Pudding Jack Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 Its also not allowed under the accounting rules. Otherwise people would be generating allsorts of ridiculous values for employees/assets. well...does that not mean that all this accounts stuff is pointless anyway then?... most of the money... and finances that could change drastically in a matter of days, is not even accounted for. the club has stated on numerous occasions how important it is to bring players through.... sell em on and build on the profits.... everybody knows thats the plan. the clubs not run on 16 odd thousand season tickets or 1,000 burgers sold each game.... they need that tv money from the prem...or sell some employees...or stay in the championship making a loss. cant blame the board for not throwing money at it. think we are looking in good shape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stedcfc Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 well...does that not mean that all this accounts stuff is pointless anyway then?... most of the money... and finances that could change drastically in a matter of days, is not even accounted for. the club has stated on numerous occasions how important it is to bring players through.... sell em on and build on the profits.... everybody knows thats the plan. the clubs not run on 16 odd thousand season tickets or 1,000 burgers sold each game.... they need that tv money from the prem...or sell some employees...or stay in the championship making a loss. cant blame the board for not throwing money at it. think we are looking in good shape. To a degree it's missing a pretty vital chunk of our value. The only value players can carry is their cost which has to be written down over their contract so our squad will probably currently hold a value of about 2.5m. This is probably why the board aren't really phased by the results Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curb Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 the club has stated on numerous occasions how important it is to bring players through.... sell em on and build on the profits.... everybody knows thats the plan. I've not seen anything from the club where they admit they're going to be selling the youngsters on. Quite the opposite, they have said we don't need to sell anybody. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notts_ram Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 Why don't we wait until towards end of season until we have accrued enough points to go into administration without any danger of getting relegated and then wipe all of the debts off? It's not like we're in any danger of making the play off places, or is this far too simplistic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curb Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 Why don't we wait until towards end of season until we have accrued enough points to go into administration without any danger of getting relegated and then wipe all of the debts off? It's not like we're in any danger of making the play off places, or is this far too simplistic? Because that's the way of scumbags like Leicester and Leeds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CornwallRam Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 Because that's the way of scumbags like Leicester and Leeds. and because most of the debt is owed to the owners. Going in to admin would mean they would lose control and lose most of their investment and a fair percentage of the loan captital. If they wanted to reduce the debt it would be much more simple for them to write off the loan. Also going into admin could see Pride Park Stadium repossesed - although unlikely, the place could be buldozed and redeveloped. Or sold on and rented back to the club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 and because most of the debt is owed to the owners. Going in to admin would mean they would lose control and lose most of their investment and a fair percentage of the loan captital. If they wanted to reduce the debt it would be much more simple for them to write off the loan. Also going into admin could see Pride Park Stadium repossesed - although unlikely, the place could be buldozed and redeveloped. Or sold on and rented back to the club. .....or even renamed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 To a degree it's missing a pretty vital chunk of our value. The only value players can carry is their cost which has to be written down over their contract so our squad will probably currently hold a value of about 2.5m. Not sure Sam would like that bit if we've spent £3.6m alone last summer! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 I've not seen anything from the club where they admit they're going to be selling the youngsters on. Quite the opposite, they have said we don't need to sell anybody. I thought I saw a quote from Nigel recently,reproduced on one of the message boards,that seemed to give the impression that the owners wanted to sell youngsters and buy players from the proceeds.Am I imagining this,or did anyone else see it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davenportram Posted January 17, 2013 Author Share Posted January 17, 2013 I thought I saw a quote from Nigel recently,reproduced on one of the message boards,that seemed to give the impression that the owners wanted to sell youngsters and buy players from the proceeds.Am I imagining this,or did anyone else see it? i think I saw it too but took it to mean sell players if it could allow improvement of the team overall. If the effect of losing say Hughes could be undone by buying a few players in other areas to improve the team as a whole it would happen the whole