York City reveal £467,000 losses from promotion-winning season

First published in News York Press: Photograph of the Author by , Sports reporter

YORK City expect to report an operating loss of £467,000 for the 2011/12 season despite the club’s two winning Wembley final appearances.

The spending of 96 per cent of the club’s income on playing costs, including player and management wages, as well as bonuses, transfer fees and relocation fees, is being attributed as the chief reason for the Minstermen making their biggest losses during eight years of non-League football.

The Press estimates that those playing costs amounted to just over £1 million.

Promotion to the Football League means, however, that the Bootham Crescent outfit expect to break even this season with City now subject to the Salary Cost Management Protocol which, in broad terms, means clubs are restricted to spending a maximum of 55 per cent of their income on player salaries, bonuses, transfer fees and expenses.

The additional Football League central funding the club now receives, including money for the club’s youth programme, will also help.

In the Blue Square Bet Premier, the Minstermen received an annual payment of £35,000 but, as a Football League club, monthly contributions are believed to almost match that donation.

Income from last season’s FA Trophy and Blue Square Bet Premier play-off final appearances totalled £235,000, according to City’s financial management consultant Peter Rookes with the eventual operating loss just £2,000 short of the figure the board expected and budgeted for at the start of the campaign.

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.

Rookes added that the sizeable investment in playing costs was justified by the club’s success on the field in 2011/12.

Commenting on the club’s accounts for the year ending June 30, 2012, which are currently being audited and are expected to be published at the end of March, Rookes said: “These financial results are in line with the club’s expectations.

“This is the cost of promotion to the Football League. Throughout the club’s time in the Conference, operating losses of this size were inevitable if York City wanted to put together a team that would compete and challenge for promotion.

“The accounts show that maximum resources were made available to Gary Mills to enable promotion to the Football League. Ninety six per cent of club income was allocated to playing costs including player and football management wages and bonuses for on-pitch success.

“Income from two successful Wembley trips totalling £235,000 ultimately helped keep the losses in line with the original budgets.”

The latest figures mean the Minstermen racked up approximately £2.22 million in operating losses during their eight seasons outside of the Football League.

Previous promotion attempts saw the club make £274,310 losses when Martin Foyle’s team missed out on promotion to Oxford in the play-off final 2010 with those figures including receipts from the Wembley match, an FA Cup run that ended in the third round at Premier League Stoke and the £50,000 sale of Adam Boyes.

Similarly, when Billy McEwan guided the club to the play-offs in 2007, the club lost £270,000.

Last season’s losses beat the previous highest figure during the Conference era of £414,000 in 2007/8 when McEwan struggled to build on the previous campaign’s success and was subsequently replaced by Colin Walker.

The club’s biggest source of income last season was gate receipts, although they only contributed 56 per cent of the cost required to fund the football team.

Other sources of income, meanwhile, remain minimal due to limited commercial opportunities at Bootham Crescent.

On that matter, Rookes said: “The club board has once again this season given the football manager the best budget possible within the strict financial constraints set by the League. However, while the club remains at Bootham Crescent, it is severely restricted in its sources of commercial income and disadvantaged compared to other clubs in the division with modern stadia.

“This again illustrates why the board believes that the move to the new ground, providing additional sources of income and reduced costs, is essential in putting the club on a sustainable footing and enabling the team to be as competitive and as ambitious as possible going forward.”

Comments (86)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:06am Tue 8 Jan 13

Theapplesarecoming says...

So we will be making money from now on then instead of loosing it?
So we will be making money from now on then instead of loosing it? Theapplesarecoming
  • Score: 0

8:13am Tue 8 Jan 13

rogue84 says...

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.
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. rogue84
  • Score: 0

8:13am Tue 8 Jan 13

duffy says...

That was one hell of a risky season.
That was one hell of a risky season. duffy
  • Score: 0

8:20am Tue 8 Jan 13

Theapplesarecoming says...

Yep they must Love the team to have put so much money into it
Yep they must Love the team to have put so much money into it Theapplesarecoming
  • Score: 0

8:42am Tue 8 Jan 13

south bronx red 2 says...

All secured against the remainder value of Bootham Cres.
No move, no money back.
All secured against the remainder value of Bootham Cres. No move, no money back. south bronx red 2
  • Score: 0

9:02am Tue 8 Jan 13

rogue84 says...

we must also remember that there are pretty much no football clubs anywhere in the world that are making money...even when the stadium sale goes through and they get this portion of money back, the mcgill family will continue to struggle to keep us breaking even.
we must also remember that there are pretty much no football clubs anywhere in the world that are making money...even when the stadium sale goes through and they get this portion of money back, the mcgill family will continue to struggle to keep us breaking even. rogue84
  • Score: 0

10:08am Tue 8 Jan 13

timcore says...

Has it occurred to anyone that a football club should be run in the same way as any other business? In no world are annual losses of almost half a million pounds "acceptable". But what do I know? Keep throwing money at it and drive it into the flaming ground. Football as we know it will be dead in 10 years.
Has it occurred to anyone that a football club should be run in the same way as any other business? In no world are annual losses of almost half a million pounds "acceptable". But what do I know? Keep throwing money at it and drive it into the flaming ground. Football as we know it will be dead in 10 years. timcore
  • Score: 0

11:06am Tue 8 Jan 13

YCFC115 says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]rogue84[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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. YCFC115
  • Score: 0

11:35am Tue 8 Jan 13

Dr Brian says...

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!)
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
  • Score: 0

12:17pm Tue 8 Jan 13

atorycouncil2014 says...

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?
[quote][p][bold]south bronx red 2[/bold] wrote: All secured against the remainder value of Bootham Cres. No move, no money back.[/p][/quote]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? atorycouncil2014
  • Score: 0

12:31pm Tue 8 Jan 13

speaks99 says...

