The accounts for the year ending June 2010 are out and it’s good news for Leeds United fans as the club posted a profit for the second consecutive year.

This time, the profit rose from the measly £15,000 in 2009, to a healthy £2m. However, the numbers don’t tell the full story as Leeds United once again were aided by the sale of players.

The most notable injection into the income column came from Fabian Delph’s transfer to Aston Villa. His sale alone turned Leeds United’s yearly accounts from a £670,000 loss into a £2m gain.

The good news however, is that gate receipts and merchandising sales are up an impressive £3.3m. In a season where Leeds United were promoted, this was to be expected, but any gains here are offset by the rising cost of our playing squad and bonuses which were paid for achieving promotion. Overall, the playing and coaching staff at Elland Road cost the club £7.7m.

One of the biggest costs Leeds United face each year remains the rent on Elland Road and Thorp Arch. In 2010, this figure rose to over £2m per year, and with a 3% increase for every year we continue to rent the facilities, this is only going to get worse – thus fuelling the argument for repurchase as opposed to spending additional funds renovating something we don’t own. Perhaps another year of healthy figures will strengthen our case in front of the bank managers?

There’s been a few changes to the Leeds United squad since the dates these figures cover, but with the club now benefiting from the additional revenue of Championship football, I’d speculate that things will have levelled out pretty well this season.

The cost of promotion last season seems to be the only reason why Fabian Delph’s sale was the difference between a profit and loss. With that in mind, I’m not overly concerned by the reopening of the transfer market as I believe Leeds United can afford to keep their best players and make another push for the Premier League next season.

Of course it may be the case that we get promoted this season. If that does happen then the TV revenue alone will offset any problems with player bonuses. There would be a payment due as a result of our administration, but considering the vast amounts of money Premier League teams benefit from, I think we should be capable of holding our own. As ever, only time will tell.

  • Craig

    Mmmmmm… chocolate coins.

  • Matt BB

    Considering our administration was over 2 years ago, and this is in effect a new business which has posted profits 2 years on the trot with increased turnover, and increased assets and cash in the bank we will indeed be in a stronger position to borrow money, or indeed attract investors.

    I’m more interested in any interim accounts that come out for the current financial year though. Our turnover is going to be even higher with increased tv revenues, and the fa cup games v Arsenal will have improved this as well.

    We have invested in a bigger squad albeit through loans, but have been quite prudent inasmuch as very low transfer fee expednitrure so I would think we are in a decent position still.

    Though it does suggest doesnt it that were going to see someone valuable go in the summer… my moneys on it being Gradel, hes scored more goals than Snoddy, is a full international and is refusing to sign a new contract – ktching.. £6m i reckon.

    If the enhanced conference facilites and a hotel work out, they will only serve to boost our turnover – IF they work out, so it seems Kens prepared to gamble on bricks and mortar but not on a playing squad which would have a more immediate upside in terms o Premier League Revenues, that the property market where we wont see land or prperty values increase substantially for at least 2-3 Years, interesting.

  • otv

    can you make that picture any bigger!

  • Tim Wilsom

    If you’re going to build though now is definitely the time, that said now should also be a good time to buy if property values have hit the shitter like over here

  • James McGuirk

    We need to build alright, unfortunately we are building with bricks and mortar

  • Neil H

    Nobody going to start slagging bates? Oh yeah sorry, yeah he shouldn’t be improving the facilities. Sorry my mistake!

  • Mojoluafc

    Didnt we get £5m for the 2 lads chelski nicked, and what of the cup runs. Still, a profits a profit i suppose which is better than most clubs.

  • RoystonLUFC

    Well said Neil. Now we can see the amount of money that Ken has spent on the squad, those who accused him of frittering the profits away elsewhere might wish to re-assess their ideas. From administration to this position in such a short time suggests that Ken’s business acumen, shrewdness and downright arrogance is paying off. After all, he’s our shrewd, arrogant businessman. I think it’s time the Bates baiters started focussing on the football – not the business – side of the mighty LUFC. We are back. Almost! MOT.

