Rams post latest accounts

[Ramms]

Ramblur, not had much of an opportunity to have studied the accounts in depth after the "headline" info i posted and not having an accounting background but could this thing with the reclassifying info from previous accounting years be something to do with the sale of the catering rights?

I'm sure that Delaware North will not have paid us £4m or whatever the figure was upfront so was this previously classed as deferred income.

[ramblur]

Ramblur, not had much of an opportunity to have studied the accounts in depth after the "headline" info i posted and not having an accounting background but could this thing with the reclassifying info from previous accounting years be something to do with the sale of the catering rights?

I'm sure that Delaware North will not have paid us £4m or whatever the figure was upfront so was this previously classed as deferred income.

No Ramms,though you're on the right lines with one form of deferred income that's not associated with debt.If you take Delaware as an example,let's imagine that it was a 10 year contract,with say £3m paid upfront for the first 6 years and £0.6m to be paid yearly in years 7 to 10.Now the first 6 years average out at £0.5m per year,so although you get £3m of cash in the first year,only £0.5m of the income is due in that year.To get over this,you lump £2.5m into deferred income (income received in advance,but due to future years).The next year,anther £0.5m gets credited to income and deferred income reduces to £2m etc,etc.

In the example we're dealing with,we're talking about securitised season ticket income,which allows you to borrow in advance against future income.Although you're really talking about a loan,I've a sneaking feeling that it's classed as deferred income on the grounds that you're effectively gaining S/T income in advance.Clever way of disguising debt really (and legitimate).I've been viewing the rather large figures contained within accruals/deferred income with suspicion for some time (right back to the LOG era),but haven't been able to comment, because you simply don't know how much relates to accruals and how much relates to 'normal' deferred income.

Looking at one of the discharges relating to 10/11 S/T income,I noticed that the charge was actually set up in 1999.Now it strikes me that you wouldn't set up a charge in 1999 if you weren't intending to borrow against it.This is why I'm asking them to come clean (if they need to-is this really revolving credit as stated,or is it actually payback time for a loan taken out years ago? I'm not mischief making,I just want to know-if it were 1999,then it predates the LOG,so it would be something they inherited as well.I'm even beginning to wonder if this forms part of the debt contingent on promotion to the Prem."Rogersboots" from the old DET(original) forum knows the answers-I wish I'd paid more attention at the time,but when I went back to have another look at his post,the relevant thread had been pulled for some reason:mad:

[ramblur]

I would remind everyone that I'm just asking questions,not stating/claiming facts,so temper what you say accordingly.'Revolving credit' may be correct.

[davenportram]

Could these "disguised" debts be the surprises that were mentioned in a certain email that went round last year.

Should they have been found in due diligence checks.

I do remember Gadsby saying they had employed a new accounting method which moved Debt off the balance sheet, but also that it was a significant write off.

Just found the article

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/derbyshire/5344502.stm

The actual wording was

He said: "There has been a series of accounts methodology or restructuring, in which certain debts are put to one side and then transferred back but in realistic terms there has been a substantial write-off."

I only pick this out because it seems similar to what you described. Not picking on Gadsby. A substantial write off could still leave a few million quid when you start at more than £50m.

[ramblur]

Could these "disguised" debts be the surprises that were mentioned in a certain email that went round last year.

Should they have been found in due diligence checks.

I do remember Gadsby saying they had employed a new accounting method which moved Debt off the balance sheet, but also that it was a significant write off.

Just found the article

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/derbyshire/5344502.stm

The actual wording was

I only pick this out because it seems similar to what you described. Not picking on Gadsby. A substantial write off could still leave a few million quid when you start at more than £50m.

Who knows-anybody would have been able to check charges registered at Companies House (there were also charges against 09/10 S/T income).I'm not advocating a witch hunt,as this seems to go back ages and I don't blame our owners-just wish we were told about it.At least Gadsby refers to it (assuming that's what he was talking about)

The only issues that concern me are a) are we skint because of it and b)does the facility still exist (not skint,perhaps,but just as what goes up must come down........)

[Ramms]

I'd always assumed - probably incorrectly that the charge on the first so many thousand season tickets was security for the overdraft facilities offered to the club, bearing in mind that during the summer there is no ticket income and very little if any sponsorship income coming into the club.

