Duracell Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 It just wouldn't make sense for us to sign Sammon and then decide we don't fancy building a team anymore. Unless our board wants to play some sort of real-life whac-a-mole with our squad whereby as soon as we spend money on one position we sell a decent player from another, it just doesn't make sense to do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davenportram Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 It was in the people today that the club have issued a hands off and Hughes and Brayford are not for sale. No link because I actually read a newspaper for the first time in months today Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 Waiting for Ramblur to correct me, but wasn't the trading loss (rather than the headline figure) something like £2.2m on the last accounts?. With lower wages and lower turnover a loss for this year of c£1.8m seems entirely feasible - no one to pay off and lower player amortisation. If breakeven is the aim then that figure needing to be raised could easily be correct. It is possible that the board require either player sales or a decent cup run to balance the books. However, I can't believe that anyone in a position to know would put that information in the hands of a journalist. Also, as hinted at above, if the club were broke they'd deny the story, and if the club aren't broke they'd deny the story. You pays your demand based fee and takes your choice. The figure you quote looks (from memory) more like EBITDA,Cornwall.The cash deficit on operations came in at £3.943m.The £6.8m that the investors put in covered this,interest payments (net) of £428k,net instalment spending on players of £1.565m and £450k on fixed assets,the balance leading to an increase in cash of £500k+. Although we've signed a number of players since,we've ditched quite a few of what most would consider higher earners,and as you point out,the contract buy outs have now probably fizzled out.I was expecting roughly cash break even for this year,but of course I don't know what had been pencilled in for match receipts (and how close to estimates we are). As I mentioned before,the £1.8m appears very close to the principal amount of the GSE loan.Although it's labelled "GSE",several of the investment groupings begin with "General Sports",and it may well be that the GSE loan involves several investors.Given the fact that all the other loan capital is interest free,this would normally indicate involvement of all investors.Although GSE loan interest is accrued,it would still have to be sorted out at some stage and I would imagine that non contributing investors would like to see it repaid,particularly as the interest rate appears to be quite high. The only thing going against my suggestion is that accrued interest would usually be settled along with the principal amount,thus taking it over £1.8m.However,it might be that revenues met the accrued interest.All total speculation of course,in fact speculating on speculation. As far as G STAR's speculation that it may be needed to cover cash losses,then this would obviously be bad news-how could we close the gap in future,as wages have been trimmed to the bone,and even the most optimistic stab at screen income comes nowhere near.If this were true we might look at the same thing the following year (probably more so,as I don't think fans would accept a sale for this reason,and income might dip further).In short,total self sufficiency might be seen to be unviable,in the absence of really big Academy graduate sales. However,it's all speculation and we should all just wait and see what happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CornwallRam Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 I wonder if DCFC is simply too big to run profitably as a second tier side? We've got a truly fantastic stadium (as a recent returnee to regular attendance I probably appreciate it more than most), state of the art training facilities, an expensive (but seemingly worth it) acadamy, large retail, ticketing and corporate organisations and massive admin and marketing departments. Add to that the money paid out to the management company and I would speculate that our non-player costs are about the highest in the league. Maybe our only routes to profit are to sell a 'Will Hughes' a season or to get promoted. Given that promotion is likely to require a large cash injection - which is so risky as it carries no guarantees, I reckon the latter may well be the current plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 I wonder if DCFC is simply too big to run profitably as a second tier side? We've got a truly fantastic stadium (as a recent returnee to regular attendance I probably appreciate it more than most), state of the art training facilities, an expensive (but seemingly worth it) acadamy, large retail, ticketing and corporate organisations and massive admin and marketing departments. Add to that the money paid out to the management company and I would speculate that our non-player costs are about the highest in the league. Maybe our only routes to profit are to sell a 'Will Hughes' a season or to get promoted. Given that promotion is likely to require a large cash injection - which is so risky as it carries no guarantees, I reckon the latter may well be the current plan. You might tend to wonder how any other non 'chute recipient could possibly break even if we can't.I'm still haunted by Brett Wilson's liking for the Championship and apparent disdain for the rich boys' playground represented by the Prem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uttoxram75 Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 You might tend to wonder how any other non 'chute recipient could possibly break even if we can't.I'm still haunted by Brett Wilson's liking for the Championship and apparent disdain for the rich boys' playground represented by the Prem. If the Daniel Sturridge contract demands are true then I can fully understand the disdain! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dabber Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 You might tend to wonder how any other non 'chute recipient could possibly break even if we can't.I'm still haunted by Brett Wilson's liking for the Championship and apparent disdain for the rich boys' playground represented by the Prem. But if we are still losing money with our wages (certainly for players) trimmed to the bone, what is there for Brett and the investors to like? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 But if we are still losing money with our wages (certainly for players) trimmed to the bone, what is there for Brett and the investors to like? As I've said before,the only possible thing I can think of is the sale of Academy players to reduce their exposure to the extent that they might be able to sell at a profit. (whilst avoiding increasing their exposure in the meantime).It would be rather remarkable if they'd been willing to put in so much cash just to enjoy(with no other consideration) Championship football. I didn't make the comment,Brett Wilson did.He must have had something in his head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dabber Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 As I've said before,the only possible thing I can think of is the sale of Academy players to reduce their exposure to the extent that they might be able to sell at a profit. (whilst avoiding increasing their exposure in the meantime).It would be rather remarkable if they'd been willing to put in so much cash just to enjoy(with no other consideration) Championship football. I didn't make the comment,Brett Wilson did.He must have had something in his head. I agree with you Ramblur, I just want to see what their "end-game" is. I guess we will get a better idea in the next two transfer windows as we now do have some saleable assets and what we do with them and the potential re-investment of their fees. I am also curious to see how Sam Rush's role plays out as I doubt he was hired to do nothing, i.e. if we don't sell our assets and (thus)we don't sign anyone he will be sat twiddling his thumbs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 I agree with you Ramblur, I just want to see what their "end-game" is. I guess we will get a better idea in the next two transfer windows as we now do have some saleable assets and what we do with them and the potential re-investment of their fees. I am also curious to see how Sam Rush's role plays out as I doubt he was hired to do nothing, i.e. if we don't sell our assets and (thus)we don't sign anyone he will be sat twiddling his thumbs? Think your very last bit might be just a teeny bit understated! (but I'd agree his main expertise would appear to lie in conducting transfers,and possibly suing people like me!