Accounts

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?


Is this the football club, or the company that owns the club?

I see a nice interest charge (of 10%) amounting to about £1.6M. On the face of it, not bad business if you can get it, and considering we're supposed to be debt free?

Can't see any refrences to wages, and the turnover fugure doesn't look right.

In summary - I haven't got a fucking clue! :)

UTB
 
Looks like the debts that where from the football club have been taken iver. Basically Mcabe company owing another mcabe company. I think anyway
 
Looks to me like we have 150 grand spare for substantial offers
 
I don't like the look of the signatures.

Must be someone from Barnsley. :rolleyes:

The audit fee looks a bit low. I don't get out of bed for less than £10k.

HH
 
Pompey_Blade said:
Looks like the debts that where from the football club have been taken iver. Basically Mcabe company owing another mcabe company. I think anyway
Click to expand...
Think that's about right. And if the prince moves on that debt can just move back to SUFC even though assets have gone.

Edit - on the plus side we would get his Quid back
 

Blade56 said:
Think that's about right. And if the prince moves on that debt can just move back to SUFC even though assets have gone.

Edit - on the plus side we would get his Quid back
Click to expand...


Surely, if that's the case then, the debt hasn't been wiped out at all, only moved to one side?
 
It appears that this company is just a shell company that owns the ground and charges rental income for it to the actuall football club (it's only income is rental income of £128,865.

However this income is swallowed up by vaguley defined "administrative expenses" of over £1.4m. This is a company with no employees that does nothing other than collect rent. I am sure the admin expenses are all legal and above board, but that does seem strange. I suspect it is some sort of (entirely legal) tax avoidance thing.

I am sure Crouchy will be along soon to give us the informed view....
 
This is the accounts of the company which owns the freeholds (hence the turnover being £128k). The loss here is half through a tax arrangement as the interest payable is on loans from a Luxembourg based parent company and half through the operating expense of running the stadium and academy, which is far higher than the rent the football club is paying.

The football club accounts will be filed under Blades Leisure Limited. That's a joint venture between McCabe and the Prince.

Darren you're spot on; except that £0.9m of the £1.4m operating expense is another financial movement: "waiver of an intercompany loan".

£0.5m seems reasonable if the operating expense of the stadium is paid by this shell company.
 
Balham Blade said:
This is the accounts of the company which owns the freeholds (hence the turnover being £128k). The loss here is half through a tax arrangement as the interest payable is on loans from a Luxembourg based parent company and half through the operating expense of running the stadium and academy, which is far higher than the rent the football club is paying.

The football club accounts will be filed under Blades Leisure Limited. That's a joint venture between McCabe and the Prince.

Darren you're spot on; except that £0.9m of the £1.4m operating expense is another financial movement: "waiver of an intercompany loan".

£0.5m seems reasonable if the operating expense of the stadium is paid by this shell company.
Click to expand...

But then shouldn't the cost of employees needed to operate the stadium be billed to this company?
 
It's all just legal move the dash around,but these small company accounts don't tell much.
I liked the bit about the ultimate holding companys accounts being available from the office rental place in Edinburgh,does McCabe own the freehold up there ? :D
 
Darren said:
It appears that this company is just a shell company that owns the ground and charges rental income for it to the actuall football club (it's only income is rental income of £128,865.

However this income is swallowed up by vaguley defined "administrative expenses" of over £1.4m. This is a company with no employees that does nothing other than collect rent. I am sure the admin expenses are all legal and above board, but that does seem strange. I suspect it is some sort of (entirely legal) tax avoidance thing.

I am sure Crouchy will be along soon to give us the informed view....
Click to expand...

Unless you can see a consolidated financial statement covering the whole of the football business then these accounts tell you very little. The exemptions mean that there isn't even a proper Directors' Report describing the activities of the company which might have told you how the income was derived.

I suppose it's possible that a professional football club with an average attendance of 18,000 20-odd times a year is paying only £130,000 to rent a 32,000 seat stadium but it looks a touch on the low side to me :)

Ignore these accounts in isolation - they are meaningless without further context.

