Official: Cyrus Christie joins Middlesbrough

[ramblur]

2 hours ago, cheron85 said:

Actually - Just realised - Depends what the date ranges are of that time - Thorne was an early signing for the 14/15 season NOT the season before - So could be in the 13/14 accounts as an end of year purchase?

In which case you're missing the previous years transfers - Fozzy, Russell, Dawkins and Roos

Thorne signed in mid July,,so I don't understand the reasoning behind suggesting that he was in the 13/14 accounts.Anyway,the logic behind that suggestion would have meant that the £6.77m covered only Cyrus and the 4 kids. How am I missing the previous year's transfers? Are you suggesting that GT,signed in mid July , should be in the 13/14 accounts, whilst those signed in 13/14 should be included within players signed after the 30 June 14,and I've somehow 'missed' them?

[cheron85]

3 hours ago, ramblur said:

If you don't think the GT fee was high ,I go back to our own accounts and the PBSE figure of £6,777,057 from 13/14 that covered the window in question.If 4 kids were brought in on frees and the only fee based transfers in were Cyrus and George,what value are you going to put on Cyrus to bring GT's fee down to the level some are claiming?   

Quoting both so I can refer back to the previous one (above) otherwise I'll start confusing myself

4 minutes ago, ramblur said:

Thorne signed in mid July,,so I don't understand the reasoning behind suggesting that he was in the 13/14 accounts.Anyway,the logic behind that suggestion would have meant that the £6.77m covered only Cyrus and the 4 kids. How am I missing the previous year's transfers? Are you suggesting that GT,signed in mid July , should be in the 13/14 accounts, whilst those signed in 13/14 should be included within players signed after the 30 June 14,and I've somehow 'missed' them?

Your figure above said that the £6.7m was for 13/14 and covered the Thorne transfer

If the Thorne transfer is from the 13/14 accounts then they should include some of the transfers from that season, right? - Not just the summer transfer between 13/14 and 14/15 (ie, Thorne, Christie and the free-punt 4)

Is the £6.7m not for the whole year? When does it start? Does it include Jan 14? Does it include any of the summer transfer from the start of the 13/14 season?

[ramblur]

3 minutes ago, cheron85 said:

Quoting both so I can refer back to the previous one (above) otherwise I'll start confusing myself

Your figure above said that the £6.7m was for 13/14 and covered the Thorne transfer

If the Thorne transfer is from the 13/14 accounts then they should include some of the transfers from that season, right? - Not just the summer transfer between 13/14 and 14/15 (ie, Thorne, Christie and the free-punt 4)

Is the £6.7m not for the whole year? When does it start? Does it include Jan 14? Does it include any of the summer transfer from the start of the 13/14 season?

I've quite clearly stated on more than 1 occasion on this thread,that (a) the £6.77m quoted came from PBSE (Post balance sheet events,the B/S date being 30/6/14) in the 13/14 accounts.A note about PBSE quite clearly means that anything mentioned therein would have nothing to do with the year in question.If it did,there'd be no need for the PBSE in the first place,because everything would be included in the accounts anyway.

(b)Because the 13/14 accounts were signed off in November 14,they can only cover the summer 14/15 window (unless they're fortune tellers)

[Rample]

Most teams accounts seem to end March 31st, Chelsea however end 30 June. So assume accounting year is pretty much start to end of season. So unless it's split into quarters or similar Shotton, Warnock and Albentosa have to figure surely.

[Rample]

Thorne £3.5m

Christie £1m

Albentosa £500k

Warnock £500k

Shotton £1m

Give or take that's  £6.7m covered.

[ramblur]

2 minutes ago, Rample said:

Thorne £3.5m

Christie £1m

Albentosa £500k

Warnock £500k

Shotton £1m

Give or take that's  £6.7m covered.

You can 'take' Albentosa/Warnock/Shotton out straight away,because the £6.77m  only covers the period from 30 June 14 to the end of November (and I don't know how many times I have to repeat this before it finally sinks in).

In any case,your figures on those 3 are way out because (again as I mentioned before) the General Sports accounts were signed off at the end of March,so the increase of c£1.1m in that company's PBSE(compared to the DCFC PBSE) has to refer to the total January window activity.

[cheron85]

5 minutes ago, ramblur said:

I've quite clearly stated on more than 1 occasion on this thread,that (a) the £6.77m quoted came from PBSE (Post balance sheet events,the B/S date being 30/6/14) in the 13/14 accounts.A note about PBSE quite clearly means that anything mentioned therein would have nothing to do with the year in question.If it did,there'd be no need for the PBSE in the first place,because everything would be included in the accounts anyway.

