ramblur Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 Just got in and only had a quick look so far,but I have to say the accounts appear to reflect quite well on the owners.I'll try to take you through a process which may help most to get some understanding of how the accounts work (you can repeat the process for any year's accounts. The operating loss for the year was £44k (on turnover of £29.754m).After this,interest payable for the year was £773k and (book) loss on sale of players was £1.373m,both of which increase this loss.Interest receivable was £26k and all of this combined led to the headline overall loss of £2.164m. To see how the operating loss converted in cash terms (we'll later see what interest and player sales meant in cash terms) you need to go right down to Note 21:-'Reconciliation of operating result to net cash inflow from operating activities ' This always starts with the operating loss (not overall loss)-in this case £44k,and after adjusting for non cash items within the loss figure,it turns out that operations actually threw up a cash surplus of £1.437m.I'll explain why all the adjustments are done sometime. The next step is to go to the cash flow statement (just after the balance sheet)-this always starts with the operating cash surplus/deficit figure-in this case £1.437m.You then get details of interest received,£26k,and interest paid of £1.373m (net £1.347m).This reduces cash down to £0.09m (deducting from the first figure).We've now dealt with the revenue (operations and net debt charges) side of things and go onto the capital side.Items of note include payments to acquire players' registrations of £4.467m and receipts for disposals of £1.483m.New secured loans came in at £4.746m (of which nearly £3m was secured against future revenue streams,and deduction tells me that the other £1.7m probably relates to loan capital from investors-though I'll have to confirm this later).Secured loans of £9.995m were repaid.New share capital of £6.624m was introduced (to add to the £7.74m from the previous year),thus now giving a total of share capital introduced of £14.364m.As a result of all the cash transactions (capital and revenue),cash decreased overall by £2.047m over the year. The journey we've just undertaken shows what operating cash was thrown up,how it was affected by net debt charges and what was then added to this (and how it was spent). The reason credit should be given to our owners is that as well as the £14.364m of new capital I've indicated,the directors' report states that a further £5.6m was injected after the year end,giving a new running total of £19.964m and there is a further £1.7m of loan capital mentioned in the report for the current year.This gives a new total of £21.664m-I'll have to see the General Sports Derby (UK) accounts to get an angle on this loan capital.My first thoughts are that a $5.9m investor loan to GS Derby funded this loan and a payment to secure AP's shares,but don't take this as gospel. I'm starving so will take a time out and give some more details later.A brief flick through the thread shows that various figures already stated (wages etc) appear accurately represented.I can confirm that directors' emoluments form part of total wages. I haven't checked my figures-will do so later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Day Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 Not sure I understood any of that, just to keep things nice and simple...can we afford Messi in he summer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorfolkRam Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 Ramblur happy, so I'm happy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davenportram Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 Hey Ramblur, did you find the info to back up what you were told by the club when you emailed them? And who the he'll did we pay a combined £4.6m for? Doesn't that figure show a net spend of £3m when comparing payments to acquire registrations compared to receipts for off loading. I know these figures are distorted by transfers being paid in installments and the like but it shows that comparing fees from the media don't always show the net spend year on year for transfer activity, doesn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorfolkRam Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 Hey Ramblur, did you find the info to back up what you were told by the club when you emailed them? I was thinking the same Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 Hey Ramblur, did you find the info to back up what you were told by the club when you emailed them? And who the he'll did we pay a combined £4.6m for? Doesn't that figure show a net spend of £3m when comparing payments to acquire registrations compared to receipts for off loading. I know these figures are distorted by transfers being paid in installments and the like but it shows that comparing fees from the media don't always show the net spend year on year for transfer activity, doesn't it? Yes,I'm happy with what I was told,though we can't yet vouch this £24m-the directors' report can reflect events up to quite recent times and yet it only comes up with another £5.6m of investment-not enough to get past the line.I must admit I'd been sceptical about certain claims,but (understandably) I was going on previous claims that the debt was down to the mortgage.I couldn't understand why there should be a large capital injection in this year,but now we know a large wedge of S/T income was used to pay unknown debt,this obviously had to be replaced by new capital otherwise we'd have been in the mire. I've just noticed that this £152,013 of loan interest was due to General Sports and Entertainment LLC,which,unless it's a misprint,isn't the