The budget

[Sean Thornton]

Btw, transferring debt to shares doesn't mean he's "paid himself".

He'll only possibly recoup some or all of his cash in the unlikely event he ever gets us back to the PL.

 

[Sean Thornton]

Hope you aren't driving either.

Sounds like you're pissed or summat.

pommpey

We we deign?

 

[blades78]

They'll not be out of contract if we do go up and they take the option to extend for a year and there is nothing we can do to stop it.
Certain relegation will be even more obvious than the c/H's were this season.

So you know the terms of every players contract?

 

[blades78]

What horseshit.

They'll not be out of contract if we do go up and they take the option to extend for a year and there is nothing we can do to stop it.
Certain relegation will be even more obvious than the c/H's were this season.

See here's another!!!

 

[Blade56]

On what ?

New boggs ont' Kop

 

[Deleted member 1486]

No. There were two shares originally. Then more were allotted. The Prince paid ten million quid for his, McCabe was owed thirty seven million pounds, transferred ten million into shares to match the Princes shareholding and the balance went to a share premium account.

I have no idea what any of that means. Can we return to the pie analogy?

My understanding is that Kev once owned all the pie. If he divided things up at this point, he'd still only have the total of one pie?

At the point the Prince walked in, we were told consistently that he and Kev had half a pie each (with the Prince promising to inject a specific amount of money into the club for his half pie). Are you saying that at some point after this, Kev wrote off the loan, and took a bigger share of the pie? If so, they clearly aren't 50/50 shareholders anymore? (and as a minority shareholder, there's absolutely no way the Prince would be throwing more money into the pot!).

Or are you saying something completely different?

 

[Sean Thornton]

I have no idea what any of that means. Can we return to the pie analogy?

My understanding is that Kev once owned all the pie. If he divided things up at this point, he'd still only have the total of one pie?

At the point the Prince walked in, we were told consistently that he and Kev had half a pie each (with the Prince promising to inject a specific amount of money into the club for his half pie). Are you saying that at some point after this, Kev wrote off the loan, and took a bigger share of the pie? If so, they clearly aren't 50/50 shareholders anymore? (and as a minority shareholder, there's absolutely no way the Prince would be throwing more money into the pot!).

Or are you saying something completely different?

Nowhere have I suggested that. I clearly said they own things 50/50 with ten million quids worth of shares each ( that's ten million shares that attract a vote at board meeting which are the important ones) . Based on that I have no idea why you think that the Prince is a minority shareholder. He isn't.

The balance of the money owed to McCabe over and above the ten million swapped for equity has been put to a share premium account on the balance sheet.

DEFINITION of 'Share Premium Account' Usually found on the balance sheet, this is theaccount to which the amount of money paid (or promised to be paid) by a shareholder for ashare is credited to, only if the shareholder paid more than the cost of the share.

Nothing to do with pies.

 

[nopigfansintown]

Nowhere have I suggested that. I clearly said they own things 50/50 with ten million quids worth of shares each ( that's ten million shares that attract a vote at board meeting which are the important ones) . Based on that I have no idea why you think that the Prince is a minority shareholder. He isn't.

The balance of the money owed to McCabe over and above the ten million swapped for equity has been put to a share premium account on the balance sheet.

DEFINITION of 'Share Premium Account' Usually found on the balance sheet, this is theaccount to which the amount of money paid (or promised to be paid) by a shareholder for ashare is credited to, only if the shareholder paid more than the cost of the share.

Nothing to do with pies.

But I'm hungry and Jose and Higgo's been in mi fridge.

 

[Sean Thornton]

But I'm hungry and Jose and Higgo's been in mi fridge.

Well apparently all you do is cut the pie up into smaller pieces and you have more pie. Hey Presto it's McCabe magic !

 

[Sean Thornton]

I'm beginning to wonder if Flawed has had a traumatic experience sharing a pie at BL and getting the smaller share.

Thus paying a premium?

 

[Deleted member 1486]

I'm beginning to wonder if Flawed has had a traumatic experience sharing a pie at BL and getting the smaller share.

Thus paying a premium?

 

[nopigfansintown]

I'm beginning to wonder if Flawed has had a traumatic experience sharing a pie at BL and getting the smaller share.

Thus paying a premium?

Actually, he had the quick fix for controlling the wage bill, and had come come up with a masterful plan of getting Compass Group to pay Baxter and Higdon's wages or payoff in lieu of the club (pies). Soon after (when the pie inevitably goes missing) extricating McCabe and the Prince from the club in one fell swoop (the pie is their shareholding). I want, no demand he's on the technical board!

PS: Its just a shame Scoogs doesn't eat, eh.

 

[Sothall_Blade]

Im just asking a question
Nobody seems to be able to answer it

http://tinyurl.com/gqhal5m

These are the figures from 2014 but I can't answer your question because I'm not an accountant.
I would love to understand it more though.
It doesn't help that the figures in the description shown on page 3 (e.g. £11.1M Turnover) don't match the "Profit and Loss Account" shown on page 9 (e.g. £10.5M Turnover).
Can anyone explain why they don't match up?

The other problem for the layman is that "Cost of Sales" and "Administrative expenses aren't broken down, so you can't see what they consist of.
The Administrative expenses include "amortisation charge of player registrations" ("£5.5M?) which I think means players losing their value over the course of a contract?
Interest charges aren't the major problem here as they are £0.3M down from £1.0M

 

[Sean Thornton]

View attachment 15833

http://tinyurl.com/gqhal5m

These are the figures from 2014 but I can't answer your question because I'm not an accountant.
I would love to understand it more though.
It doesn't help that the figures in the description shown on page 3 (e.g. £11.1M Turnover) don't match the "Profit and Loss Account" shown on page 9 (e.g. £10.5M Turnover).
Can anyone explain why they don't match up?

