Rams post latest accounts

[Guest]

The fact that £25million is a lot of money has never been questioned by anyone.

However, that's not really the point is it? The fact that it's £15million light makes all the difference, because that's the money that would have turned us from 'a club that should' to 'a club that is'

Please don't come back with that pedantic whining of 'show me where they PROMISED £50 million', because you have been pointed to a plethora of articles and public statements from the time of takeover which you have chosen to ignore because you've not seen a video recording of Andrew Appleby and / or Tom Glick quoting that amount.

The whole world was told via the media that it was a cheque for £50m to buy the shares, pay off the debts and £10 million for players.

Let's say I hire you on a salary of £100K, but pay you £60K. Still a fair amount of money, but not what I said when I hired you. The balance is the difference between you 'being OK' financially, and being able to pay for the things you really want.

That is exactly the same with the playing side of DCFC so, on the same basis, don't expect me to be excited when it's confirmed that GSE put in over 50% of what they told the LOG they were going to.

If it comes now, this summer, all well and good. I don't care that it's 3 years late, because there's nothing can but done about what's not been done in the past. Just don't expect a fanfare. These accounts show what they HAVEN'T invested, just as much as they show what they have.

Yeah fair enough. If GSE had not come in would the LOG have put the £21million in? I don't think so, maybe we should be grateful for a few things because as far as I can see the current financial situation is much better than the alternative we could of faced.

[ramblur]

In which case why go to so much length to prove or disprove what GSE say? We know that due to the time that accounts have to be filed you will never be able to prove or disprove what GSE say to be true or false.

Funnily enough,the next accounts will give the answer.By my reckoning 12 months is rather closer than 'never'.

[Guest]

Funnily enough,the next accounts will give the answer.By my reckoning 12 months is rather closer than 'never'.

Thats the point though...they won't! If they say today we have invested x amount you will not be able to prove it or not because the accounts are not made up to today!

I understand that you will be able to say the investment has passed x amount but you are also reliant on their post balance sheet event note, which once again you can not prove!

I've reached the stage where I think it appears that what they are saying financially appears to be true and don't need to take anyone elses word for it.

We are dealing with businessmen who are worth a lot of money and I don't think they really need to lie over 1 or 2 million.

[ramblur]

Thats the point though...they won't! If they say today we have invested x amount you will not be able to prove it or not because the accounts are not made up to today!

I understand that you will be able to say the investment has passed x amount but you are also reliant on their post balance sheet event note, which once again you can not prove!

I've reached the stage where I think it appears that what they are saying financially appears to be true and don't need to take anyone elses word for it.

We are dealing with businessmen who are worth a lot of money and I don't think they really need to lie over 1 or 2 million.

You're obviously having difficulty with this concept,so I'll try and spell it out for you as simply as I can-post balance sheet events don't come into it.

The figure of £25m was first mentioned end of Jan/early Feb this year.We know for a fact what was invested in total during 08/09 and 09/10.In 12 months we'll also know for a fact the total invested in 10/11.If the sum of these 3 figures is less than £25m,then that figure couldn't have been invested by early Feb.If,on the other hand,the total is equal to or greater than £25m,then what was said is plausible.

[ramblur]

Yeah fair enough. If GSE had not come in would the LOG have put the £21million in? I don't think so, maybe we should be grateful for a few things because as far as I can see the current financial situation is much better than the alternative we could of faced.

The LOG would only have had to put in £21m if they'd replicated what's been done by the current administration since 1/1/08.

[Guest]

You're obviously having difficulty with this concept,so I'll try and spell it out for you as simply as I can-post balance sheet events don't come into it.

The figure of £25m was first mentioned end of Jan/early Feb this year.We know for a fact what was invested in total during 08/09 and 09/10.In 12 months we'll also know for a fact the total invested in 10/11.If the sum of these 3 figures is less than £25m,then that figure couldn't have been invested by early Feb.If,on the other hand,the total is equal to or greater than £25m,then what was said is plausible.

Please don't patronise me. The fact of the matter (despite the fact you won't admit it) is that you can't exactly prove or disprove the amount put into the club at certain points in time (especially as you do not know the amount of directors/investors loans). If you think you can, instead of speculating on here why not challenge them with your findings?

I think it is becoming more and more evident that you have a vendetta against the current administration and spend a lot of time trying to discredit what they say.

[ramblur]

Please don't patronise me. The fact of the matter (despite the fact you won't admit it) is that you can't exactly prove or disprove the amount put into the club at certain points in time (especially as you do not know the amount of directors/investors loans). If you think you can, instead of speculating on here why not challenge them with your findings?