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?
No - only £350k minimum will be provided by YCFC and put into the community stadium pot. Not sure what happens if they have funds left over (or doesn't make a penny) after everyone has had their cut of the Bootham Crescent sale...
[quote][p][bold]atorycouncil2014[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]south bronx red 2[/bold] wrote: All secured against the remainder value of Bootham Cres. No move, no money back.[/p][/quote]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?[/p][/quote]No - only £350k minimum will be provided by YCFC and put into the community stadium pot. Not sure what happens if they have funds left over (or doesn't make a penny) after everyone has had their cut of the Bootham Crescent sale... speaks99
  • Score: 0

12:35pm Tue 8 Jan 13

speaks99 says...

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.
11% or 12% was the agreed interest rate when they took over the club, though last year they pledged not to take a penny more out of the club than they had put in - in effect an interest free loan.
Almost certainly I cant see the McGills loaning YCFC the money had it not been secured against the ground sale. Having said that the gamble paid off and in hindsight I'm glad they did, though like you say, doesn't bare thinking about what would have happened had we missed out last season...
[quote][p][bold]YCFC115[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rogue84[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]11% or 12% was the agreed interest rate when they took over the club, though last year they pledged not to take a penny more out of the club than they had put in - in effect an interest free loan. Almost certainly I cant see the McGills loaning YCFC the money had it not been secured against the ground sale. Having said that the gamble paid off and in hindsight I'm glad they did, though like you say, doesn't bare thinking about what would have happened had we missed out last season... speaks99
  • Score: 0

12:39pm Tue 8 Jan 13

speaks99 says...

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!)
Costs are much better regulated in this league too. Only 55% can go out on salaries instead of the 96% we were paying last season. You'd hope that sound financial regulations should make these scale of losses a thing of the past.
Time will tell.
[quote][p][bold]Dr Brian[/bold] 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!)[/p][/quote]Costs are much better regulated in this league too. Only 55% can go out on salaries instead of the 96% we were paying last season. You'd hope that sound financial regulations should make these scale of losses a thing of the past. Time will tell. speaks99
  • Score: 0

12:41pm Tue 8 Jan 13

Theapplesarecoming says...

You do have to wonder how we keep going with all these losses , is york city fc only still here because the mgills have shreds to put money into a profit loosing club?

Not many people would so that even if they were to get the money back , it's still a risk to them (mgills) until the money is back in their hands as things can happen to stop or postpone the new stadium being built and the sale of bc such as is happening with the best situation and John lewis
You do have to wonder how we keep going with all these losses , is york city fc only still here because the mgills have shreds to put money into a profit loosing club? Not many people would so that even if they were to get the money back , it's still a risk to them (mgills) until the money is back in their hands as things can happen to stop or postpone the new stadium being built and the sale of bc such as is happening with the best situation and John lewis Theapplesarecoming
  • Score: 0

12:49pm Tue 8 Jan 13

Theapplesarecoming says...

Iphone auto correct strikes again! ill post again so it makes sense

You do have to wonder how we keep going with all these losses , is york city fc only still here because the mgills have had the balls put money into a profit loosing club?

Not many people would do that ,

even if they were to get the money back , it's still a risk to the mgills until the money is back in their hands

things can happen to stop or postpone the new stadium being built and the sale of bc

such as is happening with the newt situation and John lewis


That's better
Iphone auto correct strikes again! ill post again so it makes sense You do have to wonder how we keep going with all these losses , is york city fc only still here because the mgills have had the balls put money into a profit loosing club? Not many people would do that , even if they were to get the money back , it's still a risk to the mgills until the money is back in their hands things can happen to stop or postpone the new stadium being built and the sale of bc such as is happening with the newt situation and John lewis That's better Theapplesarecoming
  • Score: 0

12:49pm Tue 8 Jan 13

duffy says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]Dr Brian[/bold] 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!)[/p][/quote]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. duffy
  • Score: 0

1:24pm Tue 8 Jan 13

uhtred says...

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.
So what were your proposals to have kept the club funded in order to have achieved promotion, and what are your financing proposals going forward?
[quote][p][bold]YCFC115[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rogue84[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]So what were your proposals to have kept the club funded in order to have achieved promotion, and what are your financing proposals going forward? uhtred
  • Score: 0

1:25pm Tue 8 Jan 13

henleazeyorkie says...

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.
Spot on, although it makes it more important that the 55% we have to spend is done so all the more wisely.

Also, does the £35k per month from the league include running a reserve team? I hazily recall (but maybe wrong) that was one of the benefits of promotion.

Maybe we should run a book on guessing this seasons budgeted loss??
[quote][p][bold]duffy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Brian[/bold] 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!)[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]Spot on, although it makes it more important that the 55% we have to spend is done so all the more wisely. Also, does the £35k per month from the league include running a reserve team? I hazily recall (but maybe wrong) that was one of the benefits of promotion. Maybe we should run a book on guessing this seasons budgeted loss?? henleazeyorkie
  • Score: 0

1:43pm Tue 8 Jan 13

yorkonafork says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]YCFC115[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rogue84[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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. yorkonafork
  • Score: 0

1:50pm Tue 8 Jan 13

TerryYork says...

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.
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. TerryYork
  • Score: 0

1:50pm Tue 8 Jan 13

YoRkIe59 says...

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.
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. YoRkIe59
  • Score: 0

1:54pm Tue 8 Jan 13

Robert Davro says...

If it wasn't for the McGills we'd be playing Scarborough by now.
If it wasn't for the McGills we'd be playing Scarborough by now. Robert Davro
  • Score: 0

1:55pm Tue 8 Jan 13

yorkonafork says...

