Rams post latest accounts

[Guest]

Well the home team get all of the receipts from tickets for away teams, if that is what you mean.

The exception to this is cup games where the revenues after expenses are shared equally (less a %age to the competition organisers). The club will only report on the money that they have received so the match receipts will include any income from away cup games - hence why in the previous year the figure was over £1m more as we had the 3 Man U games & the 2 FA cup games v Forest.

Are there no commissions paid to away teams for selling the tickets?

What are prices like for away fans?

Is there any split for our average crowd between home and away fans?

I guess this won't make much difference but just interested in the facts.

[Ramms]

Are there no commissions paid to away teams for selling the tickets?Not as far as I'm aware. In fact the clubs get so many on a sale or return basis, then if they want an additional allocation they have to guarantee to sell so many.

What are prices like for away fans? They are charged the same as home fans for a similar view - this may be part of the reason the club did their recategorisation of band D tickets as I believe the NorthStand was previously band D, and the view of North Stand & South Stand are considered the same.

Is there any split for our average crowd between home and away fans? I think these are on the official website

I guess this won't make much difference but just interested in the facts.

See above

[Guest]

See above

Thank you for that. One of the reasons I asked is because I have noticed at various grounds that you actually have to pay more for pay on the gate tickets and wondered wht we don't sell more like that.

[Ramms]

Away followings are here

http://www.dcfc.co.uk/page/AwayFollowings/0,,10270,00.html

[davenportram]

When you have worked out these guesses have you taken into account that the match receipts are net of VAT? So if for example the club actually received £6m the actual amount paid out by fans would be £7.05m (based on 17.5% vat)

Actually they are not guess work, I based them on the figures calculated by Rammieb, as 10.40 per ticket which gives revenue of 6.458m (23 games and average attendance of 27000)

6.458m divided by 23 divided by 25500= £11.01

Which gives average ticket price with average attendance of 27000 of which 1500 are freebies.

6.458m divided by 23 divided by 23500 = £11.94

Which gives average ticket price with average attendance of 27000 of which 3500are freebies.

I just forgot about VAT and used the same calculation as the poster who originally asked the question regarding average ticket price.

Using the average the average price if £10.40 calculated by another user,for average attendance of 27000. Taking into account VAT this becomes £12.22 (10.40*1.175)

Having checked Ramblur's earlier post actual revenue was £6.319m=7.424m taking into account VAT

This gives an average ticket price of

7424000/(23*27000)=£11.95

Instead if being sarcastic and calling other peoples calculations guesswork ask how they have been calculated. And show how they should be calculated to give the correct answer.

[ramblur]

Ramblur, if you had to sum these accounts up in one sentence what would you say?

Encouraging that they indicate a further £5.6m of investment in the following year (allied to the £1.7m loan capital in the year in question),but disappointing in the revelation that £4m+ of debt on top of the mortgage was repaid in the following year,which (ultimately) takes a big bite out of the investment.

NB I'm not saying the mortgage was repaid-possibly badly worded.

[davenportram]

Actual average attendance was just over 29000 and total home games was 26think (3 home FACup ties.)

Discounting the FA cup games, and their revenue then the average ticket price for League games will be less than that calculated above.

Because revenue from league games us less than total revenue, and the average League attendance is higher than 27000.

[Ramms]

Davenport, chill out fella - I wasn't being sarcastic and whilst you may not have been guessing at figures they are guesswork because during that season we also had around 5 cup games to take into account so it's not as easy as just taking the figures and dividing by 23 home games.

Nobody outside the club knows how many freebies are given but some people get hung up on it ( particularly Forest fans on the wind up over the mobile phone deal) also we don't know if the "cost" of the mobile phone tickets are included in match receipts or sponsorship.

Edit - you've just pointed out the cup games etc as I was composing a reply

[davenportram]

No worries, I'm a bit grumpy due to being on an early this morning and losing an hours sleep.

[ramblur]

Without seeing accounts can't really say anything but from what I have read it looks like we are on a sounds financial footing.

