17/18 Financial Results

[Gap tooth ram]

Does this also mean that hypothetically we can lose around £54m over the next 2 financial years, meaning that 3 year period would then still be within the £39m acceptable loses?

Not that anyone wants this but just interested if that is how it works? Would certainly free up Lampard to have some extra wiggle room this summer, especially with so many big earners off the books.

[AdamRam]

25 minutes ago, BurtonRam7 said:

In my view, the issue with this thread is the same as the problem with politics. Too many people seeing things as either black or white.

I reckon it's a fairly shrewd financial move that is not without its risks down the line.

Based upon what ?

I’m surprised you can come to such an assumption without knowing hardly any details of the deal ?

[DarkFruitsRam7]

5 minutes ago, AdamRam said:

Based upon what ?

I’m surprised you can come to such an assumption without knowing hardly any details of the deal ?

From what I see. If we only discuss issues of objective fact, there would be very little to talk about.

It seems to have got us out of a potential FFP mess in the short term, but I'm not particularly comfortable with the club not owning the stadium, particularly if relations with MM don't turn out rosy down the line. I don't see what's controversial or hugely speculative about that?

[Philmycock]

7 minutes ago, AdamRam said:

Based upon what ?

I’m surprised you can come to such an assumption without knowing hardly any details of the deal ?

He overheard it once when he was having a Sherman tank in the toilet next to the boardroom, I heard 

[AdamRam]

Just now, BurtonRam7 said:

From what I see. If we only discuss issues of objective fact, there would be very little to talk about.

It seems to have got us out of a potential FFP mess in the short term, but I'm not particularly comfortable with the club not owning the stadium, particularly if relations with MM don't turn out rosy down the line. I don't see what's controversial or hugely speculative about that?

You said it was a financially shrewd move, that’s the bit I was referring to, surely the FFP mess would have been better sorted if we had kept within the limits without selling our ground ?

MM has also constantly stated that we were within FFP limits, I must admit to being a bit surprised if this was always based upon this happening.

[G STAR RAM]

48 minutes ago, 86 points said:

Lot of 'if, buts and maybes' there. The slant you have taken, with no more knowledge of MM's motivations than any of us on here, is not terribly complimentary or trusting. I'll leave it there because I really don't agree with a single word you've written so there's no point in us discussing it further really.

Hence why I said there were lots of potential pros and cons depending on how this was structured.

Not looking for you to agree with me, you asked what the potential cons were so I told you some. If you choose to ignore them that'd fine. Like you I hope they never materialise. 

Happy to listen to your version then, what are the potential pros of this deal?

[ram59]

10 minutes ago, Gap tooth ram said:

Does this also mean that hypothetically we can lose around £54m over the next 2 financial years, meaning that 3 year period would then still be within the £39m acceptable loses?

Not that anyone wants this but just interested if that is how it works? Would certainly free up Lampard to have some extra wiggle room this summer, especially with so many big earners off the books.

Technically speaking, yes, but remember the first year is virtually over. They will have a good idea of this year's losses and will have to plan for not only next year's losses but also subsequent years, when this 'profit' falls off the 3 year cycle of accounts. 

So, although we could lose £54m over the next 2 years, we can only lose £39m over the next 3 years. 

Assuming we're running a loss of around £20m this season, next season will need a further reduction down to around £12 and then £7m the season after. This sale of the ground has given us time to achieve this. 

[David]

Removing posts from previously banned users always makes me feel peckish.

Might treat myself to a pack of Yorkshire Salty crisps. Mmmm.

[Wolfie20]

11 minutes ago, BurtonRam7 said:

From what I see. If we only discuss issues of objective fact, there would be very little to talk about.

It seems to have got us out of a potential FFP mess in the short term, but I'm not particularly comfortable with the club not owning the stadium, particularly if relations with MM don't turn out rosy down the line. I don't see what's controversial or hugely speculative about that?

But didn't MM own Pride Park stadium prior to this move and the only change is that it's now in the portfolio of another of his companies? If that's correct then if things went bad and he wanted out what's the difference?

Assuming at some point the Club was up for sale then, at least for however long the lease is, it goes some way to avoiding a Coventry City type situation.

[curb]

Dirty Leeds fans taking the moral high ground, whatever next?

 

Maybe Mel could do them a powerpoint presentation on how to avoid FFP sanctions?

?  ?

 

[Ghost of Clough]

1 hour ago, G STAR RAM said:

But there's more questions than answers doing what has been done.

Potential cons:-

Club no longer owns the ground. Of course this won't be a problem if it is a long term lease.

Rent will be an FFP hit. Of course this won't be a problem if it's a pepeppercorn rent.

