Rams post latest accounts

[Boycie]

Bad veg?

dig em in.

[RotherhamRam]

I love it when two accountants start arguing over maths and figures its like handbags at dawn. Can I ask normal regular fan does anyone have a clue what they are on about as I tend to be lost after the first sentence LOL:confused::D

[Boycie]

You say 2 accountants.

I say 1 accountant, and an undercover gardener.

[uttoxram75]

You say 2 accountants.

I say 1 accountant, and a undercover gardener.

i thought you said an uphill gardener for a second there:eek::eek::eek:

[Boycie]

i thought you said an uphill gardener for a second there:eek::eek::eek:

I couldn't comment.

But when he say's turnover........:eek:

[PeteDerby]

I'm always a little doubtful when new posters appear trying to big up the level of GSE investment. Not saying the chap isn't genuine, but over-inflating the net investments of GSE and then under valuing the amount Gadsby and the rest of the LOG put in causes me to wonder...

[Boycie]

I'm always a little doubtful when new posters appear trying to big up the level of GSE investment. Not saying the chap isn't genuine, but over-inflating the net investments of GSE and then under valuing the amount Gadsby and the rest of the LOG put in causes me to wonder...

strange isn't it?

He says he's not coming back?

(under that name)

[ramblur]

I'm always a little doubtful when new posters appear trying to big up the level of GSE investment. Not saying the chap isn't genuine, but over-inflating the net investments of GSE and then under valuing the amount Gadsby and the rest of the LOG put in causes me to wonder...

T be fair,Pete,the LOG did put in the amount he stated,according to the accounts.

[PeteDerby]

T be fair,Pete,the LOG did put in the amount he stated,according to the accounts.

Really? In net terms including purchase, or post acquisition?

I thought the word at the time was that each of the LOG had stumped up £5million each?

[ramblur]

Really? In net terms including purchase, or post acquisition?

I thought the word at the time was that each of the LOG had stumped up £5million each?

Having looked at this again,and viewed transactions prior to 30/6/07,it appears that they acquired inter company debt of £26.35m (in other words they owned the debt due from DCFC,but also owned the debt due to them).They actually bought the club for £2,and with associated legal etc costs this figure rose to £106k.This inherited debt was supplemented by an additional loan to the club of £5.15m,apparently including a £1m director's loan from Gadsby.If you add this to the inherited debt of £26.35m,we get £31.5m in total and this is probably where the £5m each comes from.The point is,however,that only £5.15m of this appears to be new cash.

£24.6m of this inter group debt was subsequently waived-all this effectively did was cancel a debt owing by an entity that they owned,and an equal debt due to an entity that they owned.When GSE gained control,they eventually carried out a similar waiver of inter group debt of just under £9m.

Following the £3m rights issue,the cash put in rose to £7.15m (not the £9m I'd originally assumed,as I hadn't realised at the time that the original inter group debt inherited was actually a bit more than was subsequently waived).The reason it's £7.15m and not £8.15m is that £1m of the rights issue repaid the Gadsby loan.

Looking at it logically,if they'd each put in £5m cash at the outset,the amount received on takeover would have represented a thumping loss!

[Guest]

Having looked at this again,and viewed transactions prior to 30/6/07,it appears that they acquired inter company debt of £26.35m (in other words they owned the debt due from DCFC,but also owned the debt due to them).They actually bought the club for £2,and with associated legal etc costs this figure rose to £106k.This inherited debt was supplemented by an additional loan to the club of £5.15m,apparently including a £1m director's loan from Gadsby.If you add this to the inherited debt of £26.35m,we get £31.5m in total and this is probably where the £5m each comes from.The point is,however,that only £5.15m of this appears to be new cash.

£24.6m of this inter group debt was subsequently waived-all this effectively did was cancel a debt owing by an entity that they owned,and an equal debt due to an entity that they owned.When GSE gained control,they eventually carried out a similar waiver of inter group debt of just under £9m.

Following the £3m rights issue,the cash put in rose to £7.15m (not the £9m I'd originally assumed,as I hadn't realised at the time that the original inter group debt inherited was actually a bit more than was subsequently waived).The reason it's £7.15m and not £8.15m is that £1m of the rights issue repaid the Gadsby loan.

Looking at it logically,if they'd each put in £5m cash at the outset,the amount received on takeover would have represented a thumping loss!

Very interesting, have never looked this far back. I also thought the 5 directors had pumped £5million cash in each and I don't think they ever said anything to make it clear this was not the case.

Pete maybe you could get on the case and ask them where the missing £17.85million is?

