- This topic has 62 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 1 week, 6 days ago by
.
-
Whilst the loss isn’t great I think it’s clear they are on the right path and with legacy issues being put to bed in the future I think the club have done extremely well to get to this position.
1 user thanked author for this post.
Could be worse.
“Carlisle United’s £7m Losses Highlight The New English Disease, And Fans Are Partly To Blame”1 user thanked author for this post.
The seem to be there now…
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/00123622/filing-history
1 user thanked author for this post.
Very helpful analysis. So, it points to the need to get additional investors?
1 user thanked author for this post.
Kieran Maguire’s take on the accounts. Slightly more positive than I’d expected, if I’m honest…
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p0n9zmgz?partner=uk.co.bbc&origin=share-mobile
1 user thanked author for this post.
Broadening the scope of this discussion to reflect on the wider issues of financing football clubs.
When people talk about football finance, the conversation usually jumps straight to the Premier League however, the real financial stress in English football is much easier to see further down the pyramid. In League One, League Two and the National League, where revenue is smaller, owner support is more critical, and one bad season can create genuine solvency problems. The House of Commons Library noted in 2025 that despite rising revenues across English football, clubs overall remained heavily loss-making, with aggregate losses of £1.2bn in 2022/23, over £3bn across three seasons, and around 85% of clubs loss-making, with losses accelerating faster in the lower leagues.
That is the key point: lower-league football does not mainly suffer from a lack of ambition; it suffers from a lack of margin for error. A Premier League club can post a large accounting loss and still survive because of broadcasting income, global commercial revenue and access to capital. A League One, League Two or National League club often does not have that cushion. It is far more dependent on gate receipts, local sponsorship, cup runs, player sales and continuing owner backing.
The published accounts of clubs outside the top flight make that pressure obvious. Wrexham’s official results for the year ended 30 June 2024 showed record turnover of £26.725m, but still a loss of £2.729m; the club itself made clear that this was after substantial strategic investment and with unusually strong commercial growth for a club that had only recently been in the National League. Carlisle United’s published 2024/25 summary showed turnover falling from £8.3m to £6.6m, while football costs rose to £5.4m and player wages increased by £1m. Even with resilient attendances and higher commercial income, the margin is clearly tight. These are not reckless outliers; they are examples of how easy it is for costs to outrun normal football income outside the elite.
What makes the lower leagues especially fragile is that many clubs are not really operating on self-generated cash. They are operating on owner commitment plus hope. Hope of promotion. Hope of a cup run. Hope of a transfer fee. Hope that the owner keeps writing cheques. That model can work for a while, but it is not robust governance. The fan-led review and the government’s response were both clear that too many clubs have historically been run on unsustainable assumptions, leaving them exposed when results turn, investors pull back, or debts need refinancing.
The National League is especially important here because it has become a kind of financial pressure chamber for former EFL clubs. It is full of clubs with Football League infrastructure, Football League supporter expectations and, in some cases, Football League cost habits, but without Football League central distributions. The National League’s own rules require clubs to submit full annual financial statements and disclose loan arrangements, which tells you that financial monitoring in that division is not a side issue; it is central to the competition’s stability.
That gap between expectation and income is, in my view, one of the biggest threats facing football over the next few years.
The first likely issue is continued overspending for promotion. In League One and League Two, the financial reward for moving up remains so significant that clubs will keep stretching wages and transfer budgets beyond what recurring income really supports. In the National League, promotion remains even more valuable because it is the gateway back to EFL distributions, higher visibility and, often, better sponsorship terms. That means clubs will keep taking risks even when the balance sheet says caution.
The second issue is greater dependence on wealthy owners and soft loans. Wrexham are the high-profile example of owner-backed growth done with momentum and commercial upside, but most clubs do not have that level of brand expansion or investor profile. For a typical lower-league or National League club, owner funding is not growth capital; it is often working capital. If that support weakens, the club can run into difficulty very quickly.
Third, I think we will see more pressure around infrastructure and stadium funding. Clubs are rightly trying to improve grounds, training facilities and fan experience because matchday and commercial revenue matter more outside the Premier League. But infrastructure spending needs cash, and clubs lower down the pyramid usually do not have spare cash. So the same clubs being told to modernise are often the clubs least able to fund that modernisation without external backing. Carlisle’s own accounts summary explicitly framed infrastructure improvements as part of long-term growth, but that long-term logic still has to survive the short-term cash reality.