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.
Fleetwood, Crawley etc all have a big backers. They 'donate' the funds though sponsorship or rental agreements etc so it counts towards income. What it should be on is things like crowds, commercial income etc then they wouldn't have a pot to **** in if they signed Jon Parkin
[quote][p][bold]YoRkIe59[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]Fleetwood, Crawley etc all have a big backers. They 'donate' the funds though sponsorship or rental agreements etc so it counts towards income. What it should be on is things like crowds, commercial income etc then they wouldn't have a pot to **** in if they signed Jon Parkin yorkonafork
  • Score: 0

1:58pm Tue 8 Jan 13

tangwaynehall says...

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 ????
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
  • Score: 0

1:59pm Tue 8 Jan 13

York Manor says...

A big loss for a promotion winning season, and the revenues from the wembley trips seem conservative, but they must be correct. We have to sell Bootham Crescent to pay back the money that is owed to the Magills, so where does that leave us.Land prices have dropped considerably over the last few years, building/development companies are very reluctant to place large amouts amounts of money into developments which they could struggle to sell or make a profit. Hungate for example. The new stadium will probably see a drop in attendances as it is a long way out for a lot of people and how will it make more money than at present. At present Bootham has 3 or 4 hospitality suites, how many at the new stadium, rumour has it its the same, not really ambitious.
Are we going to have to rely on the Magills again, looks that way to me.
A big loss for a promotion winning season, and the revenues from the wembley trips seem conservative, but they must be correct. We have to sell Bootham Crescent to pay back the money that is owed to the Magills, so where does that leave us.Land prices have dropped considerably over the last few years, building/development companies are very reluctant to place large amouts amounts of money into developments which they could struggle to sell or make a profit. Hungate for example. The new stadium will probably see a drop in attendances as it is a long way out for a lot of people and how will it make more money than at present. At present Bootham has 3 or 4 hospitality suites, how many at the new stadium, rumour has it its the same, not really ambitious. Are we going to have to rely on the Magills again, looks that way to me. York Manor
  • Score: 0

2:28pm Tue 8 Jan 13

yorkonafork says...

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 ????
The Club Shop, supporters bar and Travel Club all make the CLUB far more than they used to because they are now being run properly. Two of the above actually used to make a loss.

But don't let fact get in the way of spouting rubbish. Funnily the business people do know how to run a business
[quote][p][bold]tangwaynehall[/bold] 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 ????[/p][/quote]The Club Shop, supporters bar and Travel Club all make the CLUB far more than they used to because they are now being run properly. Two of the above actually used to make a loss. But don't let fact get in the way of spouting rubbish. Funnily the business people do know how to run a business yorkonafork
  • Score: 0

2:31pm Tue 8 Jan 13

yorkiemike says...

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.
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. yorkiemike
  • Score: 0

2:38pm Tue 8 Jan 13

OLD - HEAD says...

I have to admit that after two (winning) Wembley appearances I did not think that we would make such a big loss. Obviously we need to be extra careful with recruitement in future, we can not afford any more Ashikodi, Blinkhorn or Henderson type signings. Although after looking through our current squad, we could still have the same problem next year.
I have to admit that after two (winning) Wembley appearances I did not think that we would make such a big loss. Obviously we need to be extra careful with recruitement in future, we can not afford any more Ashikodi, Blinkhorn or Henderson type signings. Although after looking through our current squad, we could still have the same problem next year. OLD - HEAD
  • Score: 0

2:58pm Tue 8 Jan 13

YO1 says...

Thanks to Jason and family for keeping this club alive, backing GM and gaining promotion despite the risk of heavy losses. there must have been a few sleepless nights and tremendous resilience needed seeing some of that money spent on players that did nothing for the club.

If any of the critics have a financial backer in mind as an alternative, then step forward or wake up.
Thanks to Jason and family for keeping this club alive, backing GM and gaining promotion despite the risk of heavy losses. there must have been a few sleepless nights and tremendous resilience needed seeing some of that money spent on players that did nothing for the club. If any of the critics have a financial backer in mind as an alternative, then step forward or wake up. YO1
  • Score: 0

3:24pm Tue 8 Jan 13

tangwaynehall says...

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
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
  • Score: 0

3:38pm Tue 8 Jan 13

yorkonafork says...

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
In the Club Shop's case this is franchised. Firstly this happens in some way or another at pretty much EVERY FL club, this isn't YCFC specific. The franchise that do us also do Oxford, Charlton, Palace etc and no one would say they aren't 'being run properly'. Secondly the profit comes from the percentages, whatever they my be. The Shop was one of the 3 that probably did make a profit however it's clearly run far better nowadays and has far wider range of things in which earns the club (and yes the franchise) more money and gives the fans better things.

The Travel Club ended up being a disaster because people stopped going on it and the club put coaches on knowing it would lose money. You can't predict who will travel and when (this largely dependings on fixure scheudules and how the team are playing). Again, YCFC will make a % off Pullman or be offered team travel, which the players have to have i think we'll agree (!), at a reduced rate. This deal either gives YCFC money or saves us a bom. Either way, far better than before.