External debt reduction complete I would imagine as there is no point in paying off mortgage due to favourable interest rate.

Profit or loss situation is pretty irrelevant from our point of view, more important whether we are generating cash or not.

Only thing which sounds puzzling was that we spent more on buying players than we got income for selling players.

As I said not seen accounts so just going from what I have heard or seen, sure if I am wrong someone will put me right.

Mainly due to timings of acquisitions.The value of acquisitions in the period covered was as follows:-

Registration fees £2.408m +levies/agents' fees etc £544k =£2.952m total

This can be checked another way.£4.467m was paid during the year on acquisitions,but £2.852m had been outstanding from prior years-assuming this was all paid out of the £4m+,then £4.467m-£2.852m =£1.615m relates to purchases in the year in question.However,£1.336m was still owing at the year end,so the value of purchases is £1.615m+£1.336m =

£2.951m.The reason that there's a £1k difference is down to rounding-all figures shown in the accounts are to the nearest £1k(apart from specifics that are sometimes mentioned in notes),so if you add a string of rounded figures together,you'll get a small error (usually).

Whilst Barker et al were signed after 30/6/09,Martin,Bailey and Brayford were signed before 30/6/10.Although a small fee was reputed to have been paid up front for Bailey/Brayford,this doesn't mean that more wasn't still o/s (and forming part of the £1.336m)

Although Cywka came on a free,would we have had to pay compensation to Wigan because of his age?(as per Steve Davies,where we couldn't agree compensation and went to a tribunal).

One thing to note is that signing on fees don't form part of the value stated in assets,neither do contingencies (sell on clauses etc).

I'll deal with sales in my next post-something of a horror story.

[ramblur]

The total original cost of players sold during the period was £7.057m

(£6.061m reg, fees+£996k extras).The amortisation (depreciation) of these players to date had been £4.451m,so their net value shown in the books would have been £7.057m-£4.451m=£2.606m.

Proceeds of sales are given as £1.483m,of which £250k had been o/s from previous years and so £1.233m related to the period.Amounts owing to us at the period end was zilch.

This seems to indicate a massive overall hit on players.Off the top of my head,likely candidates are Tito,Feilhaber,Todd,Mears and D!ckinson-unsure about Sterjovski and Carroll.There would be no original cost for Nyatanga,but one might have hoped for some proceeds (although you have to call into question a lot of prior assumptions.)

If you deduct the £1.233m sale proceeds from the net book value of £2.606m,you arrive at a loss of £1.373m-I didn't check this in the published P/L account before posting,but remember to allow for rounding errors.Will report back if the P/L gives a different figure,though from memory it looks about right.

[ramblur]

The total original cost of players sold during the period was £7.057m

(£6.061m reg, fees+£996k extras).The amortisation (depreciation) of these players to date had been £4.451m,so their net value shown in the books would have been £7.057m-£4.451m=£2.606m.

Proceeds of sales are given as £1.483m,of which £250k had been o/s from previous years and so £1.233m related to the period.Amounts owing to us at the period end was zilch.

This seems to indicate a massive overall hit on players.Off the top of my head,likely candidates are Tito,Feilhaber,Todd,Mears and D!ckinson-unsure about Sterjovski and Carroll.There would be no original cost for Nyatanga,but one might have hoped for some proceeds (although you have to call into question a lot of prior assumptions.)

If you deduct the £1.233m sale proceeds from the net book value of £2.606m,you arrive at a loss of £1.373m-I didn't check this in the published P/L account before posting,but remember to allow for rounding errors.Will report back if the P/L gives a different figure,though from memory it looks about right.

Just noticed a glaring omission in Clod-big cost price and zilch back.Not sure which year Tito's in now,as his move seems to have been on the cusp of a year end,though if he related to 08/09 the cash must have come in sharpish as only £250k was shown as o/s at that year end (unless Tito was only sold for £250k !)

[davenportram]

Proceeds of sales are given as £1.483m,of which £250k had been o/s from previous years and so £1.233m related to the period.Amounts owing to us at the period end was zilch.

