DCFC Accounts....

[davenportram]

Out of interest are those figured for Forest and Leeds including cup runs?

Our gate income dropped - that is what happens when you get relegated and stagnate on the pitch

Groupon is equivalent if dropping match by match prices and we still can't sell out at a cheaper price than you are suggesting so how will your policy work

.

[davenportram]

Oh an while we are talking about Groupon there is no evidence that it hasn't increased ticket revenue. These accounts are for last season before Groupon deals were offered.

.

[chesapeake]

Out of interest are those figured for Forest and Leeds including cup runs?

Our gate income dropped - that is what happens when you get relegated and stagnate on the pitch

Groupon is equivalent if dropping match by match prices and we still can't sell out at a cheaper price than you are suggesting so how will your policy work

.

They dropped the match to match prices for group on and then pay group-on a cut, said to be 50%. Why not just set a price of £15 and keep all the income for selected matches, not too imaginative really. Like they did for the Leeds and West Ham games. It worked. Obviously team performance is a factor in how much can be made. I don't know how far Forest and Leeds went in the cup but cup income is split 3 ways, I can't remember Forest having any big matches but surely we could do much better.

Gate income will be down again this year we lost 1500 full paying ST holders, no chance of making that up with the ticketing policy indicated.

[davenportram]

They dropped the match to match prices for group on and then pay group-on a cut, said to be 50%. Why not just set a price of £15 and keep all the income for selected matches, not too imaginative really. Like they did for the Leeds and West Ham games. It worked. Obviously team performance is a factor in how much can be made. I don't know how far Forest and Leeds went in the cup but cup income is split 3 ways, I can't remember Forest having any big matches but surely we could do much better.

Gate income will be down again this year we lost 1500 full paying ST holders, no chance of making that up with the ticketing policy indicated.

Except maybe the play offs

The thing is though cutting all tickets to £15 would mean no-one would pay full price at all and no guarantee of any extra attendance- as it is some people pay full price some pay less.

Even manure dont reduce their prices when they cant sell out of season tickets like this season. reducing prices is by no way a guantee of increasing income.

[davenportram]

Gate income will be down again this year we lost 1500 full paying ST holders, no chance of making that up with the ticketing policy indicated.

come back in a years time when you MIGHT have evidence to back up this claim.

[Boycie]

Man City are the bigger club now days, end of. Local club supported by the locals, not like them manure lot, cockney boys.

Anyway, board out.

[chesapeake]

Except maybe the play offs

The thing is though cutting all tickets to £15 would mean no-one would pay full price at all and no guarantee of any extra attendance- as it is some people pay full price some pay less.

Even manure dont reduce their prices when they cant sell out of season tickets like this season. reducing prices is by no way a guantee of increasing income.

If you are telling me that the best we can do is raise £9 per head to watch Derby I will have to disagree. It costs £9 to watch Matlock Town 5 tiers down. Income is being missed out on and the inevitable will happen with these awful losses. Players we would rather keep will be sold.

[Boycie]

I think your wrong wrong wrong.

[davenportram]

If you are telling me that the best we can do is raise £9 per head to watch Derby I will have to disagree. It costs £9 to watch Matlock Town 5 tiers down. Income is being missed out on and the inevitable will happen with these awful losses. Players we would rather keep will be sold.

When have I said that?

All I said was your policy aint going to work.

Your not comparing like for like comparing us to Leeds and Forest - Leeds on a promotion and decent season, Forest back to back play-off campaigns compare to our relegation and stagnation. Seasons where we had a decent cup run and immediately after relegation we had gate receipts over £6m

Blanket reductions in ticket prices dont necessarily increase gates enough to increase revenue. As seen by the lack of sell outs or increase in attendance garnered from reducing ticket prices via groupon.

[Day]

chesapeake aka ianm aka oregon aka ancoatsboy aka all his other accounts. Give up will you, banned means banned fool.

[Asanovic]

Didn't know Ianm was banned! Why?

