Financial Results 2015/2016

[ram59]

MM just can't win can he, well until we win the champions league, anyway? 

He gets moaned at for interfering and he gets moaned at for not interfering. We're moaning about him stumping up his cash to try and make us successful, whilst still working within FFP. Can you imagine the uproar, if he'd not sanctioned the Johnson and Butterfield transfers after we'd just lost Hughes and Bryson to injury. 

Would you rather have westham's owners, where they move you to a soulless ground where you're miles from the pitch and they buy and sell players and expect the manager to get on with it?

[Spanish]

12 minutes ago, ram59 said:

MM just can't win can he, well until we win the champions league, anyway? 

He gets moaned at for interfering and he gets moaned at for not interfering. We're moaning about him stumping up his cash to try and make us successful, whilst still working within FFP. Can you imagine the uproar, if he'd not sanctioned the Johnson and Butterfield transfers after we'd just lost Hughes and Bryson to injury. 

Would you rather have westham's owners, where they move you to a soulless ground where you're miles from the pitch and they buy and sell players and expect the manager to get on with it?

yep agreed, the internet has produced a sub group of armchair experts who can make perfect decisions based on 20:20 hindsight. I wonder if the recruitment team are assessed based on KPI's as it is the one area which has me scratching my head

[ramblur]

On 4/3/2017 at 13:21, David said:

@ramblur you can disable the messenger so you can't receive PM's, if you go into your inbox, bottom left you will see the link.

Also, you can turn off all notifications here >> http://dcfcfans.uk/notifications/options/

That way if anyone quotes, likes, mentions you or anything you won't be notified.

Thanks for you suggestions,David (and to rynny/G STAR RAM ). Having slept on it,I've now decided on the following course of action:-

I'll try to log in for a spell on the first of every month (whether posting/browsing or not) just to let anyone who cares know that I haven't gone off to the BBG in the sky. I don't mind members quoting me/asking me questions (within reason),but I can't guarantee to answer promptly,though I'll make every attempt to do it eventually. Please bear in mind, though, that I can feel gruesome for days,weeks and even months on end.

[ramblur]

1 hour ago, oomarkwright said:

Hope you enjoy your 1000th like Ramblur. Keep healthy long enough to see us win the Premier League! 

Thanks - I just hope I'll be able to enjoy next season!

[cannable]

40 minutes ago, Spanish said:

yep agreed, the internet has produced a sub group of armchair experts who can make perfect decisions based on 20:20 hindsight. I wonder if the recruitment team are assessed based on KPI's as it is the one area which has me scratching my head

People called out our August 2015 signings at the time 

[Nuwtfly]

1 hour ago, cannable said:

Though it's too late now, I suppose the way around vetoing signings that were clearly **** whilst still backing your manager to the hilt would be to have a DoF and backing HIM to the hilt.

Absolutely, so long as that DoF isn't as clueless as the rest of the team (*cough cough, Chris Evans, cough cough*)

[cannable]

15 hours ago, DesertRam said:

If we had bought Shelvey, Ritchie, Gayle, Dunk and Knockeart we would be in the top 2 now,

I seem to remember we were linked to Gayle and Dunk.

 

Gayle would have suffered the same fate as Vydra.

Shelvey in a Pearson team? Even in a McClaren team we would have the same problem we did with Mascarell.

Ritchie and Knockaert are both left footed wingers who like to cut in from the right… Ince has only been two assists less productive than AK and two goals and three assists less than MR… in a much worse team in which he's essentially our entire attack. They'd have probably outperformed Johnny but we'd have been better going for a right footer.

Dunk, meh, our defence was the best in league until McClaren started tweaking things… I can't see Dunk making the difference required. 

It's just not as simple as signing the best players. 

 

[G STAR RAM]

5 hours ago, Mafiabob said:

Disagree entirely with yourself and everyone else. Only one person who has got rid of all these managers and hired and rehired....... and he sits in the chairmans office. 

Im hoping Rowett gets the time to sort the current mess we have regarding contracts and players bought in...... but I'm not holding my breath.

95% of you disagree with what I think is to blame. Fair cop....... but if you're not going to give managers time and space to implement something..... then the problem lies with the man at the top with his imapaitence. Let's hope he learns from his mistakes and gives Rowett time to start afresh. I'm genuinely hoping come January next year we ain't having the same discussion about another new manager.

Fair enough, Pearson...... Clement though......

If you have a bad flight on Virgin Airlines do you blame Richard Branson? 

[ramblur]

On 4/4/2017 at 11:29, OohMartWright said:

As an accountant I find this thread very interesting, in particular the consideration of accounting losses and FFP losses.

