DCFC Accounts....

[G STAR RAM]

Now call me a sceptic. We have apparently bled £7 million over the last season. Confused about this when the season before we posted healthier accounts when we had players like Hulse, Commons, Bywater, Leacock etc with big wages still on the books. We have had more players go out than coming in etc.

The cynical part of me remembers the story about the plaza costing around £7million to develop and that this would not come out of the club, the team etc. that figure and the deficit for the accounts posted seem very similar. Do you think creative accounting has occured to cover the fact that actually the plaza is actually coming out of the accounts or is it that we have managed the accounts so badly last season since we have cut the wage bill then we did when we had the high earners here.

You're a sceptic. Any expenditure on developing the Plaza would be identifiable in the accounts. The reason for the loss is the end of the parachute payment.

[GboroRam]

Also, our losses fit quite easily with the losses totted up around the Championship - if anything, they're a bit lower than most.

[ramblur]

Ramblur I'm not sure I understand you. How could you do that for goodness sake.

Had a little chuckle myself at the irony when I realised my error.

[ramblur]

How do you (account) for all of this m8. Are the Rams in negative equity.

Very clever,curtains,I see you're starting to get the hang of it all.

The equity position is quite interesting.As at 30/6/11 net assets stood at £21.001m,compared to the 'fair value' figure of £34.434m given on takeover.So despite capital injections of c £14.3m (subsequent loan capital is neutral) and the receipt of 2 substantial chute payments,the figure has fallen dramatically,and may well fall below £15m this year.

In fairness I should point out that the takeover figure includes players' regs with a written down book value of £20.565m-out of this group we only received cash for Miller,Earnshaw,Jones,Fagan,Mears and Tito (from memory),so you could reduce the fair value of net assets accordingly (strip out the £20m and replace with the value of sales).

Written down value of players' regs as at 30/6/11 was £2.636m.This is likely to feature Barker,Buxton,Bailey,Brayford,Martin,Bavies and anyone bought for 11/12 who crept into the 10/11 accounts (can't be that much though,because £2.4m is indicated in PBSE for 11/12).You could therefore argue that the value of players is understated for 10/11.

As an aside,for anyone who studies the accounts of the whole group and can't understand why the loss in the consolidated accounts is less than that shown in the DCFC accounts,the reason is down to the write out of negative goodwill (which has the effect of increasing profit/reducing loss,as opposed to the write down of goodwill,which has the opposite effect).

Thus,if you take the DCFC loss of £7.679m and deduct write down of £1.844m of negative goodwill,you arrive at the £5.835m loss shown in the GS Derby UK Ltd consolidated accounts.

[ramblur]

Bah got excited that you had published another financial gem!

Just for you, McRamFan,I'll put some meat on the bones of an earlier post.Players' wages for 9/10 had been given at £10.5m and between £9m and £10m for 10/11.As we were given a figure of "just over £9m" in a DET piece at the end of March 11,I'll take this as the figure (on the grounds that it couldn't have changed much in April).The following analysis will assume that these figures are reasonably accurate.Employers' NIC will be shortened to ENIC.

The overall fall in wages (including ENIC) in 10/11 compared to the previous year is c£3.2m.The actual fall in staffing nos between the 2 years on the non playing side is as follows:-

Admin & Marketing 6 F/T and 6 P/T, Management and Coaching 2 F/T and 5 P/T.

There were staff gains in Groundsmen,Kitchen & Catering of 3 F/T and 4 P/T.

All of this leads me to believe that players' wages must account for over £2.5m of the reductions,As the fall in players' wages given (between the 2 years) is just under £1.5m,I think it's safe to assume that the £2.5m includes contract buy outs and that the quoted figures don't (not a criticism -perfectly reasonable).One may therefore deduce that contract buy outs in 9/10 exceeded those in 10/11 by over £1m.

The next thing to do is to try and guess the value of pay for non playing staff.Glick,the club secretary,Nigel and a string of office managers must account for a fair whack (you can add c£35k ENIC to Glick's £278k,and so on).Although not a massive amount,the various coaches (including Academy) will probably be fairly substantial.

You're then left with the balance of the 96 F/T and 40 P/T posts that make up the non playing side.I've no idea what typical UK pay would be for PAs,secretaries,accounts technicians,ground staff etc,but don't forget ENIC -£20k gross becomes about £22.5k for instance.My own guess is that the overall pay (non players) will be in the £3m-£4m range for 10/11.

