Gary Teale Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 I bet Croft is on a decent amount to as he came in on a free after being player of the year at his last club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CornwallRam Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 So let me get this right 15 Million mortgage on the ground which has to be paid off over how many years ? I presume its low interest. Maybe 11 Million interest free from the Board of directors. Just a question here who would want to take us over ? The 'mortgage' is interest only, so never gets paid back - although it is due to expire in (I think) 2016, at which point it will need to be paid back or renegotiated. £4m is the revolving credit facility which is not interest free, it is only the 'internal loan' which is interest free. A question for the board 'accountants' - if the owners loan is not to be repaid, why do it as a loan rather than an equity injection? If, as I think GStar suggested, it may be because some owners were not willing to invest more and some were, does that not suggest that they are expecting payment when the club is sold? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmyp Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 The loan will only ever be paid off if the club is sold or individual investors want to sell their stake in the club or finally if the club is making enough money to start paying its share holders divedends. Its a guaranteed way of investors getting their money back in the long term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmyp Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 It also means that if the club goes bust or into administration then this loan will be paid back before other creditors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 The £7.7m loss will be the headline loss,as it is compared to a £2.2m loss from the previous year,which itself was a headline loss.Both include paper transactions,so the actual cash loss for the year in question will be a fair bit lower (I estimated £3m,but it's difficult without knowing players' amortisation figure,especially with so many ins and outs.It may even be around £4m,but we'll soon find out). The article seems to be trying to create the impression that a £7m+ loss was funded by a £7m cash injection.I notice in all of this that there's no mention of the £1.7m+ GSE loan,which was an interest bearing loan.I suspect this,with interest,was repaid at a cost of around £1.9m (again,soon find out). You should note that the wages figures quoted excluded employers' NIC this time round (the clever bit being that you can't tell if players' did or didn't.The only reason I knew this was because I instantly recognised the 9/10 total figure to be low,and upon checking found it to have been £16.4m (including employers' NIC). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 The loan will only ever be paid off if the club is sold or individual investors want to sell their stake in the club or finally if the club is making enough money to start paying its share holders divedends. Its a guaranteed way of investors getting their money back in the long term. Nothing to stop the loan being repaid at any time if there's money in the kitty and a wish for it to be repaid.Dividends have nothing to do with it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 It also means that if the club goes bust or into administration then this loan will be paid back before other creditors. In this industry,football creditors get precedence in the event of administration.None of us know what the terms of the loan are,and from memory the article didn't even specify a secured loan (though I suspect it must be). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-JW- Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 Depressing read. Wonder which director is on 300k? there'll be no players coming in, so we need to give the youngsters more experience asap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-JW- Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 Tom Glick will be on Radio Derby today,if you're interested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McRamFan Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 This is still recovery from Davis and Jewell bad spending on players with large wages and long contracts. Also we took less money in from revenue streams than last year, most notably the parachute payment ended. People are spending less with the club because money is tight, and you can't really blame the ownwers for making it a loan (maybe its a loan to fit in with FFP), they maybe rich, and they are rich because they are cautious with investments. I was initially surprised, and thought it would be about a third of the total, however i had not factored in parachute pauments and hoped the the wage bill would have been reduced more than it was. Overall I am not concerned about the position we are in, a football club is a big vessel and takes time, patiance and skill to turn around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McRamFan Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 Tom Glick will be on Radio Derby today,if you're interested. Any idea about time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-JW- Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 Any idea about time? Between 2 and 3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 The 'mortgage' is interest only, so never gets paid back - although it is due to expire in (I think) 2016, at which point it will need to be paid back or renegotiated. £4m is the revolving credit facility which is not interest free, it is only the 'internal loan' which is interest free. A question for the board 'accountants' - if the owners loan is not to be repaid, why do it as a loan rather than an equity injection? If, as I think GStar suggested, it may be because some owners were not willing to invest more and some were, does that not suggest that they are expecting payment when the club is sold? Yes,a good question,Cornwall-this will no doubt indicate that not all participated (although not necessarily-if finances improved it would be a lot simpler to just repay all or part of a loan than go through the rigmarole of dividends or capital reduction,if it had been introduced by share capital).If it were only a section of investors involved,it would also be a surprise to see an interest free loan-non contributing members would get the benefit of the loan for nothing,which would be a little odd. Of course the word "expectation" is very clever-there might not be an "expectation" of repayment,yet there'd be nothing to stop it happening at any stage. I'm sure I heard/read Glick saying somewhere that we could break even this year if we had a good cup run.This would appear to be at odds with a suggestion that the operations side this year would be little different to that being reported. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CornwallRam Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 Just thinking things through. I'm probably way off the mark here, but, the difference between turnover and outgoings is reasonably small, The club have reported a big loss - which I think means that the majority of this loss was on paper (player depreciation etc). Does that mean that there was only a small capital injection needed to keep the club ticking over? If that is the case why did we need the big internal loan? Has some of the previously injected capital been converted into a loan? Have we paid dividends out? I realise the above is only the speculative thought process of a relative financial illiterate, so sorry if I'm completely on the wrong track, but can someone tell my why I'm wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Teale Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 So its last years up to June 11. We must surely be running at a better level now then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexxxxx Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 i am very worried about the teams coming down getting £12m a season for 4 seasons or however much it is... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Éire Ram Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 i am very worried about the teams coming down getting £12m a season for 4 seasons or however much it is... 16 million per season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chesapeake Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 The £7.7m loss will be the headline loss,as it is compared to a £2.2m loss from the previous year,which itself was a headline loss.Both include paper transactions,so the actual cash loss for the year in question will be a fair bit lower (I estimated £3m,but it's difficult without knowing players' amortisation figure,especially with so many ins and outs.It may even be around £4m,but we'll soon find out). The article seems to be trying to create the impression that a £7m+ loss was funded by a £7m cash injection.I notice in all of this that there's no mention of the £1.7m+ GSE loan,which was an interest bearing loan.I suspect this,with interest,was repaid at a cost of around £1.9m (again,soon find out). You should note that the wages figures quoted excluded employers' NIC this time round (the clever bit being that you can't tell if players' did or didn't.The only reason I knew this was because I instantly recognised the 9/10 total figure to be low,and upon checking found it to have been £16.4m (including employers' NIC). Doesn't matter if it is a cash loss or not it still counts. Looks another horrible set of accounts. The 277k directors fee will be Glick whose performance must be under scrutiny, I reckon you could get a guy on 30k a year who could get better results than that. Will be interesting to see the full set of accounts to see where the expenses are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sage Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 Yeh, I'm sure you can get loads of chief execs of multi million pound businesses on £30k a year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chesapeake Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 So its last years up to June 11. We must surely be running at a better level now then. Unlikely the players forced out will have been paid off leaving little if any saving. Next year should be better wages wise but TV money will be well down. The deal for next year is reduced. 7.7 million loss out of a 18.1 million turnover is a major concern and is nowhere near where I hoped we would be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.