Jump to content

17/18 Financial Results


Kinder

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 522
  • Created
  • Last Reply
5 minutes ago, therealhantsram said:

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

You may be right. 

I had it in my head that Hendrick, Hughes and Ince all fell into the same period and that their combined sales proceeds came to less than £23m.

Will do some digging later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

From memory, Hughes was sold a few days before the ‘deadline’ and Ince a few days after.. but both still appeared in the 16/17 accounts

Yep that was my recollection of events too.

4 minutes ago, Gritters said:

When MM came in I think he paid off a £15m mortgage on the stadium so I suppose he owned £15m of it. Now it seems like he has taken the rest of it to pay off the other money he is owed.

Only if no money has changed hands in the deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, David said:

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

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

EA5DDEAC-D0E0-47C8-8520-4D63746E00C5.jpeg

There were other posts removed as well, was this intentional?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

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?

Potential ones I'm not sure. I could guess like you have though if you like.

As for the real-world benefits, devoid of guesswork and supposition, well apart from the staving off of any FFP concerns, a £39 million profit on PP and the chance for us to further strengthen the squad this summer when we might not have been able to before, there's nothing I can think of.

Perhaps I'm just too trusting, who knows?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 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? 

Not sure the player sales you refer to are relevant to the accounts being discussed - 16/17 perhaps? And given the wealth he has accumulated and his track record of successful business ventures, no, I'm not going to question his ability to run a business, least not at this point. Not really sure that makes me a disciple though, any more than your views make you a Philistine. We are allowed to disagree chap, without any need for animosity. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, 86 points said:

Potential ones I'm not sure. I could guess like you have though if you like.

As for the real-world benefits, devoid of guesswork and supposition, well apart from the staving off of any FFP concerns, a £39 million profit on PP and the chance for us to further strengthen the squad this summer when we might not have been able to before, there's nothing I can think of.

Perhaps I'm just too trusting, who knows?

Has it been confirmed that the profit has an effect on FFP results?

I'd be surprised if capital transactions between related parties do.

Also why would MM and Pearce be talking about us being right on the edge of FFP limits if we'd just made a big profit? 

Also, nothing stopping the club just revaluing the ground to create the profit in the club accounts, without the need to move it to a different company. 

I trust MM too, just can't see how people are calling this a shrewd move and genius, without knowing the structure of the deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, 86 points said:

Not sure the player sales you refer to are relevant to the accounts being discussed - 16/17 perhaps? And given the wealth he has accumulated and his track record of successful business ventures, no, I'm not going to question his ability to run a business, least not at this point. Not really sure that makes me a disciple though, any more than your views make you a Philistine. We are allowed to disagree chap, without any need for animosity. 

What animosity you ****?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, G STAR RAM said:

I trust MM too, just can't see how people are calling this a shrewd move and genius, without knowing the structure of the deal.

And that's the point I'm making - I can't see why folk are painting the opposite picture, if as you assume, everyone is so poorly informed bar yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, 86 points said:

And that's the point I'm making - I can't see why folk are painting the opposite picture, if as you assume, everyone is so poorly informed bar yourself.

Who is painting the opposite picture?

I've seen a few posters putting forward a few ideas which say there COULD BE negatives to the deal.

And where have I claimed to be any more informed than anybody else on the matter? Did I not say there COULD BE plenty of pros and cons depending on how the deal was structured? 

Once again you've just decided that anyone that potentially disagrees with your opinion that its brilliant business is ripe for an argument with, rather than debate the points being raised.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Who is painting the opposite picture?

I've seen a few posters putting forward a few ideas which say there COULD BE negatives to the deal.

And where have I claimed to be any more informed than anybody else on the matter? Did I not say there COULD BE plenty of pros and cons depending on how the deal was structured? 

Once again you've just decided that anyone that potentially disagrees with your opinion that its brilliant business is ripe for an argument with, rather than debate the points being raised.

Where have I said it's brilliant business? I've merely stated that I don't see the raft of potential pitfalls that you do. Distinct case of pot / kettle I reckon. You want to focus on the latter, all good. I won't be losing any sleep over it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Also, nothing stopping the club just revaluing the ground to create the profit in the club accounts

Not allowed to revalue tangible fixed assets upwards under FRS102, only downwards to fair value where appropriate (via amortisation).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...