The Bar is now rented and the company pay for all the bills etc while running the bar, shall we say, correctly. Before the bills we p**sing money away and the bar used to have a few 'indesresions' in the accounting. YCFC also get a cut of the match day takings so another 'x amount saved, y amound gained'

Let's not forget that this is just how football is nowadays. Lots of clubs offlet the bar, chop, food outlets etc because they are run at no loss to the club but only potential benefit. Clubs can't sacrifise all the money to get staff and supplies in if it all goes wrong and sadly in football it 'all going wrong' could easily just be about how the team are doing on the pitch as is the nature of the football industry. Unpredictable.
[quote][p][bold]tangwaynehall[/bold] 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[/p][/quote]In the Club Shop's case this is franchised. Firstly this happens in some way or another at pretty much EVERY FL club, this isn't YCFC specific. The franchise that do us also do Oxford, Charlton, Palace etc and no one would say they aren't 'being run properly'. Secondly the profit comes from the percentages, whatever they my be. The Shop was one of the 3 that probably did make a profit however it's clearly run far better nowadays and has far wider range of things in which earns the club (and yes the franchise) more money and gives the fans better things. The Travel Club ended up being a disaster because people stopped going on it and the club put coaches on knowing it would lose money. You can't predict who will travel and when (this largely dependings on fixure scheudules and how the team are playing). Again, YCFC will make a % off Pullman or be offered team travel, which the players have to have i think we'll agree (!), at a reduced rate. This deal either gives YCFC money or saves us a bom. Either way, far better than before. The Bar is now rented and the company pay for all the bills etc while running the bar, shall we say, correctly. Before the bills we p**sing money away and the bar used to have a few 'indesresions' in the accounting. YCFC also get a cut of the match day takings so another 'x amount saved, y amound gained' Let's not forget that this is just how football is nowadays. Lots of clubs offlet the bar, chop, food outlets etc because they are run at no loss to the club but only potential benefit. Clubs can't sacrifise all the money to get staff and supplies in if it all goes wrong and sadly in football it 'all going wrong' could easily just be about how the team are doing on the pitch as is the nature of the football industry. Unpredictable. yorkonafork
  • Score: 0

3:40pm Tue 8 Jan 13

yorkonafork says...

*indiscretions
*indiscretions yorkonafork
  • Score: 0

3:50pm Tue 8 Jan 13

duffy says...

I don't mind an honest debate on here as always but there are posters throwing accusations at the club and specifically the McGills while appearing to have no knowledge of how things work in general. If you are going to have a go at least do some form of homework before throwing mud. I'm neither pro or anti McGill but they at least deserve a bit of respect.
I don't mind an honest debate on here as always but there are posters throwing accusations at the club and specifically the McGills while appearing to have no knowledge of how things work in general. If you are going to have a go at least do some form of homework before throwing mud. I'm neither pro or anti McGill but they at least deserve a bit of respect. duffy
  • Score: 0

4:00pm Tue 8 Jan 13

TerryYork says...

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
You're "Meme" on Red and Blue with a long-term blinkered view that Monks Cross will be the death of us, when you have everything backwards.

Just because you're laughed at on there, doesn't mean you won't be laughed at on here.
[quote][p][bold]tangwaynehall[/bold] 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[/p][/quote]You're "Meme" on Red and Blue with a long-term blinkered view that Monks Cross will be the death of us, when you have everything backwards. Just because you're laughed at on there, doesn't mean you won't be laughed at on here. TerryYork
  • Score: 0

4:05pm Tue 8 Jan 13

Tug job says...

I am not at all surprised at the size of the deficit and am sure many who post on here can remember the protests from Luton officials, after the Play Off final, that the failure of the linesman to flag Matty offside had cost them "at least one million pounds". Nice to read the usual comments from the McGill conspiracy theorists - thanks for keeping us all laughing, guys!
I am not at all surprised at the size of the deficit and am sure many who post on here can remember the protests from Luton officials, after the Play Off final, that the failure of the linesman to flag Matty offside had cost them "at least one million pounds". Nice to read the usual comments from the McGill conspiracy theorists - thanks for keeping us all laughing, guys! Tug job
  • Score: 0

5:00pm Tue 8 Jan 13

YCFC115 says...

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.
Is that the same moron that put in well earned money into the trust/club for shares not worth the paper they are written on just to keep the club alive when we needed the money the most. Do you remember those dark days? Where was the beloved, passionate McGills then?? Love a healthy debate!! Its one reason why I served queen and country for 26 years just to allow people like you the freedom of speech.
[quote][p][bold]yorkonafork[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YCFC115[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rogue84[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]Is that the same moron that put in well earned money into the trust/club for shares not worth the paper they are written on just to keep the club alive when we needed the money the most. Do you remember those dark days? Where was the beloved, passionate McGills then?? Love a healthy debate!! Its one reason why I served queen and country for 26 years just to allow people like you the freedom of speech. YCFC115
  • Score: 0

5:01pm Tue 8 Jan 13

Minsterred says...

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.
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. Minsterred
  • Score: 0

5:01pm Tue 8 Jan 13

johnwill says...

If I was a York City director I'd have another long and hard think before moving to Huntington. Take a look a Darlington moved from a centre of town ground near the station to a fantastic new stadium on the by-pass, visitor numbers dropped, couldn't find regular profitable events and couldn't afford to keep it. Now sharing a ground with an amateur club. The white elephant has stood empty for years about to be used by the rugby club. Location, Location, Location!
If I was a York City director I'd have another long and hard think before moving to Huntington. Take a look a Darlington moved from a centre of town ground near the station to a fantastic new stadium on the by-pass, visitor numbers dropped, couldn't find regular profitable events and couldn't afford to keep it. Now sharing a ground with an amateur club. The white elephant has stood empty for years about to be used by the rugby club. Location, Location, Location! johnwill
  • Score: 0

5:17pm Tue 8 Jan 13

Scarlet Pimpernel says...

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.
Do you always label anyone who isn't a YCFC fan/supporter, or McGill fan/supporter, as having multiple-usernames and a tory ?

What a strange, prejudiced small-minded world you live in.
[quote][p][bold]TerryYork[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]Do you always label anyone who isn't a YCFC fan/supporter, or McGill fan/supporter, as having multiple-usernames and a tory ? What a strange, prejudiced small-minded world you live in. Scarlet Pimpernel
  • Score: 0

5:21pm Tue 8 Jan 13

YCFC115 says...

