£11m loss, down from £29m the previous year.
https://find-and-update.company-info...filing-history
Printable View
£11m loss, down from £29m the previous year.
https://find-and-update.company-info...filing-history
Who's the director with significant influence in Tormen Finance who it would appear have loaned us £20 million at 9 per cent? I would have assumed it was Mehmet Dalman, but it does say it's a director not the Chairman.
Looks like he wage bill fell by just over £6 million.
Keith's commentary on the published accounts from last year says:Quote:
Originally Posted by the other bob wilson
The main liabilities in the May 2022 balance sheet were amounts of £73m due to Vincent Tan and his family and £20.8m due to Tormen Finance, a company in which Mehmet Dalman has a significant interest – this loan carries interest at 9%.
http://www.cardiffcity-mad.co.uk/new...96/index.shtml
I have seen the 'significant interest' phrase used several times to describe the relationship between Dalman and Tormen Finance - but don't really know what it means - whether he owns Tormen or has a major financial stake in it....?
Listed as a beneficial owner on gov site.At least 25% of shares.Quote:
Originally Posted by jon1959
I think we have been lending from them for years.
Perhaps most interesting is that a deal to lease the new training ground at Miskin is close to be signed. Shows a real commitment by VT and the club.
The wage bill fell by £8m to £22m and according to the BBC article .Quote:
Originally Posted by the other bob wilson
it’s £14m this year, which somehow makes the claim that we are the 6th largest wage payer in the division dubious at best , which a few people have already pointed out.
Mehmet Dalman is the major shareholder of Torman Finance (most probably the only shareholder) which is registered in the Virgin Islands.
The link below from the Companies House website shows him as the only major shareholder
https://s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/d...06c26c167a697c
Thank you
And I know up to this current day it’s up to £100 mill our debt.
So 14-15 years later we are NO where near debt free??
We are now in debt to 3 different parties. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Any reference to the payout from the insurance company?
The out of court settlement for professional negligence?Quote:
Originally Posted by xsnaggle
That was in September 2023 so will be in the next accounting period. (These ones only go up to the end of May 23)Quote:
Originally Posted by xsnaggle
Miskin?? Not sure there’s much room here for that! Probably Hensol way?Quote:
Originally Posted by Former Labour leader
Yes, but the article says it was £14 million before the arrival of Ramsey and others - I feel our wage bill is quite a big bigger than it was last season, but I can’t see it’s to the extent that we’re the sixth biggest payers.Quote:
Originally Posted by TWGL1
Two other key numbers
Sponsorship up by over £5m - where has that come from? Well done for achieving it.
Over £7m spent on players
Doesn't Tan pay for the Malaysian sponsorship?Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUEAWAY TOO
I guess he does, not that he would get any credit for it!
One way around FFP.Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUEAWAY TOO
Indeed
Debt free in 5 years. How many years ago was that?
More of Tans debt converted to equity in the accounts. The clubs debt to him reduced to £65m from around £100m is what I read. Overall debt reduced during the year as well. Tan should be commended for this in very difficult financial times. Not sure how that fits in with what you said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleve van Leef
If I'm reading this right, we lost £29m in 21-22, and then £11m in 22-23. So in two years, we lost £40m.Quote:
Originally Posted by Undercoverinwurzelland
Doesn't that breach the League's FFP limits? Isn't the limit £39m over three years?
Does that mean we have to make £1m profit next year? Anyone know?
£40million loss before any "permitted development" spending, e.g. investment in academy and training infrastructure.Quote:
Originally Posted by tforturton
The limit is £39million over a 3 year period excluding "permitted development" spending, but in essence you are correct that the 2024 forecast included in the current FFP submission probably needs to be around break even.
The Profitability and Sustainability rules don't feel very sustainable.
I've been looking to see which other championship clubs have released their accounts for 2022-23 so far and how their losses compare:
Southampton £87m
Norwich 27.2
Bristol City 22.2
QPR 20.3
Preston 14.4
Stoke 11.3
Cardiff City 11
Sheffield Wednesday 6.5
Middlesbrough 6.4
Hull 5.2
Coventry 4.9
Plymouth 3.4
Rotherham 1.1
Watford made a £24m
profit
I looked at it briefly a couple of days ago and apologise for not having the exact figures to hand, but I notice a bit of window dressing of the balance sheet with the valuation of the stadium up £11 million to I think £86 million. If we went tits up who on earth would pay £86 mil for a sports stadium? I’m sure there must be a covenant with the the council that it must remain a sports stadium, but maybe I’m just naive, but how can a stadium be worth £86mil?
Hull received £16m for Keane Lewis-Potter and still managed a £5m+ loss. With their spending this season they must be close to losing £20m+ in 23/24.Quote:
Originally Posted by Undercoverinwurzelland
Yeah, they do seem to have spent a lot this season.Quote:
Originally Posted by PontBlue
Things about to change again?
Premier League's profitability and sustainability rules set to be replaced as early as this summer
https://www.skysports.com/football/n...as-this-summer
That Southampton figure is disgraceful and they did that while getting relegated! Based on that figure, it must be imperative that they are promoted either this season or next while they’re still getting parachute payments.Quote:
Originally Posted by Undercoverinwurzelland
Do these new rules include the obligatory Man City opt out?Quote:
Originally Posted by Carl Dale's Mole
I see they’ve ditched the already announced increase to EFL clubs.
The valuation will be based on the income the stadium generates. If those incomes have changed significantly then they can revalue it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hot Shot Hamish.
They haven't ditched it, they just didn't come to an agreement on the day forecast. Apparently it was Man Citeh who refused to agree. If the don't agree soon there will be a new law passed that will require them to do it.Quote:
Originally Posted by the other bob wilson
Apparently it has been kicked down the road a number of times - they are clearly avoiding it as they don't want to share the lucrative deal further than it is at the moment - turkeys and Christmas and all thatQuote:
Originally Posted by xsnaggle
Exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nobody's Rep