DCFC Accounts....

[G STAR RAM]

I'm sorry but I really don't see your point.

Did you want Peter Gadsby to comeback when he launched his supposed takeover bid?

[smiffy]

So are the season ticket owners who are paying £10 or less a game, right to moan they are not getting value for their money, those that do moan that is.

[uttoxram75]

TBF G Star, looks like AndyB is only saying what many fans want.....no point in trying to gainsay every point he makes. We are first and foremost football fans, we want to be successfull, we want to win or at least play well....we want to believe that we may be at the top table once more....not many think it will happen under this ownership, but until there's an alternative then we may just need the current owners to keep us going.

Pointless falling out really.

[uttoxram75]

So are the season ticket owners who are paying £10 or less a game, right to moan they are not getting value for their money, those that do moan that is.

not all OAP's moan....... 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':rolleyes:' /> 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':P' /> 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':D' />

[smiffy]

not all OAP's moan....... 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':rolleyes:' />

Not all are OAP's, 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':P' /> 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':D' />

[AndyB]

I'd certainly take Gadsby over the current owners.

[G STAR RAM]

I'd certainly take Gadsby over the current owners.

Ok fair enough. And do you think he would prepared to put in £7million a year and not want any personal gain?

[Stimacked]

Still can't make head or tail of this years accounts but I think the Swiss Rambler report based on his calculations from the 2009-2010

accounts is worth another read to add some wider perspective (and the point made in one of the comments about the impact of the fans protests last year) He warned that the loss of Parachute payments were likely to make this years finances look less impressive.

I guess he diden't know about the loan that has been lumped on top of our debt so this has added more uncertainty to the future of our finances it seems as, our Ramblur says it could thearetically be withdrawn at any time.

In his report Swiss Rambler suggested last year that our wages were down to 55% of our revenue but that this would go up to a worrying 95% of revenue once the parashute payments went. This he explains one reason why Glick has forced Clough to keep cutting wages. Another blow to all the Championship Clubs finances will hit next year when the new Sky deal comes into effect for the Football League. the report says it will knock another 750,000 off each Championships clubs revenue. Another reason why money will be very tight next year, with the prudent ship these lot are running!

http://swissramble.blogspot.jp/2011/11/derby-countys-american-dream.html

[inglorious02]

Just thinking of how the club could raise more money; does anyone know how much Leicester got for renaming their stadium?

[RebelScum]

Please never mention this again!

In an age where even the 'time added on' announcement is sponsored by some bozo I am proud that I belong to a Club whose ground has a proper name (although I suspect that it is tied into the business estate).

But, to answer the question - not alot!

[inglorious02]

The name of the ground is completely unimportant to me. If we could get a few million by renaming it and taking the club forward, then fair enough. If it's the choice between that or selling Shackell, Bryson and any other good players we might have, they can call the ground what they like. Fans would still call it Pride Park anyway.

[RebelScum]

Would you be happy if this was history?

in the early 1960's the Baseball Ground name was up for auction and brought for (relative) a couple of million. This money was used to buy in two quality players.

Those players were sold off a few years later and not really replaced with anything of note. The name of the ground changed every few seasons.

Imagine those European glory nights at the old Corona Lemononade ground

[inglorious02]

Would you be happy if this was history?

in the early 1960's the Baseball Ground name was up for auction and brought for (relative) a couple of million. This money was used to buy in two quality players.

Those players were sold off a few years later and not really replaced with anything of note. The name of the ground changed every few seasons.

Imagine those European glory nights at the old Corona Lemononade ground

Hand on heart, I wouldn't care. It's just the name of a football stadium. It's the ongoing survival of the team that matters. I care as little for name of this ground as I did when the Eagle Centre got changed to "Westfield". It doesn't bother me at all.

[Woodys woman]

The Baseball Ground had charachter and I wouldn't of wanted that to be named anything other than the Baseball Ground. I shed tears when I saw it had been knocked down due to the memories.