parent company.Put on hold my prior comments about the $5.9m loan-I need to do some serious snuffling when the GS Derby (UK) accounts are published.Unfortunately,it's impossible to snuffle anything ending in 'LLC' however (much to my intense frustration). New player additions came in at a total of £2.952m with add ons.You have to be a bit careful with this-Bailey/Brayford may have sneaked in as you have to realise an accounting period doesn't coincide with a football season. That loan interest looks a bit juicy if it's based on £1.7m -it may even represent less than a full year.Contrast this with Gadsby's £1m loan at £1k interest. I'm going to reel off some more figures-apologies if they repeat what's already been said Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davenportram Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 General Sports and Entertainment have a credit providing section, could this be where the loan came from? I think Brayford and Bailey will have snook into the period in Question, they join in mid may. But the initial payment was said to be very low so it's still hard to see who the money paid on new acquisitions was for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 Previous year's figures given in brackets. Turnover:- Match receipts £6.319m (£8.226m) Sponsorship/Advertise £2.252m (£2.370m) TV Receipts £15.984m (£14.848m) Commercial £2.915m (£3.364m) Programme sales etc £227k (£141k) Merchandising £1.578m (£1.703m) Other receipts £479k (£560k) Totals:- £29.754m (£31.252m) Cup income in previous year accounts for much of this reduction in match receipts (but note how tv income rose in spite of it-solidarity payment!) Total wages £16.41m (£22.08m) Players wages £10.5m (£15.5m) Supplied by club Directors' emoluments £424k (£747k) (Glick) £326,444 (£387,407) Included in above Directors' emoluments are included in total wages. Interest payable £773k (£1.941m) Net debt £19.129m (£22.332m) GSE management fee £189,124 (£375,000) Finally ,cash at bank at year end £1.178m (£3.225m) If you deduct one from the other,you get the £2.047m reduction shown as the last figure in the cash flow statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 General Sports and Entertainment have a credit providing section, could this be where the loan came from? I think Brayford and Bailey will have snook into the period in Question, they join in mid may. But the initial payment was said to be very low so it's still hard to see who the money paid on new acquisitions was for. Possibly. Wonder if Martin also got in there.I'm also wondering if Hendrie was brought in at a certain exchange value and the other fella (thankfully forgotten his name) was also treated as a disposal-this seems a likely explanation,otherwise I'm stumped.Can only think of Barker,Moxey,Buxton,Pringle + all the agents' fees etc.Even re-signed players will probably involve agents' fees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 Not sure I understood any of that, just to keep things nice and simple...can we afford Messi in he summer? Doubt it:D Danny Graham would get me excited-think he's the best striker in the division. What a lot of people don't realise is that the P/L statement is prepared on an income and expenditure basis, as opposed to receipts and payments.This means that it reflects what was due,as opposed to what was actually paid/received. For example,say the electricity bill for the year was £100k.If you owed the electricity board £15k at the year end ,then you'd have actually paid £85k.However,if you'd also owed £5k at the beginning of the year,you'd have paid £90k.That's one of the reasons why the profit/loss figure has to be adjusted to get the cash equivalent. Take advance season ticket sales-we'll get cash this year that relates to next season,and by the same token we'd have got cash last year that related to this year-so there's another adjustment to be done,as match receipts reflect what was due to that year,as opposed to what was actually received. In answer to your question,a snapshot taken 9 months ago doesn't tell us much about what we've now got to spend.Much depends on whether the owners will stump up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 Possibly. Wonder if Martin also got in there.I'm also wondering if Hendrie was brought in at a certain exchange value and the other fella (thankfully forgotten his name) was also treated as a disposal-this seems a likely explanation,otherwise I'm stumped.Can only think of Barker,Moxey,Buxton,Pringle + all the agents' fees etc.Even re-signed players will probably involve agents' fees. Scrub the bit about Hendrie-fatigue setting in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derby_Dave Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 Scrub the bit about Hendrie-fatigue setting in. Good god my brain is tired reading this. Jordan Stewart is the player you struggled to name although you have stated this is now irrelavent. Tis the only thing I can contribute atm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 Good god my brain is tired reading this. Jordan Stewart is the player you struggled to name although you have stated this is now irrelavent. Tis the only thing I can contribute atm. If it's any consolation,my brain's tired as well,and off to kip;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uttoxram75 Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 If it's any consolation,my brain's tired as well,and off to kip;) Lightweight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gritty Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 Haven't posted on here much but was hithergreenram on the DET site It seems to me from Ramblur's analysis that the Board have actually been investing a lot each year; it's just that up