Rams post latest accounts

[ramblur]

Very strange response!

In what way?

[Guest]

In what way?

Just seemed to reverse what I was saying about PGs claims.

I have never seen or heard GSE attack PG with false claims.

[ramblur]

Just seemed to reverse what I was saying about PGs claims.

I have never seen or heard GSE attack PG with false claims.

Until he's publicly quizzed about it,we don't know if he's got anything to back up his claims,so it's premature to call them false.Just because 2 visible figures don't add up to £1.5m,it doesn't mean his claim is false.All I can say is that there's nothing visible in the accounts to support the claim.

[Guest]

Until he's publicly quizzed about it,we don't know if he's got anything to back up his claims,so it's premature to call them false.Just because 2 visible figures don't add up to £1.5m,it doesn't mean his claim is false.All I can say is that there's nothing visible in the accounts to support the claim.

Well I won't be holding my breath for any false accounting charges.

Seems a bit harsh that GSE will be under suspicion forever then based on claims from someone desperate to regain control of the club.

[ramblur]

Well I won't be holding my breath for any false accounting charges.

Seems a bit harsh that GSE will be under suspicion forever then based on claims from someone desperate to regain control of the club.

Not sure where false accounting comes into it-I suspect he's referring to things that may be hidden within global figures in the accounts.Glick is visible,but what about the other GSE crew (eg the fella who's now departed,whose name escapes me?).Anyway,I'm off to bed.

[Guest]

Not sure where false accounting comes into it-I suspect he's referring to things that may be hidden within global figures in the accounts.Glick is visible,but what about the other GSE crew (eg the fella who's now departed,whose name escapes me?).Anyway,I'm off to bed.

Would be stated as emoluments paid by subsidiaries in the parent company accounts.

[NorfolkRam]

Martinovich?

I contributed

[Ramalama]

Could all of the director's salaries plus the management fees and emoluments at the time of Gadsby's statement add up to around £1.5m?

[Guest]

Could all of the director's salaries plus the management fees and emoluments at the time of Gadsby's statement add up to around £1.5m?

Can't remember the date of PGs claims but even so I think last year total was still only about £1million inclusive of APs salary

[ramblur]

Would be stated as emoluments paid by subsidiaries in the parent company accounts.

If paid by the club,their remunerations would not be visible in the club's published accounts,either individually or collectively.Playing devil's advocate,Gadsby might have 'inside' information and have discovered the figures-who knows.

Amounts paid to GSE members has never been an issue for me as commercial revenues have risen.

[ramblur]

Martinovich?

I contributed

Think you might be on the wrong wavelength,Norfolk.I think it was Faulkner.

[Stive Pesley]

http://www.derbycountyblog.com/derby-county-release-accounts-for-year-to-june-2010/

A fan's assessment - a bit less in-depth than the Ramblur G_Star discussion!

[ramblur]

Think you might be on the wrong wavelength,Norfolk.I think it was Faulkner.

....but my tuning was out-it's Tim Hinchey

[archram]

Just want to say thanks to Ramblur and G-Star for trying to make this understandable - I think I get the general overview!

I may be wrong but, Ramblur, did you have health problems you mentioned on DET? If it was you, I hope you're much better - and if not you, I hope s/he is too!

[ramblur]

http://www.derbycountyblog.com/derby-county-release-accounts-for-year-to-june-2010/

A fan's assessment - a bit less in-depth than the Ramblur G_Star discussion!

Not a bad read-the author did admit that he wasn't sure about directors' emoluments and I think the mix is Glick/Pearson,with the latter bearing the smaller portion,aided and abetted by the fact that he left part way through the year.

What was new to me was the Glick interview talking of this revolving credit facility.He brushed it aside,but I suspect there's more to this than meets the eye.I noticed something in the accounts which I pushed into 'matters to be investigated further',where it remains.

The note that gives details of a c£3m loan in 09/10 (as part of a c£4.7m total) also states that the previous year's accounts had been restated to show additional debt of just over £3m (restated from accruals/deferred income to debt).This also meant that in the previous year net debt was restated (increased by c£3m) and accruals/deferred income reduced by a corresponding amount.As the 09/10 accounts are stated correctly,then why weren't the 08/09 accounts originally? (we're talking of similar transactions).

Many moons ago,on the DET, I talked of the dangers of unseen debt hiding in creditors (Staffs will remember this) and gave Bradford as an example,where previously stated debt increased dramatically upon closer inspection.I'm nowhere near likening us to Bradford,and I must stress this forcibly.It appears that charges against 10/11 S/T income have now been removed,which should signal the end of the matter.

Rather than find out things retrospectively,I'd rather they just came clean,as all of this retrospective stuff does them no favours at all (just gives rise to suspicion).Therefore,my qestion to them is :-"how far back does this go,and does it date back to the LOG period?Should prior years' accounts have been restated (I ask this whilst not having yet checked if they were)? I never act with malice aforethought-I can only react to visible things.If there's a story to be told,then tell it so we can all

adjust our opinions accordingly, if need be.

The casual way in which this was brushed aside hides a harsh reality.If a big chunk of the following year's S/T income has been gobbled up,then it leaves a gap in that year's incoome.Looking at last close season we signed Bailey and Brayford and Martin for fees and then sold Hulse.Do fellow posters think my scepticism over the Hooper bid has increased or decreased following the revelations?

Rant over,I think (hope) the beast has now been slain ,so let's move on and hope that this close season is better.Message to the owners-please tell us everything,as we can cope better with bad news delivered up front,as opposed to intrigue.

