Correct me if I am wrong, but did I not read at the time, that we owed £200,000 to Spurs for Button, but because we could not afford it, we agreed with Brentford, that they would pay Spurs and take over the contract
£200k for Yann Stephens Smith Alnwick and button??
That's unbelievable... surely we could do better...
See my potential correction.
I think the fees got paid straight from Bournemouth/Brighton to the bank to pay off part of the loan/overdraft. If the club was being put under some pressure in this regard then maybe they really had no realistic choice but to sell.
£200k for Yann Stephens Smith Alnwick and button??
That's unbelievable... surely we could do better...
See my potential correction.
I think the fees got paid straight from Bournemouth/Brighton to the bank to pay off part of the loan/overdraft. If the club was being put under some pressure in this regard then maybe they really had no realistic choice but to sell.
That might have been true under Slater and Jimenez. I'm not sure it makes much sense under Duchatelet.
- - #cafc disclose "staff restructuring" cost of £324k - likely to include major pay-off to Paul Hart. Pitch cover costs of £89k -"
Can someone explain what the £89k pitch cover costs entails? Surely it's not literally for the cover is it? Not saying we should just have a bit of tarpaulin from Wickes but would want the girls from the playboy mansion laying over the sod for that price.
£200k for Yann Stephens Smith Alnwick and button??
That's unbelievable... surely we could do better...
See my potential correction.
I think the fees got paid straight from Bournemouth/Brighton to the bank to pay off part of the loan/overdraft. If the club was being put under some pressure in this regard then maybe they really had no realistic choice but to sell.
That might have been true under Slater and Jimenez. I'm not sure it makes much sense under Duchatelet.
Agree but I can't come up with another explanation....
I've always been interested in how they would account for network transfers. It seems that real financial transactions take place between the clubs. But how are the fees agreed? Not much room to play hardball...
The Baton accounts clearly show only £194k in cash was received for the sale of intangible assets.
However I was struggling to reconcile this with the fact that the 'profit on disposal of players' was £1,718k (NB: this will also include some cash for the Shelvey sell-on clause).
If one assumes the unamortised portion of the value of Stephens, Button, and Smith was approx £500k (bear in mind Button had only just signed) then the total fees received for all transfers must have been approx £2,218k not £194k, a difference of approx £2m.
Curiously the repayment of the bank loan and overdraft totalled just over £2m so could the transfer fees have been paid directly to the bank for loan repayment (perhaps under some pressure)?
Stephens had five months of a three-year deal left. Button's fee is listed as £500k on Wikpedia, although that always seemed fanciful in the financial context of 2012. I do know that payment was deferred for 12 months, but he'd been there a year . . . I can't imagine Smith cost much and he had five months left out of three years.
Clearly, £194k must be the difference between the benefit of disposals (£950k) and the amortisation write-down of £756k. Too big a coincidence to be otherwise.
It's quite credible that much or all of the difference between £950k and £1.718m is Shelvey sell-on, given he was transferred to Swansea on July 3rd, 2013.
Agree it would be an odd coincidence but I don't think you are comparing apples with apples.
The Baton accounts clearly show only £194k in cash was received for the sale of intangible assets.
However I was struggling to reconcile this with the fact that the 'profit on disposal of players' was £1,718k (NB: this will also include some cash for the Shelvey sell-on clause).
If one assumes the unamortised portion of the value of Stephens, Button, and Smith was approx £500k (bear in mind Button had only just signed) then the total fees received for all transfers must have been approx £2,218k not £194k, a difference of approx £2m.
Curiously the repayment of the bank loan and overdraft totalled just over £2m so could the transfer fees have been paid directly to the bank for loan repayment (perhaps under some pressure)?
Stephens had five months of a three-year deal left. Button's fee is listed as £500k on Wikpedia, although that always seemed fanciful in the financial context of 2012. I do know that payment was deferred for 12 months, but he'd been there a year . . . I can't imagine Smith cost much and he had five months left out of three years.
Clearly, £194k must be the difference between the benefit of disposals (£950k) and the amortisation write-down of £756k. Too big a coincidence to be otherwise.
It's quite credible that much or all of the difference between £950k and £1.718m is Shelvey sell-on, given he was transferred to Swansea on July 3rd, 2013.
Agree it would be an odd coincidence but I don't think you are comparing apples with apples.
I know what you mean, but I think it's clear that £950k is the actual income from the sale of these player registrations and £756k is the amount of amortisation written down as the consequence of the removal of these players from the balance sheet?
If it is a coincidence, could it mean that the cash wasn't forthcoming within the accounting period? Trade debtors looks quite high, for example. Off the top of my head, it's hard to see who would owe the club that kind of money at year end other than other clubs?
