Profuse apologies. I mixed up the post with one done by BlueToujoursQuote:
Originally Posted by The Hooded Claw
Printable View
Profuse apologies. I mixed up the post with one done by BlueToujoursQuote:
Originally Posted by The Hooded Claw
Thanks for the explanation. Since my retirement I have clearly become out of date in such matters. Not an accountant but spent many years in Commercial Banking and apart from the possible exception of property companies, then using such a transaction in the P&L would have been considered somewhat creative and would immediately have been immediately discounted when assessing a company's financial performance. It would have been treated as a windfall. Anyway. as I have said, am clearly out of date.Quote:
Originally Posted by Since62
My apologies also to Nottingham Blue who clearly read your comments more carefully than I did.
👍🏻Quote:
Originally Posted by Since62
What these accounts (and Keith's commentary) show is that for the club to be in anyway profitable is to do 2 things -
1. stay in the Premier league for more than a season thus having a sustained level of tv income over several years
2. Invest more in the academy with a view to seeing an increase in player sales from the academy in future years
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Bloop
I agree. If you look at similar clubs to us , Bristol City and Swansea City, they have only made recent profits by very big profits on the sale of players ( we historically haven’t). Bristol have good record of buying cheap and selling on for big money. Swansea have made big money by selling on players who have come through their Academy system or who they took a chance on as cheap buys
When someone says they are an auditor, that generally means they are an accountant auditing the statutory and/or group consolidated accounts. In the world of accountancy firms, audit is a subset of accounting. But BP are not an accountancy firm. They employ a good many accountants, and I suspect what your dad did was internal audit. To audit BP you need an army of auditors, as well as people with specific areas of expertise in treasury, tax, valuations etc to support that audit effort.Quote:
Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY
(I am a chartered accountant and tax advisor and I do a small amount of audit work.)
The valuation in the accounts wont be replacement value it will be market value. I believed that the new stadium and the ground it is built on belong to the club, which is presumably why the whole value of the stadium is included in the accounts. Didn't the Council own the land before but gave it to the club in return for City giving up the lease on Ninian Park, which the Council owned and then sold on for a large sum of money for residential redevelopment. The deal was beneficial to both parties. If the club went bust or relocated there would be a queue of people lining up to buy it. It is a very valuable asset and land values have increased dramatically in Cardiff in the last few years, so the change in value is not surprising.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vindec
Does the £19.5m Sala provision include a sum for the Sala Trust Fund announced at the fans meeting with MD and KC prior to the Reading cup game ? The provision will probably include £15m (?) transfer fee plus ongoing legal costs up until the CAS hearing. MD was at pains not to reveal how much the Trust was. If the provision for something they consider unlikely to happen is “prudent” surely they would provide for something that is definite. If it hasn’t been provided for then it will be a hit on the accounts at a later date when parachute payments have reduced significantly. Perhaps Keith is aware ?
A Provision should only be for something that has not yet happened. Obviously, at the date of the accounts, the money for the trust had not yet been paid, but I would expect the Provision to be the full transfer fee plus interest potentially due to Nantes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch Mort
I qualify what I put in this message with the rider that I'm no expert, so there may be a perfectly valid and simple explanation to it, but I'm confused by the appearance of stories like this one during the 18/19 financial year;-
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/...t-tan-14872242
which does not seem to be reflected in the latest accounts.
Also, should we be worried about the "other loans" totalling £39.5 million not provided by the Directors or Shareholders? From what I can gather, it seems they will be paid off by television money (nearly all of the parachute payments for next season?), but, on the face of it, this seems like a move into Hammam territory to me and, surely, we don't want to be heading there again?
Bob, I saw an article the other week about this.Quote:
Originally Posted by the other bob wilson
Apparently, a lot clubs are using specialised lenders for player transfers, where the loan is secured on future TV Revenues, so it might be this...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/51038488
That was the bit that drew my attention:
"Of the above total of £114m, £40.1m is shown as due to the owner Vincent Tan , some £32.3m of his debt having apparently been repaid during the year. This reduction in debt due to him was replaced by other loans of £39.5m from other (unnamed) parties who are not shareholders or directors"
From the above, I concluded that Tan sold 32.3m of debtto someone for 39.5m - it may just be me but that reads that he's got a chunk of his money back and also a £7m bonus as well.
Thats not what I concluded it means or says at all - £32.3m of his previous debt was repaid to him during the year and the club now only owes him £40.1m. Considerably down from the £150m+ owed to him a few seasons ago, mainly due to his conversion of debt to equity. The £39.5m new debt could easily be from banks or other lending institutions, advanced against the guaranteed income due from tv money, to run the club on a day to day basis or possibly fund players. This is entirely normal practice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Toadstool
The Sala fund didn`t exist as at 31 May 2019 and so no allowance for it in the accounts. The Sala transfer had occurred as an event and so , even though not believed to be payable by the club , was prudently accounted for.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Hooded Claw
Exactly. The £39.5m is the cost to the club of repaying the £32.3m to Vincent Tan.Quote:
Originally Posted by dml1954
that would be an interesting piece of infoQuote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Gunman
It would also be interesting to know how the current level of debt compares to previous years. For instance, how does it compare with the debt before Tan took over, or following the club’s first season in the Premier League, or two years ago, etc?Quote:
Originally Posted by life on mars
Is it not a fair assumption that without Vincent Tan's continued investment, City would be in the Welsh Premiership by now:yikes:Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Gunman
European football every season............maybe!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Pontprennau Blues
Nobody ever answers the good questionsQuote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Gunman
Could be - but what is the £39.5 new debt - for all we know it could be owed to Langston!Quote:
Originally Posted by dml1954
It's a ridiculous assumption.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Pontprennau Blues
Personally, I'd rather consider the facts than delve into the realms of fiction.
I think hes making a very good point , we would be right in the cabbage if it wasnt for tan , albeit not forgetting the rebrandQuote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Gunman
Sorry Dave. Thought I had answered your previous post but I must have forgotten to press “submit reply”.Put it down to old age!Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Gunman
The total debt the club owed at 31 May 2019 was £114m. £40m of this was due to Vincent Tan, £41m due to other (unnamed ) secured creditors, £10m due for future instalments on player purchases, £4m due in v.a.t and Paye which would have been paid just after the year end , £1.5m due to trade suppliers,and £17m in accruals and deferred income. That last figure would include the following season’s season ticket money already received by 31 May and loan interest charged but not paid ( in past accounts Vincent Tan has charged interest on his loans then later waived his right to it).
I don’t have comparable figures to the £114m for many years to hand but in 2018 it was £116m and in 2017 it was £152m.
Keith
Still don't get how we can have stories of sixty odd million pounds worth of debt converted to shares in the 18/19 financial year and the overall debt only goes down by £2 million in the accounts for that period - I thought we were supposed to be well on the way to being debt free once that big debt to equity conversion had taken place?