Potential revenues from the ground will now be diverted to another company. May not be a problem if MM intends to funnel this money back into the club. But if he intends to do this not sure why he would take the ground out of the club in the first place.

Cannot see how the club will now be attractive to potential investors. Although obviously this will now deter potential asset strippers.

I'm pretty sure MM has the clubs intentions at heart although this potentially looks a way of him recouping some of his losses.

To sit there for an hour and a half talking about FFP but not even mentioning this just seems a bit disingenuous to me.

Hence why he paid £80m for something worth £41m?

[gfs1ram]

It's a very shrewd move by the Club(Morris) as obviously without it they would not have met FFP.Not every Club is so lucky to have had a hidden £39m in their balance sheet and not every Chairman (Morris) would be willing to pay the independent valuation of £80m to enable the Club to realise that hidden asset.

The crux as I see it however is how long is the Lease for and how much is the annual rent?  I have only just read about the sale but cannot see that these details have been released ? Have they ?

The statement reads 'long term' lease which is good and ideally 99 years with rent reviews would be amazing. I guess however it will be less (but needs to be minimum 21 years) as any 'problem' down the line as has been mentioned will only come at lease renewal.

References in this thread to Coventry and SISU do not apply. WASPS rugby club own the Ricoh with Coventry City literally on a yearly lease that is now do for renewal. SISU (Coventry's owner's are still threatening legal action against the Council and Wasps over the sale of the ground to Wasps instead of them). SISU have lost three Court hearings but still persisting down the legal route so quiet understandably Wasps are telling them to 'get stuffed'  over a new lease until legal action is dropped.  

LET US JUST BE THANKFUL THAT SISU DID NOT BUY DCFC some 10 or so years ago - they came VERY close !!

 

 

[G STAR RAM]

3 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Hence why he paid £80m for something worth £41m?

Let's wait to see how it has been paid for first. 

He's moved an asset that was under the control of DCFC so it is now no longer under the control of DCFC.

The article makes lots of reference to generating additional revenue from Pride Park but of course that will no longer be DCFC revenue.

I have absolutely no problem with MM doing this by the way.

Just at this moment in time struggling to see how this benefits DCFC other than stopping potential FFP sanctions which would have been of his own making anyway.

[JoetheRam]

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the club now not owning its own stadium (I'm of the opinion that assets are not for selling lightly), is it not a bit concerning to the Mel Morris disciples that without this fiddling, we'd have made a £24.4m loss, in the same period we sold Hughes and Ince for sizeable fees (surely recognised as profit) and got £2m for Gary Rowett?

I don't doubt his heart, but you've got to question his ability to run the club as a business, have you not? 

[G STAR RAM]

2 minutes ago, JoetheRam said:

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the club now not owning its own stadium (I'm of the opinion that assets are not for selling lightly), is it not a bit concerning to the Mel Morris disciples that without this fiddling, we'd have made a £24.4m loss, in the same period we sold Hughes and Ince for sizeable fees (surely recognised as profit) and got £2m for Gary Rowett?

I don't doubt his heart, but you've got to question his ability to run the club as a business, have you not? 

Got a feeling, but not certain until I look back at the accounts, that Hughes and Ince may have fallen into the previous years accounts. 

[Ghost of Clough]

3 minutes ago, JoetheRam said:

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the club now not owning its own stadium (I'm of the opinion that assets are not for selling lightly), is it not a bit concerning to the Mel Morris disciples that without this fiddling, we'd have made a £24.4m loss, in the same period we sold Hughes and Ince for sizeable fees (surely recognised as profit) and got £2m for Gary Rowett?

I don't doubt his heart, but you've got to question his ability to run the club as a business, have you not? 

Ince and Hughes (Hendrick and Grant too) all fell under the 16/17 period

[Cool As Custard]

Whilst a £25m loss seems excessive - has anybody more qualified than me been able to check the accounts to see if we have finally written down the book value of players going out of contract?

If I was Mel & going to the trouble of doing all this I’d be making sure I reduced as much of our future liability as possible within these accounts - especially on players we paid significant amounts for going out of contract.

This could be a major contributor to the loss being as high as it is - can anyone shed any further light?

[David]

18 minutes ago, curb said:

Dirty Leeds fans taking the moral high ground, whatever next?

 

Maybe Mel could do them a powerpoint presentation on how to avoid FFP sanctions?

?  ?

 

[therealhantsram]

2 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Got a feeling, but not certain until I look back at the accounts, that Hughes and Ince may have fallen into the previous years accounts. 

I think Hughes was in the previous, but Ince was in this set of accounts. 

[JoetheRam]

1 minute ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Ince and Hughes (Hendrick and Grant too) all fell under the 16/17 period

Fair, didn't seem that long ago. Still, my question stands.