Derby County Accounts 13/14

[Tombo]

Pretty sure Wembley gets the lot, and there was uproar about it, but they needed it cos of the overspend.

[Chris_D]

not really sure what this post means ^ are you suggesting there could be voting issues based on increased equity holdings?

directors and shareholders have different functions.

 

 

[The Scarlet Pimpernel]

The club seem to be saying that Income of circa £20m + £7m losses are sufficient to put in a challenge for promotion with the type of squad we have seen this season. They recognise the catalyst for the £20m is the teams performance.  Future looks bright to me. Well done the ownership group.

[ramblur]

The accounts aren't yet available to the public,so there's not much for me to say.The £7m headline loss isn't the amount that the owners cover,it's usually less than this.Whilst I wouldn't attempt to explain the complexities of an income and expenditure based P/L account,I think you all might be able to understand that the headline loss includes a whopping stadium depreciation charge close to £1.5m and that there is no cash outflow in respect of same.This and smaller items of a similar nature explain the difference between headline loss and amount actually financed.For those who access the accounts,the amount to be funded appears as a clear total about halfway down the cash flow statement,and the means of funding appears in the second half of the statement.

I must admit that I expected the loss to be smaller,but I hadn't banked on a £3m wages increase.I can't immediately see where the play off final income features,although the press release doesn't cover all of the income heads. I know everyone assumes it was loser takes all,I've never actually seen a definitive statement  of an agreement to this effect. I'm struggling to see where a figure of c£3m might fit in.

I find it interesting that they predict a similar loss for this year.Surely such a prediction couldn't be based on an assumption that we would again be losing finalists,so if the figure (and agreement) were true,there'd be an immediate £3m to make up.Now,whilst I appreciate that gates and commercial activity will have increased,so too would players' wages and amortisation of players' regs.

[Tombo]

The accounts aren't yet available to the public,so there's not much for me to say.The £7m headline loss isn't the amount that the owners cover,it's usually less than this.Whilst I wouldn't attempt to explain the complexities of an income and expenditure based P/L account,I think you all might be able to understand that the headline loss includes a whopping stadium depreciation charge close to £1.5m and that there is no cash outflow in respect of same.This and smaller items of a similar nature explain the difference between headline loss and amount actually financed.For those who access the accounts,the amount to be funded appears as a clear total about halfway down the cash flow statement,and the means of funding appears in the second half of the statement.

I must admit that I expected the loss to be smaller,but I hadn't banked on a £3m wages increase.I can't immediately see where the play off final income features,although the press release doesn't cover all of the income heads. I know everyone assumes it was loser takes all,I've never actually seen a definitive statement  of an agreement to this effect. I'm struggling to see where a figure of c£3m might fit in.

I find it interesting that they predict a similar loss for this year.Surely such a prediction couldn't be based on an assumption that we would again be losing finalists,so if the figure (and agreement) were true,there'd be an immediate £3m to make up.Now,whilst I appreciate that gates and commercial activity will have increased,so too would players' wages and amortisation of players' regs.

[CornwallRam]

The accounts aren't yet available to the public,so there's not much for me to say.The £7m headline loss isn't the amount that the owners cover,it's usually less than this.Whilst I wouldn't attempt to explain the complexities of an income and expenditure based P/L account,I think you all might be able to understand that the headline loss includes a whopping stadium depreciation charge close to £1.5m and that there is no cash outflow in respect of same.This and smaller items of a similar nature explain the difference between headline loss and amount actually financed.For those who access the accounts,the amount to be funded appears as a clear total about halfway down the cash flow statement,and the means of funding appears in the second half of the statement.

I must admit that I expected the loss to be smaller,but I hadn't banked on a £3m wages increase.I can't immediately see where the play off final income features,although the press release doesn't cover all of the income heads. I know everyone assumes it was loser takes all,I've never actually seen a definitive statement  of an agreement to this effect. I'm struggling to see where a figure of c£3m might fit in.

I find it interesting that they predict a similar loss for this year.Surely such a prediction couldn't be based on an assumption that we would again be losing finalists,so if the figure (and agreement) were true,there'd be an immediate £3m to make up.Now,whilst I appreciate that gates and commercial activity will have increased,so too would players' wages and amortisation of players' regs.

[ramblur]

​http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2635366/QPR-Derby-strike-deal-Wembley-gate-receipts-worth-1-5m-Championship-play-final-loser.html

I'm sure it was also announced on the OS. I will dig it out if I can for you.

[Tombo]

​Thanks Tombo,it's just that I can't see where this income figures,unless 'other income' shot up.Just to illustrate my point on funding,the £7.1m 12/13 headline loss led to a funding requirement of £5.7m. The press release is quite clever on this,because whilst it's perfectly true to say that the £7m loss has to be covered,they neglect to point out that it's only the cash element of same.However it's still a pretty significant whack,so I wouldn't be too critical.