[PeteDerby]

Very interesting, have never looked this far back. I also thought the 5 directors had pumped £5million cash in each and I don't think they ever said anything to make it clear this was not the case.

Pete maybe you could get on the case and ask them where the missing £17.85million is?

That's a worthwhile bit of sarcasm, G-star - I'm soooo glad you popped by to make that wonderful contribution. You go back to your nursery and leave this part of the debate to bigger boys.

Ramblur, is it fair to say that whether it's hard cash introduced, or taking on the club's liabilities as directors, the effect in terms of creating a solvent business from an insolvent business is the same, in that the club was then able to meet its liabilities at the point they fell due?

Furthermore, whether it be by writing a cheque or getting creditors to write off debt, the effect is exactly the same in terms reducing the club's indebtedness (not referring to the deferred element here, although that again contributed to the solvency as it was deferred until such point that the club achieved the £50m+ windfall of promotion).

Which leads to the final bit in terms of LOG net contribution. Irrespective of how much they actually put in to buy players, is it again fair to say that they put in enough to get the club promoted (QED) and any increase in liabilities from player purchases beyond promotion was more than covered by the pay-back of promotion itself?

GSE, on the other hand, chose to reduce debts rather than invest in the team. My understanding was that this was indeed a choice, not something driven by financial need in the form of creditors demands?

In making that choice, in using player sales, parachute payments and loans to reduce debt, am I right in saying that, thus far, the net GSE contribution has created more value for the investors, but provided a torrid experience for the paying customer?

[ramblur]

That's a worthwhile bit of sarcasm, G-star - I'm soooo glad you popped by to make that wonderful contribution. You go back to your nursery and leave this part of the debate to bigger boys.

Ramblur, is it fair to say that whether it's hard cash introduced, or taking on the club's liabilities as directors, the effect in terms of creating a solvent business from an insolvent business is the same, in that the club was then able to meet its liabilities at the point they fell due?

Furthermore, whether it be by writing a cheque or getting creditors to write off debt, the effect is exactly the same in terms reducing the club's indebtedness (not referring to the deferred element here, although that again contributed to the solvency as it was deferred until such point that the club achieved the £50m+ windfall of promotion).

Which leads to the final bit in terms of LOG net contribution. Irrespective of how much they actually put in to buy players, is it again fair to say that they put in enough to get the club promoted (QED) and any increase in liabilities from player purchases beyond promotion was more than covered by the pay-back of promotion itself?

GSE, on the other hand, chose to reduce debts rather than invest in the team. My understanding was that this was indeed a choice, not something driven by financial need in the form of creditors demands?

In making that choice, in using player sales, parachute payments and loans to reduce debt, am I right in saying that, thus far, the net GSE contribution has created more value for the investors, but provided a torrid experience for the paying customer?

I'd broadly agree with your comments on the LOG,Pete.They got the job done irrespective of how much they put in.I must admit,I've never seen a reference to them saying they were each going to put in £5m cash,which is why your comment surprised me.At least it enabled me to go digging and correct the £9m figure-I'm only interested in accuracy,no matter which regime we talk about.For the benefit of the previous poster,I think (though I may be wrong) that there were 6 investors:-Gadsby/Kirkland/Horton/Amott/Marples/Morris.

Your comment on GSE creating investor value is also interesting.The fair value of net DCFC assets they inherited is shown as £34.434m,yet the net asset value at 30/6/10 is stated at £28.680m,in spite of the millions they've poured in.Gross debt at this date is stated at £20.307m:-

£15.524m Mortgage etc,£4.763m Other loans (c£3m revolving loan+c£1.7m GSE loan),£20k HP.I know we're told that 10/11 S/T income was used to pay off £4m+ of debt,but did loan/s then start to 'revolve' again?Unfortunately,it's seldom the case that the rolling loan gathers no interest.

Personally,I put a lot of our woes down to the Jan 08 madness and I think it's here that our new owners' inexperience proved costly.Whilst you could point the finger at AP/Jewell for the subsequent poor transfer deals,AP claimed that Jewell didn't want to spend in Jan and that the new owners wanted to make an impression (in spite of Brett Wilson saying that they were nearly 100% sure they would be relegated).How Nigel would have liked to have had the money squandered in Jan 08 at his disposal now!

[PeteDerby]

Thanks mate - your understanding of these things and willingness to dig for detail goes along way to dispelling some of the myths. I don't know where the £5million each came from? Maybe their share of the liabilities before they were negotiated down was the basis.

The point I was making was that sometimes, though, the detail masks the bigger picture. Timely investment, like timely intervention, can have a greater impact than a higher belated contribution. A stitch in time and all that.

