Fulham's Company Accounts

From Crabtree Lane on Fulham's Official Board.

Tonight people on this board are telling us that in Sanchez the club has gone for 'the cheap option'. Others say the Board has been tight fisted with transfer fees, and still others say that the shareholders are making themselves rich on the back of Fulham Football Club.

To counter this, I have just downloaded the latest set of company accounts for Fulham Football Club (1987) Ltd and Fulham Football Leisure Ltd from Companies House. It's easy to do, you can get the accounts for £1 each, and other documents for an extra £2. I'd invite you to do so, because the numbers are immense.

The accounts to 30 June 2006 show that in the previous year FFC (1987) Ltd made a loss of £15,487,873, some £3m higher than the previous year. The shareholders fund stood at a loss of £134,444,053. No dividend was issued (i.e. no shareholder, including MAF made a penny from FFC).

During the year £69.7M was loaned from Harrods to pay the wages, and repaid by increasing the clubs debt to Fulham Football Leisure Ltd, through which MAF pours in his personal money.

The club also entered into another loan agreement of £9 million with Fortis Bank.

The auditors commented, "The company has incurred significant losses in recent years and has accumulated a significant deficit of shareholders funds. These conditions indicate the existence of a material uncertainty which may cast significant doubt about the company's ability to continue as a going concern."

Despite this, amazingly, there was a net investment in players:

"Since the year end the club has acquired the registrations of Franck Quedrue, Gabriel Zakuani, Bjorn Runstrom, Clint Dempsey and Simon Davies. In addition the company has disposed of the registrations of Steed Malbranque, Dean Leacock, Zesh Rehman, Liam Fontaine and Luis Boa Morte. The net outflow from player trading is approximately £3.4 million."

You can add the cost of Smertin to that figure: quite impressive given that the club was already insolvent to the tune of £135 million!

I should add that the Football Club is a part of Fulham Football Leisure Ltd, which takes in the premises and other infrastructure, and which is part of an overall holding company Fulham Leisure Holdings.

Examining the accounts of Fulham Football Leisure Ltd (another £1 from Companies House) reveals the true extent of the debt, At 30 June 2006 it was £167,342,000. The annual increase in that debt, in other words our true loss, was £23,236,000.


Puts a few things in perspective, does it not?

 

RE: Fulham

Not that any of those REAL fans over there will pay attention...

That's not personal, Essex.. and BTW, Thanks for that.

It appears you and I are among the minority who consider the BIG PICTURE.. while everyone else moans about us not hiring Big Names.

 

Gawd thats terribly depressing.

I think it was soccernet that reported a while back that 17 out of 20 EPL clubs made a profit for the 2004-2005 season.

What is that were doing so wrong that we lose $46 million! Ovbiously our attendances are small and are sponsership revenue probably isn't great but that can be said for a lot of the smaller clubs in the EPL. We don't spend anymore than clubs of comprable size and are ticket prices aren't any lower. So what gives???

 

Are you sure? I recall reading that most LOST money. But.. now I cant find any such reference.

 

no no I'm pretty sure that it was MADE money

This is all I can find on a quick google

http://www.deloitte.com/dtt/press_relea ... 77,00.html

 

Average is misleading...

Time Magazine April 27

But now, reading that article, perhaps you see why the hoped-for LG sponsorship is such a big deal.

 

Thanks "Essexfan" for all that information, it's interesting reading perhaps now certain individuals who jump up and down on here realise that Fulham Football Club is a business and money for new players is not always readilly available. MAF Has invested a large amount of he's personal wealth and for that everyone should be thankful. but all I ever read about is "Why isn't there more money" well now you know.

 

It is interesting reading these facts and figures regarding the club's finances. I will maintain the club does NOT do enough in the marketing department to grow and expand the Fulham name. I mean when the club came to America there was no presence from the club at all in terms of selling marchandise or trying to build any kind of fanbase here in the States.

I know that would NOT amount for all the much money, but I think looking at the bigger picture, there are some things the club could do to promote the club somewhat.

It is sad to look at these financial figures. If the club is in such a dire financial position, I would think Al Fayed might think about selling the club to someone who has more money.

The bottom line is this, other than the big clubs, owning a football club is usually not a money-making deal. I know it is a business but most clubs do NOT make money.

Lastly, regardless of whether Fulham has some debt, some money NEEDS to be spent this summer on new players. I would think spending 10-15 million on players would be a better option than losing the estimated 35 million pounds on getting relegated this season. If Fulham trots the same club out next season they WILL get relegated.

 

The £ 69.7mm loan to Fulham Football Leisure Ltd would also explain the £72 mm dividend from Harrod's to Mr. Al-Fayed at the full year results in late November. The auditor's qualified opinion on FFC '87 Ltd's going concern status would be a real problem for most businesses, though other loss making footbal clubs might have the same. Well done Essex Fan.

 

Ok yes average can be misleading. But I highly doubt that only around three clubs make money and yet theres a positive average.

Here's a quote from the same Time article;

And look at this bullsh!t, Sheffield United turn a profit!

http://www.eufootball.biz/Finance/30030 ... rofit.html

Watford lost half a million in the 2005 while playing in the CCC last year but made 1.38mil profit for 2006
http://www.eufootball.biz/Finance/02040 ... rofit.html

Spurs make a pretax profit of 20 million pounds for the first six months of 2006. Which is up 4.4 mil over last year, much of it is attributed to the sale of Carrick.
http://www.eufootball.biz/Finance/30030 ... -ever.html

Meanwhile Man City lost seven million during the same period.
http://www.eufootball.biz/Finance/01030 ... -loss.html

Man U have profits of 30mil
http://www.eufootball.biz/Finance/29010 ... nited.html



So obviously we've got numbers all over the place. Clearly Fulham are in one of the worst financial positions in the EPL. I'm not suprised to see that Fulham isn't making money, it does surprise me to see that they lose so much.

