Beechey Posted 5 March 2019 Posted 5 March 2019 25 minutes ago, Sol thewall Bamba said: Not flogging enough worthless memberships obviously. Jack the price up next season, that'll sort it. They rang me a few weeks ago to try and sell me it at half price
st albans fox Posted 5 March 2019 Posted 5 March 2019 2 hours ago, ealingfox said: Weren't any big sales in that accounting period was there? Schlupp is the only one I can think of at about 12m. Next accounts will include Mahrez and Musa sales. 2 hours ago, urban.spaceman said: I seem to remember the Mahrez money coming 3 installments and we might have taken a loan out on that too. Accounts to end may ‘18 wont include Mahrez will include drinkwater/silva/Iborra/kelechi .... so the following seasons accounts will have a bigger positive on transfers (the way the fees are paid aren’t relevant - money is owed so is part of the assets of the business and count towards annual profit )
hackneyfox Posted 6 March 2019 Posted 6 March 2019 May not include Mahrez but it also doesn't include the £115m we spent.
WigstonWanderer Posted 7 March 2019 Posted 7 March 2019 On 06/03/2019 at 05:34, st albans fox said: Accounts to end may ‘18 wont include Mahrez will include drinkwater/silva/Iborra/kelechi .... so the following seasons accounts will have a bigger positive on transfers (the way the fees are paid aren’t relevant - money is owed so is part of the assets of the business and count towards annual profit ) I thought transfer fees were amortised over the length of the contract for P/L purposes? Player sales are then booked as profit or loss depending on sale price vs the written down value of the player at the time of sale.
st albans fox Posted 7 March 2019 Posted 7 March 2019 7 hours ago, WigstonWanderer said: I thought transfer fees were amortised over the length of the contract for P/L purposes? Player sales are then booked as profit or loss depending on sale price vs the written down value of the player at the time of sale. ....our figures to end may ‘18 still won’t include mahrez !
PaulW Posted 7 March 2019 Posted 7 March 2019 On 05/03/2019 at 17:12, Nicolo Barella said: To be expected, we'll likely not recieve a CL windfall for a long, long time, possibly never again. It's being so cheerful that keeps you going!
WigstonWanderer Posted 7 March 2019 Posted 7 March 2019 3 hours ago, st albans fox said: ....our figures to end may ‘18 still won’t include mahrez ! Ah yes, sorry, misread your post Nevertheless the incoming players, Silva, Iborra, Kelechi would only cost 1 years worth of depreciation for the 2018 accounts. The rest is depreciated over the remainder of their contract.
Chrysalis Posted 8 March 2019 Posted 8 March 2019 On 05/03/2019 at 17:37, urban.spaceman said: Explains the huge loan we took out then. Honestly, I’d be happy to hold off on the KP expansion for a while as it’s not as important as the training ground and we don’t want to end up squandering cash on something that isn’t a priority and could be detrimental to the development of the squad, like what’s happened to Arsenal and Tottenham. Great that we’re spending within our means too but that also means we'll have to sell one big player to buy two or three again. Doesnt explain it to me, why would we need a loan when we made a milion profit and have a owner who can cover cash flow issues?
st albans fox Posted 8 March 2019 Posted 8 March 2019 4 hours ago, Chrysalis said: Doesnt explain it to me, why would we need a loan when we made a milion profit and have a owner who can cover cash flow issues? I think the ‘loan’ is there as cash flow in case it’s required. I doubt the club intends using it but given how things can unexpectedly happen with devastating consequences (as we saw in November,) it’s commercially prudent to do stuff like this (unless you are a government wealth fund like Man City!) there may also also tax advantages in having loans as some interest repayments are deductible (someone will correct me if I’m wrong). This project may be covered as a special case aswell re r and d .......
urban fox Posted 8 March 2019 Posted 8 March 2019 10 hours ago, Chrysalis said: Doesnt explain it to me, why would we need a loan when we made a milion profit and have a owner who can cover cash flow issues? As stated interest on loans is tax deductible. For a business with a £150m+ turnover £1.6M profit is actually not a very healthy margin (1%). A modest pay increase across the board (not just players but all the other staff too), and inflation in general would very easily swallow this. Obviously this is not the whole picture as profits in previous seasons were higher and so there will be reserves. We should all remember this is the accounts of the business as whole and profit/loss is not just about transfers but the entire operation. We often tend to forget that the club is actually a major employer in the area when you consider all the groundstaff, administration, catering, retail and other staff employed. The days when rich owners could just pump cash in are a thing of the past under FFP rules. Yes shareholders can put up the cash for transfers but, as far I know, this would now have to be in the form of a properly accounted loan with a repayment schedule etc. based on ability to pay. Owners cash cannot simply be thrown in for day to day operating costs such as wages etc anymore. Most businesses will have a pre arranged overdraft facility which allows them to ride the ups and downs in cash flow. Whether or not it is ever actually used is not the point. It is there for contingency.
