Town's accounts for the year to June 2023 show total loss of £18.17 million, the second season following the Gamechanger 20 Ltd takeover and the year in which the Blues won promotion back to the Championship.

The loss, which had been wholly expected as the new owners invested in the club both on and off the field, was up on the £12.64 million in the previous year. The club made an operating loss of £19.83 million compared with £14.39 million in 2022.

Turnover was up from £14.4 million in 2021/22 to £21.8 million, other operating income was £908,000 compared with £106,000 a year previously and operating expenses £42.9 million, up from £28.9 million a year earlier.

The overall wage bill was up from £16.4 million in 2021/22 to £19.8 million with player wages up from £9.9 million to £12.7 million.

Season ticket sales were 17,877, up from 12,870, and along with matchday ticket sales brought in £8 million compared with £5.7 million in the previous season, while commercial revenue was up from £3.38 million to £5.4 million.

Merchandise sales, with the Ed Sheeran-designed third kit and the other strips big sellers, were £4.5 million, up from just over £3 million in 2022. Club employees were up to 201 from 196.

Proceeds from player sales came to £2.3 million, largely the Flynn Downes sell-on and youth players such as Calum Logan, up on the £2.67 million in the previous season.

Since the end of the year, the accounts state that the club has acquired player registrations totalling £4.13 million, the fees for the likes of George Hirst, Cieran Slicker and Ali Al-Hamadi.

Town are obliged to pay a maximum of an additional £691,000 in respect of transferred players, excluding amounts which have already been provided for and those which are considered remotely likely of becoming due.

During the year, the club issued £29.46 million in additional shares. In League One, injections of cash had to be made through equity, so the club issued more shares whenever additional cash needed to come in from the owners.

The accounts show the club to be in a strong position in terms of Profit and Sustainability, the Championship’s Financial Fair Play system having made a loss of only £20.6 million over the last three years, but wholly in a League One environment when spending will inevitably have been lower than is the case in a Championship season. The Championship assesses clubs over a three-year period with a loss of no more than £39 million permitted over that time if an owner covers these losses by injecting equity rather than loans.

Internal debt is limited to legacy preference shares from the Marcus Evans era which have been taken on by Gamechanger. The only external debt is £394,000 in loan notes issued in the years following the club’s spell in administration just over 20 years ago.

Photo: Blair Ferguson

Trac70 added 19:11 - Mar 22 Should we be worried by this announcement along side the announcement that another company are investing in us? I don't know the answer. Just a general question.
1

IpswichT62OldBoy added 19:13 - Mar 22 We need an accountant to give us an opinion. I think there are some on TWTD
1

Gforce added 19:21 - Mar 22 With another 105 million now rolling in,I think we'll cope. We are thankfully well and truly on the up ! COYB.
0

_clive_baker_ added 19:23 - Mar 22 Ali Al-Hamadi fees wouldn’t have been applicable in the year ending June 2023 given he signed in Jan 2024.
1

TurinBlue added 19:35 - Mar 22 I don't think I am too worried. The investors money is more at risk than ours. Gamechanger has far exceeded their expectations up to this point and given their financial backer is a pension fund it would make sense for them to preserve their original investment by either selling a share in the club or spreading the risk. If we were to go up we would need to invest in some quality players (subject to the Fairplay restrictions) and seems a good way to finance that. Obviously the new investors would expect to see a return for their money which means the club will have to continue it recent successful path. Much depends upon the ability and integrity of the new investors - I know nothing about them apart from the post on TWTD. I live in hope. At least it isn't Mike Ashton!

1

Broadbent23 added 19:44 - Mar 22 To be successful in business you have to take financial risks. Post Covid and the Ukraine War inflation has sored. Generally most football clubs lose money. Although a loss has been made in Ipswich, Game changer did wipe off our previous debt from Marcus reign. Although the new investment is good and our future looks better. But trying to compete with mega bucks clubs will be difficult. Look at Newcastle the investment has improved them (but no trophies). Man City with their 100 plus FFP charges could yet be banished down the leagues. Our progress has to slow down next season with the team and financial position, because we could break FFP rules. Agents and players get greedy and the team gets fragile. We need a new stand which could take another 5 to 6 years. We just need to build all areas in a responsible time period.

0

TimmyH added 20:10 - Mar 22 Good to see both turnover and operating income have improved since the new owners have come in...total loss as said was expected considering better players have come in 2022/23.
1

blues1 added 20:39 - Mar 22 Broadbwnt. Gamechanger didn't wipe off the debt form the Evans era. He,wrote it off himself. Hence thry bought a,club pretty much debt free. Turinblue. Gamechanger haven't sold any of their share. While giving some of their shareholding away, every penny of this money is going directly into the club
4

gosblue added 20:53 - Mar 22 Correct me if I’m wrong but I think the above mentioned accounts are from when we were a league one team. FFP doesn’t apply to L1. In League one it’s the Salary Cost Management Protocol whereby clubs can only spend a percentage of revenue on wages. If we spend 3 years in the championship, we could struggle to conform with FFP and remain competitive. There is nothing fair about FFP as it appears to be designed to keep upstarts like us out of the Prem and force us to sell our best assets.

0

RegencyBlue added 21:24 - Mar 22 Don’t forget a lot of the money spent is putting right the years and years of underinvestment by Evans. Had he done what was needed at the time it was needed Gamechanger wouldn’t have had to spend as much as they have on infrastructure for example.
1

Europablue added 00:29 - Mar 23 These are ridiculous sums of money that are being lost. It doesn't reflect badly on the club, more on the state of football in general. It should be possible for most teams to run at a profit, but hardly any do. Consider the often extortionate amounts of money fans are paying to watch their club in person and on TV and for merchandise and it's ridiculous. It's a stretch to even call football a business sometimes.

5

hyperbrit added 01:12 - Mar 23 We are extremely lucky to have such committed investors but the prejudice towards the Premiership has become a laughing stock and threatens the future of the game itself (look at Norwich wasting millions of the idiotic parachute payments through bad management that are really designed to keep Championship clubs out). This madness must stop or England doesn't have a hope of winning another World Cup unless this is addressed. International call ups should be an honor not a curse and would be were it not for the greed of the EFL and its insane scheduling

0

NedPlimpton added 07:50 - Mar 23 Proceeds from player sales came to 2.3m. Up from 2.6m the previous season?
0

MK1 added 07:53 - Mar 23 The £105M will help to satisfy the FFP ruling, so no worries on that score. We will need to start unloading those who have no chance of playing and develop the youth set up more, so fees are brought more in to line. Those that think we can just buy the league are going to be very disappointed though.
0

OxtonBlue added 09:27 - Mar 23 This is a really helpful summary for the layperson, thank you! One typo: "Proceeds from player sales came to £2.3 million, largely the Flynn Downes sell-on and youth players such as Calum Logan, up on the £2.67 million in the previous season." This would be down not up presumably?!
0

Bazza8564 added 09:36 - Mar 23 MK1, sadly not, capital doesn't count towards income, so the impact on the pitch is zero. BUT it can be used to fund all the capital expenditure, Playford Road and Portman Road can probably be fully funded if that money stays in the pot which means true revenue like ticket sales, shirts and commercial revenue can be used to fund players. That in turn may see us go up, and Sky revenue, probably 200m over three years even if we only lasted a season, does also count as income so the plates start to spin more healthily. On EuropaBlues comments, sadly I disagree, these were budgeted losses covered by investor injections and were planned and necessary. Once you hit the PL, yes you can make money sensibly but the state the club was in 3 years ago the only way was more and more deterioration. There are also comments here about risks. Well again i beg to differ. GC paid around 40m for the club and have probably now spent a total of 100m owning 90% of the club. Selling 40% for 105m means they are 5m up and still own a controlling interest, debt free. Thats not risk, thats just great business and part of their investment strategy. I think overall fans need to keep in mind revenue and income drive FFP, any trading losses are always covered by these guys with cash and capital can only help do that and fund off the pitch.

2

BobbyBell added 10:30 - Mar 23 If you buy a run down company you must firstly believe that you can turn it around with investment into something worth much more than you paid and invested. In the announcement of further investment it was stated that they had lots of people interested in investing in ITFC so investors are seeing a great project with huge potential. They see growth and increased share values which is why they want to invest their money here. Being able to be selective over potential investors says that this club is going places. Financial losses will be part of the growth because you must make improvements in all areas to create a successful company which then becomes even more attractive to future investors. Personally I think having this group of investors is far more stable than having one mega rich owner who makes all the decisions. The running of the club is being left to MA and the running of the squad to KM. To me this is a joint ownership that most clubs can only dream of.

1

TurinBlue added 11:34 - Mar 23 Bobby Bell - I pretty much share your views. Because things have gone so well on the pitch the clubs value has increased by a vast amount. Long may it continue! Its come to something that having got used to withdrawn wingers, false 9s, inverted full backs, sweeper keepers, 4-4-2, etc. we now need to understand high finance and profit and sustainability rules just to be able to follow a football team. Oh for the days of a kickabout on Bourne Park.

2

RoyalBlue79 added 16:02 - Mar 24 Wow, £18m loss incurred just to get promoted from League 1. Contrast that with Plymouth Argyle who only lost £3.4m and finished top of the table (and with 2/3rds of our turnover). Our operating expenses were £42m on a turnover of £22m last season. So a massive cost compared to Argyle. In the Championship it's a different game, you have to spend just to compete with clubs benefiting from parachute payments which is where the Premier League needs a rethink - thankfully McKenna has put together a team that is more than capable of competing against the top teams in this division. A good move by ORG to sell off a 40% stake and recoup some of the £millions it has had to plough in (£30m of losses in first two years) and the initial £40m it paid for the club.

0

TimmyH added 21:26 - Mar 24 Lets get this right...ORG/Gamechanger bought the club for near £40M, Marcus Evans wrote off nearly £96M in debt from loans and only £400K of debt remained when the club changed ownership...this was of 2021.
0

Blogs 295 bloggers

Ipswich Town Polls