In paper terms a revaluation may offset a loss, but in business it is really all about cash flow and a paper reval won't help that!
Beds, not sure if there is debt or not. I would assume the purchase price effectively removed the previous indebtedness (whether at par or with some sort of write down from previous owners). But debt now depends on whether the money that came in was equity or directors/inter company loans.
My guess is that, given we were actively seeking new owners, the revaluation was designed to up the asking price but that might be an unreasonable, cynical point of view.
for the period Ocotber 2012 to October 2013 i do not have to get my companies figures to HMRC until July 31 2014.
How can the transfers of kermi and Stevens be included ???? its way way to early.
Well, it's 14 days too early, as it turns out. The takeover and fees between June 30th 2013 and Jan 17th 2014 are included as "post balance sheet events" - I assume that's some kind of reporting convention.
This £6M loss (including player sales) for year ended 30th June 2013 was first forecast in March 2013 and then confirmed in the programme in September 2013 by David Joyes who runs the finances at CAFC. The additional £2m to make up the funding requirement will probably be to make the payment to Richard Murray plus interest on various loans and an instalment on the mortgage finance used to build the North Upper. This result was why the previous owners raised ticket prices, slashed the playing budget and made a determined effort to sell before end January this year. They simply couldn't or wouldn't fund cash losses which mainly occur Feb-July when there is no Tv monies. The operating loss for this season will be much, much lower as a result of cuts to player budgets (£1.5M) January sales (£1M) and the cup run (£1M) plus revenue increases. We are millions under the FFP limits so there is the opportunity to invest next season if the new owner so chooses. The next set of accounts might reveal if the previous owners took a hit on their loans in order to exit. Financing a Championship club which does not enjoy parachute payments is a serious business as we can all see. The only two routes to sustainability are to be able to sell top young players for £3-5m and /or grow the club into the top six on and off the pitch.
This £7.5M loss for year ended 30th June 2013 was first forecast in March 2013 and then confirmed in the programme in September 2013 by David Joyes. The additional £2m to make up the funding requirement will probably be to make the payment to Richard Murray and an instalment on the mortgage finance used to build the North Upper. This result was why the previous owners raised ticket prices, slashed the playing budget and made a determined effort to sell before end January this year. They simply couldn't or wouldn't fund cash losses which mainly occur Feb-July when there is no Tv monies. The operating loss for this season will be much, much lower as a result of cuts to player budgets (£1.5M) January sales (£1M) and the cup run (£1M) plus revenue increases. We are millions under the FFP limits so there is the opportunity to invest next season if the new owner so chooses. The next set of accounts might reveal if the previous owners took a hit on their loans in order to exit. Financing a Championship club which does not enjoy parachute payments is a serious business as we can all see. The only two routes to sustainability are to be able to sell top young players for £3-5m and /or grow the club into the top six on and off the pitch.
The FA Cup revenue is mostly in the public domain - prize money, TV fee - and I can work out the rest from the ticket prices. It will fall a bit short of £1m IMO. The January transfer fees (and Shelvey) sit outside the operating loss so the actual saving (salaries) that counts in 2013/14 against the £7.4m in respect of these departures is less than £400k (five months) - less whatever the salary cost of the RD signings, Obika, Tudgay may be. Ticket revenue (excluding the cup) may well be down because season ticket increases will be offset by falling match sales, ditto smaller crowds will have impacted other matchday income. The shirt sponsorship was also reduced last summer, so I wouldn't expect much growth in other commercial income. I don't know if the prize money sits here.
So I agree the picture will be better, but not quite what you suggest. Since we can't rely on the FA Cup income in 2014/15 that's another hole to fill. It doesn't contribute to future sustainability, welcome though it is.
Airman if its the same year end return to HMRC that i have to undertake the transfers of Kerm and Stevens will be in the next submission(i think)
My October 2012 ---October 2013 transactions are due to be submitted in July 2014 ( as i said) therefore if its the same process why would CAFC have to show transfer incomes and out goings that happened one month ago----------------they cant be in this submission .Once i submit my figures i get a statement telling me the amount of Corporation Tax due assuming i have made a profit-------always a pleasure !!!