Fourth, regulation is going to get tougher, and some clubs will struggle with that. The Football Governance Act 2025 created the Independent Football Regulator with a purpose of protecting and promoting the sustainability of English football, and the government’s fact sheet says the regime is intended to improve financial resilience across the pyramid by reviewing plans and stepping in where concerns exist. That should be a good thing for supporters, but it will be uncomfortable for clubs that have relied on weak forecasting, opaque funding structures or last-minute rescue money.
Fifth, the gap between the very strongest and weakest clubs in the lower leagues may widen. Some clubs will build stable models around attendances, community support, disciplined wages, better commercial operations and realistic planning. Others will continue to chase short-term sporting success with cost bases that only make sense if everything goes right. In the next downturn, whether that is relegation, lower attendances, reduced owner appetite or a bad run without player sale profits, those football clubs with weaker models will be exposed.
So the real financial warning sign in English football is not just that clubs lose money. It is that, lower down the pyramid, too many clubs are still one shock away from serious distress. The Premier League’s problems are about control, regulation and competitive balance. The lower leagues’ problems are more basic: cash flow, dependency, sustainability and survival. And unless governance improves materially, I think the coming years will bring more emergency funding, more distress sales, more supporter anxiety, and more examples of historic clubs living far too close to the edge.
3 users thanked author for this post.
Once again, a very helpful, clear and insightful analysis. Thank you. To me, it suggests that the more transparency from clubs on finance matters, the better. If you outline plans and challenges associated with decisions, the more likely you are to take fans with you. Better still, involve them in those decisions.
1 user thanked author for this post.
2 users thanked author for this post.
That’s where a lot of the unease comes from. If the club owes the owners another £1.4m, then supporters have every right to question the model. At this level, owner loans are common enough, but this ownership was supposed to be a break from that kind of setup.
Right now it looks less like a new way of doing things and more like the usual football cycle with a nicer sales pitch.
2 users thanked author for this post.
Scunthorpe are trying to move towards self-sustainability, and the board should be applauded for that.
The reality is the club is not there yet and is still heavily reliant on board loans to keep operating. That is not unusual in lower-league football, but it does mean the current model is still one of owner support rather than genuine financial independence. The real test is not whether directors are putting money in now, but whether the club can reduce its annual losses to the point where it can cover day-to-day costs from normal football income such as gates, sponsorship, commercial activity and football revenues without needing fresh loans every season.
As for the new director loans, the most realistic path is not immediate repayment but a slow transition: first cut the yearly deficit, then reach break-even, then build modest surpluses over time. Only once that happens can the club sensibly deal with the debt, most likely by leaving loans in place as patient funding, converting some into equity, or eventually writing some off rather than repaying them like a normal business loan. So the question for supporters is simple: is this genuinely a bridge to a sustainable future, or just another period of losses being covered by directors with the debt pushed further down the road?
3 users thanked author for this post.
Hopefully, the questions that arise from this can be addressed at the forthcoming (date tbc) shareholders’ meeting. Is a move to sustainability realistic with this model while maintaining on field momentum? I never expected promotion this season, but will we better placed next to push on? Probably not. If we hit the jackpot and get promoted this year, that brings into play other revenue streams. There will also, though, be pressures and expectations in terms of investment.
I think we are all grateful for what the owners have done for the club to date and pleased with on field achievements. The need for a longer term plan is all too apparent.
1 user thanked author for this post.
If Dave was still around I think it highly likely the club would not be.
He was a convicted criminal who left us near the brink of extinction. People of his ilk should be nowhere near any community asset.4 users thanked author for this post.
Scunthorpe are trying to move towards self-sustainability, and the board should be applauded for that.
The reality is the club is not there yet and is still heavily reliant on board loans to keep operating. That is not unusual in lower-league football, but it does mean the current model is still one of owner support rather than genuine financial independence. The real test is not whether directors are putting money in now, but whether the club can reduce its annual losses to the point where it can cover day-to-day costs from normal football income such as gates, sponsorship, commercial activity and football revenues without needing fresh loans every season.
As for the new director loans, the most realistic path is not immediate repayment but a slow transition: first cut the yearly deficit, then reach break-even, then build modest surpluses over time. Only once that happens can the club sensibly deal with the debt, most likely by leaving loans in place as patient funding, converting some into equity, or eventually writing some off rather than repaying them like a normal business loan. So the question for supporters is simple: is this genuinely a bridge to a sustainable future, or just another period of losses being covered by directors with the debt pushed further down the road?
Discussing this with someone just now and they asked: If these are loans, why have those Directors been given shares?
1 user thanked author for this post.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.