I've commented in the past that players' wages given for 08/09 and 09/10 indicated that in both years the values for non players would be about £6m each year.Armed with knowledge of the way contract buy outs are treated,I can now revisit this.Whilst I can't remember any player buy outs in 08/09,there is the buy out of Jewell and his staff.(which would form part of the £6m).Other factors to take into consideration would be that Jewell was no doubt on more money than Nigel,that directors' emoluments came in at £747k (+ c£94k ENIC),that overall staffing nos were higher for non players (103/47) and that we don't know how GSE associates (eg Faulkner) were rewarded.

Onto 9/10,the year when player buy outs come to the fore(which should be added to the £10.5m figure given,and thus reduce the £6m).Directors' emoluments came in at £424k,(c53k ENIC) and staffing nos at 100/47.

All in all,I see little to alter my view that non players for 10/11 were probably in the £3m to £4m range (and may be at the higher end).

[McRamFan]

Thanks Ramblur 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':)' />

[ramblur]

Finally,PP is scheduled for revaluation every 5 years (interim valuations are carried out in the 3rd year of the cycle).As the last revaluation was carried out on 11/12/07,one would assume that the next published one will appear later this year and feature in the 12/13 accounts.It will be interesting to see what figure comes out,given conditions over the last few years.

Any uplift would increase the total asset value and thus the net assets-the corresponding entry on the capital side would lead to an equivalent uplift in the 'revaluation reserve'.

The historic cost is shown in the accounts at £20m,but this isn't the amount on which depreciation is based,it's based on valuation.This means that almost £1m of depreciation in P/L has had no past cash implications.If the value is again uplifted,then this figure will increase-a prime example of why not too much attention should be afforded to the headline P/L figure.

[ramblur]

For some reason I've not been given permissions to edit my last post,so I'd like to point out that the historic cost was nearer £21m,at £20.8m

[Day]

5 minute edit timer

[ramblur]

5 minute edit timer

Wondered about that one,Daveo,as it's probably third time it's happened.Each time the 'edit' button had been available,and I only got the message after clicking on 'submit' (the last edit only involved a figure,and took seconds).So I guess that the availability of the button doesn't imply the definite ability to edit,and that I missed 'time out' by seconds last time?

[Day]

Pass, from what you say I guess so as the edit button always shows for me obviously. I'll extend the time to 10mins now if it helps.

[ramblur]

Pass, from what you say I guess so as the edit button always shows for me obviously. I'll extend the time to 10mins now if it helps.

It's not so much the time allowed as the fact that the edit button shows as still being available,yet the timer still seems to run whilst editing (in other words,you could hit the edit button at,say,4 mins 40 secs,and not finish your edit within the time limit,which happened to me).Not sure extending to 10 mins would help,as the same problems would still apply.Perhaps the 4 minutes should apply to the availability of the edit button itself,rather than the whole editing process.

Last time wasn't bad,but it gets tedious with a long edit,because the first inkling you get that you've wasted your time is when you press 'submit' and get redirected to the top of the post where the "you do not have the required permissions" etc appears.

[Day]

I'll pass it on to forum software support people, see if theres any way of removing it after the time elapses

[ramblur]

I'll pass it on to forum software support people, see if theres any way of removing it after the time elapses

Thanks

[sage]

A ten minute edit function would be good though.

[Day]

I have extended It to 10mins now

[sage]

Cheers

[Cisse]

I have extended It to 10mins now

Appreciate it. Since English is foreign language to me I tend to mess up from time to time and don't always manage to edit quickly enough.

[Day]

It's not so much the time allowed as the fact that the edit button shows as still being available,yet the timer still seems to run whilst editing (in other words,you could hit the edit button at,say,4 mins 40 secs,and not finish your edit within the time limit,which happened to me).Not sure extending to 10 mins would help,as the same problems would still apply.Perhaps the 4 minutes should apply to the availability of the edit button itself,rather than the whole editing process.

Last time wasn't bad,but it gets tedious with a long edit,because the first inkling you get that you've wasted your time is when you press 'submit' and get redirected to the top of the post where the "you do not have the required permissions" etc appears.

Quickly back to this I've been told it's not possible, soon as the clock starts ticking after the post has been made there is no way to stop it, hopefully the extended time will help now anyhow.

[ramblur]

Quickly back to this I've been told it's not possible, soon as the clock starts ticking after the post has been made there is no way to stop it, hopefully the extended time will help now anyhow.

Thanks for that.I suppose what it means is that if your post is shown as "posted 8 minutes ago" (or less),you've got a chance.If it shows "9 mins",however,you might have 1 second or 60 seconds to complete the edit.