[Day]

Old news that is, he was a naughty boy, since then he's created several accounts in an attempt to post on a forum which he thinks is *****.

[Boycie]

I was trying to ban him, but was locked out the ban hammer cupboard, I think Daveo wanted him.

[ramblur]

Having downloaded the accounts,I can safely say that I was lucky to get my estimate so close.I can find little to complain about and can confirm that the cash injections were as said (£5.8m came after the year end,as indicated in the directors' report and this is good enough for me in audited accounts).Off the top of my head,cash injections now stand at about £28.6m,which when added to total purchase price of £16m gives an overall total of c £44.6m.I'll check and reconcile same later.Analysis will be split over several posts.

Turnover £18.121m less (operating costs £17.621m +admin expenses £7.429m) gives operating loss of £6.929m.

Add £995k net interest to this,and then deduct (profit on sale of players' registrations £241k +tax credit £4k),and you end up with a loss on normal activities of £7.679m.

This includes paper transactions,and is based on income and expenditure,i.e what was due to be paid/received,as opposed to what was actually paid/received.

I've worked out EBITDA to be £2.55m (negative) and will show all how to work it out later today.What this means is the cash shortfall that would have arisen had everything due been paid and received,and with paper transactions (depreciation/amortisation) stripped out.In an ideal world you'd want to see positive EBITDA,at least sufficient to cover net interest payable (and preferably even more to help contribute to the capital side of the business).Still a way to go there.

For those with accounts,now go to note 21 (right at the end),which converts this from an income and expenditure basis to a receipts and payments basis.The end figure of £3.943m is the cash deficit which the owners had to cover.It's greater than EBITDA mainly because applicable creditors were reduced over the year (a good thing).

This figure always opens the cashflow statement,which then goes on to list incomings and outgoings on the capital side,after first dealing with net interest paid (which amounted to £418k).Other items included purchase of tangible assets £450k (mainly F&F and a computer),payments to secure players' registrations £1.939m,Players' registration fees received £374k,new secured loans (including the revolving S/T loan) of

£9.722m and repayment of secured loan of £2.764m (the old revolving loan).At the end of all of this,cash increased by £572k over the year.to £1.75m at the year end.

[G STAR RAM]

Having downloaded the accounts,I can safely say that I was lucky to get my estimate so close.I can find little to complain about and can confirm that the cash injections were as said (£5.8m came after the year end,as indicated in the directors' report and this is good enough for me in audited accounts).Off the top of my head,cash injections now stand at about £28.6m,which when added to total purchase price of £16m gives an overall total of c £44.6m.I'll check and reconcile same later.Analysis will be split over several posts.

Turnover £18.121m less (operating costs £17.621m +admin expenses £7.429m) gives operating loss of £6.929m.

Add £995k net interest to this,and then deduct (profit on sale of players' registrations £241k +tax credit £4k),and you end up with a loss on normal activities of £7.679m.

This includes paper transactions,and is based on income and expenditure,i.e what was due to be paid/received,as opposed to what was actually paid/received.

I've worked out EBITDA to be £2.55m (negative) and will show all how to work it out later today.What this means is the cash shortfall that would have arisen had everything due been paid and received,and with paper transactions (depreciation/amortisation) stripped out.In an ideal world you'd want to see positive EBITDA,at least sufficient to cover net interest payable (and preferably even more to help contribute to the capital side of the business).Still a way to go there.

For those with accounts,now go to note 21 (right at the end),which converts this from an income and expenditure basis to a receipts and payments basis.The end figure of £3.943m is the cash deficit which the owners had to cover.It's greater than EBITDA mainly because applicable creditors were reduced over the year (a good thing).

This figure always opens the cashflow statement,which then goes on to list incomings and outgoings on the capital side,after first dealing with net interest paid (which amounted to £418k).Other items included purchase of tangible assets £450k (mainly F&F and a computer),payments to secure players' registrations £1.939m,Players' registration fees received £374k,new secured loans (including the revolving S/T loan) of

£9.722m and repayment of secured loan of £2.764m (the old revolving loan).At the end of all of this,cash increased by £572k over the year.to £1.75m at the year end.