Might not be the same process but i cant see why ?
We could perhaps take this offline? The cup numbers are on the Trust website and have been confirmed as materially correct. Obviously they will be higher next season as we will at last win a quarter final I agree that player sale revenue is not operating but it is key to CAFC, it is cash in the bank and will continue, albeit it is the most volatile revenue stream. The one unknown for me would be the Jenkinson appearance bonusses. I completely underestimated this revenue stream last March as we had surprise payments from Cardiff and Palace. Ps the asset revaluation appears to be somewhat higher than you report at £9.7M but it ain't cash. A long time since I was near M&a / tax prejects so best not to speculate as to the timing and motivation of this adjustment.
Airman if its the same year end return to HMRC that i have to undertake the transfers of Kerm and Stevens will be in the next submission(i think)
My October 2012 ---October 2013 transactions are due to be submitted in July 2014 ( as i said) therefore if its the same process why would CAFC have to show transfer incomes and out goings that happened one month ago----------------they cant be in this submission .Once i submit my figures i get a statement telling me the amount of Corporation Tax due assuming i have made a profit-------always a pleasure !!!
Might not be the same process but i cant see why ?
In the company accounts there are the figures and there are explanatory notes. The figures cover the financial year July 1st 2012 to June 30th 2013. However, the notes include two events outside the accounting period - the takeover in January 2014 and transfer income of £570k received between June 30th 2013 and the accounts being signed off by the board on Jan 17th 2014. I assume if the accounts had been signed off on February 17th they would include the sale of Kermorgant and Stephens. As they were signed off earlier they don't, but they do include what I take to be at least in part the sell-on payment from Shelvey's move to Swansea, which actually falls into the 2013/14 accounting period. But this income is not in the figures. It will be next time.
We could perhaps take this offline? The cup numbers are on the Trust website and have been confirmed as materially correct. Obviously they will be higher next season as we will at last win a quarter final I agree that player sale revenue is not operating but it is key to CAFC, it is cash in the bank and will continue, albeit it is the most volatile revenue stream. The one unknown for me would be the Jenkinson appearance bonusses. I completely underestimated this revenue stream last March as we had surprise payments from Cardiff and Palace. Ps the asset revaluation appears to be somewhat higher than you report at £9.7M but it ain't cash. A long time since I was near M&a / tax prejects so best not to speculate as to the timing and motivation of this adjustment.
Don't need to take it anywhere. What I'm trying to stop you doing is repeating that the January sales will reduce the 2013/14 operating loss by £1m - as you said again in your previous post. They won't.
I don't think I could be anymore confused. How can annual accounts include sales of both shelvey and yann/Stephens. Can someone who knows whatever they're talking about explain in layman terms what votv have published.
The mystery of accounts - as someone has already observed it's cash flow that makes or breaks a business (it's a test that is being faced by Messrs Fernandez and Mittel).
The only obvious way that I can think of whereby the owners are able to bridge the deficit is to ramp up the Academy conveyor belt. But it's surely a big ask to expect the Academy to produce a £5m player year in year out. But what do I know of financial matters...........
Can someone who has access to the accounts tell me what our depreciation charges are for the period?
Any loss we incur will be increased by these but no actual cash will flow out the business. Similarly I expect our wage bill for the period in question to be higher than it is this season. (fuller for instance).
We will also be amortising player contracts which will have been paid up front so this loss certainly isn't representative of the working capital requirements of the business to make us "break even". There is still a hole to plug sure, but it won't be the level of the loss presented here.
Similarly post balance sheet events will be disclosed but won't form part of the P&L presented as that would mean we'd have to include all other P&L items not just the selective ones.
Can someone who has access to the accounts tell me what our depreciation charges are for the period?
Any loss we incur will be increased by these but no actual cash will flow out the business. Similarly I expect our wage bill for the period in question to be higher than it is this season. (fuller for instance).
