.

"The losses have been covered by club owners JM Packaging, who have again loaned the money on an interest-free basis repayable on the move to a new stadium. That sum now stands at £1.32 million."

I'm sure an interest rate of 11% was agreed in the smash and grab takeover contract. Has that contract been amended to read an interest free loan?

So YCFC now owe JM Packaging 1.32 MILLION pounds, sounds like a no lose gamble to me and like Duffy has rightly pointed out how close the McGills came to bankrupting the club again. I wonder how many McGill lovers would have appreciated that? If we hadn't been promoted then we probably wouldn't have a YCFC right now thanks to a family playing real life football chairmanship!!!!

They have far too much power in this club.

You, sir, are a moron and an ungrateful one at that.

Just because they've put money in and eventually will get it back it doesn't mean it's still not a heck of a lot of money to put in when needed, something I don't see many other people doing.

It also doesn't account for the amount of effort and time they put in working at the club and running that business alongside another and being quite vital in helping attract players to the club, players which got us to Wembley FOUR times.

You are an absolute embarrassment.

TerryYork wrote:
Another reason the city and its council should support this club, the most important sporting club in the city, that is supported by thousands upon thousands of council tax paying citizens. Another reason that Tory boy with his 15 usernames on here was a disgrace during the stadium debate.

Minsterred wrote:
Usual ill informed sensationalist comments knocking the owners. Everyone has an opinion, mine is that I'm glad the McGills were on hand when the club was on the brink of disaster or we wouldnt be posting today. They are business people as well as fans and as such I expect they will be as keen as we are to get on a sounder financial footing.

yorkiemike wrote:
The McGill bashers are at it again.When will they realise that without them we would be out of business.Not one of the bashers have come up with any alternatives, maybe they know a few Yorkshire Sheiks who would be prepared to cover those losses on an interest free basis.I don`t have a problem if the McGills do make a bob or two when BC is sold providing it`s fair and reasonable.They deserve it for all they`ve done for YCFC. I`ve said it before and I`ll say it again, you will not find a more dedicated family to the cause and survival of our club.They are not running away and hiding they are up front for all to see.

Scarlet Pimpernel wrote:

yorkiemike wrote:
The McGill bashers are at it again.When will they realise that without them we would be out of business.Not one of the bashers have come up with any alternatives, maybe they know a few Yorkshire Sheiks who would be prepared to cover those losses on an interest free basis.I don`t have a problem if the McGills do make a bob or two when BC is sold providing it`s fair and reasonable.They deserve it for all they`ve done for YCFC. I`ve said it before and I`ll say it again, you will not find a more dedicated family to the cause and survival of our club.They are not running away and hiding they are up front for all to see.

Anyone who has an understanding of how land values are affected by the Council's affordable housing policy will tell you that BC isn't worth anything near the £3.7m valuation that Bill Woolley put on it in October 2008.

The 2010 Fordham Viability Study that the Council used to justify their affordable housing targets used maximum values of £250,000/acre, before abnormal costs are factored in. Well-informed individuals from the industry have estimated BC's value at arounf £750,000 which would be insufficient to pay back the McGills what they are owned, so there are interesting times ahead.

BTW, isn't the reason that YCFC makes big losses because JMP can offset these against their profits and mitigate their tax bill ?

YCFC115 wrote:

Minsterred wrote:
Usual ill informed sensationalist comments knocking the owners. Everyone has an opinion, mine is that I'm glad the McGills were on hand when the club was on the brink of disaster or we wouldnt be posting today. They are business people as well as fans and as such I expect they will be as keen as we are to get on a sounder financial footing.

I have no issue with the McGills its the fact that a large majority of city supporters think there are some god like saviours. As you rightly said they are business people and saw an opportunity for their business JMP to invest their money into YCFC with a guaranteed return. Has the all the investment been interest free or just part of it? Has the contract stating a return of 11% been amended? All I ask for some transparency.

They also took a massive gamble with OUR football club last season without consulting the trust or informing the fans of the consequences. Is that the way to run a so called community football club??

speaks99 wrote:

YCFC115 wrote:

Minsterred wrote:
Usual ill informed sensationalist comments knocking the owners. Everyone has an opinion, mine is that I'm glad the McGills were on hand when the club was on the brink of disaster or we wouldnt be posting today. They are business people as well as fans and as such I expect they will be as keen as we are to get on a sounder financial footing.