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??
[quote][p][bold]Minsterred[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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?? YCFC115
  • Score: 0

5:37pm Tue 8 Jan 13

Scarlet Pimpernel says...

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 ?
[quote][p][bold]yorkiemike[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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 ? Scarlet Pimpernel
  • Score: 0

5:50pm Tue 8 Jan 13

speaks99 says...

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 ?
The people who say that about the McGills making money from their tax bill are usually the same ones with an axe to grind about the family, and do so without a shred of evidence to prove what they say.
When it comes to the McGills I'm not really in either camp, but I do get tired of the constant bashing from various people who clearly have issues with their management style/decisions.
[quote][p][bold]Scarlet Pimpernel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]yorkiemike[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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 ?[/p][/quote]The people who say that about the McGills making money from their tax bill are usually the same ones with an axe to grind about the family, and do so without a shred of evidence to prove what they say. When it comes to the McGills I'm not really in either camp, but I do get tired of the constant bashing from various people who clearly have issues with their management style/decisions. speaks99
  • Score: 0

5:56pm Tue 8 Jan 13

speaks99 says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]YCFC115[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Minsterred[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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??[/p][/quote]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. speaks99
  • Score: 0

6:00pm Tue 8 Jan 13

Scarlet Pimpernel says...

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.
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. Scarlet Pimpernel
  • Score: 0

6:10pm Tue 8 Jan 13

YCFC115 says...

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?
[quote][p][bold]speaks99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YCFC115[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Minsterred[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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??[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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? YCFC115
  • Score: 0

7:40pm Tue 8 Jan 13

speaks99 says...

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?
And if the trust weren't a toothless and practically defunct entity maybe there would have been an element of consultation. Maybe if the trust had taken their places on the clubs board they would have had a hand in the decision making.
And for the record, the trust get financial information regularly so it's not like they weren't aware of what was going on.
[quote][p][bold]YCFC115[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speaks99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YCFC115[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Minsterred[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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??[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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?[/p][/quote]And if the trust weren't a toothless and practically defunct entity maybe there would have been an element of consultation. Maybe if the trust had taken their places on the clubs board they would have had a hand in the decision making. And for the record, the trust get financial information regularly so it's not like they weren't aware of what was going on. speaks99
  • Score: 0

7:44pm Tue 8 Jan 13

speaks99 says...

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.
I understand all that. I'm an accountant by trade. But there's no evidence that the McGills are purposefully running the club at a loss to offset their tax liabilities. In fact, were the club go under they would not get a bean of the £1.3m back. A risky way of offsetting a bit of tax and not one many people with a shred of intelligence would go about business.
I may also be wrong but I believe the McGill family have publicly state tend that they have not profited out of YCFC, including tax relief. Look up the press article on it.
[quote][p][bold]Scarlet Pimpernel[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]I understand all that. I'm an accountant by trade. But there's no evidence that the McGills are purposefully running the club at a loss to offset their tax liabilities. In fact, were the club go under they would not get a bean of the £1.3m back. A risky way of offsetting a bit of tax and not one many people with a shred of intelligence would go about business. I may also be wrong but I believe the McGill family have publicly state tend that they have not profited out of YCFC, including tax relief. Look up the press article on it. speaks99
  • Score: 0

7:50pm Tue 8 Jan 13

south bronx red 2 says...

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. ?
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
  • Score: 0

7:50pm Tue 8 Jan 13

south bronx red 2 says...

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. ?
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
  • Score: 0

7:51pm Tue 8 Jan 13

nearlyman says...

Never ceases to amaze me how that any owner of the club who delivers success at YCFC seems to end up getting utterly berated by so many people, one wonders why they bother. Still. I think I may move into packaging....its clearly very lucrative !!
Never ceases to amaze me how that any owner of the club who delivers success at YCFC seems to end up getting utterly berated by so many people, one wonders why they bother. Still. I think I may move into packaging....its clearly very lucrative !! nearlyman
  • Score: 0

8:01pm Tue 8 Jan 13

speaks99 says...

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. ?
In answer to the first I suspect it's because 75% gives them a controlling majority which allows them to run a football club successfully.
Don't really know about the loan notes or what your getting at.
You may have reasons to doubt the McGills but I've never seen them act in anything other than for the best of the club.
[quote][p][bold]south bronx red 2[/bold] 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. ?[/p][/quote]In answer to the first I suspect it's because 75% gives them a controlling majority which allows them to run a football club successfully. Don't really know about the loan notes or what your getting at. You may have reasons to doubt the McGills but I've never seen them act in anything other than for the best of the club. speaks99
  • Score: 0

8:13pm Tue 8 Jan 13

Minsterred says...

Speaks99 speaks a lot of sense and unless there is a far eastern consortium waiting in the wings to get their hands on the endless cash cow and pot of gold that my beloved city would appear to be then Im more than happy for the McGills to run things until they take over. Seriously, very few people would have done what the McGills have done for the club. Thats purely my opinion and people are welcome to theirs.
Speaks99 speaks a lot of sense and unless there is a far eastern consortium waiting in the wings to get their hands on the endless cash cow and pot of gold that my beloved city would appear to be then Im more than happy for the McGills to run things until they take over. Seriously, very few people would have done what the McGills have done for the club. Thats purely my opinion and people are welcome to theirs. Minsterred
  • Score: 0

8:30pm Tue 8 Jan 13

YCFC115 says...

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. ?
Because the McGills, and only the McGills, saved the club as they are passionate supporters. The loan notes were a gift from the working class who obviously didn't care about the club during its darkest hours!
[quote][p][bold]south bronx red 2[/bold] 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. ?[/p][/quote]Because the McGills, and only the McGills, saved the club as they are passionate supporters. The loan notes were a gift from the working class who obviously didn't care about the club during its darkest hours! YCFC115
  • Score: 0

8:31pm Tue 8 Jan 13

new_fr says...