An overdraft would be classed as a form of revolving credit

[Guest]

I'd always assumed - probably incorrectly that the charge on the first so many thousand season tickets was security for the overdraft facilities offered to the club, bearing in mind that during the summer there is no ticket income and very little if any sponsorship income coming into the club.

An overdraft would be classed as a form of revolving credit

I would imagine that the overdraft is set annually and therefore the bank would want more stable security such as a charge over land and buildings

[ramblur]

I'd always assumed - probably incorrectly that the charge on the first so many thousand season tickets was security for the overdraft facilities offered to the club, bearing in mind that during the summer there is no ticket income and very little if any sponsorship income coming into the club.

An overdraft would be classed as a form of revolving credit

The loan in question is classified as part of "other loans"-there's a separate line for 'bank loans and overdraft' (just a few k against this line).

You do,however,highlight a problem though,Ramms.Advance season ticket sales should,in normal circumstances,tide us over the period of slim pickings.If this is diverted elsewhere,then you've got problems if you can't plug the gap.

It always makes me smile when some fans think that advance S/T sales should fund summer transfers-they forget about the large overall wage bill that has to be met,along with other expenses.

[RamNut]

No Ramms,though you're on the right lines with one form of deferred income that's not associated with debt.If you take Delaware as an example,let's imagine that it was a 10 year contract,with say £3m paid upfront for the first 6 years and £0.6m to be paid yearly in years 7 to 10.Now the first 6 years average out at £0.5m per year,so although you get £3m of cash in the first year,only £0.5m of the income is due in that year.To get over this,you lump £2.5m into deferred income (income received in advance,but due to future years).The next year,anther £0.5m gets credited to income and deferred income reduces to £2m etc,etc.

In the example we're dealing with,we're talking about securitised season ticket income,which allows you to borrow in advance against future income.Although you're really talking about a loan,I've a sneaking feeling that it's classed as deferred income on the grounds that you're effectively gaining S/T income in advance.Clever way of disguising debt really (and legitimate).I've been viewing the rather large figures contained within accruals/deferred income with suspicion for some time (right back to the LOG era),but haven't been able to comment, because you simply don't know how much relates to accruals and how much relates to 'normal' deferred income.

Looking at one of the discharges relating to 10/11 S/T income,I noticed that the charge was actually set up in 1999.Now it strikes me that you wouldn't set up a charge in 1999 if you weren't intending to borrow against it.This is why I'm asking them to come clean (if they need to-is this really revolving credit as stated,or is it actually payback time for a loan taken out years ago? I'm not mischief making,I just want to know-if it were 1999,then it predates the LOG,so it would be something they inherited as well.I'm even beginning to wonder if this forms part of the debt contingent on promotion to the Prem."Rogersboots" from the old DET(original) forum knows the answers-I wish I'd paid more attention at the time,but when I went back to have another look at his post,the relevant thread had been pulled for some reason:mad:

ramblur is a star but can anyone understand a word of this ??

[ramblur]

ramblur is a star but can anyone understand a word of this ??

Patrick Moore?

[Boycie]

So have we got to the bottom of this yet?

Iz it time to flip it over?

[ramblur]

So have we got to the bottom of this yet?

Iz it time to flip it over?

Hee hee,there's Gellaw and GS Derby (UK) to look forward to next:D

Plenty of time to earth up the old spuds though.

[ramblur]

Gellaw and General Sports Derby (UK) accounts are now available at CH.

The DCFC accounts indicated that a further £5.6m of working capital had been received after the year end,but both of the above pitch the figure at £6.6m.This could either be a misprint,or reflect a further £1m in the (admittedly) short period between release of DCFC and the other 2.In any event it's a further £1m towards the £24m+ stated,which is positive.

AP's 630,000 Gellaw shares were bought out at a reported price of £1.77 per share (my calculations reveal this to be £1.77 recurring) for consideration of £1.12m.

AP had previously been indicated as a "minority interest" in the GS accounts and at the end of 08/09 the book value was £1.139m.His share of the 09/10 loss was £124k,which brought the book value on transfer to £1.015m.Because he was bought out at £105k more than book value,this figure represents goodwill associated with the transaction (and can be seen in the accounts as a reduction in the negative goodwill that dated back to acquisition of the club).

It would appear that the GSE £1.7m loan to DCFC and the buyout of AP's holding were funded from loans by certain investors recorded in a document registered at CH -this appeared to indicate a total figure of $5.9m.My calculations of the sterling equivalent of this at the time comes in a bit higher than the combination of the 2 items listed above,so I'll carry on looking.I may of course have got the exchange rate wrong.