  • tim campbell

    We have certainly had our fair share of tv coverage this year which will have boosted the coffers significantly, however I do remember kenneth telling us after our cup games that the money we got from that was spent on players such as Andy O’brien and other loanees. The leeds united brand is still very marketable and I would hope we were trying to cash in on the overseas market. On a side issue it has been reported today that names of ownership must be forthcoming if we are promoted. I wonder if this happens will kenneth drop his trousers, smile and say ‘kiss my ass’- yeah he probably would lol

  • paulg

    @MattBB ….. you won’t see any interim accounts, because as a privately owned limited company LUFC is under no obligation to publish any ……

    As for borrowing, the banks are VERY choosy about who they lend to. Two years of profits is vastly outweighed by the facts that (a) football clubs generally are a pretty poor risk – there is a long track record of clubs going into administration even during the years of plenty; and (b) Leeds have been into administration in very recent history ……

  • Colin

    So if we were -£670,000 and Delph put us to £2m profit, then we sold him for £2.67m?

    Surely we got more than that??

  • AussieWhite

    @Colin I think that the Delph deal was in staged payments and that there was a sell on clause with Bradord City which meant that they got a cut of the initial fee received.

  • Pingback: Relativity 4 Engineers. | Interfreebies()

  • James McGuirk

    Improving facilities we don’t own, what a great idea………..

  • Top Cat

    once again the wool is pulled over the eyes.

    despite all the non matchday improvements, increased revenue from it, massive ticket revenue at this level and turnover. it takes large player sales to make us a profit and those player sales seem somewhat low dont they if you do some simple sums because its not only delph they are talking about

    just what is happening down at elland road????

    How can a club that supposedly cuts its cloth accordingly turnover so much but make so little

    its not like we are spending it on the team, its not on kens wages he works for free so where it all going I wonder………….

  • Matt BB

    our biggest outgoings are the rent on ER & TA, and as per usual we will no doubt come out topof the league for spending on agents fees.. and then theres kens legal bills! thats got to be a stinger.

    as for the delph deal, one can imagine its going to have been £3m-£4m up front and then given hes made about 2.5 appearances for Villa the remainder based on appearances, as i seem to recall the whole deal was worth over £7M.

  • west stand rebel

    Has anyone seen or can make available the filed accounts at Companies House. These will show in much more detail where income is being spent. Also it occurs to me that Bates has a wife and 5 children. One suspects that they may be the ultimate owners or shareholders. The oldtimer must have made provision for his demise probably in the most dodgy “tax efficient” way that he and his expensive advisors could come up with.

  • tim campbell

    In todays market it would be nice to know how much our team would be worth, not forgeting of course that we have numerous loanees with us which do not count

  • number1inyorkshire

    bates family can not according to the terms of us coming out of administration or any one close to him own shares in in fsf or any other company associated with lufc .

    this would have been in breach of him winning the takeover at that point
    ,as on more than several occasions he has swore in courts ,he has no knowledge of the ultimate beneficiaries ,so has sean harvey .

    people who keep saying that sort of thing do not realise how serious that would be for leeds united as just about everyone who lost money during admin and since would run us through the courts not to mention the football league .

    the fact is that “WE” me and you put £17.000 000 through the turnstiles at leeds and the shop etc ,

    we as fans and not just at leeds get nadda ,aka F ALL

    • west stand rebel

      Yes I must admit I’d forgotten about those rules…I’m sure you are correct. MattBB below has a sound and logical answer to the ownership issue. If he is correct then why the secrecy though ? Is that really necessary? Many of us have investments and would not be embarrased to let others know.

  • Matt BB

    it strikes me more and more that all Bates has done with FSF is approach his business associates Boatman and Murrin, put a business proposal to them for the running of a football club, and asked them to find individuals prepared to invest in that – they pay £10M into the fund, and he pays them back the £10m he `bought’ leeds united with – by definition then he has bought leeds united – but with their money – albeit his has gone directly back to them,

    He effectively then creates an investment bond over a number of years for those himself, the profits are payable to the investors via dividends for re-investment as he advises them to do as the `expert’ with the advice of boatman and murrin who are also experienced in this sort of thing, and over time their investment grows under his tenure, as profits are made.

    Ken is unsalaried in this process, but it is clear that his investments are solid and making money, and the natural end would be that he is returned his initial £10M investment in the various FSF funds, plus a share in the didivdends and profits made over time, all they need to do is sit there.

    as far as they are no doubt aware they have handed their money to boatman at chateau fiducaire and asked him to invest their money in some high risk, low yield bonds. They probably really are inncents, and when the list was show to the football league it probably really was a group of investors.

  • Mojoluafc

    I hope hope we get into the Premiership for a bit of clarity in the club.