This can be checked another way.£4.467m was paid during the year on acquisitions,but £2.852m had been outstanding from prior years-assuming this was all paid out of the £4m+,then £4.467m-£2.852m =£1.615m relates to purchases in the year in question.However,£1.336m was still owing at the year end,so the value of purchases is £1.615m+£1.336m =

£2.951m.

Does this all mean that we paid out £4.467m and received £1.483m giving a net outward spend of around £3m on transfer activity during the period. 09-10

Is the following true for accounting period 10-11

Money owed on transfers at the start of the period= £1.366m

Money owing to us on transfers at the start of the accounting period = 0

From reports money received (Hulse - 800k, Moxey - 500k, Commons 300k)= £1.6m.

Edit:using the maximum figures given in press)

Money spent (Davies)= £250k

So reported fees received offset reported fees spent.

If all loan fees ar due be paid in full during the season they take place (meaning nothing owing or owed) and if all transfers paid in full before June 30th 2011 we would be at zero owed and zero owing at the start of the 2011- 2012 accounting period. How likely is this to be the case given the relatively low fees compared to the amounts spent during 09-10?

If the above were to be the case then we are in the position that I once said I thought the board were looking for before investing in the squad again. It would be a strong position to start buying players in because you havent got to set aside funds to pay past transfers during the first close season of the re-build and can use all fees received for outgoing players.

Appologies if my lack of understanding means this is all testicles

[ramblur]

Does this all mean that we paid out £4.467m and received £1.483m giving a net outward spend of around £3m on transfer activity during the period. 09-10

Is the following true for accounting period 10-11

Money owed on transfers at the start of the period= £1.366m

Money owing to us on transfers at the start of the accounting period = 0

From reports money received (Hulse - 800k, Moxey - 500k, Commons 300k)= £1.6m.

Edit:using the maximum figures given in press)

Money spent (Davies)= £250k

So reported fees received offset reported fees spent.

If all loan fees ar due be paid in full during the season they take place (meaning nothing owing or owed) and if all transfers paid in full before June 30th 2011 we would be at zero owed and zero owing at the start of the 2011- 2012 accounting period. How likely is this to be the case given the relatively low fees compared to the amounts spent during 09-10?

If the above were to be the case then we are in the position that I once said I thought the board were looking for before investing in the squad again. It would be a strong position to start buying players in because you havent got to set aside funds to pay past transfers during the first close season of the re-build and can use all fees received for outgoing players.

Appologies if my lack of understanding means this is all testicles

No,you could argue everything the way you did,but others might say that if investment were available,a stitch in time might have been more appropriate than dicing with relegation.One could also argue that,if the 'double Barker' had been available for Hooper in July 10,then it should be available now,given your self financing presentation for 10/11 activity.

[davenportram]

No,you could argue everything the way you did,but others might say that if investment were available,a stitch in time might have been more appropriate than dicing with relegation.One could also argue that,if the 'double Barker' had been available for Hooper in July 10,then it should be available now,given your self financing presentation for 10/11 activity.

I agree about the Double Barker.

It just seemed very coincidental that the numbers matched up. I guess we won't know the amount owed and owing at the start of 11/12 until the next accounts are published - only 12 months to wait. But then again any purchases or sales in May and June would need to be taken into account.

Was there anything fundamentally wrong with the figures I used?

[davenportram]

I agree about the Double Barker, but then again we don't know how much Bueno cost to borrow ( said firmly with Tongue in cheek)

It just seemed very coincidental that the numbers matched up. I guess we won't know the amount owed and owing at the start of 11/12 until the next accounts are published - only 12 months to wait. But then again any purchases or sales in May and June would need to be taken into account.

Was there anything fundamentally wrong with the figures I used?

[ramblur]

I agree about the Double Barker, but then again we don't know how much Bueno cost to borrow ( said firmly with Tongue in cheek)

It just seemed very coincidental that the numbers matched up. I guess we won't know the amount owed and owing at the start of 11/12 until the next accounts are published - only 12 months to wait. But then again any purchases or sales in May and June would need to be taken into account.