The report states our “eventual operating loss just £2,000 short of the figure the board expected and budgeted for at the start of the campaign”. Never seen an accountant include 2 Wembley successes in his budget. Trust it’s a different accountant to the one advising JMP about offsetting losses against tax. Whatever, the McGill era has seen many of the highs in our history. Rising from the despair of the Craig / Batchelor era, 4 Wembley trips holding our own on 2 Premiership gruouds and one of the finest footballing teams in our history.
The report states our “eventual operating loss just £2,000 short of the figure the board expected and budgeted for at the start of the campaign”. Never seen an accountant include 2 Wembley successes in his budget. Trust it’s a different accountant to the one advising JMP about offsetting losses against tax. Whatever, the McGill era has seen many of the highs in our history. Rising from the despair of the Craig / Batchelor era, 4 Wembley trips holding our own on 2 Premiership gruouds and one of the finest footballing teams in our history. new_fr
  • Score: 0

8:43pm Tue 8 Jan 13

Yorkieroy60 says...

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 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. Yorkieroy60
  • Score: 0

9:03pm Tue 8 Jan 13

YCFC115 says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]Yorkieroy60[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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. YCFC115
  • Score: 0

9:14pm Tue 8 Jan 13

speaks99 says...

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.
It would be interesting to know how the majority of away fans get to our games. There's far more methods of transport than trains. Club coaches and own cars I think would be far more prevelent on a match day.
[quote][p][bold]YCFC115[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Yorkieroy60[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]It would be interesting to know how the majority of away fans get to our games. There's far more methods of transport than trains. Club coaches and own cars I think would be far more prevelent on a match day. speaks99
  • Score: 0

9:17pm Tue 8 Jan 13

south bronx red 2 says...

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.
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. south bronx red 2
  • Score: 0

9:21pm Tue 8 Jan 13

speaks99 says...

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.
You could argue that getting us out of the conference the McGills have given us a chance to break even. That would be practically an impossibility whilst we were in the conference unless we sold a Brodie every season...
They gambled but they succeeded.
[quote][p][bold]south bronx red 2[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]You could argue that getting us out of the conference the McGills have given us a chance to break even. That would be practically an impossibility whilst we were in the conference unless we sold a Brodie every season... They gambled but they succeeded. speaks99
  • Score: 0

11:10pm Tue 8 Jan 13

Dr Brian says...

This income stream from the new stadium interests and puzzles me

As I see it there will be a group managing the stadium on behalf of CoYC - who will presumably take some sort of rent from them.

The stadium management company will then lease bars and advertising space to suppliers. Where will York City and YCK make money apart from through the gates and via any fund raising they choose to do? Sure there will be less outgoings on repairs and maintenance for the sports teams at the new stadium but once the novelty of the new stadium has worn off I wonder how many people will battle the ring road with all those people going to Monks X and its new stores. I think people are wearing very rosy specs if they think crowds will increase dramatcly - I reckon they may even fall eventually
This income stream from the new stadium interests and puzzles me As I see it there will be a group managing the stadium on behalf of CoYC - who will presumably take some sort of rent from them. The stadium management company will then lease bars and advertising space to suppliers. Where will York City and YCK make money apart from through the gates and via any fund raising they choose to do? Sure there will be less outgoings on repairs and maintenance for the sports teams at the new stadium but once the novelty of the new stadium has worn off I wonder how many people will battle the ring road with all those people going to Monks X and its new stores. I think people are wearing very rosy specs if they think crowds will increase dramatcly - I reckon they may even fall eventually Dr Brian
  • Score: 0

11:14pm Tue 8 Jan 13

bubwithboy says...

note the major cost was player and football management wages and bonuses.......even moderate bonuses only payable on promotion would have added 200k(?) to wage bill last season. If we hadnt made promotion then costs would have been significantly reduced IMO.....so gamble not quite as big as it first looks?
note the major cost was player and football management wages and bonuses.......even moderate bonuses only payable on promotion would have added 200k(?) to wage bill last season. If we hadnt made promotion then costs would have been significantly reduced IMO.....so gamble not quite as big as it first looks? bubwithboy
  • Score: 0

11:59pm Tue 8 Jan 13

tangwaynehall says...

No laughing matter i care about the club and ain't licking derry air . I know the Graveyard is prob a bigger dagger more than Craig and Snatch. Followed long enough to know the fan base will increase at Graveyard when if we have success, but a poor run and our gates will drop a lot more out in the middle of nowhere than 2200.
If you know who i am you'll know i've followed City regular since 84 and bought a 10 yr season ticket to try and help & laugh if you want but seen Graveyard kill Rugby off and honestly believe it will kill City.
Honestly getting to point where i feel like giving up on them . Two Wembleys and still the club can magic into a disaster whats the point
No laughing matter i care about the club and ain't licking derry air . I know the Graveyard is prob a bigger dagger more than Craig and Snatch. Followed long enough to know the fan base will increase at Graveyard when if we have success, but a poor run and our gates will drop a lot more out in the middle of nowhere than 2200. If you know who i am you'll know i've followed City regular since 84 and bought a 10 yr season ticket to try and help & laugh if you want but seen Graveyard kill Rugby off and honestly believe it will kill City. Honestly getting to point where i feel like giving up on them . Two Wembleys and still the club can magic into a disaster whats the point tangwaynehall
  • Score: 0

7:47am Wed 9 Jan 13

speaks99 says...

