- Banned
- #1
Been doing a bit of research on a database I have access to. Some mildly interesting findings in my opinion, though nowt on level of the excellent post detailing the facts of McCabe’s cash extractions.
Must stress these are Feb 2008 figures so alot of water under the bridge, including a general collapse in property values
Realty
•SUFC plc owns 50% of a company called Blades Realty Limited
•Last accounts are to Feb 2008, so plenty of water under bridge since then.
•Other 50% is owned by Scarborough
•Blades Realty has a 100% subsidiary called United Scarborough Estates Limited (USE)
•USE has a number of subsidiaries which appear to be property development companies – ie buy a plot of land and build some disgusting apartment block on it.
•Realty’s balance sheet says it had stock (ie developments waiting sale) of £48m with £2m of other assets
•It has liabilities of £48m which appears to include a bank overdraft of £35m
•Very crudely, if the stock cost £48m, there is a gap of £13m between that and the bank borrowings – which I assume has been filled 50/50 between plc and Scarborough.
•Hopefully, Scarborough have put the additional cash in rather than SUFC plc
•I don’t know how these figures feed into plc’s accounts – to me they are almost impossible to read accurately in terms of who owns what and I am used to looking at accounts – not plc ones though I must add.
•I am very worried that plc is theoretically liable for 50% of these liabilities at a time when the market for these flats/apartments etc is shocking
•Hopefully the value of the stock is not overstated in the accounts – which I’m sure it cannot be under audit rules. It should be in at lower of cost or net realisable value.
•Far be it for me to suggest this, but is it possible that Realty has borrowed money, in part on the back of value of BDTBL in order to fund the development of some awful (and now very hard to get rid of) properties in Bristol, Oxford, etc, etc?
Enterprises
•A major sore point with me on here is claims that the office block on John Street rakes in ‘millions’ for use elsewhere in the group. £6m profit since inception being the claim from a few on here.
•My source indicates that the profit before tax in 2004 was £106k. Subsequent years have been £155k, £318k, £294k and £370k in 2008.
•These profit figures include tiny amounts of interest costs
•Maybe the block is fully paid for but I suspect the asset and the interest costs are reflected in plc
•My belief is that if interest was allocated to this company, the profits would be negligible
•The company does not have the building as a fixed asset nor does it show the costs of borrowing to acquire that asset – this is purely the operating vehicle.
•The net worth of the company is £1.1m which is the accumulated profits (ie including the period before 2004) plus a bit of share capital
•I can’t see any dividends passing to plc over that period – so, impact on first team – zero.
Hotel
•The hotel would appear to be owned by Sheffield United (Hotel) Limited which is a 100% subsid of plc
•This company has fixed assets of £7.2m (2008 accounts) and other assets of £2.4m
•It has total liabilities of £7.6m
•Latest accounts are to Feb 2008 so no meaningful income or interest costs showing yet.
Summary
As other posters have said, I personally think there are credible arguments for saying that SUFC is part football club part property empire. I think that the finances of the club are linked to the state of the property market.
I think that, without any foundation and purely personal view, McCabe is in somw way using SUFC Ltd and BDTBL to oil the wheels of his property empire.
On the other hand, it is perfectly possible to argue that all these property interests are fantastic. I can accept that and must stress that McCabe is perfectly entitled to do what he pleases and I do believe he has some very strong feelings for SUFC.
Has one penny of rental income or development profit gone towards the playing side of the business? We'll never know but I don't think so.
Am I worried about finances of SUFC? Yes, a little.
Must stress these are Feb 2008 figures so alot of water under the bridge, including a general collapse in property values
Realty
•SUFC plc owns 50% of a company called Blades Realty Limited
•Last accounts are to Feb 2008, so plenty of water under bridge since then.
•Other 50% is owned by Scarborough
•Blades Realty has a 100% subsidiary called United Scarborough Estates Limited (USE)
•USE has a number of subsidiaries which appear to be property development companies – ie buy a plot of land and build some disgusting apartment block on it.
•Realty’s balance sheet says it had stock (ie developments waiting sale) of £48m with £2m of other assets
•It has liabilities of £48m which appears to include a bank overdraft of £35m
•Very crudely, if the stock cost £48m, there is a gap of £13m between that and the bank borrowings – which I assume has been filled 50/50 between plc and Scarborough.
•Hopefully, Scarborough have put the additional cash in rather than SUFC plc
•I don’t know how these figures feed into plc’s accounts – to me they are almost impossible to read accurately in terms of who owns what and I am used to looking at accounts – not plc ones though I must add.
•I am very worried that plc is theoretically liable for 50% of these liabilities at a time when the market for these flats/apartments etc is shocking
•Hopefully the value of the stock is not overstated in the accounts – which I’m sure it cannot be under audit rules. It should be in at lower of cost or net realisable value.
•Far be it for me to suggest this, but is it possible that Realty has borrowed money, in part on the back of value of BDTBL in order to fund the development of some awful (and now very hard to get rid of) properties in Bristol, Oxford, etc, etc?
Enterprises
•A major sore point with me on here is claims that the office block on John Street rakes in ‘millions’ for use elsewhere in the group. £6m profit since inception being the claim from a few on here.
•My source indicates that the profit before tax in 2004 was £106k. Subsequent years have been £155k, £318k, £294k and £370k in 2008.
•These profit figures include tiny amounts of interest costs
•Maybe the block is fully paid for but I suspect the asset and the interest costs are reflected in plc
•My belief is that if interest was allocated to this company, the profits would be negligible
•The company does not have the building as a fixed asset nor does it show the costs of borrowing to acquire that asset – this is purely the operating vehicle.
•The net worth of the company is £1.1m which is the accumulated profits (ie including the period before 2004) plus a bit of share capital
•I can’t see any dividends passing to plc over that period – so, impact on first team – zero.
Hotel
•The hotel would appear to be owned by Sheffield United (Hotel) Limited which is a 100% subsid of plc
•This company has fixed assets of £7.2m (2008 accounts) and other assets of £2.4m
•It has total liabilities of £7.6m
•Latest accounts are to Feb 2008 so no meaningful income or interest costs showing yet.
Summary
As other posters have said, I personally think there are credible arguments for saying that SUFC is part football club part property empire. I think that the finances of the club are linked to the state of the property market.
I think that, without any foundation and purely personal view, McCabe is in somw way using SUFC Ltd and BDTBL to oil the wheels of his property empire.
On the other hand, it is perfectly possible to argue that all these property interests are fantastic. I can accept that and must stress that McCabe is perfectly entitled to do what he pleases and I do believe he has some very strong feelings for SUFC.
Has one penny of rental income or development profit gone towards the playing side of the business? We'll never know but I don't think so.
Am I worried about finances of SUFC? Yes, a little.