We will also be amortising player contracts which will have been paid up front so this loss certainly isn't representative of the working capital requirements of the business to make us "break even". There is still a hole to plug sure, but it won't be the level of the loss presented here.
Similarly post balance sheet events will be disclosed but won't form part of the P&L presented as that would mean we'd have to include all other P&L items not just the selective ones.
We could perhaps take this offline? The cup numbers are on the Trust website and have been confirmed as materially correct. Obviously they will be higher next season as we will at last win a quarter final I agree that player sale revenue is not operating but it is key to CAFC, it is cash in the bank and will continue, albeit it is the most volatile revenue stream. The one unknown for me would be the Jenkinson appearance bonusses. I completely underestimated this revenue stream last March as we had surprise payments from Cardiff and Palace. Ps the asset revaluation appears to be somewhat higher than you report at £9.7M but it ain't cash. A long time since I was near M&a / tax prejects so best not to speculate as to the timing and motivation of this adjustment.
That's in the Baton 2010 (group) accounts - it's £5m in the CAFC Limited accounts. I assume the rest must be from Holdings, which I haven't looked at, and may relate to the training ground.
We could perhaps take this offline? The cup numbers are on the Trust website and have been confirmed as materially correct. Obviously they will be higher next season as we will at last win a quarter final I agree that player sale revenue is not operating but it is key to CAFC, it is cash in the bank and will continue, albeit it is the most volatile revenue stream. The one unknown for me would be the Jenkinson appearance bonusses. I completely underestimated this revenue stream last March as we had surprise payments from Cardiff and Palace. Ps the asset revaluation appears to be somewhat higher than you report at £9.7M but it ain't cash. A long time since I was near M&a / tax prejects so best not to speculate as to the timing and motivation of this adjustment.
That's in the Baton 2010 (group) accounts - it's £5m in the CAFC Limited accounts. I assume the rest must be from Holdings, which I haven't looked at, and may relate to the training ground.
Assume this revaluation been booked through other comprehensive income? it isn't cash or loss reducing in anyway in reality. Just a pure accounting adjustment meaning that if we sold the revalued assets (presumably our London real estate) now at our estimated valuation that the 5m "profit" would then translate into cash.
Doubt RDs grand break even plan involves suppressing losses in a way that doesn't actually reduce funding requirements.
Edit: RE: timing of revaluation - likely nothing more to it than the past owners looking to sell and wanting to ensure they get as much cash as possible by valuing at current market values. General accounting policy only requires revals every 5 years as well so could just be a coincidence. More likely the former though.
@Airman Brown my bad! Now some precision: The loss on ordinary activities before taxation was £6M... includes shit like player sales. This figure is the real shit which matters and is a couple of lines lower in the accounts than the one you are focused on.
Operating profit/loss is only part of the story in these accounts of one company - which is part of a group. In other words bigger picture - always!
You want real scandal and fans being stitched up then go look up Blackpool or Leeds! Group structure with cash going out of the football side bigtime.
As posted before, if we had beaten Sheffield United then we would be even closer to breakeven. And that is unarguably a good platform for next season. This season will be the best financial result since 2008... CAFC is well positioned - question is can Duchatelet + Meire + Riga + put the ball in the net? My point about the cup revenue and why it was researched and highlighted months ago? ...laters - I need to write this shit up but sleep and work are a priority
One thing that will be put to bed by these accounts, are those conspiracie theories that RD was not the owner of the club. As in one interview he described himself as a shareholder, which some fools jumped on meaning there must be some one behind him. But now they can see he owns 95% of the company that now owns Charlton.
@Airman Brown my bad! Now some precision: The loss on ordinary activities before taxation was £6M... includes shit like player sales. This figure is the real shit which matters and is a couple of lines lower in the accounts than the one you are focused on.
Operating profit/loss is only part of the story in these accounts of one company - which is part of a group. In other words bigger picture - always!
You want real scandal and fans being stitched up then go look up Blackpool or Leeds! Group structure with cash going out of the football side bigtime.
