Manchester City releases 2023-24 Annual Report | Record £715m revenue, profit of £73m

[WRicko]

What do we make of the increase in head count but reduction in wages. What’s the reason ?

 

[HelloCity]

What do we make of the increase in head count but reduction in wages. What’s the reason ?

No CL/FAC win bonuses?

 

[halfcenturyup]

What do we make of the increase in head count but reduction in wages. What’s the reason ?

I would say the club has employed more people but paid them less :)

 

[Colin Bells Boots]

I would say the club has employed more people but paid them less :)

perhaps we should be following scruffy jim's approach and sacking staff and paying them less ?

He didn't get to be a billionaire by being altruistic ffs.

 

[Keeper!]

I would say the club has employed more people but paid them less :)

 

[invisibleandalone]

Are we going to see Neville saying "It's impossible" again, after the the latest accounts. The cartel will again be shown how a club should be run. It's going to get even more vein popping when the North stand is complete plus the revenue from the Co-Op arena !!!!

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

@Prestwich_Blue ?

I don't see anything significant here.

In the Strategic Report section of these latest accounts, they use the same wording as in the same Strategic Report section of the 2022/23 accounts. The only difference is that it was duplicated in the Commitments section of the 2023 accounts.

Possibly they removed it from that latter section this year as they had a firm date for the hearing, or there was no point in having it in twice.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

I would say the club has employed more people but paid them less :)

More likely reduction in bonuses after the Treble.

 

[halfcenturyup]

I don't see anything significant here.

In the Strategic Report section of these latest accounts, they use the same wording as in the same Strategic Report section of the 2022/23 accounts. The only difference is that it was duplicated in the Commitments section of the 2023 accounts.

Possibly they removed it from that latter section this year as they had a firm date for the hearing, or there was no point in having it in twice.

I am sure you know this, but these are the relevant requirements of IAS 37 - Contingent Liabilities:




This is why I think it is a significant statement from the management, directors and auditors, and the lawyers that inform them, that they see, as at October 8 after all they have seen and heard concerning evidence and counter-evidence, that the possibility of an outflow of economic resources as a result of the case is remote. Remote, iirc, is the assessment of a very low likelihood of it happening. To me, that is quite a significant statement. Not that it guarantees anything, but it is a formal statement in a regulated and audited setting that the club is still super-confident.

Yes, I know the case is referred to in the Strategic Review, but that doesn't satisfy IAS 37. If a contingent liability is anything other than remote, it has to provided for in the accounts, or disclosed in a contingent liability note to the accounts. Discussion in the Strategic Review isn't enough.

 

[halfcenturyup]

I am sure you know this, but these are the relevant requirements of IAS 37 - Contingent Liabilities:

View attachment 140549
View attachment 140550

This is why I think it is a significant statement from the management, directors and auditors, and the lawyers that inform them, that they see, as at October 8 after all they have seen and heard concerning evidence and counter-evidence, that the possibility of an outflow of economic resources as a result of the case is remote. Remote, iirc, is the assessment of a very low likelihood of it happening. To me, that is quite a significant statement. Not that it guarantees anything, but it is a formal statement in a regulated and audited setting that the club is still super-confident.

Yes, I know the case is referred to in the Strategic Review, but that doesn't satisfy IAS 37. If a contingent liability is anything other than remote, it has to provided for in the accounts, or disclosed in a contingent liability note to the accounts. Discussion in the Strategic Review isn't enough.

And, while I am at it, let's not forget the auditors' position in all this. They have given clean audit opinions through to 2018. They have doubled down by not quitting as auditors in 2019. They have tripled down by giving clean opinions through 2024. And now they have quadrupled down by accepting the club's assessment of a financial impact as remote as the case draws to a close.

They are balls deep in this with the club and they have a lot of reputation to lose if they get it wrong ..... They won't be, imho.