On the subject of administrative expenses being "legal and above board" you are making the schoolboy error of conflating "legality" of expense with allowability against tax. If the company spent the money then it spent the money - even if the expenditure was illegal (eg bribes) it would still go into the accounts. Whether the taxman accepts them as expenditure genuinely made in pursuit of the company's stated aims is another matter.

If you look at the tax note (note 9, page 11) you will see that £357,546 of expenditure has been disallowed for tax (ie you can't use it to offset taxable profit or increase taxable losses). It's possible that they were bribes but much more likely is that within this figure is some entertaining expenditure, but the bulk of it will relate to aspects of the related party transactions detailed in note 18, page 16).
 
Crouchy said:
Unless you can see a consolidated financial statement covering the whole of the football business then these accounts tell you very little. The exemptions mean that there isn't even a proper Directors' Report describing the activities of the company which might have told you how the income was derived.

I suppose it's possible that a professional football club with an average attendance of 18,000 20-odd times a year is paying only £130,000 to rent a 32,000 seat stadium but it looks a touch on the low side to me :)

Ignore these accounts in isolation - they are meaningless without further context.

On the subject of administrative expenses being "legal and above board" you are making the schoolboy error of conflating "legality" of expense with allowability against tax. If the company spent the money then it spent the money - even if the expenditure was illegal (eg bribes) it would still go into the accounts. Whether the taxman accepts them as expenditure genuinely made in pursuit of the company's stated aims is another matter.

If you look at the tax note (note 9, page 11) you will see that £357,546 of expenditure has been disallowed for tax (ie you can't use it to offset taxable profit or increase taxable losses). It's possible that they were bribes but much more likely is that within this figure is some entertaining expenditure, but the bulk of it will relate to aspects of the related party transactions detailed in note 18, page 16).
Click to expand...


Isn't the reality that this company is McCabe with one hat on and the actual "real" football club (BLades Leisure appaently) McCabe with another hat on? Hence one of McCabe's companies can choose to charge another of his companies 57p per annum in rent and there is nothing unlawful/dodgy about that...
 
Darren said:
Isn't the reality that this company is McCabe with one hat on and the actual "real" football club (BLades Leisure appaently) McCabe with another hat on? Hence one of McCabe's companies can choose to charge another of his companies 57p per annum in rent and there is nothing unlawful/dodgy about that...
Click to expand...

They can do what they like but if the transactions aren't demonstrably at arm's length values then they may not be allowed for tax. As I said - looking at the accounts of just one company in the chain will tell you pretty much fuck all.

People shouldn't waste their time on this.
 
Crouchy said:
They can do what they like but if the transactions aren't demonstrably at arm's length values then they may not be allowed for tax. As I said - looking at the accounts of just one company in the chain will tell you pretty much fuck all.

People shouldn't waste their time on this.
Click to expand...

And it appears that for 10k, Grant Thornton didn't!
 
billyblademan said:
And it appears that for 10k, Grant Thornton didn't!
Click to expand...

It's a trivial audit. One big fuck off asset. Is it there? Yep. Valued at cost, easy. Depreciation at 2% - easy. Creditor balances are mostly related parties - just get written confirmations.

There you go - that' 95% of the balance audited in an afternoon. Easiest £10k Grant Thornton ever made.
 

Crouchy said:
They can do what they like but if the transactions aren't demonstrably at arm's length values then they may not be allowed for tax. As I said - looking at the accounts of just one company in the chain will tell you pretty much fuck all.

People shouldn't waste their time on this.
Click to expand...

Which is fair enough. Even I could tell at a glance that these weren't the "proper" accounts.
So why have United put them on the official site on this page?:-

http://www.sufc.co.uk/news/article/20131122-downloads-341951.aspx

The same page as the full Annual Report and Accounts which are normally 40 page PDF's like this one:-?

http://www.sufc.co.uk/documents/su-plc-june-2013-report-and-accounts135-1188137.pdf

When are the proper accounts going to be released? They were out earlier than this last year.
Is the change something to do with the description "Sheffield United Limited (formerly Sheffield United PLC)"?
Are we going to get a lot less detail this year? Due to not being a "Public" company?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Back
Top Bottom