is greater than the sum of its parts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 i think I saw it too but took it to mean sell players if it could allow improvement of the team overall. If the effect of losing say Hughes could be undone by buying a few players in other areas to improve the team as a whole it would happen the whole is greater than the sum of its parts I read it at the time as being part of a business plan.Any idea on which of the written media it came from,as obviously overall context is king (I seem to remember just one sentence was reproduced,which might be significant)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davenportram Posted January 17, 2013 Author Share Posted January 17, 2013 Cant remember might have been DET or even a post match interview on RD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 Cant remember might have been DET or even a post match interview on RD Thing that worries me about this (and I'm merely trying to be rational,not alarmist) is that if we continue to make cash losses,the owners surely won't be willing to go on funding them (otherwise they'd end up digging a hole for themselves that they may find difficult to get out of).So what happens if a point is reached whereby losses have to be funded by another means? Unless we take on more external debt,I could only see player sales as a viable alternative (and I'm trying desparately to avoid a false dichotomy!).If this were to be the case,then the sale of players would cease to be a football decision. I know some will point to other revenue sources being developed,but falling income from other areas may bite into this.Also,it's ok projecting advertising revenue,but the advertising has to come in. On the Plaza,it's still unclear how much of the action will come our way.Am I right in saying that the current proposals downsize Gadsby's original ones.I seem to remember you had a handle on the Plaza revenue Gadsby had projected?Whatever this was,new revenues would obviously be less,and even then some might go to a third party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davenportram Posted January 17, 2013 Author Share Posted January 17, 2013 Plaza revenue i think worked out as an average of £1m a year. It was given as something like £5m over 5 years or similar. But id doubt the first year or two would meet the average. the only downsize i think is the removal of the hotel - which with other hotels in PP and within 10 minutes walk would needed to have fought of established competition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Scarlet Pimpernel Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 Does anyone know if the "Mortgage" on Pride Park has reduced over the last year or two? Didn't Tom Glick say it would be reducing year on year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 I've just carried out an exercise comparing 06/07 to 10/11 on the expenditure side.What I did was add operating costs to admin costs and then stripped out the paper transactions of depreciation/amortisation.I then deducted overall wages to give a net expenditure figure.The results were: 06/07 £5.811m, 10/11 £7.340m. My rough calculation gives a rise of just over a quarter.Though I don't know UK inflation figures over those 4 years,it doesn't look too incongruous to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gritty Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 Are any of these losses due to write offs of contracts? e.g. could it be that this loss is the last of the clean-up and that the accounts 12/13 should see us break even? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 I thought I saw a quote from Nigel recently,reproduced on one of the message boards,that seemed to give the impression that the owners wanted to sell youngsters and buy players from the proceeds.Am I imagining this,or did anyone else see it? Might be wrong but I think it was from the forum with Sam Rush rather than a Nigel Clough quote. Thought they said the plan was:- (a) bring players through the academy to improve the team ('http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cool' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='B)' /> sell the players on if offer would enable us to improve the team even further Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 Does anyone know if the "Mortgage" on Pride Park has reduced over the last year or two? Didn't Tom Glick say it would be reducing year on year? I've been reading this on other forums,much to my surprise.It was supposed to be interest only payments with the principal amount untouched.There is a small amount added to this £15m (the rest of the long term debt being £400k+ relating to preference shares),which seems to be reducing by about £17k/year,and they appear to be scheduled reductions. I find it a bit depressing that we've made no inroads into the £15m over the years,but there again it is very low interest.The fun comes in 2016,when I've no doubt the low interest will disappear from the equation.Even at a low rate,I'd estimate it at £450k/year,and any hike would be a further burden on profits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 Might be wrong but I think it was from the forum with Sam Rush rather than a Nigel Clough quote. Thought they said the plan was:- (a) bring players through the academy to improve the team ( 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cool' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='B)' /> sell the players on if offer would enable us to improve the team even further No,this was a Clough quote,but I'm blessed if I can remember the board it appeared on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.