As posted before, if we had beaten Sheffield United then we would be even closer to breakeven. And that is unarguably a good platform for next season. This season will be the best financial result since 2008... CAFC is well positioned - question is can Duchatelet + Meire + Riga + put the ball in the net? My point about the cup revenue and why it was researched and highlighted months ago? ...laters - I need to write this shit up but sleep and work are a priority
The reason for the focus on operating loss, as much as anything, is the volatility of transfer income, which you alluded to earlier. Including transfers doesn't help us understand the medium-term health of the business, but of course the money matters.
I agree with you that had we beaten Sheffield United we would have been "closer" to breakeven in 2013/14 - that's obvious since we weren't going to make a loss on the semi-final. I disagree that we would have been "close".
Once you've complied with FFP the headroom only matters if you plan to invest within the cap. That we don't know. But in any event the transfer fees and the cup revenue don't help you comply in 2014/15.
I agree with you that there is headroom within FFP for equity investment if RD were to go down that route (there was under TJ too), but we are not in my view "well-positioned" since we compete with clubs that have much more money to spend, legitimately, via parachute payments or bigger revenues, as well as those prepared to cheat or challenge the rules. I think you overestimate - and not uncoincidentally the club overestimates - it's ability to drive up commercial revenue in the short term.
I don't disagree that you can close the funding gap by selling players, but the question is how successful you can expect to be at that and to what extent it is compatible with a winning team and increased revenues. Can it ever be an end in itself or are we ultimately back to the reality that the Premier League must remain the holy grail for fans and business alike?
We could perhaps take this offline? The cup numbers are on the Trust website and have been confirmed as materially correct. Obviously they will be higher next season as we will at last win a quarter final I agree that player sale revenue is not operating but it is key to CAFC, it is cash in the bank and will continue, albeit it is the most volatile revenue stream. The one unknown for me would be the Jenkinson appearance bonusses. I completely underestimated this revenue stream last March as we had surprise payments from Cardiff and Palace. Ps the asset revaluation appears to be somewhat higher than you report at £9.7M but it ain't cash. A long time since I was near M&a / tax prejects so best not to speculate as to the timing and motivation of this adjustment.
That's in the Baton 2010 (group) accounts - it's £5m in the CAFC Limited accounts. I assume the rest must be from Holdings, which I haven't looked at, and may relate to the training ground.
Assume this revaluation been booked through other comprehensive income? it isn't cash or loss reducing in anyway in reality. Just a pure accounting adjustment meaning that if we sold the revalued assets (presumably our London real estate) now at our estimated valuation that the 5m "profit" would then translate into cash.
Doubt RDs grand break even plan involves suppressing losses in a way that doesn't actually reduce funding requirements.
Edit: RE: timing of revaluation - likely nothing more to it than the past owners looking to sell and wanting to ensure they get as much cash as possible by valuing at current market values. General accounting policy only requires revals every 5 years as well so could just be a coincidence. More likely the former though.
Companies with freehold property assets i.e. land & buildings are obliged to revalue said assets in their balance sheet periodically, often every 3 to 5 years. Any increase in value does not impact the operating or pre-tax profit for the year in any way. The revaluation is reflected 'below the line' in a revaluation reserve because it is not a realised profit i.e. it hasn't materialised as cash cos the property hasn't been sold. The revaluation is only intended to make the accounts more 'useful' overall. Property revaluations are pretty much meaningless in assessing a business's trading profits or losses. The timing of any revaluation most likely is imposed by accounting regs and the auditors' view of the fairness of the accounts. Post-Balance Sheet Events are as the name suggests transactions after 30 June 2013 of a material nature (takeover) or size (transfer fees paid/received) which occur before the date the accounts are signed off. Again they are declared in the notes to the accounts to make the document more 'useful' overall.
All that can really be taken from the 2013 accounts is that charlton lost slightly less money than in the year to 30 June 2012.
@Airman Brown my bad! Now some precision: The loss on ordinary activities before taxation was £6M... includes shit like player sales. This figure is the real shit which matters and is a couple of lines lower in the accounts than the one you are focused on.
