Sussex Profit (Page 6 of 12)

I have found it interesting to compare the Sussex and Somerset income and expenditure accounts. Last year, both made trivial surpluses of £1k and £4k respectively, but arrived there by very different routes.

A health warning must be attached to the comparisons, as the two counties have probably allocated some individual income and expenditure items in different ways. The Somerset accounts provide significantly more detail than those of Sussex, and this is reflected below.

Although Sussex obviously enjoyed more success last year, their playing profiles were broadly similar (both in Div 1 for CC and Pro 40, both reached the 20/20 finals, and Champions league). The Somerset accounts end at 30 Sept, in contrast to Sussex' 31Oct, so Champions League impact will be missing from the former.

Membership subscriptions:  Sussex    £375K
                                        Somerset £502k
   
                           Somerset had 4631 members, down from 5147 in 2008.

Match income:                     Sussex      £1094k
                                         Somerset   £517k

             Sussex clearly benefitted from the 4 day Australian game and the knock out 
             one day games.

Commercial and Sponsorhip:   Sussex       income          £395k
                                                             expenditure   £516k
                                                             net loss       (£121k)

                                            Somerset   income          £388k
                                                             expenditure   £122k
                                                             net surplus    £266k

                  I presume Sussex include some cost items here which Somerset include
                  elsewhere.

ECB Distribution:                         Sussex      £2195k
                                                Somerset   £1685k
         
          Sussex also earned significantly more here in 2008. Presumably, in part, to
          compensate for Matt Prior and Luke Wright playing for England. Somerset also
         probably played a higher proportion of Non English qualified players.

Youth Development:                   Sussex    net cost          £167k
                                                Somerset                      £100k

Catering                                    Sussex     net surplus     £195k
                                                Somerset                       £287k

Other income and rents               Sussex                          £288k
                                                Somerset                       £264k
             These refer to rents, lettings, car parking etc. Somerset benefit from the latter
             throughout the year. In future, they will derive significant incomes from the
             occupation of the retirement apartments they have built.

Interest received                        Sussex                           £288k
                                                 Somerset                        £20k

Match costs        These are difficult to compare as Sussex simply record costs of £3,432K,
                         while Somerset record playing costs of £2,186k, ground maintenance     
                          £476k  and match expenses of £208k.
                                             

Wages and salaries           Sussex          £2811k
                                      Somerset       £2694k
                 
                  Interestingly, Somerset show playing salaries and associated costs 
                  of £1,998k. These probably include coaching costs, but not medical and physio

Administration expenses:             Sussex     £722k
                                                 Somerset  £487k

                 Somerset give details of their expenditure here. Salaries etc at £285k and   
                and advertising and website costs of £122k are the main items. Sussex give
                no details, but almost certainly include depreciation of £134k here, whereas
                Somerset show their depreciation charge of £86k separately. Sussex may
                include other cost items here, which are recorded elsewhere by Somerset.

S&F.........I dont find your posts boring.........I find them confrontational and confusing.

You post that we are slipping behind and going to struggle this year and in the same breath
you suggest that we should reduce the back-room to cut overheads.
How are you going to bring on our future stars without coaches, dieticians and physios?

Then you say that we are not making enough through membership fees. Perhaps the club needs a membershib drive or to reduce their fees.
Then in the same paragraph you say quite clearly the club needs to raise its membership fees.

That is why i said "Punched, Bored or Countersunk, not because i'm bored, but being a carpenter by trade, there is a saying that "He dos't know if his a**e is punched, bored or countersunk"

good detective work rdavidrees

i can assure you tc that i find looking at accounts at work boring enough without doing so in my spare time!

HC,

Not realising you follow the grand profession made famous by Jesus, I misunderstood your comment.

As I explained to BP, my membership statement was a rhetorical question. They are far too cheap, in my view, and should be increased.

As to the Sussex finances, once the Cama legacy interest income dissipates, then the club may need to become economically leaner, so I tentatively suggested reducing one or two of the administration/coaching staff as jonboy had mentioned the idea of reducing the number of players from 23 to 18.

So, I think there's some confusion and misunderstanding from both sides.

TC,

Given the recent MPs expenses scandal along with the banking crises there has been a growing call for greater transparency within business. Perhaps, some cricket clubs should be more transparent with their accounts, so that Members can see a clearer picture where their money is spent. But, as you suggest, how many people get a kick out of reading 'accountancy speak' - perhaps, not many?

I am particularly interested in the Sussex players and administration/coaching wages; and how these compare with other clubs. Unlikely, we would find out given the secrecy involved.

For example, what salary will Yardy be on for the next 3 years given he's the captain and a senior player?

Last edited by softandfluffy (05-03-2010 19:04:43)

I find this posturing about individuals salaries entirely unwelcome and distasteful. In addition, I very much hope that our players are amongst the best paid in the country, they are after all the most successful.

Last edited by aewparsons (06-03-2010 11:09:00)

I am not sure it is necessary to be told the salaries . The lowest will be on 20k per year and Muz would be on somewhere near 100k . I do not think they would make that interesting reading.

Recently the salaries of all Ajax players appeared on the site I use and that was interesting and an eye opener . As this list had appeared  in the dutch media I doubt the players were that happy they were all listed for fans to compare.

kim/5M,

My point is, I believe cricket clubs should show more transparency. While I accept players' salaries are a taboo subject, it is the supporters and Members along with the ECB handouts, that pay their soaring wages.

I came across this interesting article from 'The Telegraph'.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricke … money.html

Also, this feature which offers an excellent perspective on both Sussex's ambition and courage back in 1997; and how the club were primarily responsible for starting the cricket counties soaring wage ethos. May I quickly point out, what Pigott began, has proven to be hugely successful and must be wildly applauded. Winning 9 trophies in 9 years is an amazing feat for such a small club. While we criticise Adams at Surrey, he is merely repeating the Sussex formula from '97.

My favourite Barnett quote is, "Chris is a big name now; he's driving a Mercedes." 

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/cric … 97230.html

Last edited by softandfluffy (06-03-2010 13:26:10)

I think you'll find in annual accounts, most plcs are under an obligation to reveal the emoluments of directors as the company is owned by the shareholders.

Agree entirely Big D - S & F can you give it a rest ....

Since when was Yardy a Director  

Ho, ho, I see the status quo on this BB have made their position clear. 

I thank tiptoes for putting his head above the parapet and echoing my point that PLCs are obliged to tell shareholders their salaries; Yet, cricket clubs don't have to, even though supporters and Members are, in effect, shareholders.

So, why are clubs allowed this privilege and PLCs aren't? And why do some posters seem offended by the notion of greater transparency within cricket clubs?

A majority agree that county cricket is a financial 'no go zone'; that without the annual ECB handouts, some clubs would go to the wall. This, I would suggest, is primarily due to the soaring players' salaries that have occurred since the late 1990s. As with football, it has been muted for some years there should be a salary cap within cricket; but this seems unlikely, given the David and Goliath nature of the county set-up.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/ … 241438.ece

In my view, better transparency may help the increasing financial problems faced by clubs. The present line is simply not working and unless the situation changes, in 5 years time, we may see 14 clubs or less in the county set up rather than the present 18.

Last edited by softandfluffy (07-03-2010 12:18:56)