My memory is pretty crap but aren't Moxey and Commons included in this figure?

[G STAR RAM]

Simple question if say a new consortium came in to buy the club what would they have to do as regards these loans etc. In short would they need 25 million in collateral to clear the debt even before any investment in new players. Also where does the new Pride Park Plaza fit in to all of this.

Very unlikely that someone would come in and pay the mortgage of £15million straight off.

[ramblur]

Debt is as follows:-

Payable in 12 months:- Old GSE loan £1.747m,new GSE loan £6.802m,revolving loan £3.173m,other loan £17k,giving a total of £11.739m.Add to this long term debt of £15.506m and HP of £8k and the gross debt is £27.253m.Deduct the end of year cash of £1.75m and the net debt is £25.503m.

Having looked at the Gellaw accounts (through which GSE loans are routed),the £152k accrued interest on the £1.7m loan remains unpaid.I was a little concerned to find that the interest charge for this year appears to be £294k,which itself was accrued and hence there is now £446k of accrued interest outstanding.This interest charge can't relate to the new loan as it was supposed to be interest free.

Given that the GSE management charge for the year reduced to £60k,I hope these rather high interest charges aren't effectively management charges by another name.

[ramblur]

Total wages for the year amounted to £13.244m (including employers NIC),compared to £16.410m last year,a fall of nearly £3.2m.The figures excluding payroll overhead are £11.629m and £14.523m respectively.Having looked at staffing numbers for non players (compared to last year)it's pretty obvious that the vast bulk of the reduction came out of players' wages.It may well be that 09/10 included a lot of contract pay offs.

The only paid director was Glick,at £277,802.I noticed that SwissRambler assumed that AA was a paid director in 09/10-what he obviously failed to realise was that AP was around for a third of that year and hence he was responsible for the balance,rather than AA. I'm fairly sure AA would get his rewards out of the management charge.

[ramblur]

Should point out that the debt shown as repayable in 12 months is probably repayable at call,as there are no repayment schedules (you have to classify it somewhere-it's exactly where I expected to find it).

Going back to player sales,as well as the £374k actually received,£519k is also shown as outstanding (there was nothing o/s at the start of the year),therefore the total for Hulse,Moxey and Commons would appear to be £893k.It should be noted that this will represent net proceeds,after deducting amounts we may have owed other clubs.The paper profit in my first post will relate to the aggregate of those 3.I'm afraid there's probably bad news for you later on Varney.

During the year,as well as £1.939m being actually paid for players,the accounts show that a further £799k was outstanding.It can be very hard to tie this down to the players concerned as £1.336m had been owing at the start of the year,thus £603k+£799k would appear to relate to the year in question.

"Post balance sheet events" indicates that net proceeds of £196,352 were received for player sales,and this must surely be Varney.It also shows that player purchases of £2,467,448 (inclusive of agents' fees and league levy) were made,but it's impossible to determine who this relates to.I must admit that overall the figures surprise me.

[ramblur]

For those with the accounts who want to work out EBITDA,this is how you do it:-

Start off with the operating loss of £6.929m,then go right down near the end to note 21.From this,pick out Amortisation of players' regs £2.468m and add depreciation of tangible assets (mainly PP)£1.998m,the total of the 2 being £4.466m.Deduct this from the loss,to give £2.463m and then pick out amortisation of grant income £0.087m and add this to the last figure,to give £2.55m.

Note that there's a blank against impairment provisions.If there'd been something there,you would have needed to add it to the first 2 we added together,before deducting from operating loss.

This EBITDA figure is a bit lower than I'd expected,which is encouraging.Try not to concentrate too much on the headline profit/loss figures because they always include paper (non cash)transactions.

I know it's hard to follow,but I can't really simplify it for you.