Operating profit/loss is only part of the story in these accounts of one company - which is part of a group. In other words bigger picture - always!
You want real scandal and fans being stitched up then go look up Blackpool or Leeds! Group structure with cash going out of the football side bigtime.
As posted before, if we had beaten Sheffield United then we would be even closer to breakeven. And that is unarguably a good platform for next season. This season will be the best financial result since 2008... CAFC is well positioned - question is can Duchatelet + Meire + Riga + put the ball in the net? My point about the cup revenue and why it was researched and highlighted months ago? ...laters - I need to write this shit up but sleep and work are a priority
The reason for the focus on operating loss, as much as anything, is the volatility of transfer income, which you alluded to earlier. Including transfers doesn't help us understand the medium-term health of the business, but of course the money matters.
I agree with you that had we beaten Sheffield United we would have been "closer" to breakeven in 2013/14 - that's obvious since we weren't going to make a loss on the semi-final. I disagree that we would have been "close".
Once you've complied with FFP the headroom only matters if you plan to invest within the cap. That we don't know. But in any event the transfer fees and the cup revenue don't help you comply in 2014/15.
I agree with you that there is headroom within FFP for equity investment if RD were to go down that route (there was under TJ too), but we are not in my view "well-positioned" since we compete with clubs that have much more money to spend, legitimately, via parachute payments or bigger revenues, as well as those prepared to cheat or challenge the rules. I think you overestimate - and not uncoincidentally the club overestimates - it's ability to drive up commercial revenue in the short term.
I don't disagree that you can close the funding gap by selling players, but the question is how successful you can expect to be at that and to what extent it is compatible with a winning team and increased revenues. Can it ever be an end in itself or are we ultimately back to the reality that the Premier League must remain the holy grail for fans and business alike?
Could you elaborate on how clubs would be allowed to cheat the system? I'm pretty sure clubs will try it on, I just want to know how. I see clubs like Man City getting revenues from huge sponsorship deals like naming rights, and I get the impression it's the owner's money just being funnelled through another Middle East business into the club, branded as a commercial partnership. This is a very basic example, but could it be a realistic one?
In addition, I think a lot of clubs that come down with parachute payments come down with too many outgoings. Look at Bolton. The longer you are in the premiership, the higher the wages you have to pay to stay there. Since every club bar Arsenal, Man Utd, Man City, Liverpool, Everton, Spurs, Chelsea has a risk of a bad season and going down, it can prove disastrous. Fulham are a great example. £12m spent on that Greek forward, £40k a week wages. If they go down, that new owner better be prepared to dig deep. There are many others, QPR, Bolton, even us. We went down with some high earners, and we're still just about recovering now. The point I'm trying to make, and I got sidetracked because I was interested in Airman's point about clubs challenging/cheating FFP, is that relatively speaking, we're in a good position. The £7.4m loss is where or whereabouts what had been previously discussed.
Outside of the champions league elite and a few others in English football, we stack up quite well. I'm behind RD as he has had to put his money where his mouth is, bought a club running at a loss, and seems to have a plan on how to put us on a more stable footing.
I'm really interested to see how FFP will pan out. Everyday you hear of numerous clubs in trouble, individuals, supporters or benefactors having to provide life support. I would like to see FFP really get to grips with player wages and bring it down. I know it's not possible at the moment, because like the London housing market, there are willing buyers ready to pay over the odds. Can this rule about player wages only being X percentage of income really work. Probably not, as systems are there to be manipulated.
I don't mean to go off point to the original thread, I just fear for the future of many clubs, and the direction football is going in.
I don't think I could be anymore confused. How can annual accounts include sales of both shelvey and yann/Stephens. Can someone who knows whatever they're talking about explain in layman terms what votv have published.
The sale of Yann and Stephens have nothing to do with these accounts nor are they post balance sheet events as they moved seven months after the year end 30th June. Just looked it up and Shelvey moved to Swansea on 3rd July 2013 which triggered a "six figure bonus" with Button moving a few weeks later. No exact amounts were reported but my guess is that these two make up the £570K.