The other problem for the layman is that "Cost of Sales" and "Administrative expenses aren't broken down, so you can't see what they consist of.
The Administrative expenses include "amortisation charge of player registrations" ("£5.5M?) which I think means players losing their value over the course of a contract?
Interest charges aren't the major problem here as they are £0.3M down from £1.0M

Which accounts are you looking at - the link doesn't work - sufc ltd or BL Ltd?

Edit, it's the Sufc accounts sorry. The £11.1m figure in the report is actually the turnover figure in the consolidated profit and loss account of Blades LeisureLtd which produces group accounts incorporating the trading of the football club.

 

[Sothall_Blade]

Which accounts are you looking at - the link doesn't work - sufc ltd or BL Ltd?

https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/...dDMps1N/TA5OCgXVZ9L8MTZ4l72IVGDq0czAg2ZXHtQU=

 

[Sean Thornton]

https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/document-api-images-prod/docs/ObiaOL3oSHLS55QWo5K19Bx9QzYXfxVZOmD82Dq2FJg/application-pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=ASIAIUY3OOMXL33PU2GA&Expires=1454506160&Signature=HU11XFpr9YrW/ZTyFEqzyYuuPgw=&x-amz-security-token=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

View attachment 15835

Just did an edit.

 

[BushBlade]

Just did an edit.

To the link or to the accounts?

 

[Sothall_Blade]

Which accounts are you looking at - the link doesn't work - sufc ltd or BL Ltd?

Edit, it's the Sufc accounts sorry. The £11.1m figure in the report is actually the turnover figure in the consolidated profit and loss account of Blades LeisureLtd which produces group accounts incorporating the trading of the football club.

Thanks.

and bloody hell! No wonder I can't make head nor tail of them!

 

[Grappler]

Thanks.

and bloody hell! No wonder I can't make head nor tail of them!

Stick to reading this Sothall

 

[BushBlade]

Thanks.

and bloody hell! No wonder I can't make head nor tail of them!

No one can based on the information supplied in the accounts. It tells you how much we've spent but gives little detail of what we spent it on.

 

[Sean Thornton]

To the link or to the accounts?

 

[Sean Thornton]

Thanks.

and bloody hell! No wonder I can't make head nor tail of them!

The 11.1 figure shouldn't be in there. Just a typo though before the forensic accuntants come out of the woodwork.

 

[BushBlade]

The 11.1 figure shouldn't be in there. Just a typo though before the forensic accuntants come out of the woodwork.

You'd have thought the auditors might have noticed it.

 

[Sean Thornton]

No one can based on the information supplied in the accounts. It tells you how much we've spent but gives little detail of what we spent it on.

Standard practice for all businesses of a similar size though. Nothing iffy about it.

 

[BushBlade]

Standard practice for all businesses of a similar size though. Nothing iffy about it.

Yes, it's standard practice but it doesn't answer where the money has gone.
For all I know there could be 'consultancy fees' in there or we could be losing £3m a year on the academy. Who knows?

 

[Sothall_Blade]

No one can based on the information supplied in the accounts. It tells you how much we've spent but gives little detail of what we spent it on.

I know! But roughly it seems to be:-

Income = £10.5M
Expenditure = £15.2M
Loss = £4.4M

Expenditure of £15.2M = £8.9M on all staff costs (including the cancellation of playing and non-playing contracts) + £5.5M reduced value of player's contracts + £0.8M everything else?

The 11.1 figure shouldn't be in there. Just a typo though before the forensic accuntants come out of the woodwork.

But none of the other figures match either. E.g. Cost of sales = £10.9M on page 3 and £9.8M on page 9. Loss = £4.2M or £4.4M etc

 

[Sean Thornton]

Yes, it's standard practice but it doesn't answer where the money has gone.
For all I know there could be 'consultancy fees' in there or we could be losing £3m a year on the academy. Who knows?

If you're wondering if McCabe/Scarborough or whoever could have received consultancy fees it would have been dealt with in the related party transactions section.

Posters please note Bush Blade isn't saying there were any. It's an example not an internet FACT. Please don't tweet Jim with accusations . Thank you.

 

[Sean Thornton]

I know! But roughly it seems to be:-

Income = £10.5M
Expenditure = £15.2M
Loss = £4.4M

Expenditure of £15.2M = £8.9M on all staff costs (including the cancellation of playing and non-playing contracts) + £5.5M reduced value of player's contracts + £0.8M everything else?



But none of the other figures match either. E.g. Cost of sales = £10.9M on page 3 and £9.8M on page 9. Loss = £4.2M or £4.4M etc

Same thing (without looking) I'd say. Look at the Blades Leisure Ltd account to see if they match. I can't because as soon as I find my anorak, I'm going out.

 

[BushBlade]

If you're wondering if McCabe/Scarborough or whoever could have received consultancy fees it would have been dealt with in the related party transactions section.

Posters please note Bush Blade isn't saying there were any. It's an example not an internet FACT. Please don't tweet Jim with accusations . Thank you.

Yes, just an example. As was the academy figure.

 

[Sean Thornton]

Yes, just an example. As was the academy figure.

We know that but I can't help thinking you may have opened a can of worms. Might be worth listening to POG tonight