alexxxxx Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 16 million per season. death of the championship.. will be even more polarised than the premier league. 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. Qualify my earlier post-you would be right in saying it would be repaid before non football creditors,in the event of administration.Winding up would be a different scenario. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 16 million per season. 2x£16m,2x£8m. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chesapeake 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. That wasn't the point. I don't begrudge the 277k to somebody who is good. These results confirm that the current guy is not up to the job. There are people who work in business in Derbyshire could get better results for a fraction of this cost. The matchday ticketing use of Groupon etc this season has been a total shambles for example and 5.5m income from 26k average gates is meagre return, abysmal in fact. Glick is responsible for all this no question, these dire results are down to him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 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. I'd always look at EBITDA as the best way of examining current health.I expect reduced (negative) EBITDA for 11/12,followed by enough EBITDA to at least cover interest the following season (basically cash break even).Paper losses to a large extent reflect past expenditure,so I wouldn't concentrate too much on these.We need to get to a stage where EBITDA comfortably covers interest and also contributes to capital expenditure.A big ask,and I don't think it can be done,so over to the academy and player sales. EBITDA means 'earnings before interest,tax,depreciation and amortisation, for the laymen (not directed towards you) and basically tells you earnings before non cash, paper transactions,but also before interest payments.I'll show everyone how to calculate it when the accounts come out (not particularly difficult).It's one of the more useful indicators. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dangerous Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 im suprised that anyone finds these accounts suprising. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 That wasn't the point. I don't begrudge the 277k to somebody who is good. These results confirm that the current guy is not up to the job. There are people who work in business in Derbyshire could get better results for a fraction of this cost. The matchday ticketing use of Groupon etc this season has been a total shambles for example and 5.5m income from 26k average gates is meagre return, abysmal in fact. Glick is responsible for all this no question, these dire results are down to him. I might agree to a certain extent on 'Groupon'.My problem with this is that wavering renewers might see all these deals and decide to opt for this route and then buy other tickets dependant on what they perceive to be the entertainment value-if we're not playing well,they just won't bother.The problem is,if renewals are down again this year,there will no doubt be even greater numbers of 'Groupons' next year,which in turn would influence the following year's renewers even more.The vicious circle,the only way out being onfield performances to draw in the crowds. Don't think you can blame Glick for the financial results-a lot of the damage was done in Jan 08 and 08/09.Glick wasn't responsible for transfer policy or wage levels-Pearson said we were £2.5m over budget on wages in Aug 08,and I believe there was further carnage after that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gritty Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 I wonder if DCFC would meet with the RamsTrust to discuss the accounts? Maybe Ramblur and GStar could attend also and ask questions? I reckon Derby would probably agree to do that? In the club's interests to dispell false rumour etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chesapeake Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 I'd always look at EBITDA as the best way of examining current health.I expect reduced (negative) EBITDA for 11/12,followed by enough EBITDA to at least cover interest the following season (basically cash break even).Paper losses to a large extent reflect past expenditure,so I wouldn't concentrate too much on these.We need to get to a stage where EBITDA comfortably covers interest and also contributes to capital expenditure.A big ask,and I don't think it can be done,so over to the academy and player sales. EBITDA means 'earnings before interest,tax,depreciation and amortisation, for the laymen (not directed towards you) and basically tells you earnings before non cash, paper transactions,but also before interest payments.I'll show everyone how to calculate it when the accounts come out (not particularly difficult).It's one of the more useful indicators. The health is not good no matter what the rhetoric about financial stability over the last year or so. I will have to look at full acoounts to look at how bad and how much longer it might take to turn the finances round. The paper losses do amount to past mistakes, mainly due now to the early Glick days. Also his lack of ability in getting deals done in getting players out last summer, added to this the gate income we can only raise 5.5m, Forest can get in 7m, surely we should with correct ticketing pricing policy be able to match what they get in. That is a million at least short of the gate income we should be able to get. If we were to look into other areas I am sure the performance is likely to be below par as well. Top and bottom of it he doesn't understand Derbyshire people or football. What works in America does not work here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sage Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 What doesn't he understand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur 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? You're nowhere near a financially illiterate,Cornwall.When I questioned your £10m guesstimate,your reasoning was sound,but there were far too many unknowns on the operations side.I also suspect that your £8m projected cash injection derived from the following calculation:- 24-(7.7+6.6+1.7) ? Better not tell you where that may have gone awry 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':P' /> I took the opposite approach for my guess-I asked myself the question 'what cash loss does it look like they're funding?' and then added estimates for paper transactions to build up an identikit headline loss.I may well have been a bit lucky in that I probably underestimated the cash loss a