Price Of Football .. DCFC

[ramblur]

On ‎4‎/‎17‎/‎2018 at 10:16, Carnero said:

Good luck Ramblur, I hope things turn out better than you expect and you'll be back posting in no time!

Your informative posts and painstaking analysis work have been very much appreciated by many of us I'm sure.

Best wishes.

Thanks for your kind words Carnero. Although tests were bad, they were better than I feared, so managed to escape home. Managed to bask in the sun today,so feel a bit better, with only minor appointments next week. Might as well reply to the Baron,whilst my head's in gear.

[Gritty]

I can see from his twitter feed that he's now doing an analysis of the Burnley results so I'm not sure whether or not he will look back at this forum @ramblur; but I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.  I think it interesting to understand the club's financial position, and sustainability of it, particularly in light of FFP.  I am nervous about us having to go through a long period of austerity, possibly forced on us by some inaccurate estimates of residual values that cause us to suffer losses. Unlike others on here, I'm less confident we'll sell Vydra to make up for a loss on Butterfield etc

[ramblur]

On ‎4‎/‎17‎/‎2018 at 10:47, The Baron said:

Thanks Mr Blur, and best wishes for your health issues. 

The figure for £23.2 million came from 

Gain on player sales £16.2 million (from profit and loss account)

Plus: Cost of players sold £8.7 million (from balance sheet note)

Less: Accumulated depreciation of players sold £1.6 million (from balance sheet note)

Total (adjusted for rounding) £23.2 million

Peace, love and light. 

Yeh that was something I hadn't done this year, so cheers for that. Both the profit on sales and the proceeds must include any Martin Loan Fee,which then lessens the profits made on Hendrick, Ince, Hughes and Grant. Something tells me we must have made losses on Albentosa and Shotton + Camara if he was flogged in June, as these would have been a drag on the transfer profits, which is a net figure.

For the benefit of members, the actual original cost in fees for all those sold was£6.895m  ( the add ons- levy/agents) being £1.778m, giving the total of £8.673m. The net book value to compare to sale was£7.093m. Looking at the fees, that must be Ince,Shotton,Albentosa +players I'm not sure of the fee situation in Warnock, Buxton and Grant + Sammon was released,and I'm not sure if that was at end of contract, however his original fee would be part of the £6.895m.

The levy/agents' fees column is higher than you'd normally expect to see in relation to the transfer fees,but Hendrick and Hughes would no doubt have employed agents for contract negotiations, which would have formed part of their capital cost, ditto Grant,Warnock,Buxton and several youngsters that SM brought in, who were released.

I've uncovered one enigma relating to this. We weren't owed any transfer fees at the start of 16/17, and the Cash Flow Statement shows that we received £8,894,274 in instalments. Debtors then show we were owed £20,388,185 at the year end, thus £29,292,459 should have equaled your figure of 23.2m for receipts, but it's 6m out. Your figure's sound, so I have to get my thinking cap on there.

In the 16/17 accounts, the comparative figures for 15/16 show various restatements, and wages was restated to £33,127,182 from the £31.908m originally shown in the 15/16 accounts. Whilst you can get the turnover breakdown, it's not so easy for expenditure, wages being one of the few ' non paper' entries that appear in notes. If this had merely been something Like reclassifying compensation as wages, you wouldn't see the other half to the restatement if there wasn't a note on compensation to restate. Increasing one figure by the same amount as the reduction in another won't affect the global figure at all, so no restatement there.

For anyone inexperienced looking at these restatements, a word of warning:- sometimes a restatement will appear above a column of figures, but it doesn't have to mean they were all restated, it might be just one, and it's not always an amount that's been restated, it could just mean that something's been moved to another category, to fall in line with a new lay out of the accounts ( and to allow proper comparison).

Anyway, all the best, and I hope you now see our club in a different light! (and thanks for your kind words at the start). If you're still a bit wary of what I've said, but intend looking at our 17/18 accounts ( when the consolidated accounts will be for 12 months) I can almost promise you that the consolidated loss will feature Sevco (The Company), a small bit from Global Derby, and the Club loss - that should be enough to reassure you that the new companies figures are all featured in the club's figures.

[ramblur]

43 minutes ago, feisty said:

I can see from his twitter feed that he's now doing an analysis of the Burnley results so I'm not sure whether or not he will look back at this forum @ramblur; but I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.  I think it interesting to understand the club's financial position, and sustainability of it, particularly in light of FFP.  I am nervous about us having to go through a long period of austerity, possibly forced on us by some inaccurate estimates of residual values that cause us to suffer losses. Unlike others on here, I'm less confident we'll sell Vydra to make up for a loss on Butterfield etc

Just too hard to call these days,feisty. I was completely taken aback by the large rise in income in 16/17 if you then add in large movements in players, whose wages are impossible to estimate, it makes the job more impossible. From my last post, it appears to me that Ince must have had a large RV allocated, but it seems we still turned a decent profit (with the possibility of add ons) . Add ons received can also be a (nice) problem, as they affect FFP favourably, but none of us know when they might arise - a further impediment to predictions. I do know we have to reduce the playerts' wage bill next year though.

[Grantona]

Burnley's handsome profit last season shows they must be doing something right.

[ramblur]

2 hours ago, Grantona said:

Burnley's handsome profit last season shows they must be doing something right.

Getting yourselves an outstanding manager wasn't a bad start. Some on here might think I've lost my marbles, but I reckon Arsenal could do far worse than Dyche. No more lack of bottle and indiscipline, and obviously  more Graham than Wenger ( though I always thought the latter benefitted for a long time from Graham's defence).