Pride Park is a decent stadium but could be in the middle of Kent or Sheffield or anywhere. I would lose no sleep whatsoever at renaming the place. There aren't any great memories I have of Pride Park.

[ramblur]

I wanted to rest up before addressing what I see as a credibility issue arising from the accounts.We first have to go back a year to what was said about the 09/10 accounts:-

[url=http://www.thisisderbyshire.co.uk/Cashback-offer-table-Rams-fans/story-11564984-detail/story.html]http://www.thisisderbyshire.co.uk/Cashback-offer-table-Rams-fans/story-11564984-detail/story.html

It was claimed (and this was said by Glick in a RD interview) that £4.1m of a revolving loan had been repaid,thus reducing debt of £19.1m down to the PP loan.In the RD interview,Glick said this had been done shortly after the year end out of S/T income.I made the point at the time that we finished 09/10 with only c£1m in the bank.As I already knew that the short term debt consisted of £3m for the S/T loan and £1.7m for the GSE loan,and that the net debt was £19.1m,I smiled as soon as Glick uttered the words and thought 'impression creating time'.

I then assumed that we had repaid £4.7m debt,probably from a cash injection,and that Glick hadn't wanted to give this figure as it would have indicated that the GSE loan had been repaid.I therefore got a big surprise when I saw the GSE loan to be still intact when the new accounts came out-the last time I'll be making assumptions based on anything Glick's said.

Now onto the facts.The 09/10 accounts show that the S/T debt stood at £2.99m as at 30/6/10 (for those with 09/10 accounts,go to note 13 at the foot of page 18 "Creditors amounts falling due in 1 year" for confirmation.In the current accounts,the cashflow statement shows that £2.764m of secured debt had been repaid-this was the only debt shown as repaid.

The same statement also shows new secured borrowing of £9.722m.By deduction (the new GSE loan being £6.802m),I was able to discern that the new borrowing against S/T income for the year was £2.92m.Finally,again from note 13 in the current accounts,the closing S/T loan figure is shown at £3.172m.A reconciliation,adding new borrowing to the opening balance,and then subtracting repayments,gives a figure £17k short of the closing £3.172m-shouldn't be so,but I have noticed another small bit of borrowing for this exact same amount.We can safely say that the accounts show that the £2.764m repaid related to the S/T loan.(and that no other debt was repaid).

Therefore,my question to Mr Glick is 'if the accounts show a repayment of £2.764m,how could we have repaid £4.1m in July of that year?'.If he can come up with a plausible answer,then I apologise-I can only go on the facts according to published accounts.It seems a mighty coincidence to me (as it immediately did at the time) that a deduction of £4.1m just happens to bring £19.1m down to £15m.

In the latest round of RD stuff I've heard this £4.1m again quoted in relation to debt.

Given that we've been told that the new ownership loan is interest free,the interest payment for the year (shown in the Gellaw accounts) of £294k must relate to the original GSE loan of £1,747,298.You might be interested to know that this works out at a simple annual rate of 16.8%.Some may point out that this has been accrued and not paid.I'd point out that this doesn't mean it won't be paid.

[duncanjwitham]

To be honest, I would rather watch a good game of football played in the McDonalds Arena, with Pepsi ballboys returning the Adidas ball to the KFC Goalkeeper than watch a rubbish game of football played at the Baseball Ground. I know that money isn't the only factor in that equation, but it really doesn't bother me if there's unobtrusive advertising which improves the playing budget. And I mean unobtrusive in that we don't the game stopped for advertising breaks or anything like that.

[ramblur]

AndyB,whilst I agree with much of your long post a couple of pages back,the simple fact is that the owners (failing early promotion) are going nowhere soon,and there's little anyone can do about it.With the latest cash injections the total investment now stands at over £44m and nobody in their right mind would pay that amount for a club in our current position,let alone deliver a profit on top.