(b)Because the 13/14 accounts were signed off in November 14,they can only cover the summer 14/15 window (unless they're fortune tellers)

You work on the assumption we all know what PBSE means  I didn't until now

I'm not sure what your point (b) is about - I was only bringing up transfers from 13/14

Why would transfers after the 30th June be included in the PBSE then? Why wouldn't they be in the accounts for 14/15?

I'm not trying to catch you out here btw - Just trying to understand as my logical brain says there's no way so many sources would be claiming the Thorne fee to be around £2.5m if it was closer to £6m as I think you're suggesting from the finances - It's like conspiracy theories  I don't believe that many people can keep a secret that well!

[ramblur]

12 minutes ago, cheron85 said:

You work on the assumption we all know what PBSE means  I didn't until now

I'm not sure what your point (b) is about - I was only bringing up transfers from 13/14

Why would transfers after the 30th June be included in the PBSE then? Why wouldn't they be in the accounts for 14/15?

I'm not trying to catch you out here btw - Just trying to understand as my logical brain says there's no way so many sources would be claiming the Thorne fee to be around £2.5m if it was closer to £6m as I think you're suggesting from the finances - It's like conspiracy theories  I don't believe that many people can keep a secret that well!

I'm sorry,PBSE has been brought up many,many times  over the years (including quite a few times in this thread) that I assumed everyone knew what it meant by now. PBSE for 13/14 isn't part of that year's figures,it's merely a note reflecting on what happened after the financial year end.The PBSE figure will be included in the 14/15 accounts,and then the 14/15 accounts will have their own PBSE,reflecting on anything that happened in the summer window of 15/16.

As far as point (b) goes,you said that I was 'missing' 4 players from 13/14. Missing from what? It can't be 13/14 PBSE because they weren't signed after 30 June 14.

I've never suggested GT to be £6m,and I've only suggested the possibility that it could be up to £5m. Looking at both sets of accounts,something around £4.5m looks reasonable to me. When a fee is undisclosed,journalists are going to start guessing the fee to try to satisfy fans' desire to always want to know the fee.

[cheron85]

1 minute ago, ramblur said:

I'm sorry,PBSE has been brought up many,many times  over the years (including quite a few times in this thread) that I assumed everyone knew what it meant by now.

I don't tend to read the whole thread - Just dip in and out

Also why point (b) eluded me - Not knowing what PBSE meant

Is it possible that PBSE can include non-player-purchase events? Off the top of my head I can't think what might be in there but I feel like we signed a LOT of big new contracts at that point (Hughes, Hendrick, Bryson and Keogh spring to mind?) - Would signing bonuses be listed here? Could improvements to the ground/training centre be here too?

Again - Really not trying to catch you out - As far as I'm concerned you're our resident expert in the DCFC accounts - Just trying to balance out the inconsistencies in my head

[ramblur]

8 minutes ago, cheron85 said:

I don't tend to read the whole thread - Just dip in and out

Also why point (b) eluded me - Not knowing what PBSE meant

Is it possible that PBSE can include non-player-purchase events? Off the top of my head I can't think what might be in there but I feel like we signed a LOT of big new contracts at that point (Hughes, Hendrick, Bryson and Keogh spring to mind?) - Would signing bonuses be listed here? Could improvements to the ground/training centre be here too?

Again - Really not trying to catch you out - As far as I'm concerned you're our resident expert in the DCFC accounts - Just trying to balance out the inconsistencies in my head

Any big capital spend on infrastructure would have its own note within PBSE. Any signing bonuses don't form part of the cost of acquiring players' regs.They're usually spread over the course of a player's contract and are treated as revenue (non capital) items which go straight to the P/L account in the year that they're paid (not via amortisation,as is the case with fees). They even have their own note in the accounts,giving a global figure for our maximum future liability.

Not that it really affects much,I think Hughes extended his contract in late June 14.

[ramblur]

3 hours ago, Rample said:

Most teams accounts seem to end March 31st, Chelsea however end 30 June. So assume accounting year is pretty much start to end of season. So unless it's split into quarters or similar Shotton, Warnock and Albentosa have to figure surely.

Don't know which accounts you've been looking at,but I've seen a lot and am yet to find one ending 31 March.Can't understand the point you're trying to make anyway because the figure I've been quoting can only cover transactions made up to the end of November.