My interpretation is that the £950k is the removal of their full original cost and £756k is the unamortised portion being written off (however on the P&L, this is offset by the profit on the cash received for player registrations) . However it would only make sense if Button cost approx £5-600k which had hardly been written down - is this possible?
I've spent all evening trying to get my head around it and I'm struggling!
My interpretation is that the £950k is the removal of their full original cost and £756k is the unamortised portion being written off (however on the P&L, this is offset by the profit on the cash received for player registrations) . However it would only make sense if Button cost approx £5-600k which had hardly been written down - is this possible?
I've spent all evening trying to get my head around it and I'm struggling!
Their full original cost wouldn't be on the balance sheet in 13/14, though. Part of it must have been amortised in previous years, surely?
Button signed a two year contract in August 2012. However, I don't think the fee was ever due until the 2013/14 financial year. That was why the club could sign him in 2012. So if it was £500k and was due in summer 2013, could that explain things?
My interpretation is that the £950k is the removal of their full original cost and £756k is the unamortised portion being written off (however on the P&L, this is offset by the profit on the cash received for player registrations) . However it would only make sense if Button cost approx £5-600k which had hardly been written down - is this possible?
I've spent all evening trying to get my head around it and I'm struggling!
Their full original cost wouldn't be on the balance sheet in 13/14, though. Part of it must have been amortised in previous years, surely?
Button signed a two year contract in August 2012. However, I don't think the fee was ever due until the 2013/14 financial year. That was why the club could sign him in 2012. So if it was £500k and was due in summer 2013, could that explain things?
Only the unamortised part of the original cost is on the balance sheet but the notes to the accounts break down intangible assets between original cost, amortisation and carrying value.
Anyhow I just can't work out where the cash has gone from their transfers - usually cashflow is the easiest part of the b/sheet to track but it clearly shows only £194k in cash received.
Am I right in thinking those accounts are up to January 2014 ?so whilst clutching at straws , some of the £50m debt could have been payed off?
June 30th. The figure is a snapshot anyway, but the key figure is the £28m debt from Baton (2010) Limited to Staprix. That was £15m (to the previous owners) in 2013. It's likely to have increased since then and will have again by the current year end.
What we learn from the accounts is that RD has left the debt run up by TJ/MS and earlier attached to Charlton. It's not surprising, IMO, nor sinister, since he's currently responsible for it either way and it would protect his place in the queue - behind the former directors - if the club went bust, although that is hardly in his interest or likely.
The Standard Socios are trying to compile a " consolidated" financial picture of the RD empire so I have linked them up to NYAs excellent blogpost and this thread. They are not exactly well disposed towards RD, but their leader, Jacques Seron, is a chartered accountant, so they will make an intelligent job of it. If they have questions hopefully we can try to help them -people at the meeting apparently supported links with fans of other clubs, this one is already in place, and I think we can only benefit from hearing from these guys and comparing knowledge.
The Standard Socios are trying to compile a " consolidated" financial picture of the RD empire so I have linked them up to NYAs excellent blogpost and this thread. They are not exactly well disposed towards RD, but their leader, Jacques Seron, is a chartered accountant, so they will make an intelligent job of it. If they have questions hopefully we can try to help them -people at the meeting apparently supported links with fans of other clubs, this one is already in place, and I think we can only benefit from hearing from these guys and comparing knowledge.
If the want me to send a copy of the accounts let me have an email address
Airman, I think I've solved the issue of the transfer fees - the accounting treatment is a little odd but it is consistent with the previous year's accounts which helps to explain what went on.
You were right that it was more than mere coincidence that the unamortised carrying value of the players sold was £194k - as noted previously this must have been the unamortised portion of the fees for Stephens, Button and Smith given Kermorgant was free, and Shelvey had already been disposed of (with any remaining fees merely 'contingent').
The portion of the transfer fees which represent profit (ie. the amount in excess of the £194k carrying value) is accounted for in 'operating activities' (since it has a P&L impact), with the £194k accounted for as 'capital expenditure' (since this part is just a balance sheet transaction). This was true in the 30 Jun 2013 accounts too where the equivalent amount was £45k.
Thus I'm confident that the fees received were £1,718k + £194k = £1,912k, with some reasonable portion unpaid at financial year-end (given that as you also noted, trade debtors was quite high at £906k).
It's fair to say it isn't very clear but at least it seems we did indeed get reasonable fees for Stephens/Kermorgant (probably in the region of £1-1.25m in total).
Sorry if this has already been covered but is RD the sole owner of Staprix or are there others i.e. is he the only person pumping money into us?
His son owns a part , but obviously only a small amount , no idea if anyone else does!
His son Roderick owns Ujpest. But Ujpest is NOT part of the Staprix group, for reasons which remain unclear.
UEFA rules? Tax purposes? Are Hungary in the EU, would that make a difference?
