ariotofmyown Posted March 27, 2011 Share Posted March 27, 2011 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. lol, and maybe the most dangerous hat is the joint 'fan/investor' hat! we know the trouble that gets you in! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted March 27, 2011 Share Posted March 27, 2011 lol, and maybe the most dangerous hat is the joint 'fan/investor' hat! we know the trouble that gets you in! £55m of tv income Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ariotofmyown Posted March 27, 2011 Share Posted March 27, 2011 £55m of tv income And the 2nd best left back in France or Clod depending on what era! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 28, 2011 Share Posted March 28, 2011 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. Post balance sheet events would go up to date of the accounts being approved by the board, still not got my copy so can't see date on directors report. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted March 28, 2011 Share Posted March 28, 2011 Post balance sheet events would go up to date of the accounts being approved by the board, still not got my copy so can't see date on directors report. The accounts were approved and authorised for issue on 28/2/11.Whilst events up to this date could (at a very big push) be included,I'm not so sure all events up to this date have to be included. If the latter were the case,then the figure for sales would reflect Hulse,Commons and Moxey (cue riots).Also,it would mean that the £5.6m working capital injection indicated would be up to 28/2/11. As Appleby appears to have been claiming investment of £25m in various reported emails in early February,then I'll leave it to you to verify this figure (given that you're saying available information takes us beyond early Feb).I would,of course,point out that the £25m figure is based purely on reported emails,although there would appear to be several reports from different people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted March 28, 2011 Share Posted March 28, 2011 I suppose "net proceeds" could be a little ambiguous in this context.It could either relate to eventual net proceeds,or net proceeds received within the period (i.e. first instalment). Next accounts will show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcfcdavecov Posted March 28, 2011 Share Posted March 28, 2011 Does anybody else imagine Ramblur like this in their heads.....no face, just a suit and some important stuff on a desk? http://www.companyaccountsluton.co.uk/images/company-accounts-luton-1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramesses Posted March 28, 2011 Share Posted March 28, 2011 Does anybody else imagine Ramblur like this in their heads.....no face, just a suit and some important stuff on a desk? The truth is even more bizarre... http://static.whatsontv.co.uk/images/gallery/235_AlanTitchmarshshowAlanTitchmarsh01 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derby_Dave Posted March 28, 2011 Share Posted March 28, 2011 The truth is even more bizarre... http://static.whatsontv.co.uk/images/gallery/235_AlanTitchmarshshowAlanTitchmarsh01 Ramblur, When you have finished going through Derby's finances you can have a go at getting the Mare's tail out of my allotment. I am not sure which is more frustrating though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted March 28, 2011 Share Posted March 28, 2011 Ramblur, When you have finished going through Derby's finances you can have a go at getting the Mare's tail out of my allotment. I am not sure which is more frustrating though. Hoe,hoe,hoe,hoe,hoe......but you'll be the one doing it;).....or.......... dig down 8 feet and get rid of the roots:D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted March 28, 2011 Share Posted March 28, 2011 The truth is even more bizarre... http://static.whatsontv.co.uk/images/gallery/235_AlanTitchmarshshowAlanTitchmarsh01 Ah,now that's more like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 28, 2011 Share Posted March 28, 2011 The accounts were approved and authorised for issue on 28/2/11.Whilst events up to this date could (at a very big push) be included,I'm not so sure all events up to this date have to be included. If the latter were the case,then the figure for sales would reflect Hulse,Commons and Moxey (cue riots).Also,it would mean that the £5.6m working capital injection indicated would be up to 28/2/11. As Appleby appears to have been claiming investment of £25m in various reported emails in early February,then I'll leave it to you to verify this figure (given that you're saying available information takes us beyond early Feb).I would,of course,point out that the £25m figure is based purely on reported emails,although there would appear to be several reports from different people. Interesting one this, 4 to 6 weeks between Commons/Moxey being sold and the accounts being approved, can not see any reason why they would not be included. Like you I hope this only reflects the sale of Hulse or installments paid at the date of approval. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 28, 2011 Share Posted March 28, 2011 I suppose "net proceeds" could be a little ambiguous in this context.It could either relate to eventual net proceeds,or net proceeds received within the period (i.e. first instalment). Next accounts will show. Sorry I missed this off the previous post. All MATERIAL post balance sheet events up to date of signature should be disclosed. Maybe the transfer fees for Commons and Moxey were not material? Re the £25million claim, I have not seen parent company accounts so can not comment. Doesn't additional funding for the club go through them first as a loan? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 28, 2011 Share Posted March 28, 2011 Just had another quick glance at accounts, directors seem very keen to emphasise that they have increased spending on the academy in each year over the last 3 years. Now if the acadmey becomes succesful this will be there dream come true, home grown players breaking through to first team or being sold on to Premier League clubs. Does anyone have any insight into how The Academy is coming along? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted March 28, 2011 Share Posted March 28, 2011 Sorry I missed this off the previous post. All MATERIAL post balance sheet events up to date of signature should be disclosed. Maybe the transfer fees for Commons and Moxey were not material? Re the £25million claim, I have not seen parent company accounts so can not comment. Doesn't additional funding for the club go through them first as a loan? I would have thought the combined fees of Commons and Moxey were about as material as the £770,618 reported. You'd do very well to see the parent company's accounts as it's registered in the US and avails of reporting exemptions.Not sure where you get the notion of a loan from (although there does appear to have been a $5.9m loan from certain investors to General Sports Derby (UK) Ltd). The majority of investment has entailed equity based cash from the parent company buying shares in GS Derby (UK) Ltd,which in turn buys shares in Gellaw 101 Ltd,which in turn buys new shares in DCFC Ltd,thus fixing equity in the latter.To be fair,they should be applauded for the magnitude of equity based investment.As far as I know,the GS and Gellaw accounts are not yet published. The £1.7m loan capital disclosed appears to be a direct transaction between GSE LLC and DCFC Ltd-again (though I've never actually checked),the accounts of GSE are probably not available for public scrutiny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 28, 2011 Share Posted March 28, 2011 I would have thought the combined fees of Commons and Moxey were about as material as the £770,618 reported. You'd do very well to see the parent company's accounts as it's registered in the US and avails of reporting exemptions.Not sure where you get the notion of a loan from (although there does appear to have been a $5.9m loan from certain investors to General Sports Derby (UK) Ltd). The majority of investment has entailed equity based cash from the parent company buying shares in GS Derby (UK) Ltd,which in turn buys shares in Gellaw 101 Ltd,which in turn buys new shares in DCFC Ltd,thus fixing equity in the latter.To be fair,they should be applauded for the magnitude of equity based investment.As far as I know,the GS and Gellaw accounts are not yet published. The £1.7m loan capital disclosed appears to be a direct transaction between GSE LLC and DCFC Ltd-again (though I've never actually checked),the accounts of GSE are probably not available for public scrutiny. Individually perhaps not material though. I got the idea that money was loaned as and when required throughout the year and then capitalised at year end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 28, 2011 Share Posted March 28, 2011 I would have thought the combined fees of Commons and Moxey were about as material as the £770,618 reported. You'd do very well to see the parent company's accounts as it's registered in the US and avails of reporting exemptions.Not sure where you get the notion of a loan from (although there does appear to have been a $5.9m loan from certain investors to General Sports Derby (UK) Ltd). The majority of investment has entailed equity based cash from the parent company buying shares in GS Derby (UK) Ltd,which in turn buys shares in Gellaw 101 Ltd,which in turn buys new shares in DCFC Ltd,thus fixing equity in the latter.To be fair,they should be applauded for the magnitude of equity based investment.As far as I know,the GS and Gellaw accounts are not yet published. The £1.7m loan capital disclosed appears to be a direct transaction between GSE LLC and DCFC Ltd-again (though I've never actually checked),the accounts of GSE are probably not available for public scrutiny. Thought parent company was registered in UK? Is it not the ultimate parent company registered in US? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted March 28, 2011 Share Posted March 28, 2011 Thought parent company was registered in UK? Is it not the ultimate parent company registered in US? General Sports Derby (UK) Ltd is the holding company for the group,Gellaw 101 Ltd being the immediate holding company for the club.General Sports Derby Partners LLC is the parent company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 28, 2011 Share Posted March 28, 2011 General Sports Derby (UK) Ltd is the holding company for the group,Gellaw 101 Ltd being the immediate holding company for the club.General Sports Derby Partners LLC is the parent company. Ok thanks. It does refer to General Sports Derby (UK) Limited as the parent company in the accounts somehwere I'm sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted March 28, 2011 Share Posted March 28, 2011 Individually perhaps not material though. I got the idea that money was loaned as and when required throughout the year and then capitalised at year end. Reference the first part,I think it's a bit tenuous but I won't waste time arguing.Capitalisation has occurred at various stages of years (mid Jan is one example that springs to mind)-cash may have transferred prior to capitalisation,but I doubt it would be formalised as a loan.However,now I see your line of thought,I've no problems with what you said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.