There are a number of posts about selling on players at a loss but it is important to consider the effect on our FFP position. It is not simply a case of comparing the buying fee with the selling fee. If we sign a player for £6m on a three season deal, that cost is amortised (written down and charged against profits) at the rate of £2m per season. If we sell him in season 2 for £4m then the accounts (and FFP workings) for season 2 will show neither a profit or a loss, the £2m "hit" having been taken in season 1. If we don't sell him until season 3, for £3m, then the accounts and FFP workings for season 3 will actually show a profit of £1m, two hits of £2m each being taken in seasons 1 and 2.

Obviously this ignores wages costs which are also massively important, but it does indicate that mathematically it can be better for FFP in the short term to keep an expensive player rather than to sell him for peanuts and crystallise all of the "hits" that would otherwise be spread over future seasons.

Well reasoned,accurate post,OohMartWright. I think Gary is going to be allowed to keep the players he wants irrespective of the financial consequences of any players moved on.In the context of a squad reduction,a player could be sold at a book loss yet the FFP impact could still be positive because of amortisation charge and wages saved that year.As it appears the opportunity of future exceptional gains seems limited,I reckon that next year just has to be the year of rationalisation and I can see a need to cull up to £10m in amortisation and wages combined.Fans shouldn't be alarmed by this because there'll be several exits,and it soon mounts up.

The £4m  FFP undershoot in 15/16,allied to a probable undershoot in 16/17 means that there'll probably be room for rationalisation and any additions Gary may seem fit.Mind you,this FFP business is quite fascinating.Say,for instance,we were to post an FFP result of £10m in 16/17 (not my forecast,just a number plucked out),an undershoot of £3m,at first glance you might think we could post £13m +£4m (15/16 undershoot) +£3m =£20m in 17/18 and still stay within the £39m 3 year revolving limit.Not as simple as that though,because that £20m becomes part of the next 3 year period,viz £10m +£20m + 18/19 FFP loss. The £9m allowable loss for 18/19 in this scenario is unrealistic.Thankfully,Stephen Pearce is far more capable than me!  

[G STAR RAM]

43 minutes ago, ramblur said:

Well reasoned,accurate post,OohMartWright. I think Gary is going to be allowed to keep the players he wants irrespective of the financial consequences of any players moved on.In the context of a squad reduction,a player could be sold at a book loss yet the FFP impact could still be positive because of amortisation charge and wages saved that year.As it appears the opportunity of future exceptional gains seems limited,I reckon that next year just has to be the year of rationalisation and I can see a need to cull up to £10m in amortisation and wages combined.Fans shouldn't be alarmed by this because there'll be several exits,and it soon mounts up.

The £4m  FFP undershoot in 15/16,allied to a probable undershoot in 16/17 means that there'll probably be room for rationalisation and any additions Gary may seem fit.Mind you,this FFP business is quite fascinating.Say,for instance,we were to post an FFP result of £10m in 16/17 (not my forecast,just a number plucked out),an undershoot of £3m,at first glance you might think we could post £13m +£4m (15/16 undershoot) +£3m =£20m in 17/18 and still stay within the £39m 3 year revolving limit.Not as simple as that though,because that £20m becomes part of the next 3 year period,viz £10m +£20m + 18/19 FFP loss. The £9m allowable loss for 18/19 in this scenario is unrealistic.Thankfully,Stephen Pearce is far more capable than me!  

A good point about the 'rolling 3 year window'.

Surely it would have made more sense to post the exceptional gain in year 3?

Got to admit thought, I've not even attempted to look at FFP in any great detail!

[ramblur]

1 hour ago, G STAR RAM said:

A good point about the 'rolling 3 year window'.

Surely it would have made more sense to post the exceptional gain in year 3?

Got to admit thought, I've not even attempted to look at FFP in any great detail!

I'm assuming you mean the £3m exceptional gain already posted? (which was actually described as "exceptional income").I don't know,but SP seems to be a very clever,imaginative guy and we're lucky to have him. Indeed,with Merlin in charge of finances,I've started to look at transactions that might otherwise have seemed innocuous.For instance,in 14/15 the Co-op loan of £3m,which had been languishing in 'other creditors' for years was suddenly brought out of there and redesignated as debt.Is this being kept in reserve for a tap of the magic wand sometime?

If you go back to the scenario I painted,if we were to post an FFP loss of £16m (rather than £20m) next year,then that again gives you £13m to play with the following year.With our FFP exemptions currently running at around £5m,and probably rising as a result of infrastructure spend,this implies a headline loss of £18m+,which is a fair bit.A lot less than the current real underlying loss,but that will be sorted next year.