I have no issue with the McGills its the fact that a large majority of city supporters think there are some god like saviours. As you rightly said they are business people and saw an opportunity for their business JMP to invest their money into YCFC with a guaranteed return. Has the all the investment been interest free or just part of it? Has the contract stating a return of 11% been amended? All I ask for some transparency.

They also took a massive gamble with OUR football club last season without consulting the trust or informing the fans of the consequences. Is that the way to run a so called community football club??

Last season they agreed not to take out of the club a penny more than they have put in - effectively making all loans interest free.
Why should a director of a football club consult the fans as to how they plan to run the club season by season. Its not a democracy. Do any other clubs in the English divisions consult with their fans as to what their budget is going to be. Perhaps ask the fans permission on buying players, setting wages? Have we morphed into Ebbsfleet? Its the way any business is run and thats just the way it is - you employ someone at the top to make big decisions. Ones in this case he's been proven right on.

YCFC115 wrote:

speaks99 wrote:

YCFC115 wrote:

Minsterred wrote:
Usual ill informed sensationalist comments knocking the owners. Everyone has an opinion, mine is that I'm glad the McGills were on hand when the club was on the brink of disaster or we wouldnt be posting today. They are business people as well as fans and as such I expect they will be as keen as we are to get on a sounder financial footing.

I have no issue with the McGills its the fact that a large majority of city supporters think there are some god like saviours. As you rightly said they are business people and saw an opportunity for their business JMP to invest their money into YCFC with a guaranteed return. Has the all the investment been interest free or just part of it? Has the contract stating a return of 11% been amended? All I ask for some transparency.

They also took a massive gamble with OUR football club last season without consulting the trust or informing the fans of the consequences. Is that the way to run a so called community football club??

Last season they agreed not to take out of the club a penny more than they have put in - effectively making all loans interest free.
Why should a director of a football club consult the fans as to how they plan to run the club season by season. Its not a democracy. Do any other clubs in the English divisions consult with their fans as to what their budget is going to be. Perhaps ask the fans permission on buying players, setting wages? Have we morphed into Ebbsfleet? Its the way any business is run and thats just the way it is - you employ someone at the top to make big decisions. Ones in this case he's been proven right on.

I thought the trust still held a % of the shares? Are the trust appointed to look after the interests of the fans to ensure that the club is run properly and not to jeopardise the very future of the football club? We are constantly reminded that we are apparently a community football club. Some community that when the very livelihood of the club is put at risk by one family!! People have very short memories of those days of the bucket collections just to keep us alive. I wonder if likes of Leeds and Portsmouth would rather have someone in charge of their football club instead of those who gambled and lost?

Scarlet Pimpernel wrote:
speaks99

You don't make money from a tax bill, but you do reduce your tax bill if you can use the losses of another company to offset against it. It just seems strange that the McGills business acumen does not seem to extend to making YCFC profitable. If the McGills loan is underwritten by a first charge on BC, then it's the club that is losing money not the McGills, and the clubs loss is their gain through the tax savings they enjoy. It looks pretty obvious who's interests are beig served/protected.

south bronx red 2 wrote:
Why did the McGills demand 75% of the club ownership if they have no interest in developing any gain when 'lending' all this money ?
Why are many hundreds of 'loan notes' not being treated in the same manor ..... As a loan. ?

south bronx red 2 wrote:
Why did the McGills demand 75% of the club ownership if they have no interest in developing any gain when 'lending' all this money ?
Why are many hundreds of 'loan notes' not being treated in the same manor ..... As a loan. ?

Yorkieroy60 wrote:
I personally cannot wait for the new ground to be up & running I think that will help with finance in the long term- with corporate boxes facing the pitch instead of the rear car park!-plus the non footballing revenue that has been talked about & I believe gates will improve (obviously bearing in mind how successful the team is)-the regular supporters will keep coming and new ones encouraged to come with the new facilities available-it will be great to trek less then a 100 yards to the nearest toilet:-/ and of course it may encourage more away support to come to a new ground, I mean what incentive does an away supporter have to come to Bootham Crescent I ask you?-there's not much there for them is there at the away end!-no wonder we applaud them when the attendance numbers are given!-Cant come soon enough I say! - COYR.