I think it is becoming more and more evident that you have a vendetta against the current administration and spend a lot of time trying to discredit what they say.

The first point I'd make is that I listed the investment to date shown in black and white for the benefit of all.Some posters have previously said that they didn't believe our owners had put in anything over and above acquisition -my figures disprove this.My very first post on this thread stated that I thought the increased investment reflected credit on our owners.I've also repeatedly challenged those who claimed that GSE were taking out sums from the club that such posters couldn't substantiate.

Regarding your final paragraph,I've learnt to take very little notice of what you think,and that paragraph is no exception.

I've no intention of doing anything at your behest.My listing of amounts invested was the end of my analysis as far as I was concerned.You were the one who resurrected the matter of the £25m.

As can be seen from the latest accounts,investor loans are indicated,which happens to be the reason why we know about the £1.7m (and accrued interest) loan from GSE,so I stand by my points 100%.

[RAM1966]

I think the important issues here are what the club is currently in debt and how much they are willing to put up for transfers in the summer.

The current debt sits at £15M which is due repayment in the next few years as it an intrest loan only over a 5 year period. Secondly if the last 2 years set of accounts show that the club has a trading loss of £17M over this period which mean additional investment has been required over the current boards tenure.

The Board see DCFC as an investment opportunity and will want to claw this money back. I am also lead to believe that a further £7M has been pumped into the club this financial year already.

What concerns me is that this board will want all of that money back soonest. So how are they going to balance the books are invest in the team next year?

[Guest]

The first point I'd make is that I listed the investment to date shown in black and white for the benefit of all.Some posters have previously said that they didn't believe our owners had put in anything over and above acquisition -my figures disprove this.My very first post on this thread stated that I thought the increased investment reflected credit on our owners.I've also repeatedly challenged those who claimed that GSE were taking out sums from the club that such posters couldn't substantiate.

Regarding your final paragraph,I've learnt to take very little notice of what you think,and that paragraph is no exception.

I've no intention of doing anything at your behest.My listing of amounts invested was the end of my analysis as far as I was concerned.You were the one who resurrected the matter of the £25m.

As can be seen from the latest accounts,investor loans are indicated,which happens to be the reason why we know about the £1.7m (and accrued interest) loan from GSE,so I stand by my points 100%.

Directors loans? TG stated that he has put money in personally.

[ramblur]

I think the important issues here are what the club is currently in debt and how much they are willing to put up for transfers in the summer.

The current debt sits at £15M which is due repayment in the next few years as it an intrest loan only over a 5 year period. Secondly if the last 2 years set of accounts show that the club has a trading loss of £17M over this period which mean additional investment has been required over the current boards tenure.

The Board see DCFC as an investment opportunity and will want to claw this money back. I am also lead to believe that a further £7M has been pumped into the club this financial year already.

What concerns me is that this board will want all of that money back soonest. So how are they going to balance the books are invest in the team next year?

It all comes down to whether they consider the investment of £x in players will generate additional income (increased gates etc) over the term of the players' contracts to justify such investment-there may also be bonuses if a player/players bought increase in value.Also,if the team performs better as a result of the new recruits,then the value of pre existing players may also appreciate,as any player playing with confidence appears to be more valuable than that same player performing without self belief.

Any investment is a gamble (otherwise we'd all be billionaires),but failure to invest can also be dangerous.Willie Carlin repaid the investment in him many times over,conversely Clod was a disaster in both capital (asset value) and revenue (wages/contract buy out) terms.

[ramblur]

Directors loans? TG stated that he has put money in personally.

Why does that make it a director's loan?

[RAM1966]

It all comes down to whether they consider the investment of £x in players will generate additional income (increased gates etc) over the term of the players' contracts to justify such investment-there may also be bonuses if a player/players bought increase in value.Also,if the team performs better as a result of the new recruits,then the value of pre existing players may also appreciate,as any player playing with confidence appears to be more valuable than that same player performing without self belief.

Any investment is a gamble (otherwise we'd all be billionaires),but failure to invest can also be dangerous.Willie Carlin repaid the investment in him many times over,conversely Clod was a disaster in both capital (asset value) and revenue (wages/contract buy out) terms.

Great post, well if we believe Glick and Co, they will be investing in DCFC this summer. Money back guaruntee is not to be sniffed at, however, if they are bullshiting the know that the majority of fans wouldn't ask for a refund. A clever bit of marketing if you ask me!

[CornwallRam]

What I don't understand is why are the investors bothering?

