bcnram 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. 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. He was headhunted by Man City. He is now also Chief Operating Officer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gritty Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 When existing owners convert debt owed to them into equity, it effectively means they have wiped out the debt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ram@Lincoln 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. I'm good friends with someone who also happens to be good friends with Tom Glick. I heard he was distraught at having to leave Derby as he loved his job here and that his family was really settled into the community. His family loved it here so much they haven't moved house and he commutes to Manchester. It was just a job offer he couldn't turn down and might not have again if he didn't take it there and then. No idea if he has a flat in Manchester to crash in on weekdays but to commute from Derby to Manchester much mean the job is worth his while, so that's either or both wage value and job prestige. I'd definitely say his job at Man City is a higher prestige one that his at Derby. They're one of the best teams in the world with one of the richest man in the world bank rolling them, that or Derby who under him and Clough with a middle to upper mid Championship team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uptherams Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 This years loss will be sub £5m hopefully. Regardless of the Play Offs and promotion. After which the club still has significant new revenue schemes in place with Ipro...Plaza?? Pushing losses down another £1.5 - £2m maybe. Promotion really is a game changer though. £120m guaranteed is enormous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 This years loss will be sub £5m hopefully. Regardless of the Play Offs and promotion. After which the club still has significant new revenue schemes in place with Ipro...Plaza?? Pushing losses down another £1.5 - £2m maybe. Promotion really is a game changer though. £120m guaranteed is enormous. I think that is a bit optimistic, increases in revenure appear to be wiped out by an increase in the wage bill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macisback 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. Don't fall for that one, a few overpriced polyester tat shirts and crap jumpers with a ram logo on isn't going to amount to 2 million. Such a huge loss of turnover represents grim news financially no 2 ways about that. I suspect without seeing the accounts the reduced loss will be non cash items, depreciation, amortisation etc. With the reduced turnover cash losses I would expect before looking to be higher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 Don't fall for that one, a few overpriced polyester tat shirts and crap jumpers with a ram logo on isn't going to amount to 2 million. Such a huge loss of turnover represents grim news financially no 2 ways about that. I suspect without seeing the accounts the reduced loss will be non cash items, depreciation, amortisation etc. With the reduced turnover cash losses I would expect before looking to be higher. Did the report not say it was down to reduced tv and ticket income? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macisback Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 I'm good friends with someone who also happens to be good friends with Tom Glick. I heard he was distraught at having to leave Derby as he loved his job here and that his family was really settled into the community. His family loved it here so much they haven't moved house and he commutes to Manchester. It was just a job offer he couldn't turn down and might not have again if he didn't take it there and then. No idea if he has a flat in Manchester to crash in on weekdays but to commute from Derby to Manchester much mean the job is worth his while, so that's either or both wage value and job prestige. I'd definitely say his job at Man City is a higher prestige one that his at Derby. They're one of the best teams in the world with one of the richest man in the world bank rolling them, that or Derby who under him and Clough with a middle to upper mid Championship team. Rumours abound as said before Glick hadn't got much choice but to move on, when you look at his record that has to be very feasible. Man City is a bit of a non job, really all they are doing is finding ways of avoiding the new rules, not a genuine commercial role as most of their income is friendly from their own nation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur 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. Unfortunately your last sentence could represent false logic.Scanning through the DET article on the finances,I noticed that total wages came in at £10.5m,a staggering reduction of £2.5m on 11/12.Only a fraction of this would be represented by savings on merchandising wages,and so the remainder would more than offset the fall in turnover (I'm sure it wouldn't take too much guesswork to work out where the other,likely,£2m+ savings arose).It therefore appears that the much vaunted £2m increase for this year may merely represent a restoration (quite clever-keep quiet about the reduction and then trumpet the increase). I remember when the total wage figure table was released for 11/12,showing us to be in a fairly lowly position.I pointed out that we could be a rung or two lower on players' wages because our non players' bill would likely be greater than others.I was intrigued at the time when you suggested we were bottom 4,and expressed doubts on that score.Now it occurs to me that we were probably talking during 12/13,and in light of these new figures I have to say that you may have had a point. After a bit of a 'bash',it would be remiss of me not to applaud the conversion of loan capital to equity.This makes substantial savings on fairly hefty interest charges, which have been a drag on past profits,with implications for the FFP result. As far as FFP goes,in view of the hefty (in our case) exclusions we would romp through this year with a repeat of 12/13 ,and I expect this year's loss to be significantly lower.I said some months ago that it appeared to me that they may need to sell a player in Jan to avoid turning in an FFP result that forced them to inject equity.However,2 things have now affected my calculations:- 1) The base point headline loss for 12/13 was nearly £1m less than had been forecast at the time. 2)The considerable interest savings (£626k in 11/12,which might have been more in 12/13) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 I think that is a bit optimistic, increases in revenure appear to be wiped out by an increase in the wage bill. Perhaps not quite as unlikely as you might think. The hefty interest savings will appear for the first time (unless the bigger tranche of loan capital was only converted to equity late on in the year), and the book profit on the Brayford sale may have nearly equated to his transfer fee,as the original cost of his registration may have been amortised out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 Unfortunately your last sentence could represent false logic.Scanning through the DET article on the finances,I noticed that total wages came in at £10.5m,a staggering