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CornwallRam Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 Think your very last bit might be just a teeny bit understated! (but I'd agree his main expertise would appear to lie in conducting transfers,and possibly suing people like me!) ...and selling stadium naming rights Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 ...and selling stadium naming rights Interesting if the cash came all up front.If that happened,it would be chopped up(as income) into annual amounts in future years,swelling the bottom line in those years (but with no cash to match,as it would all have been wolfed up front). Must admit, though, that I don't know the nuts and bolts of these kind of deals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curb Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 As I've said before,the only possible thing I can think of is the sale of Academy players to reduce their exposure to the extent that they might be able to sell at a profit. (whilst avoiding increasing their exposure in the meantime).It would be rather remarkable if they'd been willing to put in so much cash just to enjoy(with no other consideration) Championship football. I didn't make the comment,Brett Wilson did.He must have had something in his head. I'm not so sure myself, maybe they put in so much for the cred of owning a football club. Look at it this way, the amount of money they've got it would be the equivalent of buying a 5 year season ticket, except when they come over for a game, they get treated like royalty and their kids get to spend time with the players etc, and if they did come out at the end with a profit then it's an unexpected bonus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 Thing is though,as far as I know they're not all super rich.In fact the very rich may well be outnumbered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boycie Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 I know we're not skint. But oh my fookin god, are we tight. Praise The Lord. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ariotofmyown Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 Really interesting thread this one, good to see your posts again Ramblur. Interesting thoughts as well CornwallRam about are we too big to break even in the Championship, and if we don't get promotion, then selling the odd player has to be the only answer. As for the end game, are they just looking for a good, young, cheap squad to make it into the Prem. If we are close to breaking even in the championship, then without much extra investment and costs, we could be making a tidy profit in the Prem. This would then make us a very attractive proposition, except who knows what we might end up with then! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 Really interesting thread this one, good to see your posts again Ramblur. Interesting thoughts as well CornwallRam about are we too big to break even in the Championship, and if we don't get promotion, then selling the odd player has to be the only answer. As for the end game, are they just looking for a good, young, cheap squad to make it into the Prem. If we are close to breaking even in the championship, then without much extra investment and costs, we could be making a tidy profit in the Prem. This would then make us a very attractive proposition, except who knows what we might end up with then! I'm with Cornwall on this one. Don't think we are 'too big' for break even but it appears the strategy the board are taking will require significant expenditure on the academy every year. If every two or three years it leads to a Hughes type player coming through then they may be able to recover these costs with a bit of profit on top. Not looked at the accounts for quite a while but don't remember if there is any reference to academy expenditure, my guess is that it is within 'admin expenses', which I believe a few have queried as being abnormally high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 Not looked at the accounts for quite a while but don't remember if there is any reference to academy expenditure, my guess is that it is within 'admin expenses', which I believe a few have queried as being abnormally high. I'm sure there's a good chance it does figure here (although the Prem does subsidise to a certain extent).However,it's quite reasonable to assume that if this were the case then it would also have been the case prior to GSE's arrival.I've seen no note attaching to accounts suggesting that any expenses have been reclassified,which should have appeared (if appropriate) to enable proper comparison between years.For instance,when the 'revolving loan' was taken out of accruals/deferred income and put into debt in 09/10,the comparitive 08/09 figures were adjusted to show it as debt in that year. Hence it's only the increase in Academy expenditure that's relevant,and I can't see that as being really major (presumably in the main talking about additional coaches)-otherwise we'd be a top tier Academy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 I'm sure there's a good chance it does figure here (although the Prem does subsidise to a certain extent).However,it's quite reasonable to assume that if this were the case then it would also have been the case prior to GSE's arrival.I've seen no note attaching to accounts suggesting that any expenses have been reclassified,which should have appeared (if appropriate) to enable proper comparison between years.For instance,when the 'revolving loan' was taken out of accruals/deferred income and put into debt in 09/10,the comparitive 08/09 figures were adjusted to show it as debt in that year. Hence it's only the increase in Academy expenditure that's relevant,and I can't see that as being really major (presumably in the main talking about additional coaches)-otherwise we'd be a top tier Academy. Not really got my head on at the moment but is the number of players coming through now maybe a direct result of more investment in the academy? Struggling to remember which players were already part of the academy prior to GSE coming on board Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 Not really got my head on at the moment but is the number of players coming through now maybe a direct result of more investment in the academy? Struggling to remember which players were already part of the academy prior to GSE coming on board I think Hughes was there,possibly Mason as well? In no way am I arguing against the strategy (I applaud it),just that the extra amount invested wouldn't impact that much on admin expenses (if that's where they're located) compared to before Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.