With a million coming in for Yann and Stephens and an unknown bonus for Jenkinson, transfer profits might be somewhere in the region of £2M this season.
The reason for the focus on operating loss, as much as anything, is the volatility of transfer income, which you alluded to earlier. Including transfers doesn't help us understand the medium-term health of the business, but of course the money matters.
I agree with you that had we beaten Sheffield United we would have been "closer" to breakeven in 2013/14 - that's obvious since we weren't going to make a loss on the semi-final. I disagree that we would have been "close".
Once you've complied with FFP the headroom only matters if you plan to invest within the cap. That we don't know. But in any event the transfer fees and the cup revenue don't help you comply in 2014/15.
I agree with you that there is headroom within FFP for equity investment if RD were to go down that route (there was under TJ too), but we are not in my view "well-positioned" since we compete with clubs that have much more money to spend, legitimately, via parachute payments or bigger revenues, as well as those prepared to cheat or challenge the rules. I think you overestimate - and not uncoincidentally the club overestimates - it's ability to drive up commercial revenue in the short term.
I don't disagree that you can close the funding gap by selling players, but the question is how successful you can expect to be at that and to what extent it is compatible with a winning team and increased revenues. Can it ever be an end in itself or are we ultimately back to the reality that the Premier League must remain the holy grail for fans and business alike?
Could you elaborate on how clubs would be allowed to cheat the system? I'm pretty sure clubs will try it on, I just want to know how. I see clubs like Man City getting revenues from huge sponsorship deals like naming rights, and I get the impression it's the owner's money just being funnelled through another Middle East business into the club, branded as a commercial partnership. This is a very basic example, but could it be a realistic one?
In addition, I think a lot of clubs that come down with parachute payments come down with too many outgoings. Look at Bolton. The longer you are in the premiership, the higher the wages you have to pay to stay there. Since every club bar Arsenal, Man Utd, Man City, Liverpool, Everton, Spurs, Chelsea has a risk of a bad season and going down, it can prove disastrous. Fulham are a great example. £12m spent on that Greek forward, £40k a week wages. If they go down, that new owner better be prepared to dig deep. There are many others, QPR, Bolton, even us. We went down with some high earners, and we're still just about recovering now. The point I'm trying to make, and I got sidetracked because I was interested in Airman's point about clubs challenging/cheating FFP, is that relatively speaking, we're in a good position. The £7.4m loss is where or whereabouts what had been previously discussed.
Outside of the champions league elite and a few others in English football, we stack up quite well. I'm behind RD as he has had to put his money where his mouth is, bought a club running at a loss, and seems to have a plan on how to put us on a more stable footing.
I'm really interested to see how FFP will pan out. Everyday you hear of numerous clubs in trouble, individuals, supporters or benefactors having to provide life support. I would like to see FFP really get to grips with player wages and bring it down. I know it's not possible at the moment, because like the London housing market, there are willing buyers ready to pay over the odds. Can this rule about player wages only being X percentage of income really work. Probably not, as systems are there to be manipulated.
I don't mean to go off point to the original thread, I just fear for the future of many clubs, and the direction football is going in.
You are completely on track! The reason for looking at CAFC accounts and other Championship clubs is to see how FFP will pan out. There are a handful of clubs who have been losing in excess of £10M a season and they will either squeeze under the £8M loss limit. Leicester lost c.£30M last season so difficult to see how they will do it. And QPR...no chance! In an ideal world FFP should bring down the market for journeyman players because clubs only have a certain amount of budget (including losses) to play with. In an ideal world CAFC will be able to re-sign the best players who are running out of contract and improve the squad by securing players from home and abroad without breaking the bank.
I don't think I could be anymore confused. How can annual accounts include sales of both shelvey and yann/Stephens. Can someone who knows whatever they're talking about explain in layman terms what votv have published.