reduction of £2.5m on 11/12.Only a fraction of this would be represented by savings on merchandising wages,and so the remainder would more than offset the fall in turnover (I'm sure it wouldn't take too much guesswork to work out where the other,likely,£2m+ savings arose).It therefore appears that the much vaunted £2m increase for this year may merely represent a restoration (quite clever-keep quiet about the reduction and then trumpet the increase). I remember when the total wage figure table was released for 11/12,showing us to be in a fairly lowly position.I pointed out that we could be a rung or two lower on players' wages because our non players' bill would likely be greater than others.I was intrigued at the time when you suggested we were bottom 4,and expressed doubts on that score.Now it occurs to me that we were probably talking during 12/13,and in light of these new figures I have to say that you may have had a point. After a bit of a 'bash',it would be remiss of me not to applaud the conversion of loan capital to equity.This makes substantial savings on fairly hefty interest charges, which have been a drag on past profits,with implications for the FFP result. As far as FFP goes,in view of the hefty (in our case) exclusions we would romp through this year with a repeat of 12/13 ,and I expect this year's loss to be significantly lower.I said some months ago that it appeared to me that they may need to sell a player in Jan to avoid turning in an FFP result that forced them to inject equity.However,2 things have now affected my calculations:- 1) The base point headline loss for 12/13 was nearly £1m less than had been forecast at the time. 2)The considerable interest savings (£626k in 11/12,which might have been more in 12/13) At a recent forum John Vicars said we were very borderline when it came to FFP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 At a recent forum John Vicars said we were very borderline when it came to FFP. The total allowances for this year are £8m (FFP loss).These are the rules/guidelines from the official site:- http://www.football-league.co.uk/page/FLExplainedDetail/0,,10794~2748246,00.html We've no way of calculating the exemption of net youth development costs,but it won't be peanuts.However,the exemption of fixed asset depreciation comes in at around £2m (and tends to be steady,year on year),the bulk of it representing depreciation of a heftily revalued stadium. I'm sure Vicars would love us to think it's tight,thus lowering our expectations on the expenditure front.I'm not going to fall for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 The total allowances for this year are £8m (FFP loss).These are the rules/guidelines from the official site:- http://www.football-league.co.uk/page/FLExplainedDetail/0,,10794~2748246,00.html We've no way of calculating the exemption of net youth development costs,but it won't be peanuts.However,the exemption of fixed asset depreciation comes in at around £2m (and tends to be steady,year on year),the bulk of it representing depreciation of a heftily revalued stadium. I'm sure Vicars would love us to think it's tight,thus lowering our expectations on the expenditure front.I'm not going to fall for it. Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GboroRam Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 Why? Just like all the girls do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 Why? I thought the part you didn't bold answered the question.Setting youth development to one side,fixed asset depreciation exemption alone would imply we'd have to be making a headline loss this year of around £10m in order for it to be "tight".I'm not particularly sure the positive spin being put on this year's trading signals a near £3m increase in losses? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 I thought the part you didn't bold answered the question.Setting youth development to one side,fixed asset depreciation exemption alone would imply we'd have to be making a headline loss this year of around £10m in order for it to be "tight".I'm not particularly sure the positive spin being put on this year's trading signals a near £3m increase in losses? I would have thought that someone in charge of finances would be trying to paint the finances in as positive light as possible. Seems quite contradictory to say that he is lowering expectations and putting a positive spin on trading signals?! I have not seen any lowering of expectations since Sam Rush has been here, if anything, exactly the opposite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 I would have thought that someone in charge of finances would be trying to paint the finances in as positive light as possible. Seems quite contradictory to say that he is lowering expectations and putting a positive spin on trading signals?! I have not seen any lowering of expectations since Sam Rush has been here, if anything, exactly the opposite. How about if you put your accountant's hat on and agreed (or disagreed) with my £10m figure? (and for the benefit of anyone who has access to the 11/12 DCFC accounts,Note 21 gives fixed asset depreciation at £1.996m). Of course there may be a big difference between the allowable FFP losses and our own (perhaps much lower) targets,which in turn could validate their claim of it being tight.I've noticed this administration can be very clever in the things it doesn't say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uttoxram75 Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 Did someone just question Ramblur's view of the accounts? Meanwhile in other news, Bucko is a sunday league pub player and b4's spelling is awful Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Scarlet Pimpernel Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 Rumours abound as said before Glick hadn't got much choice but to move on, when you look at his record that has to be very feasible. Man City is a bit of a non job, really all they are doing is finding ways of avoiding the new rules, not a genuine commercial role as most of their income is friendly from their own nation. Tom went for the very best of reasons. It was a huge step up and a prestigious job at a huge (now) club. He still loves DCFC and was in no way pushed. That, as they say, is a FACT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 How about if you put your accountant's hat on and agreed (or disagreed) with my £10m figure? (and for the benefit of anyone who has access to the 11/12 DCFC accounts,Note 21 gives fixed asset depreciation at £1.996m). Of course there may be a big difference between the allowable FFP losses and our own (perhaps much lower) targets,which in turn could validate their claim of it being tight.I've noticed this administration can be very clever in the things it doesn't say. Don't really see the point in speculating, in front of packed rooms John Vicars has said we are borderline and that is good enough for me. Without taking a dig if the board read your posts they could say that you are clever with things you don't say too, although you claim to be impartial there is a definite anti-board/investors agenda which is ocassionally watered down with a slight bit of praise. Not saying it is a bad thing disliking them because everyone is entitled to an opinion but at least most people hang their hat on theirs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.