Derby County Accounts 13/14

[Chris_D]

Just searched for co-op details and got reminded of the three amigos, what dark times they were.  Wonder what that lot of crooks are up to now.

[CornwallRam]

ok, so like for like in that sense, but didn't we owe Co-op way more than the mortgage when those charges were registered?

 

​The chrages were wiped by the former Chaiman of the Co-Op Bank in return for a kg of coke and  lessons from Richard Keogh into how ugly rich blokes can pull beautiful women.

[Animal is a Ram]

​The chrages were wiped by the former Chaiman of the Co-Op Bank in return for a kg of coke and  lessons from Richard Keogh into how ugly rich blokes can pull beautiful women.

​Guess they couldn't afford Peter Crouch's consultancy?

[ramblur]

Ramblur did Cloughie have as much to spend as McClaren because I think it wasn't far off myself .

I would buy you a pint bye the way if we met no problem. 

​See the 3rd post from the end of the previous page.

Don't accept bribes - at least not small ones

[ronnieronalde]

​See the 3rd post from the end of the previous page.

Don't accept bribes - at least not small ones

​So the net spend over one window was a smidgen more than NC's spend in his entire 4 and half years?

Am I right in thinking that the wage bill under NC was around 10m in his last season in charge Ramblur?

[ramblur]

One thing struck me in note 13 to the accounts,which states:-

"Due to the nature of the company's bank loan facility with the Co-Operative Bank plc being of an "on demand" nature,the directors believe it is more appropriate to classify the £15,000,000 facility as falling due within one year,as opposed to more than one year as previously stated".

Very odd,I'm sure we were given the impression that this loan was repayable in 2016,meaning it had been correctly classified for all those years.If it's actually payable on demand,why has it taken all these years to put it in its rightful place?

Must admit this has the whiff of paving the way for a possible remortgage.

[ramblur]

​So the net spend over one window was a smidgen more than NC's spend in his entire 4 and half years?

Am I right in thinking that the wage bill under NC was around 10m in his last season in charge Ramblur?

​Possibly,but the £6.5m net Clough spend doesn't (I think) include the summer window before he left.On the other hand,I suppose it should be pointed out that Clough had to reshape the whole squad with his loot.

Unfortunately,the accounts don't give a split over players' wages,but just give a global figure for total wages.These were £13.047m in 11/12, £12.059m in 12/13 (though I think this was the year that wages connected with merchandising were culled), and £16.386m in 13/14 (though almost certainly including the pay off of Clough &co). Heaven only knows what the 14/15 wages will be.

[ramit]

i admit that i don't understand many of the  intricacies of modern football finance,

so for what it's worth here is my opinion on the state of the club.

 

If we don't achieve promotion this year i can see restructuring in the coming season.

That means selling players with the highest wages and grafting to get good ones to replace them.

Turning debt into equity is all well and good when betting on promotion but a 7 mill yearly loss

is not good economics in the long term.  A well run club has to aim at making money, not losing it

while keeping the squad competitive in the league.  Not easy but can be done with prudent overseeing.

Preferably we will go up this season with the plan of staying up while making a profit.

[Animal is a Ram]

It can always be worse..:

#lufc's 2013-14 accounts were audited by Gibson Booth. Richard Umbers - brother of #lufc chairman Andrew Umbers - is a Gibson Booth partner.

The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales have confirmed they are investigating the auditing of #lufc's latest accounts.

[rammieib]

Anyone fancy giving Ramblur a tenner so he can buy Coventry City's accounts and see if income from the selling of players is 'in the millions'?

[Chris_D]

Loads of commercial mortgages are technically repayable on demand, so yeah, odd to suddenly make this change.  With the additon of those Barclays charges surely looks like the remortgage has already occured.

I think with the debt for equity swaps they are looking to get us up then sell up in some form in the near future, can't see why else you'd tie up tens of millions in equity that is providing no return (other than selling) with no outside pressure to do so.  

There's this re Coventry http://www.ccfc.co.uk/news/article/download-accounts-coventry-city-league-one-2316117.aspx - could note 23 PBSE on the Otium one re £2.1m be what we're looking for?