The fan doesn't think it's UEFA rules, they were banned from the Europa league anyway,because the club had to be reformed under a new entity due to the activities of the previous crooked owner ( with whom RD did business of an unspecified nature). It would appear that he acquired Ujpest almost by accident , the previous owner owed him money. We plan to run the full Q&A with the fan at some point in the future on the Trust website.
As @Airman Brown states the interesting thing is that parent company loans have shot up by £13m. On close examination this consists: Operating cash out flow* £5m Player acquisition and capex £5m Paying off mortgage £1.5m Paying off other loans £670k Interest £550k
*normal running of the club including £1.8m profit on player disposals.
We are losing the same amount but all the debt is being centralised in one place. Paying off the mortgage and ex directors just centralises control even further.
Total debts are up from £38m to £47m as some of the above is just moving debt around.
Needless to say, the only way to clear these debts is promotion to the FAPL. Selling players will just put a band aid on the losses.
Elsewhere in the accounts the board announce a laudable ambition of 20,000 crowds in the championship. But that's probably the subject of another thread.
As @Airman Brown states the interesting thing is that parent company loans have shot up by £13m. On close examination this consists: Operating cash out flow* £5m Player acquisition and capex £5m Paying off mortgage £1.5m Paying off other loans £670k Interest £550k
*normal running of the club including £1.8m profit on player disposals.
We are losing the same amount but all the debt is being centralised in one place. Paying off the mortgage and ex directors just centralises control even further.
Total debts are up from £38m to £47m as some of the above is just moving debt around.
Needless to say, the only way to clear these debts is promotion to the FAPL. Selling players will just put a band aid on the losses.
Elsewhere in the accounts the board announce a laudable ambition of 20,000 crowds in the championship. But that's probably the subject of another thread.
Basically running a football club can't be profitable unless you hit the prem, and even then it's still unlikely unless your brand penetrates intl markets.
Comments
That's unbelievable... surely we could do better...
I think the fees got paid straight from Bournemouth/Brighton to the bank to pay off part of the loan/overdraft. If the club was being put under some pressure in this regard then maybe they really had no realistic choice but to sell.
Can someone explain what the £89k pitch cover costs entails? Surely it's not literally for the cover is it? Not saying we should just have a bit of tarpaulin from Wickes but would want the girls from the playboy mansion laying over the sod for that price.
If it is a coincidence, could it mean that the cash wasn't forthcoming within the accounting period? Trade debtors looks quite high, for example. Off the top of my head, it's hard to see who would owe the club that kind of money at year end other than other clubs?
I've spent all evening trying to get my head around it and I'm struggling!
Button signed a two year contract in August 2012. However, I don't think the fee was ever due until the 2013/14 financial year. That was why the club could sign him in 2012. So if it was £500k and was due in summer 2013, could that explain things?
Anyhow I just can't work out where the cash has gone from their transfers - usually cashflow is the easiest part of the b/sheet to track but it clearly shows only £194k in cash received.
What we learn from the accounts is that RD has left the debt run up by TJ/MS and earlier attached to Charlton. It's not surprising, IMO, nor sinister, since he's currently responsible for it either way and it would protect his place in the queue - behind the former directors - if the club went bust, although that is hardly in his interest or likely.
Newyorkaddick@yahoo.co.uk
You were right that it was more than mere coincidence that the unamortised carrying value of the players sold was £194k - as noted previously this must have been the unamortised portion of the fees for Stephens, Button and Smith given Kermorgant was free, and Shelvey had already been disposed of (with any remaining fees merely 'contingent').
The portion of the transfer fees which represent profit (ie. the amount in excess of the £194k carrying value) is accounted for in 'operating activities' (since it has a P&L impact), with the £194k accounted for as 'capital expenditure' (since this part is just a balance sheet transaction). This was true in the 30 Jun 2013 accounts too where the equivalent amount was £45k.
Thus I'm confident that the fees received were £1,718k + £194k = £1,912k, with some reasonable portion unpaid at financial year-end (given that as you also noted, trade debtors was quite high at £906k).
It's fair to say it isn't very clear but at least it seems we did indeed get reasonable fees for Stephens/Kermorgant (probably in the region of £1-1.25m in total).
Apologies for any earlier confusion!
On close examination this consists:
Operating cash out flow* £5m
Player acquisition and capex £5m
Paying off mortgage £1.5m
Paying off other loans £670k
Interest £550k
*normal running of the club including £1.8m profit on player disposals.
We are losing the same amount but all the debt is being centralised in one place. Paying off the mortgage and ex directors just centralises control even further.
Total debts are up from £38m to £47m as some of the above is just moving debt around.
Needless to say, the only way to clear these debts is promotion to the FAPL. Selling players will just put a band aid on the losses.
Elsewhere in the accounts the board announce a laudable ambition of 20,000 crowds in the championship. But that's probably the subject of another thread.