Therefore the question is,what is their exit strategy?Everyone assumes promotion,but I'm not so sure-I simply don't see the drive/impetus for this.Some may point to our current position and improvements.Fine,I agree,but it's that last gap that we need to bridge that's the difficult bit.Where are we going to get the quality we need out of horse trading?I just can't see it.

I'm continually haunted by Brett Wilson's comments about the Championship being a good place to be.I'm pretty sure that he made that comment after it was obvious that we had no chance of promotion in 08/09.He would also have known (by virtue of the fact that the balance of new borrowing in 08/09 would have to be financed by the second chute payment,and that 08/09 wages were unsustainable) that promotion the following year would be difficult.So was he talking plan B?

My big fear,because of the change to loan capital,is that an attempt is going to be made to whittle away at these loans in an attempt to make the club a more attractive proposition to potential buyers-if we somehow achieve promotion,all the better.The problem lies in trying to work out what is the primary aim.This summer should help,but the signs don't look good.

So,on to the Academy.The big question is,are we building up the Academy to assist a promotion push,or to help repay debt?I don't know the answer,and the problem is none of us will find out till it's first tested (and even then we might have to wait several months for published accounts).

[McRamFan]

AndyB,whilst I agree with much of your long post a couple of pages back,the simple fact is that the owners (failing early promotion) are going nowhere soon,and there's little anyone can do about it.With the latest cash injections the total investment now stands at over £44m and nobody in their right mind would pay that amount for a club in our current position,let alone deliver a profit on top.

Therefore the question is,what is their exit strategy?Everyone assumes promotion,but I'm not so sure-I simply don't see the drive/impetus for this.Some may point to our current position and improvements.Fine,I agree,but it's that last gap that we need to bridge that's the difficult bit.Where are we going to get the quality we need out of horse trading?I just can't see it.

I'm continually haunted by Brett Wilson's comments about the Championship being a good place to be.I'm pretty sure that he made that comment after it was obvious that we had no chance of promotion in 08/09.He would also have known (by virtue of the fact that the balance of new borrowing in 08/09 would have to be financed by the second chute payment,and that 08/09 wages were unsustainable) that promotion the following year would be difficult.So was he talking plan B?

My big fear,because of the change to loan capital,is that an attempt is going to be made to whittle away at these loans in an attempt to make the club a more attractive proposition to potential buyers-if we somehow achieve promotion,all the better.The problem lies in trying to work out what is the primary aim.This summer should help,but the signs don't look good.

So,on to the Academy.The big question is,are we building up the Academy to assist a promotion push,or to help repay debt?I don't know the answer,and the problem is none of us will find out till it's first tested (and even then we might have to wait several months for published accounts).

I have a idea about this, and whilst I do not have the ability to understand the accounts as your good self, to which I am sure 99% of the forum is greatful.

The idea revolves around the two parts in bold and I don't think its an exit strategy, at this moment in time, and BW's comments has led me to think that the current strategy is to batten down the hatches as we are all in a global recession. They are looking to generate capital in a climate where the first thing that goes are luxuries, and support is a luxury.

For instance, if we create an average fan: So in a good year will buy a home shirit, season ticket, programme every game, spend a fiver at the kiosk in the stadium. Next season, they have bought the season ticket and will consider the shirt, however have dropped the programme and now brings a flask. Ok the net spend is down £8, however extrapulate that over 23 games and say 5,500 fans, less than a third of the gate, then that is a reduction in spend of a £1m.

I realise that example can be chopped around and made to look better / worse, however I do think it is what the board are considering is the net effect. I am sure that our owners monitor trade activity to the level that they campare matchday recipts with both time of year, and who they have played and see if their is a pattern, and I expect it is a downward one. I have seen it myself to a lesser degree. I have the exact same routine every match, and have noticed less queues at the programme sellers, smaller queues at half time for Bovril, and I too myself have stopped purchasing the programme and bring a flask, as I cannot afford the additional cost.