[ramblur]

Just want to say thanks to Ramblur and G-Star for trying to make this understandable - I think I get the general overview!

I may be wrong but, Ramblur, did you have health problems you mentioned on DET? If it was you, I hope you're much better - and if not you, I hope s/he is too!

Thanks archram.Yes,you're right,my health isn't great (reduced to pottering around in the garden).I have good and bad spells.

[Guest]

Not a bad read-the author did admit that he wasn't sure about directors' emoluments and I think the mix is Glick/Pearson,with the latter bearing the smaller portion,aided and abetted by the fact that he left part way through the year.

What was new to me was the Glick interview talking of this revolving credit facility.He brushed it aside,but I suspect there's more to this than meets the eye.I noticed something in the accounts which I pushed into 'matters to be investigated further',where it remains.

The note that gives details of a c£3m loan in 09/10 (as part of a c£4.7m total) also states that the previous year's accounts had been restated to show additional debt of just over £3m (restated from accruals/deferred income to debt).This also meant that in the previous year net debt was restated (increased by c£3m) and accruals/deferred income reduced by a corresponding amount.As the 09/10 accounts are stated correctly,then why weren't the 08/09 accounts originally? (we're talking of similar transactions).

Many moons ago,on the DET, I talked of the dangers of unseen debt hiding in creditors (Staffs will remember this) and gave Bradford as an example,where previously stated debt increased dramatically upon closer inspection.I'm nowhere near likening us to Bradford,and I must stress this forcibly.It appears that charges against 10/11 S/T income have now been removed,which should signal the end of the matter.

Rather than find out things retrospectively,I'd rather they just came clean,as all of this retrospective stuff does them no favours at all (just gives rise to suspicion).Therefore,my qestion to them is :-"how far back does this go,and does it date back to the LOG period?Should prior years' accounts have been restated (I ask this whilst not having yet checked if they were)? I never act with malice aforethought-I can only react to visible things.If there's a story to be told,then tell it so we can all

adjust our opinions accordingly, if need be.

The casual way in which this was brushed aside hides a harsh reality.If a big chunk of the following year's S/T income has been gobbled up,then it leaves a gap in that year's incoome.Looking at last close season we signed Bailey and Brayford and Martin for fees and then sold Hulse.Do fellow posters think my scepticism over the Hooper bid has increased or decreased following the revelations?

Rant over,I think (hope) the beast has now been slain ,so let's move on and hope that this close season is better.Message to the owners-please tell us everything,as we can cope better with bad news delivered up front,as opposed to intrigue.

Probably being a bit thick here but I don't see the issue with this point. Was it not merely a classification issue of a current liability? Or are you looking at the effect on the cash flow statement?

[ramblur]

Probably being a bit thick here but I don't see the issue with this point. Was it not merely a classification issue of a current liability? Or are you looking at the effect on the cash flow statement?

Well,it is a classification issue,converting an innocuous looking item within accruals/deferred income into debt.

For the benefit of all,let's look at the situation regarding advanced sales without the debt issue.Fans will now be renewing for next season and the cash will be flowing into the club's coffers,but the income will be due to the next year.So how do the accounts get over this problem?The answer is that the money is debited to cash and credited to 'deferred income'-a creditor,but not representing a debt owed to a third party,rather to another year.In the following year,match receipts will be credited with this amount and deferred income debited.As deferred income is now zero (cancelled out) what you effectively have is a two legged entry with the cash in one year,where it belongs,and the income also in the year to which it belongs.

However,it appears that not only have we 'borrowed' income from the following year (perfectly ok,as every club does it),but we've also borrowed the 'borrowed' money in advance.Therefore,a chunk of S/T money has had to repay a loan (that could otherwise have been used for other things)-in recent times it appears that this 'hole' has been filled by simply repeating the process.The problem comes when the facility ends (as is often the case).The charge relating to 10/11 S/T income has been removed (not surprising,as it's past) and I can't see any charges relating to future years.If I'm correct,then there was no revolving credit to plug the gap left by the repayment of c£3m out of S/T income.Have we appeared strapped for cash this year?I'll let you all draw your own conclusions.

If the facility has somehow been replaced,then there is always a final day of reckoning.Debt is debt,however you care to dress it up.

I must reiterate my words on Bradford,as I was merely using them as an example of disguised debt.I'm not in any way suggesting that our situation

is remotely similar to their's.From memory,they also got involved in the sale and leaseback of players,to the tune of millions.

[Stive Pesley]

If a big chunk of the following year's S/T income has been gobbled up,then it leaves a gap in that year's income.

Interesting to note that - faced with an imminent drop-off in guaranteed Season Ticket revenue, Glick has taken an almighty risk in putting a deal on the table that virtually guarantees the majority of people will renew (and therefore injects the cash when it is needed)

It almost feels like the money-back guarantee is more about securing the capital for transfer dealings up-front than it is about rewarding the fans loyalty.

[ramblur]

Interesting to note that - faced with an imminent drop-off in guaranteed Season Ticket revenue, Glick has taken an almighty risk in putting a deal on the table that virtually guarantees the majority of people will renew (and therefore injects the cash when it is needed)

It almost feels like the money-back guarantee is more about securing the capital for transfer dealings up-front than it is about rewarding the fans loyalty.

I must admit that any optimism over Glick's statement is,for me,tempered by Nigel's recent ,instant laughter at the prospect of being able to request a £1.5m player and Metgod's sombre interview about the summer prospects.Beware the long,drawn out 'interest' in a high profile player-indeed ignore all 'interest' until it becomes a cast iron reality.(is my advice)