Your predicting disaster before its actually happened and for that you're thinking of giving up on the team? What an attitude!
Huntington is a bigger danger than Craig and Batchelor? What have you been taking? D you remember what they did to the club. Moving to monks X doesn't even feature on the radar against what they did.
So it's a decision your not happy with. I get that. Can't you even give it the benefit of doubt before you write it off. After all, it might be you that's read the situation wrong...
Your predicting disaster before its actually happened and for that you're thinking of giving up on the team? What an attitude! Huntington is a bigger danger than Craig and Batchelor? What have you been taking? D you remember what they did to the club. Moving to monks X doesn't even feature on the radar against what they did. So it's a decision your not happy with. I get that. Can't you even give it the benefit of doubt before you write it off. After all, it might be you that's read the situation wrong... speaks99
  • Score: 0

7:50am Wed 9 Jan 13

speaks99 says...

Te obvious additional income streams will be an increase in match day hospitality, better hospitality packages. Functions. Meeting rooms? Stadium tours? A share of match day bar takings. Perhaps a club managed club shop? A club shop which is actually part of a retail development rather than a mile out of town? Probably an increase in ticket price if we're being realistic. That's off the top of my head and I'm sure there are other things I haven't thought of.
Te obvious additional income streams will be an increase in match day hospitality, better hospitality packages. Functions. Meeting rooms? Stadium tours? A share of match day bar takings. Perhaps a club managed club shop? A club shop which is actually part of a retail development rather than a mile out of town? Probably an increase in ticket price if we're being realistic. That's off the top of my head and I'm sure there are other things I haven't thought of. speaks99
  • Score: 0

7:50am Wed 9 Jan 13

speaks99 says...

Te obvious additional income streams will be an increase in match day hospitality, better hospitality packages. Functions. Meeting rooms? Stadium tours? A share of match day bar takings. Perhaps a club managed club shop? A club shop which is actually part of a retail development rather than a mile out of town? Probably an increase in ticket price if we're being realistic. That's off the top of my head and I'm sure there are other things I haven't thought of.
Te obvious additional income streams will be an increase in match day hospitality, better hospitality packages. Functions. Meeting rooms? Stadium tours? A share of match day bar takings. Perhaps a club managed club shop? A club shop which is actually part of a retail development rather than a mile out of town? Probably an increase in ticket price if we're being realistic. That's off the top of my head and I'm sure there are other things I haven't thought of. speaks99
  • Score: 0

8:29am Wed 9 Jan 13

play up city says...

Sounds like the club is in pretty safe hands fiancially....
Sounds like the club is in pretty safe hands fiancially.... play up city
  • Score: 0

8:30am Wed 9 Jan 13

roobarb85 says...

Irrespective of the whole McGill debate, I can't get my head round the numbers in this report.

We must have been the most successful club in the Conference last year, given the Trophy and Play Off runs, yet it is stated that income (not profit) from both of these was only £235k.

Really? So, the Trophy prize money, extra TV income, receipts from the play off semi, sales of replica kits/special scarves/travel packages/Wembley tickets etc etc all just brought in 235K?? Surely you must mean profit not income.

And if we, as a successful team, racked up such a loss how do the other former FL teams like Mansfield, Wrexham, Kiddie survive?
Irrespective of the whole McGill debate, I can't get my head round the numbers in this report. We must have been the most successful club in the Conference last year, given the Trophy and Play Off runs, yet it is stated that income (not profit) from both of these was only £235k. Really? So, the Trophy prize money, extra TV income, receipts from the play off semi, sales of replica kits/special scarves/travel packages/Wembley tickets etc etc all just brought in 235K?? Surely you must mean profit not income. And if we, as a successful team, racked up such a loss how do the other former FL teams like Mansfield, Wrexham, Kiddie survive? roobarb85
  • Score: 0

9:38am Wed 9 Jan 13

nearlyman says...

Has anyone heard of creative accounting ?
Has anyone heard of creative accounting ? nearlyman
  • Score: 0

10:24am Wed 9 Jan 13

rogue84 says...

roobarb85 i see your point, but the sad thing is that at the conference level, i don't think the cup run/play-off final brought us much more income.....just an extra couple of games revenue.
there was no tv coverage of the trophy, even the final, just the prize money....and the contract with Premier Sports TV is (apparantly) set for the season, so doesn't include any increase in premium for play-offs and final.
a cut of the gate-receipts for the final would have helped, and the swelled crowds for the 2 mansfield games, but not enough to make a huge difference unfortunately.
roobarb85 i see your point, but the sad thing is that at the conference level, i don't think the cup run/play-off final brought us much more income.....just an extra couple of games revenue. there was no tv coverage of the trophy, even the final, just the prize money....and the contract with Premier Sports TV is (apparantly) set for the season, so doesn't include any increase in premium for play-offs and final. a cut of the gate-receipts for the final would have helped, and the swelled crowds for the 2 mansfield games, but not enough to make a huge difference unfortunately. rogue84
  • Score: 0

10:50am Wed 9 Jan 13

chalkytalky says...

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)?
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)? chalkytalky
  • Score: 0

12:52pm Wed 9 Jan 13

south bronx red 2 says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]chalkytalky[/bold] 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)?[/p][/quote]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. south bronx red 2
  • Score: 0

1:00pm Wed 9 Jan 13

TimYCFC says...

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.
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. TimYCFC
  • Score: 0

1:17pm Wed 9 Jan 13

Some old bloke says...

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.
Man Utd might deal in millions but they have only just managed to reduce their overall debt to £360million. I find it all quite baffling. How can they spend millions of pounds on players when they owe that much money?
[quote][p][bold]TimYCFC[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]Man Utd might deal in millions but they have only just managed to reduce their overall debt to £360million. I find it all quite baffling. How can they spend millions of pounds on players when they owe that much money? Some old bloke
  • Score: 0

1:19pm Wed 9 Jan 13

rogue84 says...