The sale of Yann and Stephens have nothing to do with these accounts nor are they post balance sheet events as they moved seven months after the year end 30th June. Just looked it up and Shelvey moved to Swansea on 3rd July 2013 which triggered a "six figure bonus" with Button moving a few weeks later. No exact amounts were reported but my guess is that these two make up the £570K.
With a million coming in for Yann and Stephens and an unknown bonus for Jenkinson, transfer profits might be somewhere in the region of £2M this season.
Except that, as I have pointed out to you several times, we have shelled out serious money for Polish Pete. And you have made up that "million" for YK and Stephens, haven't you? This doesn't help anybody.
Comments
Beds, not sure if there is debt or not. I would assume the purchase price effectively removed the previous indebtedness (whether at par or with some sort of write down from previous owners). But debt now depends on whether the money that came in was equity or directors/inter company loans.
for the period Ocotber 2012 to October 2013 i do not have to get my companies figures to HMRC until July 31 2014.
How can the transfers of kermi and Stevens be included ???? its way way to early.
The additional £2m to make up the funding requirement will probably be to make the payment to Richard Murray plus interest on various loans and an instalment on the mortgage finance used to build the North Upper.
This result was why the previous owners raised ticket prices, slashed the playing budget and made a determined effort to sell before end January this year. They simply couldn't or wouldn't fund cash losses which mainly occur Feb-July when there is no Tv monies.
The operating loss for this season will be much, much lower as a result of cuts to player budgets (£1.5M) January sales (£1M) and the cup run (£1M) plus revenue increases.
We are millions under the FFP limits so there is the opportunity to invest next season if the new owner so chooses.
The next set of accounts might reveal if the previous owners took a hit on their loans in order to exit.
Financing a Championship club which does not enjoy parachute payments is a serious business as we can all see. The only two routes to sustainability are to be able to sell top young players for £3-5m and /or grow the club into the top six on and off the pitch.
So I agree the picture will be better, but not quite what you suggest. Since we can't rely on the FA Cup income in 2014/15 that's another hole to fill. It doesn't contribute to future sustainability, welcome though it is.
My October 2012 ---October 2013 transactions are due to be submitted in July 2014 ( as i said) therefore if its the same process why would CAFC have to show transfer incomes and out goings that happened one month ago----------------they cant be in this submission .Once i submit my figures i get a statement telling me the amount of Corporation Tax due assuming i have made a profit-------always a pleasure !!!
Might not be the same process but i cant see why ?
I agree that player sale revenue is not operating but it is key to CAFC, it is cash in the bank and will continue, albeit it is the most volatile revenue stream. The one unknown for me would be the Jenkinson appearance bonusses. I completely underestimated this revenue stream last March as we had surprise payments from Cardiff and Palace.
Ps the asset revaluation appears to be somewhat higher than you report at £9.7M but it ain't cash. A long time since I was near M&a / tax prejects so best not to speculate as to the timing and motivation of this adjustment.
This just proves why we need accountants!!!
The only obvious way that I can think of whereby the owners are able to bridge the deficit is to ramp up the Academy conveyor belt. But it's surely a big ask to expect the Academy to produce a £5m player year in year out. But what do I know of financial matters...........
Any loss we incur will be increased by these but no actual cash will flow out the business. Similarly I expect our wage bill for the period in question to be higher than it is this season. (fuller for instance).
We will also be amortising player contracts which will have been paid up front so this loss certainly isn't representative of the working capital requirements of the business to make us "break even". There is still a hole to plug sure, but it won't be the level of the loss presented here.
Similarly post balance sheet events will be disclosed but won't form part of the P&L presented as that would mean we'd have to include all other P&L items not just the selective ones.
Doubt RDs grand break even plan involves suppressing losses in a way that doesn't actually reduce funding requirements.
Edit: RE: timing of revaluation - likely nothing more to it than the past owners looking to sell and wanting to ensure they get as much cash as possible by valuing at current market values. General accounting policy only requires revals every 5 years as well so could just be a coincidence. More likely the former though.
