CornwallRam Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 It looks to me like a very poor set of results with a falling turnover. However, the owners' response is very encouraging. I reckon that the debt conversion marks an admission that profitable trading is impossible and that promotion is the only answer. In order to do this they are looking to grow the club, rather than shrink it. I think this also explains why Nigel was removed - the falling attendances, when viewed in context with the falling turnover, must have alarmed the owners considerably. I also wonder how far Tom Glick's exit was his own decision - COOs don't often survive drastic reductions in turnover. Interesting to note that the wage bill is now £2m higher than it was at the time of these accounts. I also believe that the allowable loss for FFP is lower this year - £6m???...and it is 'company policy' to stay within this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alph Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 QPR. Lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trekkie_ram Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 Thats the sort of question that makes me want to shrivel up and die. Great point, well presented. I stopped reading this thread after reading that - lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ram@Lincoln Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 I think this also explains why Nigel was removed - the falling attendances, when viewed in context with the falling turnover, must have alarmed the owners considerably. I also wonder how far Tom Glick's exit was his own decision - COOs don't often survive drastic reductions in turnover. Tom Glick was headhunted by Man City, the job has much higher prestige, doing something he is good at (commercial things instead of football things) and I guess a much higher wage. For advancing in your career that is a staggering job move, it was definitely his decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkleyram Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 So, General Sports Derby owns all of DCFC, but instead of each individual investor being owed £X, they now own X 'shares'? Have I got this right? There are lots of different ways of financing the purchase of any company or business - the Glazers bought through loading the company with debt, for example - but let's say that DCFC was bought by 10 people paying £5m each - the owners. Let's also say that DCFC was running at a loss and some, not all, of those owners put in different amounts of extra money to allow the club to continue to trade - to pay the staff and bills and most importantly, the taxman. This additional money was, apparently, given in the form of loans, each of which would have had a legally binding contract concerning repayment dates, interest payable etc. The people lending the money could, depending on what the agreement said, demand their money back. To pay them back might be hard and might cause the company/club to go bust. If, however, you take those loans and turn them into equity you are giving those lenders a share of the value of the company/club when it is sold at some point in the future (and, I think, after other creditors have been paid, but an accountant will have to confirm that.) So, you can be both an owner and have equity. Whether you make any money from your equity stake depends on the money you get from the sale of the company/club. Say we had a disastrous spell and went down and the owners wanted to pull out. The value of the company on sale might be lower than the amount owed to creditors - negative equity and therefore the equity stake is worth nothing. Say though we do well and go up. The value of the club would rocket and the equity value would soar - good investment and happy days for those with equity. Which is why having owners with equity might be a good thing because they will want the value of the company/club to go up, not down. It does mean, and this may or may not be positive depending upon how it is done, that if the Rams do go up there may be a wish from those with equity to realise the value of their stake. That doesn't mean that the club would necessarily be sold to someone else but that would be one option. The fact that they have been prepared to transfer loans into equity suggest that they are confident that the value of the company has or will increase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stedcfc Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 In very basic terms cash can go into the company from shareholders in 2 ways as equity or as debt. One is a repayable amount which interest is paid/charged on each year one is a cash investment in a company. What they have done is much riskier as if the club is sold for less than the value of its equity they will lose money on their investment. Previously the people buying the club would take on the creditor to the current owners and would have to repay them. They are obviously confident they will eventually get their money back or know there isnt a chance it will be repaid in its current form anyway. In reality they would probably never of called these loans in anyway but its quite a statement of support for them to risk their money by turning it all into equity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stive Pesley Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 have read the replies and now the news articles on the DET site and it's still not clear to me what they own now via "equity" that they din't own before by "being the owners" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stedcfc Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 have read the replies and now the news articles on the DET site and it's still not clear to me what they own now via "equity" that they din't own before by "being the owners" Thats precisely the point. They still own what they had before but effectively have paid more for it by converting the debt they had into equity. Thats why they are taking on a risk. Ignore the accounting lingo, theyve changed their loan into a cash injection which could only be recouped by the sale of the company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Day Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 I'm confused now, does this mean we will win on Saturday or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stedcfc Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 I'm confused now, does this mean we will win on Saturday or not? It means we will most definitely win by at least 3 goals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Day Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 Excellent! #GSEin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Scarlet Pimpernel Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 have read the replies and now the news articles on the DET site and it's still not clear to me what they own now via "equity" that they din't own before by "being the owners" Green Ram. Think of it this way. You are homeless with no money. I loan you £100k. You are happy and living. I could however ask for my money back at any time. If I do you again have no money. If however I decide to change the £100k into 100,000 x £1.00 shares I could only get my money back by selling my shares. If I sell my shares to someone I get my money out but you are still living with the £100k although the shares are now owned by someone else. You are much safer & happier. Aren't I nice! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CornwallRam Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 Tom Glick was headhunted by Man City, the job has much higher prestige, doing something he is good at (commercial things instead of football things) and I guess a much higher wage. For advancing in your career that is a staggering job move, it was definitely his decision. How sure are you on that info? I've heard a differing version, but from a highly unreliable source. I'm happy to take your word if you have any genuine 'insider' knowledge. I'm not conviced that commercial director at Man City was is a higher prestige job than CEO of Derby County - it is certainly lower profile. If you Google him now he barely 'exists' since he's moved - other than losing his driving license. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramarena Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 It means we will most definitely win by at least 3 goals. And a Sam Rush promise to whoop Forest by 8 next time we play them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramarena Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 How sure are you on that info? I've heard a differing version, but from a highly unreliable source. I'm happy to take your word if you have any genuine 'insider' knowledge. I'm not conviced that commercial director at Man City was is a higher prestige job than CEO of Derby County - it is certainly lower profile. If you Google him now he barely 'exists' since he's moved - other than losing his driving license. Lower profile, better pay???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ladyram Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 Look. Cobblers to all this bloody jargon. Straight answer. Yes or no. Are we skint? Think carefully before you answer now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Scarlet Pimpernel Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 Look. Cobblers to all this bloody jargon. Straight answer. Yes or no. Are we skint? Think carefully before you answer now. No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CumbrianRam Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 QPR. Lol According to Fernandes QPR could have been fighting at the bottom, guess he has the Harry rose tinted specs on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davenportram Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 The drop in turnover is largely down to outsourcing the retail side. No revenue from that means lower turnover. However our loss has reduced despite this drop in turnover so the arrangement has worked to our benefit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duncanjwitham Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 The drop in turnover is largely down to outsourcing the retail side. No revenue from that means lower turnover. However our loss has reduced despite this drop in turnover so the arrangement has worked to our benefit. It would be interesting to know the terms of that deal. If we go up this season (or next), would whatever payments we're getting from the outsourcing company increase, as you would expect our merchandising income to go up significantly if we're a prem team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.