So staying in the Championship is a good idea, as it is achievable financially and hopefully there will be an upturn soon, and investment will return.

Thoughts?

[ramblur]

I have a idea about this, and whilst I do not have the ability to understand the accounts as your good self, to which I am sure 99% of the forum is greatful.

The idea revolves around the two parts in bold and I don't think its an exit strategy, at this moment in time, and BW's comments has led me to think that the current strategy is to batten down the hatches as we are all in a global recession. They are looking to generate capital in a climate where the first thing that goes are luxuries, and support is a luxury.

For instance, if we create an average fan: So in a good year will buy a home shirit, season ticket, programme every game, spend a fiver at the kiosk in the stadium. Next season, they have bought the season ticket and will consider the shirt, however have dropped the programme and now brings a flask. Ok the net spend is down £8, however extrapulate that over 23 games and say 5,500 fans, less than a third of the gate, then that is a reduction in spend of a £1m.

I realise that example can be chopped around and made to look better / worse, however I do think it is what the board are considering is the net effect. I am sure that our owners monitor trade activity to the level that they campare matchday recipts with both time of year, and who they have played and see if their is a pattern, and I expect it is a downward one. I have seen it myself to a lesser degree. I have the exact same routine every match, and have noticed less queues at the programme sellers, smaller queues at half time for Bovril, and I too myself have stopped purchasing the programme and bring a flask, as I cannot afford the additional cost.

So staying in the Championship is a good idea, as it is achievable financially and hopefully there will be an upturn soon, and investment will return.

Thoughts?

I can see your points clearly.My take on the matter is that there comes a time for all businesses when there's a need for capital investment,and correct timing is very often critical.Our owners appear to be concentrating exclusively on the expenditure side (excluding,of course,any efforts made on the commercial side),with players' wages being the prime target,and almost appear to be taking the income side (mainly talking about gates) for granted,which you can do to a certain extent because of the loyalty factor that most owners 'prey' on (think Freddie Sheppard,who got caught out).If we'd invested in a couple of quality players last summer,things could have been so much different.Attendances could well have risen and there may well have been a flood of new S/T applicants-this momentum would probably have carried through to renewal time this year,enhanced by a 10% rise.So the capital investment starts to pay for itself.Carlin was worth many more times what we paid for him in terms of what his arrival generated.

Of course,the flip side to this is that the signings could flop,but that's the very essence of this business-you simply have to rely on a manager's judgement ,or I don't think you should be in the business in the first place.Because fans were quite obviously being led to believe that last summer's signings were going to propel us into top 6 competition,one can understand the disaffection and the quite likely reduction (again) in S/T renewals.The 10% rise,which could have been an enhancement, will likely become a patch to cover a hole-a temporary solution that couldn't be (suicidally) repeated next year,unless we had the ultimate great season of course.As I've pointed out before,any fall in S/Ts in a year's time will now be 10% more detrimental.These are the dangers-a bad season next year could be an absolute disaster financially.

I could have seen the model working if the investment I talked of had been made,which in my opinion would have given a much stronger S/T holder base for a season(next) in which we aim to be sustainable.I have to be honest and say that our current team strength leads me to suspect that it's going to come badly unstuck,however I do have great faith in our manager and wouldn't rule out a miracle.

When Glick talked about S/T renewals a year ago,he was quick to point out that there was a recession on.In the same passage of speech,he later said that the fans would come back with a winning team.I hope the world's economists were listening,because they were obviously being presented with a previously unknown measure to reverse recession.Whenever I read forums or listen to RD,not once have I heard economics being given as a reason by those claiming they weren't going to renew.I fear the worst,'a stitch in time' comes to mind.

[McRamFan]

Thanks for the reply, and agree with a lot of what you have said. I think it was also mentioned earlier that there was a rumor that one of the backers had changed their stance, or withdrew the offer of capital? Anyway, we have an interesting summer ahead!