 

[Chris_D]

they sold Callum Wilson too though didn't they... hmmm.

could we be accounting for purchases in total up front, whereas the selling club be accounting for sales in terms of instalments actually received in the year?

[ramblur]

they sold Callum Wilson too though didn't they... hmmm.

could we be accounting for purchases in total up front, whereas the selling club be accounting for sales in terms of instalments actually received in the year?

​In our own accounts,net proceeds on sales relates to the total amount of sales.I only know this because I've just carried out an exercise on our own sales for 13/14. PBSE in 12/13 (and therefore relating to 13/14) talked of sales with net proceeds of just over £963k. If you look in the cash flow statement,we received £1.235m in cash,but £459k of this related to the previous year (figure extracted from Balance Sheet),so £776k related to 13/14 sales. The Balance Sheet also shows that we were owed £187k by other club/s at the year end,thus the total value of the 13/14 business must be £776k +£187k = the £963k mentioned in PBSE,which in turn proves that this is the full figure,and not just instalment/s received.

Of course,this £963k may relate to more than one player.I simply can't remember who we sold that year. 

[ramblur]

Loads of commercial mortgages are technically repayable on demand, so yeah, odd to suddenly make this change.  With the additon of those Barclays charges surely looks like the remortgage has already occured.

 

​Yeah,I've a feeling a remortgage may already have taken place.What I meant earlier was that the reclassification of the loan was probably paving the way for it ,e.g :- club say (sometime in the future) that we've remortgaged (possibly Jan 15),fans say (if the debt hadn't been reclassified) that they thought it wasn't repayable until 2016,and the club can now say it was repayable on demand.

[ramblur]

I mentioned that accrued interest of £1m+ in respect of former loan capital had been waived this year.What I forgot to say was that this would generate an equivalent credit to "interest payable" in 13/14.Without this 'windfall' our headline loss would have been £1m more.

Under the current arrangements (i.e. no loan capital interest),interest payable is around the half million mark.The £1m+ credit meant that there was a net credit for the year of £569k (as opposed to a c£500k charge).  

[ramblur]

Although the cash outflow from operations was only £1.816m,you have to realise that this represents cash received/paid out, as opposed to what was due to be received/paid. Taking the operating profit,and stripping out the so called 'paper' charges (giving 'EBITDA'), we get a negative figure of £3.657m,which (from memory only) appears very similar to recent years.

The main reason for the large difference between the figures was an increase in creditors of £3.676m, offset by an increase in debtors of £1.835m. These figures,plus the 'paper' charges can be seen in note 20 attaching to the accounts.

EBITDA gives a far better indicator of the health of the company than the cash outflow.  

[ramblur]

Having looked back,I'd guess that Frankie and Theo probably accounted for most of the £963k.

[Chris_D]

Would love to know the breakdown of our player purchases. Flummoxed.

[Diag Ram]

One thing struck me in note 13 to the accounts,which states:-

"Due to the nature of the company's bank loan facility with the Co-Operative Bank plc being of an "on demand" nature,the directors believe it is more appropriate to classify the £15,000,000 facility as falling due within one year,as opposed to more than one year as previously stated".

Very odd,I'm sure we were given the impression that this loan was repayable in 2016,meaning it had been correctly classified for all those years.If it's actually payable on demand,why has it taken all these years to put it in its rightful place?

Must admit this has the whiff of paving the way for a possible remortgage.

​It may be the case that the covenants on the loan have been breached, meaning that the Co-op have the power to call the loan in, but given the security it has (stadium etc), it probably won't.

I'll be interested to see the Group accounts when they finally become available. The Gellaw accounts show a creditor due to the parent company. I don't know yet but is that essentially where the shareholder debt is? It's quite a clever, if dishonest, method of getting round the FFP rules if that's the case. I wouldn't be surprised if other clubs adopt this method.

I also read something about the accounts being late. From working in the audit field myself, I know that there's currently a 2 week delay between submitting accounts and uploading them to the system, which may explain why it took a while for the results to appear.

[Chris_D]

Would love to know the breakdown of our player purchases. Flummoxed.