Chrysalis Posted 9 March 2019 Posted 9 March 2019 So you saying FFP is forcing clubs to acquire interest bearing loans possibly also secured on assets instead of cash injections supposedly to reduce financial risk? From what I understand FFP doesnt forbid cashflow plug's from owners, its simply limits the losses a club is allowed to make over a given period of time on their accounts. So owner's depositing cash in accounts to cover temporary cashflow issues should not be a problem. The fact its an external loan that is not from the owners has concerned me,
Babylon Posted 9 March 2019 Posted 9 March 2019 On 08/03/2019 at 02:14, Chrysalis said: Doesnt explain it to me, why would we need a loan when we made a milion profit and have a owner who can cover cash flow issues? Because they don't have £160m sat in the bank and their wealth is tied up in assets?
st albans fox Posted 9 March 2019 Posted 9 March 2019 4 hours ago, Chrysalis said: So you saying FFP is forcing clubs to acquire interest bearing loans possibly also secured on assets instead of cash injections supposedly to reduce financial risk? From what I understand FFP doesnt forbid cashflow plug's from owners, its simply limits the losses a club is allowed to make over a given period of time on their accounts. So owner's depositing cash in accounts to cover temporary cashflow issues should not be a problem. The fact its an external loan that is not from the owners has concerned me, It’s a standard business model - use a bank loan rather than your own money .... the owners have already converted £100 m of their money into equity pre promotion. They shouldn’t be expected to pump in more of their own money unless it’s absolutely necessary - the club is a limited company.
dyanmark Posted 9 March 2019 Posted 9 March 2019 Interest on loans is no doubt tax deductible but the interest cost is still an expense.I would imagine a loan or input may be required in cashflow if a ton of money has gone out on transfers which is accounted for over the contract period maybe 3/4 years.
Guest Chocolate Teapot Posted 10 March 2019 Posted 10 March 2019 On 09/03/2019 at 06:20, Babylon said: Because they don't have £160m sat in the bank and their wealth is tied up in assets? Didnt you say the club were consolidating and that every communication from the club siggested that? Be interested to now have your view given they say they want to break the top 6....
OhYesNdidi Posted 10 March 2019 Posted 10 March 2019 1 minute ago, Abrasive fox said: Didnt you say the club were consolidating and that every communication from the club siggested that? Be interested to now have your view given they say they want to break the top 6.... Nothing suggests we will break the top 6. From the quality of recruitment to the actual amount spent. Having a net spend of £15m ~ per season isn’t enough (Whilst selling off key assets
Guest Chocolate Teapot Posted 10 March 2019 Posted 10 March 2019 1 hour ago, OhYesNdidi said: Nothing suggests we will break the top 6. From the quality of recruitment to the actual amount spent. Having a net spend of £15m ~ per season isn’t enough (Whilst selling off key assets The report says that is our aim. Several times.
Babylon Posted 10 March 2019 Posted 10 March 2019 1 hour ago, Abrasive fox said: Didnt you say the club were consolidating and that every communication from the club siggested that? Be interested to now have your view given they say they want to break the top 6.... I didn't say it, they said it in their own words via their communications over the last two seasons, which are still out there if people wish to read them. I'm not quite sure what you want me to say, if a year or two years later they now start saying something else entirely, then perhaps the period of consolidation and transition they spoke of is seen to be coming to an end. The squad has after all (or will have come the end of the season) a totally different look and we'll have moved on from the ageing squad. Where did they say they want to break the top six and what time scales did they put on that? Because all the stuff I read from Susan was very much “The club continues to aspire to challenge the big six clubs.”, which doesn't say much and could be an aim for 10 years down the road. The long term aspirations will always have remained the same, but short to mid term ones can change depending on circumstances. Eg. pumping a huge amount of our money into infrastructure projects, that can mean perhaps short term pain for long term gain.
OhYesNdidi Posted 10 March 2019 Posted 10 March 2019 1 hour ago, Abrasive fox said: The report says that is our aim. Several times. I’ll believe it when i see it
urban.spaceman Posted 11 March 2019 Posted 11 March 2019 Full report posted online if anyone fancies a gander (and can explain it all to everyone else) https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/04593477/filing-history
st albans fox Posted 11 March 2019 Posted 11 March 2019 1 hour ago, urban.spaceman said: Full report posted online if anyone fancies a gander (and can explain it all to everyone else) https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/04593477/filing-history looks like the charges that Barclays had over the club were all settled last nov before the new facility with the Aussie bank was established
Babylon Posted 11 March 2019 Posted 11 March 2019 1 hour ago, st albans fox said: looks like the charges that Barclays had over the club were all settled last nov before the new facility with the Aussie bank was established Does seem to suggest that's a short term arrangement and that discussion are ongoing with financial institutions and shareholders for a longer term arrangement.
st albans fox Posted 11 March 2019 Posted 11 March 2019 1 hour ago, Babylon said: Does seem to suggest that's a short term arrangement and that discussion are ongoing with financial institutions and shareholders for a longer term arrangement. Is that based on anything concrete babs or just your opinion ?? we are told that king power regularly deal with this particular bank
Babylon Posted 11 March 2019 Posted 11 March 2019 1 minute ago, st albans fox said: Is that based on anything concrete babs or just your opinion ?? we are told that king power regularly deal with this particular bank This was the section, but the £55m loan was prior to the newer larger one. So perhaps that is the longer term loan that they mention.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.