Was there anything fundamentally wrong with the figures I used?

Nothing wrong with the figures.

'Post balance sheet events' gives the following:-

After year end,players with a net book value of £475,415 were disposed of for net proceeds of £770,618 and purchases (including league levies and agents' fees) of £699,742 were agreed.

Going on past history,the purchases would be around £600k net-gawd knows who this/these was/were.I hope the sale was just Hulse-trouble is we don't know how far into the new period this goes.

Going back into the main body of the accounts,contingencies for signing and other bonuses fell from 710k to 204k,and the maximum liability under sell on clauses increased from £1.463m to £1.809m.

[ariotofmyown]

The total original cost of players sold during the period was £7.057m

(£6.061m reg, fees+£996k extras).The amortisation (depreciation) of these players to date had been £4.451m,so their net value shown in the books would have been £7.057m-£4.451m=£2.606m.

Proceeds of sales are given as £1.483m,of which £250k had been o/s from previous years and so £1.233m related to the period.Amounts owing to us at the period end was zilch.

This seems to indicate a massive overall hit on players.Off the top of my head,likely candidates are Tito,Feilhaber,Todd,Mears and D!ckinson-unsure about Sterjovski and Carroll.There would be no original cost for Nyatanga,but one might have hoped for some proceeds (although you have to call into question a lot of prior assumptions.)

If you deduct the £1.233m sale proceeds from the net book value of £2.606m,you arrive at a loss of £1.373m-I didn't check this in the published P/L account before posting,but remember to allow for rounding errors.Will report back if the P/L gives a different figure,though from memory it looks about right.

Think this adds strength the the idea that investors would be a bit peeved in letting Jewell waste all that money on players mentioned above, plus they discover a 3 million Davies is worthless and a then a 1 million Varney can't get a game. Would be interesting to know what the GSE think about Pearson now.

You can't blame them for being a bit wary. In fact, such restraint could even be applauded-imagine if Nige had been given a wad of cash up front and had ended up buying rubbish on high wages. We would be in the major sh ite again. Just wish they have given us a bit more this year when it became obvious Nige wasn't another Jewell. Oh well, they are gonna this summer. Hopefully.

[ramblur]

If the money was needed at the time for cash flow, but there wasn't another share isue at that time, then maybe the only way to do it was as a loan so as not to water down the other investor's shares?

Fair point,Ramalana,but I was more getting at the fact that short term loan capital plugs a gap,but creates another problem when it's repaid.

The LOG bought Gellaw for £2 plus legal fees,thus giving them ownership of DCFC's share capital.Their (eventual) £9m (less expenses) investment found its way into DCFC by means of an inter group loan at negligible interest.The term of the loan was 5years+ (it never states the actual term for this grouping),so there was a deal of permanence.To me,this version of loan capital is almost as good as equity fixed in DCFC.

When GSE bought us,they had to buy Gellaw,thus giving ownership of DCFC (well,93% at the time).They thus bought the debt (creditor) within DCFC and also the other limb (the debtor) within Gellaw,the 2 cancelling each other out (which GSE did by waiving both in 07/08).

[ramblur]

Think this adds strength the the idea that investors would be a bit peeved in letting Jewell waste all that money on players mentioned above, plus they discover a 3 million Davies is worthless and a then a 1 million Varney can't get a game. Would be interesting to know what the GSE think about Pearson now.

You can't blame them for being a bit wary. In fact, such restraint could even be applauded-imagine if Nige had been given a wad of cash up front and had ended up buying rubbish on high wages. We would be in the major sh ite again. Just wish they have given us a bit more this year when it became obvious Nige wasn't another Jewell. Oh well, they are gonna this summer. Hopefully.

I've said many times before that if one swapped one's fans hat for that of an investor,you'd be well miffed.However,things move on and they could lose a lot if they take the wrong course from hereon.