little,but this may have been compensated by a mistake on amortisation.You need a bit of luck to get anywhere near the figure,and don't ever let anyone tell you otherwise! In answer to your question,the cash loss is probably about half the headline loss in this particular case. One tip for the future,though.Although players' amortisation (particularly with undisclosed fees) is a difficult nut to crack,depreciation (PP,plant,vehicles,office equipment,F&F etc) is easier,and you can put in a figure (unless something changes radically) of just under £2m for this-c£1.9m from memory only.Therefore,for the benefit of all,whenever a headline loss is declared you can wipe off c£2m straight away. As far as 11/12 goes,I reckon the fall in income has been more than offset by a fall in wages and I already predict a headline loss somewhere in the 6 (as opposed to 7) channel ,and even high 5's wouldn't surprise me.This will bring down the cash shortfall.I expect 12/13 to be at least cash break even ,with a players' wage figure less than most think (I stress,purely my opinion). I can't immediately see why the £6m loan was put in (or at least the extent of it).I believe there would have been a need to provide some net funding for players,along with funding a 11/12 cash loss,but £6m looks a little high to me (mind you,it's all a bit difficult without sight of the actual accounts). Listened to Glick's interview and was rather surprised when he suggested that the £28m investment was half share capital and half loan capital,when £20/21m should be share capital.I also remember Appleby boasting a couple of years ago that it was all equity and that there was no loan capital involved.How things have changed. No dividends/no conversion of equity to loans (pretty sure of that !) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 The health is not good no matter what the rhetoric about financial stability over the last year or so. I will have to look at full acoounts to look at how bad and how much longer it might take to turn the finances round. The paper losses do amount to past mistakes, mainly due now to the early Glick days. Also his lack of ability in getting deals done in getting players out last summer, added to this the gate income we can only raise 5.5m, Forest can get in 7m, surely we should with correct ticketing pricing policy be able to match what they get in. That is a million at least short of the gate income we should be able to get. If we were to look into other areas I am sure the performance is likely to be below par as well. Top and bottom of it he doesn't understand Derbyshire people or football. What works in America does not work here. I'd agree with your last sentence.Many big UK companies have had past failed sorties into the US,which foundered because they tried to apply business models that were a success in the UK onto the US market,often with disastrous consequences.The same would likely apply in reverse (however,it only actualy fails when it's failed.I don't think it will work,but am more than happy to be proved wrong).You may have a point on ticketing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 I wonder if DCFC would meet with the RamsTrust to discuss the accounts? Maybe Ramblur and GStar could attend also and ask questions? I reckon Derby would probably agree to do that? In the club's interests to dispell false rumour etc Sorry,can't travel-even have trouble talking properly sometimes.Was dragged into the local hospital's medical assessment unit this week and was put on oxygen for the first time in my life.Now got a home nebuliser added to my ever burgeoning portfolio.Tbh was dreading the accounts coming out-not particularly looking forward to combing throgh the full sets of accounts next week. Not sure a meeting would be too helpful-seems pretty clear what the way forward is going to be,and I applaud that bit of honesty,at least.Feel very sorry for Clough though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gritty Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 Sorry to hear that ramblur. Interesting to see Leicesters situation by comparison. Their funding is via loan capital at market interest rates I understand (http://foxestrust.co.uk/1395/city-financial-results-trust-speaks-in-the-media). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smiffy Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 So we have to cut the wages again next season, but get a better team, simple kkkkk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chesapeake Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 So we have to cut the wages again next season, but get a better team, simple kkkkk No question more cuts will be needed year on year. Only 2 ways out major player sales or promotion, which would give the yanks their chance to get some money back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 So we have to cut the wages again next season, but get a better team, simple kkkkk In the main it'll just consist of consolidating the part savings on lots of players this season into full year savings next season-this will amount to quite a lot.There's also the question of Green to add to the mix-one way or another there'll be a saving there.Take the essence of your point though,and tend to agree.Doesn't help that we start without Barker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gritty Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 Silver lining in every cloud: Assume Barker's wages are covered by insurance??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 Sorry to hear about your health problems Ramblur. Love your insight into the Rams finances. Hope you get better soon. Thanks for that,curtains (thanks also to feisty).Unfortunately,as nobody knows what triggers autoimmune disease,it's not possible to reverse it.All you can do is suppress the immune system,which (for obvious reasons) creates its own problems.I've had to throw myself at the mercy of the public health system at a particularly bad time as I recently received an appointment to see a rheumatologist in 2015 (and I jest not).When my GP told me originally that he hoped it was gout,I thought little of it -probably for the best as I at least got a small period of blissfull ignorance.Anyway,enough of this,it's bad enough having it without talking about it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 Silver lining in every cloud: Assume Barker's wages are covered by insurance??? Doubt it,that kind of insurance would be very expensive.I suspect the insurance only covers career ending injuries/events Could a mod please delete one of my duplicate posts-don't know how they arose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.