[G STAR RAM]

14 minutes ago, ramblur said:

I'm assuming you mean the £3m exceptional gain already posted? (which was actually described as "exceptional income").I don't know,but SP seems to be a very clever,imaginative guy and we're lucky to have him. Indeed,with Merlin in charge of finances,I've started to look at transactions that might otherwise have seemed innocuous.For instance,in 14/15 the Co-op loan of £3m,which had been languishing in 'other creditors' for years was suddenly brought out of there and redesignated as debt.Is this being kept in reserve for a tap of the magic wand sometime?

If you go back to the scenario I painted,if we were to post an FFP loss of £16m (rather than £20m) next year,then that again gives you £13m to play with the following year.With our FFP exemptions currently running at around £5m,and probably rising as a result of infrastructure spend,this implies a headline loss of £18m+,which is a fair bit.A lot less than the current real underlying loss,but that will be sorted next year.

Good luck trying to decipher next year with the implementation of FRS102! 

I think this will be the last year I even bigger looking, will just trust Mel going forward!

[ramblur]

7 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Good luck trying to decipher next year with the implementation of FRS102! 

I think this will be the last year I even bigger looking, will just trust Mel going forward!

Seeing as nearly everyone is probably saying 'what the feck is FRS 102', I'll let you explain it,lol! Given that Mel has always said that they've nothing to hide,and indeed far more is disclosed in the accounts than used to be the case,I can't see him (via SP) suddenly fail to produce,for instance, a cash flow statement.Wouldn't look good. 

[Mostyn6]

On 04/04/2017 at 13:48, ramblur said:

Thanks - I just hope I'll be able to enjoy next season!

Ramblur, hard to explain how seeing your name on the latest post list made me smile. I thought your illness had got the better of you. Hope you're not suffering too much and are in good spirits.

[G STAR RAM]

13 minutes ago, ramblur said:

Seeing as nearly everyone is probably saying 'what the feck is FRS 102', I'll let you explain it,lol! Given that Mel has always said that they've nothing to hide,and indeed far more is disclosed in the accounts than used to be the case,I can't see him (via SP) suddenly fail to produce,for instance, a cash flow statement.Wouldn't look good. 

I'll just hope nobody read my post and wait for you to explain it next year!!!

[ramblur]

2 minutes ago, Mostyn6 said:

Ramblur, hard to explain how seeing your name on the latest post list made me smile. I thought your illness had got the better of you. Hope you're not suffering too much and are in good spirits.

Very nearly did mate,and thanks for your kind words.As I'm posting,things are obviously a bit better,although I've just gone through 2 courses of antibiotics without clearing a chest infection.Taken so many of those wretched things over the last few years that I must be in danger of developing bug resistance and badly need new antibiotics to come on stream.

Amazing what 3 good performances can do for the spirits! Can remember that the day against Leeds I was gruesome all day and dragged myself out of bed to watch that dross.I thought we were bound to have a bit of a spell in that first half,but the blue air consisted of 'for feck's sake','oh for feck's sake','come on,for feck's sake'..........picks up mug in pure rage,but thankfully doesn't throw it. 

[ramblur]

7 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

I'll just hope nobody read my post and wait for you to explain it next year!!!

I can guarantee you I won't be doing that,mainly because I don't think I'll need to and also because I no longer take my future existence for granted!

[RamNut]

49 minutes ago, Mostyn6 said:

Ramblur, hard to explain how seeing your name on the latest post list made me smile. I thought your illness had got the better of you. Hope you're not suffering too much and are in good spirits.

He been on loan at Fulham

[ramblur]

The results are now out,and as expected the operating loss was £27.424m,but exceptional income of £12.434m, due to the cancellation of the Global Derby loan of £12m and the DCFC preference shares of £434k ,brought this down to £14.990m. A small profit on player sales minus net interest payable then gave an overall loss of £14.725m.

The only change I've seen so far of note due to FRS 102 (which you shouldn't worry about) is that a note relating to movement in net debt over the year is no longer visible.However, I can tell you that the debt is now only £3.555m. I won't be posting any more detail -someone else can do that!

[ramblur]

I would just add that ,although that whopping £27.424m operating loss becomes the starting point for this year,the Hendrick/Martin transactions (mainly),allied to FFP exemptions which now appear to be running at over £5m,almost certainly mean that we'll again be under the £13m FFP threshold.

I was always pretty certain in my own mind that Pearson would have to sell big before any signings,which probably explains why they came relatively late.

Anyhow,that's me done and dusted for the accounts.Ah,this is the life.