They appear to be having to fork out c£8m a year just to keep things ticking over. They seem to have chosen to limit their investment to a level that will not allow the squad to be developed. That seems the worst possible strategy and one that will, an seemingly has, created a small money pit and an uncompetitive team. From an investor's point of view, having to continually put in extra funds with virtually no chance of getting a return, which would presumably only come with promotion, seems a bit insane. With the new parachute payments coming in next season, buliding a competitive team looks likely to get even more expensive in the future too.

So why didn't they sell to Gadsby? Even if it represented a small loss at least it would prevent them losing any more money.

Another possible option, if you are an investor rather than a fan, would be to get the club to take on debt to cover the annual shortfall, whilst hoping the manager can pull off a promotion miracle. It would stop an investor having to keep throwing good money after bad. OK, failure to get promoted would eventually lead to administration, but you might think better to lose c£41m in three years time than c£65m.

It seems to me the option most likely to produce a return is to put £13m in for the next two seasons, £8m to keep things going and £5m to build the squad. That way you would expect to be in with a good shout at promotion, but even without, the playing staff ought to have a much higher residual value and you could expect decent season ticket sales. That should produce a club that was much more sellable than where we are today. At that point as an investor I would just try to sell to the highest bidder.

[Guest]

Why does that make it a director's loan?

What else would it make it?

[Ramms]

A purchase of shares?

I believe that prior to Adam Pearson leaving the club, Tom Glick was not a shareholder in the club

[ramblur]

What else would it make it?

Investment within General Sports Derby Partners LLC (where the rest of the investors reside),either as an original or subsequent investor.There are several groupings he could appear in,such as GS Capital,GS Soccer Partners,GSE-DCFC,GSE,GS Partners.

[ramblur]

A purchase of shares?

I believe that prior to Adam Pearson leaving the club, Tom Glick was not a shareholder in the club

Was the last part ever stated definitively Ramms?You're quite right about the purchase of shares subsequently-several options there:-

Buy out another investor/buy some of AP's holding/buy some of MICG's forfeited stock(if the forfeiture was enforced).

[Ramms]

Was the last part ever stated definitively Ramms?You're quite right about the purchase of shares subsequently-several options there:-

Buy out another investor/buy some of AP's holding/buy some of MICG's forfeited stock(if the forfeiture was enforced).

I don't have anything concrete but in questioning in the past Andy Appleby as always been quick in confirming he was one of the investors, yet Glick never mentioned this until his recent comment that he had put some money into the "club"

[ramblur]

What I don't understand is why are the investors bothering?

They appear to be having to fork out c£8m a year just to keep things ticking over. They seem to have chosen to limit their investment to a level that will not allow the squad to be developed. That seems the worst possible strategy and one that will, an seemingly has, created a small money pit and an uncompetitive team. From an investor's point of view, having to continually put in extra funds with virtually no chance of getting a return, which would presumably only come with promotion, seems a bit insane. With the new parachute payments coming in next season, buliding a competitive team looks likely to get even more expensive in the future too.

So why didn't they sell to Gadsby? Even if it represented a small loss at least it would prevent them losing any more money.

Another possible option, if you are an investor rather than a fan, would be to get the club to take on debt to cover the annual shortfall, whilst hoping the manager can pull off a promotion miracle. It would stop an investor having to keep throwing good money after bad. OK, failure to get promoted would eventually lead to administration, but you might think better to lose c£41m in three years time than c£65m.

It seems to me the option most likely to produce a return is to put £13m in for the next two seasons, £8m to keep things going and £5m to build the squad. That way you would expect to be in with a good shout at promotion, but even without, the playing staff ought to have a much higher residual value and you could expect decent season ticket sales. That should produce a club that was much more sellable than where we are today. At that point as an investor I would just try to sell to the highest bidder.

I doubt they'll have to cover shortfalls now,Cornwall.If it's true that they're trying to get the total wage bill down to £10m,then that leaves £8m to cover other costs.I doubt any other club in our league would be in anything approaching that position.I strongly suspect they're still trying to be totally self sustaining-incoming transfers covered by outgoing ones+cash surplus from operations(after paying loan interest).

I find the whole process fascinating from a financial viewpoint,but intensely frustrating as a fan.

[ramblur]

I don't have anything concrete but in questioning in the past Andy Appleby as always been quick in confirming he was one of the investors, yet Glick never mentioned this until his recent comment that he had put some money into the "club"

To be fair,I've never heard anyone ask him in the past-he only volunteered the info this time because he was asked a direct question.