[ramblur]

Time for me to eat several large pieces of humble pie.When I looked at intangible assets and extracted the total of £8.132m for the year's additions,I should have looked at the breakdown of this,which was as follows:-

Players' registrations £4.449m     Transfer fee levies&associated costs £3.683m

I now remember pointing out in the past that the percentage of the 2nd item to the 1st was way higher than normal and suggested at the time that the 2nd figure might include compensation payments for younger players (but I wasn't overly happy with this because it still represented payment for registrations).I'm pretty mad with myself because I remember years ago looking at explanatory notes to find out what the 'associated costs' were.Having looked again they are agents' fees (which I knew) and compensation paid to acquire managerial/coaching staff (which I'd forgotten about,as I probably looked at it many years ago). Management/coaching staff are regarded as assets and any compensation can't go in the players' regs column for obvious reasons,so into the second column they go.

I checked and both Clement & Peacock came in before 30 June 15 (meaning any compo would appear in 14/15); Clement walked out on Madrid,so you could see how compo might apply there and Peacock was 'poached' from the FA,so again compo may easily have arisen.Now I know from another site that we podded out £1.1m to agents in 14/15,and with the League levy being 5%,c£220k would be payable there.If you take these 2 items from the £3.683m you get £2.363m (ouch). Just to make sure I'd been wrong about young players' compo,I remembered that in 08/09 we paid a decent amount of compo for Steve Davies.When I looked in the second column of intangible assets additions for that year,it quickly became obvious that the SD compo simply couldn't feature there.

Looking at the 1st figure for 14/15 of £4.449m I can now see that the GT fee could easily have been £2.5m.The aggregate £1.1m fees for the 3 permanents in January included league levy+ agents' fees,so I guess that might drop the actual net fees down to c£900k,which means we've now reached £3.4m.This would then leave just over a million in compo for Christie and Santos.

The next piece of humble comes from the WBA angle and the poster(was it @Srg ) who pointed out that WBA loaned several players out and that their £5.3m profit might include loan fees.With the GT fee now looking a lot lower than I suggested,he's probably right.Although a loan fee isn't strictly the sale of a player's reg,thinking about it there's probably nowhere better to put it,other than,perhaps 'other income'. So apologies to whoever it was that I incorrectly challenged. This will now almost certainly mean that the CM loan fee will feature in our own profit on sale of players' regs for 16/17,making it virtually impossible to work anything out from a global figure bulging with entries.

Again,apologies to all concerned-I never had any agenda in this issue other than getting to the truth,and everything I said earlier was in good faith.I know in myself that I'm nowhere near as sharp as I was a few years ago,and perhaps it's about time I was put out to grass.I'm very disappointed with myself.

 

[Sparkle]

All interesting stuff though!

[Rab a dab doo]

You have obviously put alot work into your very detailed calculations Ramblur which we all appreciate and thank you for,but this way to technical for the average 'simple' football fan like me.It does make good reading if only I could understand it all. 

[cheron85]

1 hour ago, ramblur said:

Time for me to eat several large pieces of humble pie.When I looked at intangible assets and extracted the total of £8.132m for the year's additions,I should have looked at the breakdown of this,which was as follows:-

 

Looking at the 1st figure for 14/15 of £4.449m I can now see that the GT fee could easily have been £2.5m.

Dude - Put down the pie and step away from the fork

You're amongst the few of us that understands this and the only one prepared to put up with my incessant questions - So you never need to apologise as far as I'm concerned!

You've also managed in one post to put the OCD demons in my head to sleep - They're the ones which have been railing at my perceived logical inconsistencies...

You may have some apple pie instead if you like - Or because it's morning maybe something more savoury? A sausage and bean melt from Greggs?

[ramblur]

5 hours ago, ramblur said:

Time for me to eat several large pieces of humble pie.When I looked at intangible assets and extracted the total of £8.132m for the year's additions,I should have looked at the breakdown of this,which was as follows:-

Players' registrations £4.449m     Transfer fee levies&associated costs £3.683m

I now remember pointing out in the past that the percentage of the 2nd item to the 1st was way higher than normal and suggested at the time that the 2nd figure might include compensation payments for younger players (but I wasn't overly happy with this because it still represented payment for registrations).I'm pretty mad with myself because I remember years ago looking at explanatory notes to find out what the 'associated costs' were.Having looked again they are agents' fees (which I knew) and compensation paid to acquire managerial/coaching staff (which I'd forgotten about,as I probably looked at it many years ago). Management/coaching staff are regarded as assets and any compensation can't go in the players' regs column for obvious reasons,so into the second column they go.

I checked and both Clement & Peacock came in before 30 June 15 (meaning any compo would appear in 14/15); Clement walked out on Madrid,so you could see how compo might apply there and Peacock was 'poached' from the FA,so again compo may easily have arisen.Now I know from another site that we podded out £1.1m to agents in 14/15,and with the League levy being 5%,c£220k would be payable there.If you take these 2 items from the £3.683m you get £2.363m (ouch). Just to make sure I'd been wrong about young players' compo,I remembered that in 08/09 we paid a decent amount of compo for Steve Davies.When I looked in the second column of intangible assets additions for that year,it quickly became obvious that the SD compo simply couldn't feature there.