If anyone who's seen the accounts wants to know exactly where my figures appear,then I'd be pleased to clarify.Apologies to those who are bamboozled by the whole thing.

Will come up with a revised figure of the total invested shortly.

[ramblur]

Up to date investment figures are as follows:-

Cost of acquisition of 93% of Gellaw =£14.808m

Cost of acquisition of AP's holding =£1.12m

So total cost of acquisition of 100% =£15.928m (this concurs with a figure of £16m reputedly given by AA)

Equity (shares) investment to date:-

08/09 £7.74m

09/10 £6.624m

10/11 £6.6m (up to publication date of 09/10 accounts)

Total £20.964m

In addition there is £1.747m of loan capital,though this may well have been repaid in 10/11 and so should not be regarded as permanent investment (in contrast to the equity investment).

[PeteDerby]

Up to date investment figures are as follows:-

Cost of acquisition of 93% of Gellaw =£14.808m

Cost of acquisition of AP's holding =£1.12m

So total cost of acquisition of 100% =£15.928m (this concurs with a figure of £16m reputedly given by AA)

Equity (shares) investment to date:-

08/09 £7.74m

09/10 £6.624m

10/11 £6.6m (up to publication date of 09/10 accounts)

Total £20.964m

In addition there is £1.747m of loan capital,though this may well have been repaid in 10/11 and so should not be regarded as permanent investment (in contrast to the equity investment).

So, £15million light on the £50million that was publicised 3 years ago. In other words, the '£10million for players' and then a bit more.

And the investment in developing a squad doesn't begin and end with the first season, of course.

It's no wonder things have stagnated.

[Guest]

Up to date investment figures are as follows:-

Cost of acquisition of 93% of Gellaw =£14.808m

Cost of acquisition of AP's holding =£1.12m

So total cost of acquisition of 100% =£15.928m (this concurs with a figure of £16m reputedly given by AA)

Equity (shares) investment to date:-

08/09 £7.74m

09/10 £6.624m

10/11 £6.6m (up to publication date of 09/10 accounts)

Total £20.964m

In addition there is £1.747m of loan capital,though this may well have been repaid in 10/11 and so should not be regarded as permanent investment (in contrast to the equity investment).

On the back of these calculations will you be challenging them over their report of £25million invested since takeover?

[PeteDerby]

On the back of these calculations will you be challenging them over their report of £25million invested since takeover?

The fact that £25million is a lot of money has never been questioned by anyone.

However, that's not really the point is it? The fact that it's £15million light makes all the difference, because that's the money that would have turned us from 'a club that should' to 'a club that is'

Please don't come back with that pedantic whining of 'show me where they PROMISED £50 million', because you have been pointed to a plethora of articles and public statements from the time of takeover which you have chosen to ignore because you've not seen a video recording of Andrew Appleby and / or Tom Glick quoting that amount.

The whole world was told via the media that it was a cheque for £50m to buy the shares, pay off the debts and £10 million for players.

Let's say I hire you on a salary of £100K, but pay you £60K. Still a fair amount of money, but not what I said when I hired you. The balance is the difference between you 'being OK' financially, and being able to pay for the things you really want.

That is exactly the same with the playing side of DCFC so, on the same basis, don't expect me to be excited when it's confirmed that GSE put in over 50% of what they told the LOG they were going to.

If it comes now, this summer, all well and good. I don't care that it's 3 years late, because there's nothing can but done about what's not been done in the past. Just don't expect a fanfare. These accounts show what they HAVEN'T invested, just as much as they show what they have.

[RamNut]

The fact that £25million is a lot of money has never been questioned by anyone.

However, that's not really the point is it?

£16m + £21m = £37m

And that is quite a lot of money....although of course we'd all have liked a bit more.

[ramblur]

On the back of these calculations will you be challenging them over their report of £25million invested since takeover?

Not much point when the definitive answer will be available in 12 months' time.If next season's a success,then nobody will care anyway (which is how it should be).

[Guest]

Not much point when the definitive answer will be available in 12 months' time.If next season's a success,then nobody will care anyway (which is how it should be).

In which case why go to so much length to prove or disprove what GSE say? We know that due to the time that accounts have to be filed you will never be able to prove or disprove what GSE say to be true or false.