curb Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 No need to be fair to Pearson, he was the one who brought the new owners in! Makes you wonder where we'd be without the £50m though, or whether another management team would have done better with less? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich3478 Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Whether we agree or disagree seems pointless at times, this is how the club is being run and as a fan I just feel I have to back that. Personally I'm undecided as to gse, can't see what they'd have to gain by running the club into the ground and taking money out? But also am tired of the wage bill being slightly over budget each year, the goalposts seem to move quite often. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 The big boys made a profit? I thought they were financed by massive injections of cash. Certainly in Man City & Chelsea case. Man U are saddled with massive debt against the Glaziers purchase of the club. Not sure about Arsenal though. You can still be in profit despite being in debt. Both utd and arsenal made a profit, the other two are beyond hope, but are as you say financed by some big backers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sage Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 If costs are £17m and wages are below £10m, what makes up the other £7m? Other staff wages, rates, utilities, maintenance etc? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Whether we agree or disagree seems pointless at times, this is how the club is being run and as a fan I just feel I have to back that. Personally I'm undecided as to gse, can't see what they'd have to gain by running the club into the ground and taking money out? But also am tired of the wage bill being slightly over budget each year, the goalposts seem to move quite often. The argument may have been done to death but just two points:- 1 - GSE are different from the owners and are hired to run the club by the owners 2 - There is no evidence of the anyone taking money out of the club, only of money being put in by the owners on an annual basis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 If costs are £17m and wages are below £10m, what makes up the other £7m? Other staff wages, rates, utilities, maintenance etc? Depreciation of assets (the ground is in the accounts at circa £50million off the top of my head so would be being depreciated at a minimum of £1million a year) - not got any accounts in front of me yet but sure Ramblur will correct me if this is wrong Amortisation of player signing on fees over term of contracts Contracts being paid up Interest Academy running costs General admin expenses A few that I can think of that may be significant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich3478 Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 The argument may have been done to death but just two points:- 1 - GSE are different from the owners and are hired to run the club by the owners 2 - There is no evidence of the anyone taking money out of the club, only of money being put in by the owners on an annual basis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rammieib Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 I get annoyed about the 50 million number. I don't dispute it but it has two key things for me; 1) they purchased and now own a club. That's not my definition of investment in a football club. If and when they will sell dcfc, they will most likely get some money back. 2) the £6 million although not clarified according to Ramblur, could be an interest free loan, so they will get it back. So the question I have is how much money have the owners put in which they do not expect to get back? that is my definition of investment in a football club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich3478 Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 New to here, excuse the error. I agree about the taking money out, my point was I couldn't see why someone would do that? I just really struggle to see where all of our cash goes? Are we really coming up this far short each year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 If costs are £17m and wages are below £10m, what makes up the other £7m? Other staff wages, rates, utilities, maintenance etc? The first thing to say is that the 'paper' (non cash) transactions,in the form of depreciation and amortisation,came in at c£4.5m last year(10/11).Depreciation tends to be fairly steady (but tends to go up with PP revaluation), and I suspect that amortisation may have increased a bit in 11/12. Also,there may have been a loss on player sales,but this too is paper only as we would have actually received money (thinking of Varney). Interest came in at over £1m in 10/11,but the GSE loan element has been accrued and not paid so far.I think people should be a bit more relaxed about this headline figure. If £5.8m turns out to be all that the owners put in last year,then that would have financed a cash loss+ net interest paid+any fixed asset additions/improvements+ the difference between amounts paid and received re players' regs (NOT difference between fees paid). As well as interest,you could add insurances and policing,travel and a myriad of other things to your list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 I get annoyed about the 50 million number. I don't dispute it but it has two key things for me; 1) they purchased and now own a club. That's not my definition of investment in a football club. If and when they will sell dcfc, they will most likely get some money back. 2) the £6 million although not clarified according to Ramblur, could be an interest free loan, so they will get it back. So the question I have is how much money have the owners put in which they do not expect to get back? that is my definition of investment in a football club. Your definition of investment seems more like charity! They'll expect to get all of it back plus profit.They will regard the £16m paid to acquire 100% of the club as investment,but it's not actually investment INTO the club-if the £50m is correct,then that figure would be £34m (£28.6m visible at the moment,which may change when accounts seen). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rammieib Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Ramblur - although dcfc is a business I still see football as a different type. 50 million makes for a good headline figure but fans care about investment for signings and wages. They don't realise 16 mill went to the old owners to buy the club and/or stadium. A lot of owners in this country have put their own money in to finance purchases, and don't expect it back. What have our owners contributed on this point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uttoxram75 Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 I wonder what selling off the catering rights actually means? All profits go to the catering company and DCFC get nothing for 5 or 10 years? DCFC get a cut of the take/profit? DCFC get an annual payment? If the club do get a cut in the profits then the reduction in attendences this year will (unless shorter queues result in more sales) equate to lower income from the catering concessions, which will obviously compound the reduction in income from ticket sales. It dunna matter what the attendance is I can never get a fookin pint of bitter at half time in the East Stand 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/angry' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':angry:' /> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 I get annoyed about the 50 million number. I don't dispute it but it has two key things for me; 1) they purchased and now own a club. That's not my definition of investment in a football club. If and when they will sell dcfc, they will most likely get some money back. 2) the £6 million although not clarified according to Ramblur, could be an interest free loan, so they will get it back. So the question I have is how much money have the owners put in which they do not expect to get back? that is my definition of investment in a football club. Only the stupidly mega rich and Lionel Pickering have ever run a football club like that. History may show you where we ended up when Pickering's gambles started to go wrong. I am not aware of many owners of football clubs who just pour money in and not expect anything back but if you know such a person I suggest you bring him/her to the table as soon as possible! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 New to here, excuse the error. I agree about the taking money out, my point was I couldn't see why someone would do that? I just really struggle to see where all of our cash goes? Are we really coming up this far short each year? I know it can be a hard principle to come to terms with,but the headline loss doesn't mean a cash loss,which I expect to be anything from £2m to £4m (can't be more precise,because movements in creditors/debtors etc can't be forecast) Last year these adjustments were a drag on the cash position,yet in 11/12 they could have swung in the other direction and actually reduced the cash deficit. You have to remember that P/L is based on what was due to be received/paid,as opposed to what was received/paid.If you had a £500k electricity bill for the year,for example and only paid half of it,owing the other half,then P/L would account for £500k,whereas the cash position would have been £250k.(ignoring anything that may have been owed to them at the start of the year). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Only the stupidly mega rich and Lionel Pickering have ever run a football club like that. History may show you where we ended up when Pickering's gambles started to go wrong. I am not aware of many owners of football clubs who just pour money in and not expect anything back but if you know such a person I suggest you bring him/her to the table as soon as possible! The late Nigel Doughty,Steve Gibson and Dave Whelan immediately spring to mind.Even the LOG could easily have lost all their money,given what they inherited. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anag Ram Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Two things to say here. 1. Why isn't the stadium utilised more for non-footballing gigs like live music, boxing etc? 2. If the owners want a return on investment they surely have to fill the stadium on a Saturday and to do that they have to get us into the Premiership. Well, we can dream can't we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CumbrianRam Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 12th best supported team in England means we are definitely a premier league team Nope, nowhere near. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Ramblur - although dcfc is a business I still see football as a different type. 50 million makes for a good headline figure but fans care about investment for signings and wages. They don't realise 16 mill went to the old owners to buy the club and/or stadium. A lot of owners in this country have put their own money in to finance purchases, and don't expect it back. What have our owners contributed on this point? Unless you're talking about owners that are also fans,you wouldn't really expect others to gift the club money.Tbf,our current owners could eventually lose money if we failed to get promotion and the Academy supply dried up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 The late Nigel Doughty,Steve Gibson and Dave Whelan immediately spring to mind.Even the LOG could easily have lost all their money,given what they inherited. As far as I am aware Gibson and Whelan both still own their respective clubs and could therefore regain all of their input through the sale of the club? Although Doughty probably did write off a lot of his debt was it not reported that the Kuwaitis still had to pay a large amount to his estate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.