YCFC115 wrote:

Yorkieroy60 wrote:
I personally cannot wait for the new ground to be up & running I think that will help with finance in the long term- with corporate boxes facing the pitch instead of the rear car park!-plus the non footballing revenue that has been talked about & I believe gates will improve (obviously bearing in mind how successful the team is)-the regular supporters will keep coming and new ones encouraged to come with the new facilities available-it will be great to trek less then a 100 yards to the nearest toilet:-/ and of course it may encourage more away support to come to a new ground, I mean what incentive does an away supporter have to come to Bootham Crescent I ask you?-there's not much there for them is there at the away end!-no wonder we applaud them when the attendance numbers are given!-Cant come soon enough I say! - COYR.

I agree with you in general, however not about the away fans. What more incentive do you need than to be able to walk to the ground via a couple of public houses from the train station and then back into town straight after the match. Whereas Monks Cross, great for home fans absolutely rubbish for the majority of away fans.

south bronx red 2 wrote:
No need to wonder why this country is bust.
When we hail as succesful business people , those who loose money. Whilst spending other peoples money in gaining a new home without even meeting half the cost themselves.
Cant wait for the 10% council tax increase over the next 5 years.

chalkytalky wrote:
I thought that during last season they said gates of 2500 were needed in order to break even (or was that just in respect of match days)?

TimYCFC wrote:
Take a read of the book Soccernomics - it argues that by their very nature football clubs are designed to run at a loss (with very few exceptions such as Man Utd, Bayern etc). I'd rather have a club in the red at a sustainable level thanks to pushing to achieve something as we did last season than be run by a load of leeches, sucking money out of the club and only focusing on turning a profit.

rogue84 wrote:
with the glazers debt, i wouldn't say Man Utd are actually seeing a profit at the minute.
as far as i'm aware there was only Arsenal who made anything like a decent profit within the last financial year, I think Newcastle are also fairly close to that as well, but teams like Man City, Chelsea and, off the radar but in a very dodgy situation, Sunderland are losing money hand over fist. fortunately for some they have the guarantee of champions league revenue.
my point being that from the top to bottom of the football pyramid, there is no money being made anywhere.

south bronx red 2 wrote:

chalkytalky wrote:
I thought that during last season they said gates of 2500 were needed in order to break even (or was that just in respect of match days)?

Id refer to nearlymans comment.
This is all creative accounting .
Lets not forget the free hospitality for 75% owners and councillors who were drunk and disorderly at wembley.
Speaks 99 has been way over the top in support for moving. Stating facts on here about finance streams and the overwhelming benifits.
It now turns out we should be comfortable with "the benifit of doubt". That's why this country is bust. Money being chucked around without visable proof of return. In this case - all parties are closing doors and ranks on facts , which should be made public. Easiest - who is runningthe show and what are the returns.
As for 'Stadium Tours' , nevermind asking what drugs others are on.... I'd put that down to a mental imbalance , hopefully temporary.

meme wrote:
The debate here is amazing Without McGills YCFC would be finished Even with them its difficult to see how long YCFC can continue to survive at these levels of losses. How long can McGills keep lending when the capital back from BC will be minimal Who believes the new stadium will transform YCFC finances?....Not me even if it were available tomorrow and I suspect its a good 2 years away at best I suspect the writing is on the wall for the club as we know it and then what happens to the stadium and who pays to run it?

south bronx red 2 wrote:
Id refer to nearlymans comment.
This is all creative accounting .
Lets not forget the free hospitality for 75% owners and councillors who were drunk and disorderly at wembley.
Speaks 99 has been way over the top in support for moving. Stating facts on here about finance streams and the overwhelming benifits.
It now turns out we should be comfortable with "the benifit of doubt". That's why this country is bust. Money being chucked around without visable proof of return. In this case - all parties are closing doors and ranks on facts , which should be made public. Easiest - who is runningthe show and what are the returns.
As for 'Stadium Tours' , nevermind asking what drugs others are on.... I'd put that down to a mental imbalance , hopefully temporary.

TimYCFC wrote:
Has anybody from the McGill camp ever said anything even remotely along the lines of the new stadium being their exit strategy ? They seem pretty committed in the long run to me.

duffy wrote:
Some interesting comments, am I the only one that feels slightly uncomfortable at the level of risk that was taken last season with OUR football club. 96% of income on the playing budget ? That was one huge decision to make given what could have happened if it failed.