We lose 23 mil while Shefield make 2.6 mil. SUFC average attendance is 30k, ours is about what 21, or 22K. So obviously they gain a bit on us there. Our TV revenue would be equal if not a little more for Fulham. Our sponsorships revenue I'm guessing is equal. I'm not familiar with their ground but I'm guessing they've got four or five times the suites.

Our wages and transfer bill are higher I imagine so thats a bit of it. Sooo combine all that goes along with higher attendance the ticket revenue, merchandise sales, programe sales, food sales ect. All that combined I can see SUFC pulling in an extra 6,000,000 pounds in that area at most. For suites I'd say an extra 1,000,000 pounds at most. Moving on I'll take a crack and say that our wage bill is 4,500,000 more and our transfer bill and extra 1,000,000.

That amounts to only 12.5 million of a 25.5 million pound difference between the two clubs. You'd have to double my figures to bridge the gap. I'm ovbiously just making the best educated guesses I can but even in the rosiest of scenario's for SUFC I can't see them pulling in 12 million pounds ($24,OOO,000) more than FFC on ticket, merchandise, program, food sales alone.
We must have some huge expense I'm over looking which SUFC is not subjected to. Theres got to be more to this, but what? Why do we lose so much god damn money????

These numbers are apples to oranges but the amount of money we lose is stagering it seems clear to me that somthing is missing.

 

Very interesting stuff, Essexfan, thanks! Seeing these numbers, I can see why we can't drop tons of money for top players. Maybe MAF should sell the club. I can't see us being a consistent top 5 club (or maybe even top 10) in such financial situation.

 

Yeah but who's gonna buy a club that sinks $46,000,000 every damn year when you can buy a club like Watford or Shefield United who turn profits?

This whole thing continues to baffle me. Man City loses substantial money yet are losses are 3x's theirs. Why?? If those are the true numbers, then we must surely be doing something wrong, yet MAF is shrewd is he not? If there were a way to lose less money he'd be doing all he could to accomplish that.

I don't know I just have a hard time believing that the number is the true number. The super rich tend to have a million things going at once, shifting money around, using one thing to finance another, ect. Their finances I imagine are hardly black and white, and theres got to be something else involved with this 46mil number.

 

I do not know the specifics, but I believe a big portion of the debt is money that is owed to Mohamed Al Fayed for the money he originally gave the club for signings and the renovation of Craven Cottage.

While the figures may appear in the financial summary of the club, I do NOT think they count all toward the debt and profit for the club each season.

Once again, I am NOT certain of this but I do remember hearing and reading something along those lines at one point in the last two years.

 

Mohamed Al Fayed uses Fulham as a liability because Harrods doesn't do too shabby. Loans between the two?

Marketing, should somebody introduce MAF to the concept, it could be very profitable, especially with Americans in the EPL as a marketing target (add Gooch and imagine the increased marketing potential).

In my humble opinion, if MAF wanted a big club, he could begin the progress upward becase he has the resources to make it happen, as Fulham is but one of his investments.

I only hope he improves on his spending trend.

Come On You Whites during the window!

Cheers.

 

This on TFI today...

http://www.voy.com/13865/1206032873.html

Its not pretty. Should Al-Fayed curtail his personal spending on Fulham we'll be history. This is not sustainable.

 

Another great post Spencer. I had no idea that Fulham was so financially unstable. The majority of clubs in the EPL operate in the red from season to season, but it seems that Fulham is on life support.

Fayed seems to be ruining himself financially by owning the club. It is a shame he has seen no improvement financially at the club. Hopefully the club can be marketed far better with a great sponsors such as LG and Nike.

Outside investment is definite possiblility...another yank owner on the horizon.

 

I would love to get a very knowledgable Fulham fans perspective on that article. It does NOT seem to be quite accurate. Yes, there is some financial difficulty right now at the club, but I do NOT think it is as bad as this article makes it out to be.

Al Fayed is shuffling money from one venture to another and incurring losses on some and gaining on the others. Al Fayed is NOT stupid and I have a good feeling he knows what he is doing.

The club could be in a better position but all this debt that is being mentioned is debt owed to Al Fayed, not anyone else. That being said, many think this will in fact be money that actually will NOT have to be paid back to him.

Now, how the club can make more money and sustain a profit while staying competitive in the Premiership is the ultimate question. Time will tell what happens and how Fulham does with that one.

 

There is a fair bit of money in the transfer kitty available to LS right now, so the staying competitive portion is there for him and the players to accomplish. Don't think an excuse of not having funds will be a legitimate excuse if Fulham starts to struggle early. Fulham isn't a side that signs big name players and LS is aware of that.

The article posted by spencer was full of doom and gloom, but I doubt seriously it could be that bad or at least I hope it isn't that bad. Outside investment is on the horizon and IMO it is just a matter of time.

 

I find the article interesting but at the same time I find it a bit suspect. A well put post on TFI is one that I agree with:

The debt is to Mo, plain and simple and we have to trust that he will do what is right for the club. While there were times where we lost trust in him (the shady deal of the fulham river projects) the man hasn't steered us wrong. He loves the club and is now making the moves needed to prepare for his sons to take over.

I would not say we were financially unstable, more financially reliant which are two completely different things.