 

 

Jeez,this business is driving me crazy. My suggestion of compo for Clement and Peacock simply doesn't work.The 13/14 Global Derby accounts were signed off on 30 March 2015,and the PBSE figure (which clearly states purchase of players+league levies+agents' fees) of £7.918m can only relate to the period 1July 14-30 March 15,which of course all falls within the financial year 14/15.This capital expenditure must be included in the intangible assets additions figure of £8.132m,which then only leaves £214k for any expenditure after 30/3/15,which obviously rules out the possibility of compo levels that I'd suggested as a possibility for Clement and Peacock.

The explanatory note on additions clearly stipulates transfer fees/league levies/agents' fees/compensation to acquire services of manager/coach, full stop.The preceding note on signing bonuses clearly states these aren't capitalised,so that possibility's ruled out.If anyone wants to suggest a possible loan fee for Mascarell,that won't work either because capital items have to give value over more than one accounting period, and a season long loan clearly relates to the financial year in question only.

I've seen a list of agents' fees paid by clubs in 14/15,and we came in at £1.1m,so no joy there.I know the league levy is only 5%,so that doesn't help.This is going to torment me for months,because I now haven't a clue what this £2.363m can be.

I don't know whether to eat more humble pie,spew up some I've already eaten,or both.

Apologies to all,I just can't fathom it now. 

[EnigmaRam]

6 minutes ago, ramblur said:

Jeez,this business is driving me crazy. My suggestion of compo for Clement and Peacock simply doesn't work.The 13/14 Global Derby accounts were signed off on 30 March 2015,and the PBSE figure (which clearly states purchase of players+league levies+agents' fees) of £7.918m can only relate to the period 1July 14-30 March 15,which of course all falls within the financial year 14/15.This capital expenditure must be included in the intangible assets additions figure of £8.132m,which then only leaves £214k for any expenditure after 30/3/15,which obviously rules out the possibility of compo levels that I'd suggested as a possibility for Clement and Peacock.

The explanatory note on additions clearly stipulates transfer fees/league levies/agents' fees/compensation to acquire services of manager/coach, full stop.The preceding note on signing bonuses clearly states these aren't capitalised,so that possibility's ruled out.If anyone wants to suggest a possible loan fee for Mascarell,that won't work either because capital items have to give value over more than one accounting period, and a season long loan clearly relates to the financial year in question only.

I've seen a list of agents' fees paid by clubs in 14/15,and we came in at £1.1m,so no joy there.I know the league levy is only 5%,so that doesn't help.This is going to torment me for months,because I now haven't a clue what this £2.363m can be.

I don't know whether to eat more humble pie,spew up some I've already eaten,or both.

Apologies to all,I just can't fathom it now. 

I would give up and accept what the club are telling us which has always been we have no issues with FFP. 

[ramblur]

4 hours ago, cheron85 said:

Dude - Put down the pie and step away from the fork

You're amongst the few of us that understands this and the only one prepared to put up with my incessant questions - So you never need to apologise as far as I'm concerned!

You've also managed in one post to put the OCD demons in my head to sleep - They're the ones which have been railing at my perceived logical inconsistencies...

You may have some apple pie instead if you like - Or because it's morning maybe something more savoury? A sausage and bean melt from Greggs?

Thanks for your kind words,cheron, but appetising as the pie and melt sound,I could do with a very strong drink now,as I've just joined the ranks of those that don't understand it.

[ramblur]

5 minutes ago, EnigmaRam said:

I would give up and accept what the club are telling us which has always been we have no issues with FFP. 

I think you've misunderstood something,because this has had nothing at all to do with FFP. Whatever the GT fee may have been,the £8.132m of additions in intangible assets stands.I haven't mentioned FFP once in this thread till now.

I've always accepted that FFP wasn't an issue in 15/16 and 16/17,and come up with the reasons why.As for this year I've said that I don't know because of unknown factors and I've no doubt the club will come out and say there isn't a problem again. Whether or not it's not an issue because of player sales is the thing none of us knows.

[EnigmaRam]

3 minutes ago, ramblur said:

I think you've misunderstood something,because this has had nothing at all to do with FFP. Whatever the GT fee may have been,the £8.132m of additions in intangible assets stands.I haven't mentioned FFP once in this thread till now.

Your right I apologise. I thought this all stemmed from financial reports and worrying we over paid what we said we did which might put us in a worse position Ie £6 mil on Thorne instead of £2.3 I thought we did.