Of course, it's where we go from here is the only thing that matters really. If GSE back Clough this summer then I don't give a toss that it's three or four windows late!

[Guest]

That's a worthwhile bit of sarcasm, G-star - I'm soooo glad you popped by to make that wonderful contribution. You go back to your nursery and leave this part of the debate to bigger boys.

Ramblur, is it fair to say that whether it's hard cash introduced, or taking on the club's liabilities as directors, the effect in terms of creating a solvent business from an insolvent business is the same, in that the club was then able to meet its liabilities at the point they fell due?

Furthermore, whether it be by writing a cheque or getting creditors to write off debt, the effect is exactly the same in terms reducing the club's indebtedness (not referring to the deferred element here, although that again contributed to the solvency as it was deferred until such point that the club achieved the £50m+ windfall of promotion).

Which leads to the final bit in terms of LOG net contribution. Irrespective of how much they actually put in to buy players, is it again fair to say that they put in enough to get the club promoted (QED) and any increase in liabilities from player purchases beyond promotion was more than covered by the pay-back of promotion itself?

GSE, on the other hand, chose to reduce debts rather than invest in the team. My understanding was that this was indeed a choice, not something driven by financial need in the form of creditors demands?

In making that choice, in using player sales, parachute payments and loans to reduce debt, am I right in saying that, thus far, the net GSE contribution has created more value for the investors, but provided a torrid experience for the paying customer?

Thought you might want to brush this under the carpet! Where is the £25million the PROMISED us? Perhaps PG wants to buy us back so he can put the rest of the money in this time around.

As far as debating goes you don't know the meaning of the word.

And as for being a big boy, you talk a good game but your opinion is no more valuable than anyone elses I'm afraid, depsite what you may think.

[GboroRam]

Now now, children - be nice. I'm on my phone - do you know how tiresome it is handing out infractions on Opera mobile? Bloody tiresome, that's how tiresome.

Do me a favour and behave please.

Love and kisses, Gboro. mwah.

[PeteDerby]

Now now, children - be nice. I'm on my phone - do you know how tiresome it is handing out infractions on Opera mobile? Bloody tiresome, that's how tiresome.

Do me a favour and behave please.

Love and kisses, Gboro. mwah.

Absolutely, Gboro. You tell 'im.

Sounds like he's having a tantrum to me. Cry in a minute, he's gonna cry in a minute.,,,,,,

Come G-star. Cheer up me owd.

[Guest]

Absolutely, Gboro. You tell 'im.

Sounds like he's having a tantrum to me. Cry in a minute, he's gonna cry in a minute.,,,,,,

Come G-star. Cheer up me owd.

£17.85million.

In the words of Delia....WHERE IS IT? LETS BE AVIN IT.

On a serious note though how do you see this as being any different to the GSE situation?

You and I both know the media was led to believe that £25 million was the figure that was put in by the directors.

I assume on the back of this revelation you would no longer want PG back based on previous false promises?

[ramblur]

I don't know where the £5million each came from? Maybe their share of the liabilities before they were negotiated down was the basis.

After much delving,I think I may have come up with the source of this:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/derby/content/articles/2006/04/28/derby_county_takeover_2006_feature.shtml

"Each director had made an equal investment and commitment-a total of £25 million".

...which isn't the same as £25m cash upfront.The commitments may well refer to an agreed schedule of capital calls to meet debt repayments as due and team strengthening as necessary.I note the statement that debt wasn't to be serviced from S/T income-if operating cash wasn't to be used,then it seems obvious the intention was to repay the debt from new capital and leave operating cash to meet operating expenses.

To those who might ask why they didn't just clear the debt at the outset,then it's not so easy to just come up with a vast lump sum in one go.Far easier to share the load between 6 over a period of time.

[Guest]

After much delving,I think I may have come up with the source of this:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/derby/content/articles/2006/04/28/derby_county_takeover_2006_feature.shtml

"Each director had made an equal investment and commitment-a total of £25 million".

...which isn't the same as £25m cash upfront.The commitments may well refer to an agreed schedule of capital calls to meet debt repayments as due and team strengthening as necessary.I note the statement that debt wasn't to be serviced from S/T income-if operating cash wasn't to be used,then it seems obvious the intention was to repay the debt from new capital and leave operating cash to meet operating expenses.

To those who might ask why they didn't just clear the debt at the outset,then it's not so easy to just come up with a vast lump sum in one go.Far easier to share the load between 6 over a period of time.

'He said the board - which includes a woman for the first time - has invested a total of 25 million pounds, shared equally.'

Easy to see how figures quoted in the media can be misconstrued. That is why I have never bought into the board promised us £50million argument.