to now their investment has been on paying off debts (reducing the amount of debt and interest payments we pay in future years) and covering our losses every year. As I understand it, they have now got the club's financial situation (almost) sorted and so, as they don't need to cover (large) losses each year, and as our debt and interest payments are lower, they are now able to use their yearly investment on the team rather than on covering losses? Seems to me that if this is the case, the pain of recent years has been tough but worth it if we are now able to use the owners investment on the team rather than paying back banks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derby_Dave Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 Haven't posted on here much but was hithergreenram on the DET site It seems to me from Ramblur's analysis that the Board have actually been investing a lot each year; it's just that up to now their investment has been on paying off debts (reducing the amount of debt and interest payments we pay in future years) and covering our losses every year. As I understand it, they have now got the club's financial situation (almost) sorted and so, as they don't need to cover (large) losses each year, and as our debt and interest payments are lower, they are now able to use their yearly investment on the team rather than on covering losses? Seems to me that if this is the case, the pain of recent years has been tough but worth it if we are now able to use the owners investment on the team rather than paying back banks Time will tell. I hope you are right but remain sceptical. Maybe that is just not wanting to be dissapointed again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 Time will tell. I hope you are right but remain sceptical. Maybe that is just not wanting to be dissapointed again. Know what you mean.I've just noticed something-I'm sure Glick said S/T revenues were used to clear about £4m of debt after the financial year end.Problem is,the bulk of S/T receipts come before 30 June via earlybird renewals and cash at bank as at 30/6/10 is shown as a very low £1.178m. Discharges are shown at Companies House in July 2010 and I remember saying at the time that this didn't seem to square up with debts reported to be only the mortgage some months earlier (and indeed in 2009).Still,looking on the bright side,the debts now seem to have been removed(other than mortgage),however it was done. Just noticed an error in my first post-where I said that loan capital of £1.7m was indicated as being introduced in the current year,I should have said introduced in the year currently under review (09/10). In a follow up post on turnover,I remarked that tv income from 09/10 was higher than 08/09 in spite of the cup runs in the latter year.I suggested it was down to the solidarity payment,but this didn't come in till 10/11.More likely to be down to the Beeb becoming involved in screening Championship games and bringing more revenues to the clubs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davenportram Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 Just a thought on season ticket money coming in by June 30th. If you pay by installments some of it is paid after 30th June. In the case of 4 monthly installments at least a quarter of it is paid in July A higher proportion for the twelve month plan is received after the end of June. I noticed there was interest received by the club, I assume this was from the finance given for season tickets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ariotofmyown Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 Know what you mean.I've just noticed something-I'm sure Glick said S/T revenues were used to clear about £4m of debt after the financial year end.Problem is,the bulk of S/T receipts come before 30 June via earlybird renewals and cash at bank as at 30/6/10 is shown as a very low £1.178m. Discharges are shown at Companies House in July 2010 and I remember saying at the time that this didn't seem to square up with debts reported to be only the mortgage some months earlier (and indeed in 2009).Still,looking on the bright side,the debts now seem to have been removed(other than mortgage),however it was done. Just noticed an error in my first post-where I said that loan capital of £1.7m was indicated as being introduced in the current year,I should have said introduced in the year currently under review (09/10). In a follow up post on turnover,I remarked that tv income from 09/10 was higher than 08/09 in spite of the cup runs in the latter year.I suggested it was down to the solidarity payment,but this didn't come in till 10/11.More likely to be down to the Beeb becoming involved in screening Championship games and bringing more revenues to the clubs. Great stuff Ramblur looking into all this. And it seems like good news too. Been a good week off the field for the Rams. Let's just hope we don't get relegated now! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 Just a thought on season ticket money coming in by June 30th. If you pay by installments some of it is paid after 30th June. In the case of 4 monthly installments at least a quarter of it is paid in July A higher proportion for the twelve month plan is received after the end of June. I noticed there was interest received by the club, I assume this was from the finance given for season tickets. I did think of instalments,but discounted it on the grounds that total S/T revenues wouldn't be much more than £5m and a lot would come up front.Anyway,I'm growing weary of trying to reconcile statements to facts so,what the hell,if it's paid it's paid. Interest is likely to relate to cash balances held,which can be substantial at times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.