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.
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. rogue84
  • Score: 0

1:45pm Wed 9 Jan 13

TimYCFC says...

Man Utd may not be turning a profit right now due to their owners, however without the burden of massive loan repayments their business model would allow them to run at an enormous profit unrivaled in world football (or so the book says anyway).
Man Utd may not be turning a profit right now due to their owners, however without the burden of massive loan repayments their business model would allow them to run at an enormous profit unrivaled in world football (or so the book says anyway). TimYCFC
  • Score: 0

1:47pm Wed 9 Jan 13

TimYCFC says...

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.
And that is exactly the point in the book - football clubs aren't a profit making business. Whether that is right or wrong is a different argument entirely, but our situation definitely isn't unique or more precarious than almost every other club's.
[quote][p][bold]rogue84[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]And that is exactly the point in the book - football clubs aren't a profit making business. Whether that is right or wrong is a different argument entirely, but our situation definitely isn't unique or more precarious than almost every other club's. TimYCFC
  • Score: 0

2:03pm Wed 9 Jan 13

speaks99 says...

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.
I'm not being over the top in the least in my support of the move. Whilst we were in the conference it was the only viable way our football club would have a chance of surviving - How many £400K+ losses do you think the board would take before they turned the club part time? Read the article - this isn't the first time we have seen a £400k loss as well. The McGill family leant money to YCFC on the provision that they will get it back from the proceeds of the sale of Bootham Crescent. Would York still be a functioning full time club had they not agreed to do this? I think it is a fairly easy assumption to make that without the move to Monks X we would still be in the conference, looking at another massive loss this year.
But regardless of that, just to say I don't know what income streams are available to us once we move is a fairly unimaginative statement. Okay, might have gone a step too far with stadium tours - I was thinking off the cuff, but those opportunities will be there - why should you doubt it?
If the McGills really wanted to get there money back they would have sat tight in the conference, cut back all spending and waited a couple of years until the move. But they didn't. They invested in the club to the tune of £700k (if you take the Wembley money out of the equation).

Like I said, I've never seen the McGill family do anything other than the best for YCFC. Why should I castigate them on the say so of a few people who dislike them?
[quote][p][bold]south bronx red 2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]chalkytalky[/bold] 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)?[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]I'm not being over the top in the least in my support of the move. Whilst we were in the conference it was the only viable way our football club would have a chance of surviving - How many £400K+ losses do you think the board would take before they turned the club part time? Read the article - this isn't the first time we have seen a £400k loss as well. The McGill family leant money to YCFC on the provision that they will get it back from the proceeds of the sale of Bootham Crescent. Would York still be a functioning full time club had they not agreed to do this? I think it is a fairly easy assumption to make that without the move to Monks X we would still be in the conference, looking at another massive loss this year. But regardless of that, just to say I don't know what income streams are available to us once we move is a fairly unimaginative statement. Okay, might have gone a step too far with stadium tours - I was thinking off the cuff, but those opportunities will be there - why should you doubt it? If the McGills really wanted to get there money back they would have sat tight in the conference, cut back all spending and waited a couple of years until the move. But they didn't. They invested in the club to the tune of £700k (if you take the Wembley money out of the equation). Like I said, I've never seen the McGill family do anything other than the best for YCFC. Why should I castigate them on the say so of a few people who dislike them? speaks99
  • Score: 0

3:27pm Wed 9 Jan 13

meme says...

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?
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? meme
  • Score: 0

3:49pm Wed 9 Jan 13

speaks99 says...

I think this years accounts will make very interesting reading as to whether a sustainable Bootham Crescent is feasible. We're budgeting to break even this year and a number of clubs do manage to record profits in this league...
I think this years accounts will make very interesting reading as to whether a sustainable Bootham Crescent is feasible. We're budgeting to break even this year and a number of clubs do manage to record profits in this league... speaks99
  • Score: 0

3:50pm Wed 9 Jan 13

Scarlet Pimpernel says...

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?
Good question.

The stadium is the McGills exit strategy, and then what ?
[quote][p][bold]meme[/bold] 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?[/p][/quote]Good question. The stadium is the McGills exit strategy, and then what ? Scarlet Pimpernel
  • Score: 0

4:08pm Wed 9 Jan 13

TimYCFC says...

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.
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. TimYCFC
  • Score: 0

5:21pm Wed 9 Jan 13

south bronx red 2 says...

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.
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. south bronx red 2
  • Score: 0

5:30pm Wed 9 Jan 13

speaks99 says...

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.
Deja Vu?
[quote][p][bold]south bronx red 2[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]Deja Vu? speaks99
  • Score: 0

7:35pm Wed 9 Jan 13

Scarlet Pimpernel says...

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.
Exit strategy as in they will then be repaid their loan from the proceeds from the sale of BC.

Perhaps McGill supporters should ask their hero's to agree to leave the money in the club until YCFC's finances are on an even keel ?
[quote][p][bold]TimYCFC[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]Exit strategy as in they will then be repaid their loan from the proceeds from the sale of BC. Perhaps McGill supporters should ask their hero's to agree to leave the money in the club until YCFC's finances are on an even keel ? Scarlet Pimpernel
  • Score: 0

8:22pm Wed 9 Jan 13

duffy says...

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.
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. duffy
  • Score: 0

9:21pm Wed 9 Jan 13

speaks99 says...

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.
It depends on how you look at it. Maybe it was sh** or bust. Or maybe it is te same cost of two mid table finishes in consecutive years?
[quote][p][bold]duffy[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]It depends on how you look at it. Maybe it was sh** or bust. Or maybe it is te same cost of two mid table finishes in consecutive years? speaks99
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree