Not sure we can say that to be fair to IL. We've just announced sponsorship with 3 organisations and unless u are part of the inner sanctum, how do we know they are not connected to the Millwall game?

What it does show is that all those who say our chairman is tight are wrong. The loss will come out of his private funds and he doesn't appear to be running for the hills and trying sell his share of the club.

The club does need to address the falling attendances though, it's a huge issue for us.

The simple fact is that we are not very pretty to watch. You can't rely on fan loyalty to keep bums on seats, you have to entertain people in order for them to keep coming back. It's ok saying ancient and loyal and all that, that's fine for the older more established fans that live and breathe the game. I'm talking about new people to the sport, to the Wigan club and brand, unless they feel entertained they aren't going to keep coming back.

To a lot it's sport, it's something to do on weekend that you enjoy, it is something to look forward to and a reason to spend your hard earned. Even some of the most hardened fans at the are finding it tedious to watch games, imagine what the new-comers must think?

I note that rental of the stadium has also gone up.

I wonder if this is in relation to Latics' gradual demise.

I'm sure I remember it being said at a fans forum once that if Latics got relegated, we would have to carry more of the costs - think this was one reason why IL wanted them to stay up.

I agree on both of your above post Cruncher. Getting bums on seats has to be a major consideration and concern for the club moving forward and the match day experience has to be exciting and entertaining which sadly over the last few years, it mostly hasn't been.

Latics demise is without doubt the cause of the rental cost increase.

We've lost around 2,000 fans per game on average in recent years. Suppose each match day fan is worth around £20 to the club, that's over £500k in lost revenue. There's the shortfall right there.

I doubt it. When was the last time you heard of a company CEO bailing out a loss making organisation out of their personal wealth? He might have done this but it's just as likely the club has borrowed money (as all business do) to finance their operations.



Needs to factor in even more cash for severance pay then.

Noticed it mentioned the value of Orrell as £3.6m, isn't the rumour that we have sold the site for housing?

If so, that will sort out any losses short term anyway!

The whole sponsorship of our shirts has been a mystery to me, we seem to have unheard of or parochial companies whereas some other SL clubs have managed to attract national household brands.

We should be casting the net to catch a Vodafone (tie up to NZ warriors?), a Samsung (PL and SL champions link), Emirates (deep pockets) etc. etc.

Are we the most famous club in the world or not?


selling land and assets is not a viable long term model

If Im honest the fact that average crowds have declined by a couple thousand when we have been relatively successful says it all - if we had won not pots the decrease would have been significantly higher.
The biggest worry for IL will be new applications for season tickets i.e. first time buyers. The stat on that will be horrendous.
Personally I like IL and I would be amazed if there are not significant changes next year in the squad and coaching.

He does do this.

The club has a bank overdraft with Barclays which stood at £378k at the end of the financial year - Lenagan personally guarantees this with the bank on behalf of the club.

At the end of 2016 the club owed Lenagan £5.9m (up from £4.8m in 2015) through the loans provided by his investment company (which is the club's parent company).

Without Lenagan the club would be up poop creek.

Like I said the club has loans. It's Barclays who actually gave the money in the form of an overdraft to the club, not IL. How do you know he [ipersonally[/i guarantees these loans? He'd be a bit mad to personally guarantee any loans. The clubs has assets (Orrell) a bank would have no trouble in securing such an overdraft on. Even if he does personally guarantee the overdraft it's still Barclay's who have lent the money to the club.

As to the investment company, if the clubs owes his investment company £5.9m that is who it owes the money to. I don't doubt he had to come up with a wedge of cash to buy the club in the first place which he will presumably have funded the investment company with and this is where I assume most of the £5.9m debt comes from. And if the club owes the money used to buy it that means he has not gifted the club the cash he used to buy it in the first place. Not that I expect him to necessarily but he has still loaded the debt onto the club which he might expect to recover if he ever sold it. He may never expect it back but it is currently a debt not a gift. If that £5.9m doesn't come mainly from him buying it in the first place then that is an average of £590K a year he has chucked at the club. I can't see how he can have been doing that or the club would have recorded bigger losses in past seasons.

I really don't know where to start with this - you've clearly not looked at the accounts. If you did you wouldn't have written this (or maybe you would?).



The club overdraft went DOWN last year - Operating loss for the year was over £600k.



Because it says this in the accountsMr I F Lenagan, a Director of the Company, has provided personal guarantees to the Bank on behalf of the Company[/i"



As I've already said the bank overdraft reduced last year (from £392k to £378k) but the operating loss was over £600k. Who do you actually think is funding the loss?



The investment company is Lenagan if you'd bother to read the accounts. The amount owed went up by over a £1m last year alone and now stands at £5.9m. He bought the club for £2m. Without the Lenagan family the club would be in financial trouble.

No I have not looked at the accounts but I do understand the difference between an individual and a company and the fact that IL vias his investment company has loaded the money spent onto the club as a debt so it's a not a gift. Given Orrell is valued at £3.6m if it all went belly up tomorrow he's also not facing a £5.9nm loss either. If he bought it for £2m and the club owes £5.9m where did the £3.9m come from? He's been in charge 10 years. If this sort of loss and level of debt had been reported under the previous regime they would not be being accorded the accolade as a saviour. People would be slagging the situation off because the club was being run at a loss requiring handouts.