With the various FFP exemptions,we would have sailed through in 13/14.

[ramblur]

​I can't find it on the OS, I must have imagined it! But it is reported in several newspapers and has been tradition by all accounts for a long time now. So I think it's safe to assume that we got that £3m. At least £2m of that went on Thorne though!

[Chris_D]

interesting the owners did a debt for equity swap again (though pretty common in football since ffp). Would be interesting to know what the ratio was.

I don't think swaps go to ffp, but we'd have been ok under the rules even with the loss.  Might indicate an exit strategy... What they do about the (probably higher) losses for this year will be more telling.

[ramblur]

interesting the owners did a debt for equity swap again (though pretty common in football since ffp). Would be interesting to know what the ratio was.

I don't think swaps go to ffp, but we'd have been ok under the rules even with the loss.  Might indicate an exit strategy... What they do about the (probably higher) losses for this year will be more telling.

[ramblur]

interesting the owners did a debt for equity swap again (though pretty common in football since ffp). Would be interesting to know what the ratio was.

I don't think swaps go to ffp, but we'd have been ok under the rules even with the loss.  Might indicate an exit strategy... What they do about the (probably higher) losses for this year will be more telling.

[ramblur]

Apologies -duplicate post

[RamNut]

Its all bloody accountants mumbo jumbo with fictitious losses e.g. Stadium depreciation.

i never understand how a £7m annual loss can be good news.

it doesn't seem to work like that on Dragon's Den.

 

[ramblur]

Its all bloody accountants mumbo jumbo with fictitious losses e.g. Stadium depreciation.

i never understand how a £7m annual loss can be good news.

it doesn't seem to work like that on Dragon's Den.

 

[ramblur]

Accounts still haven't landed at CH and are now shown as overdue.

This £3m play off final business still looks dodgy to me. The overall income went up £4.8m,and it's reported that Sponsorship &Advertising increased £0.8m, Match Receipts £0.9m and TV Revenues £2.4m,which only leaves £0.7m of increases unaccounted for.Now if the £3m were in match receipts,it would have meant that normal gates would have slumped dramatically,which wasn't the case; if it were (bizarrely) in TV revenues,then normal revenues would have decreased ,when we actually had more televised games.This all means that it would have to feature in one of the other income heads.However,if there's only £0.7m of increases left,then normal revenues must have slumped by £2.3m to fit in the £3m.Very odd.

I can't help but go back to Tv revenues- the £2.4m increase for additional televised games looks very high to me (for instance,it could represent,say,£200k x 12 games -unlikely). I wouldn't have thought Championship games paid that much to be honest.I'm beginning to wonder if the £3m is well overcooked and actually features in TV revenues,along with some increase for additional televised games.It's very unclear as to what happens to the TV fees for the televised play off games,and I seem to remember there was a distinct possibility that the League gobbled them up.

 

On top of all of this,you still have to fit in extra revenues for the Chelsea cup game (although I could see that fitting into match receipts and still giving scope for an increase in normal gates),and for shared gate receipts for the play off semis (although this would be a relatively modest amount). 

[ramblur]

On a different note,there seems to have been a flurry of activity at CH over the last year relating to legal charges.Some old ones have been discharged and 3 new ones have appeared,the first of which has already been discharged.Whilst I couldn't afford to download the lot (times are very,very hard following long illness),I did look at the first one,dated April 2014 (and now discharged).It appears to relate to the transfer of land (quoted as "adjacent to Pride Park Stadium") from the council to the club,with a charge being raised in favour of the Co-op bank. I suspect (though I don't know) that the other 2 new charges may be of a similar nature.Something is obviously afoot.

[Animal is a Ram]

Owen Bradley @OwenBradley

@dcfcfans to ramblur - I've always been told that £3m figure for the Playoff final was wrong, despite what was reported at the time.

Owen Bradley @OwenBradley

@DCFCMiguel13 @dcfcfans I honestly don't know, but was always told that was "very high".

 

[ramblur]

No great surprise there.When I did my own forecasts for 13/14,I did them on the basis of the £3m as someone had managed to convince me that this was the figure.No great surprise then that the loss has come in higher than I anticipated.I'd love to know how much a televised Championship game pays,as we've had rather a lot this season.

I think it would be in the club's best interests to come clean because, should we again be beaten finalists, fans would again clamour (unfairly) for the owners to spend the £3m in the summer window.

[Diag Ram]

No great surprise there.When I did my own forecasts for 13/14,I did them on the basis of the £3m as someone had managed to convince me that this was the figure.No great surprise then that the loss has come in higher than I anticipated.I'd love to know how much a televised Championship game pays,as we've had rather a lot this season.

I think it would be in the club's best interests to come clean because, should we again be beaten finalists, fans would again clamour (unfairly) for the owners to spend the £3m in the summer window.