The loss on ordinary activities before taxation was £6M... includes shit like player sales. This figure is the real shit which matters and is a couple of lines lower in the accounts than the one you are focused on.
Operating profit/loss is only part of the story in these accounts of one company - which is part of a group. In other words bigger picture - always!
You want real scandal and fans being stitched up then go look up Blackpool or Leeds! Group structure with cash going out of the football side bigtime.
As posted before, if we had beaten Sheffield United then we would be even closer to breakeven. And that is unarguably a good platform for next season. This season will be the best financial result since 2008... CAFC is well positioned - question is can Duchatelet + Meire + Riga + put the ball in the net?
My point about the cup revenue and why it was researched and highlighted months ago?
...laters - I need to write this shit up but sleep and work are a priority
I agree with you that had we beaten Sheffield United we would have been "closer" to breakeven in 2013/14 - that's obvious since we weren't going to make a loss on the semi-final. I disagree that we would have been "close".
Once you've complied with FFP the headroom only matters if you plan to invest within the cap. That we don't know. But in any event the transfer fees and the cup revenue don't help you comply in 2014/15.
I agree with you that there is headroom within FFP for equity investment if RD were to go down that route (there was under TJ too), but we are not in my view "well-positioned" since we compete with clubs that have much more money to spend, legitimately, via parachute payments or bigger revenues, as well as those prepared to cheat or challenge the rules. I think you overestimate - and not uncoincidentally the club overestimates - it's ability to drive up commercial revenue in the short term.
I don't disagree that you can close the funding gap by selling players, but the question is how successful you can expect to be at that and to what extent it is compatible with a winning team and increased revenues. Can it ever be an end in itself or are we ultimately back to the reality that the Premier League must remain the holy grail for fans and business alike?
Post-Balance Sheet Events are as the name suggests transactions after 30 June 2013 of a material nature (takeover) or size (transfer fees paid/received) which occur before the date the accounts are signed off. Again they are declared in the notes to the accounts to make the document more 'useful' overall.
All that can really be taken from the 2013 accounts is that charlton lost slightly less money than in the year to 30 June 2012.
http://newyorkaddick.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/how-did-you-go-bankrupt-two-ways.html#comments
In addition, I think a lot of clubs that come down with parachute payments come down with too many outgoings. Look at Bolton. The longer you are in the premiership, the higher the wages you have to pay to stay there. Since every club bar Arsenal, Man Utd, Man City, Liverpool, Everton, Spurs, Chelsea has a risk of a bad season and going down, it can prove disastrous. Fulham are a great example. £12m spent on that Greek forward, £40k a week wages. If they go down, that new owner better be prepared to dig deep. There are many others, QPR, Bolton, even us. We went down with some high earners, and we're still just about recovering now. The point I'm trying to make, and I got sidetracked because I was interested in Airman's point about clubs challenging/cheating FFP, is that relatively speaking, we're in a good position. The £7.4m loss is where or whereabouts what had been previously discussed.
Outside of the champions league elite and a few others in English football, we stack up quite well. I'm behind RD as he has had to put his money where his mouth is, bought a club running at a loss, and seems to have a plan on how to put us on a more stable footing.
I'm really interested to see how FFP will pan out. Everyday you hear of numerous clubs in trouble, individuals, supporters or benefactors having to provide life support. I would like to see FFP really get to grips with player wages and bring it down. I know it's not possible at the moment, because like the London housing market, there are willing buyers ready to pay over the odds. Can this rule about player wages only being X percentage of income really work. Probably not, as systems are there to be manipulated.
I don't mean to go off point to the original thread, I just fear for the future of many clubs, and the direction football is going in.
With a million coming in for Yann and Stephens and an unknown bonus for Jenkinson, transfer profits might be somewhere in the region of £2M this season.
In an ideal world FFP should bring down the market for journeyman players because clubs only have a certain amount of budget (including losses) to play with. In an ideal world CAFC will be able to re-sign the best players who are running out of contract and improve the squad by securing players from home and abroad without breaking the bank.