Annual report - £18.7 million loss

[Micalijo]

Its like reading the Beano !

Where in the Beano is the story about loads of cash going to service bank debt regarding assets that are 'below water'?

 

[JohnDenver]

Where in the Beano is the story about loads of cash going to service bank debt regarding assets that are 'below water'?

Only found in the annual collectors editions. Do keep up....

 

[Linz]

The Kyle transfers were after June 2009 weren't they? Sure they weren't included - they are in 2010 profit on disposal I think.

I'm just going on the mention they received in the Chairman's Statement in 2009... which has reappeared on the website.

 

[Micalijo]

I'm just going on the mention they received in the Chairman's Statement in 2009... which has reappeared on the website.

In the year to June 2010 we made a £10m plus profit on disposal - has to be Kyle's. What did the 2009 statement say about Kyles? They had been sold by the time the accounts were signed but disposal after 20 June 2010 so nowt in the 2009 numbers regarding sale of Kyles I reckon

 

[GrayBlade]

To be honest lads we've been waiting for clarity for too long, right back since the BT sale in January 09. Last year's financial figures were coloured by exceptions and now we've got the true picture.

We all knew that things were being run tight, too tight to be run of the mill cautious book keeping, and the mistake Birch and McCabe made was to try and pitch us as a club going for promotion this season, rather than a club that's going to have to rebuild on and off the pitch before it can start moving onwards and upwards.

I don't have a problem with the report, just the constant hype we've been fed about signings and ambition, when it clearly was not the true picture. Only major investment would change the way things are right now and that applies to most clubs.

Now we can all move on, hopefully Speed will see us safely through this season without too much stress on the the old ticker, give us some good football to watch and we can build again from here.

UTB

 

[raul]

At least we're firmly on the path to a bright and glorious future now though lads eh? Let's just put it all behind us.

 

[Eskimo]

Has West Ham actually paid us (the plc, bank or whatever?) any money yet?

 

[sheffielder]

Can someone show me the £50 million pound debt that people have been telling us about?

 

[SwissBlade]

I don't get the issues that have been raised. This show's us where we think we've been for the last 18 months of whatever.

Looks like the decks are being cleared in preparation for selling the Football club... Sorry, seeking investment in the Football club

 

[sheffielder]

I don't get the issues that have been raised. This show's us where we think we've been for the last 18 months of whatever.

Looks like the decks are being cleared in preparation for selling the Football club... Sorry, seeking investment in the Football club

Kevin's statement to me speaks of investment/selling etc; Correct me if I am wrong the football club, stadium and academy does not have any debt and any external debts seem to have been underwritten by the Group. I still would like Mic, Len or Beighton to show me the £50 million debt they have been telling the world about?

 

[SwissBlade]

Kevin's statement to me speaks of investment/selling etc; Correct me if I am wrong the football club, stadium and academy does not have any debt and any external debts seem to have been underwritten by the Group. I still would like Mic, Len or Beighton to show me the £50 million debt they have been telling the world about?

Yeah I read it the same way. Makes a club like us much more attractive to an investor than, lets say, one with a battered old stadium, crap academy, no training facilities with massive debts and a tax bill and winding up order to sort out before any impact can be made on the playing side

 

[SteelCity Blade]

Yeah I read it the same way. Makes a club like us much more attractive to an investor than, lets say, one with a battered old stadium, crap academy, no training facilities with massive debts and a tax bill and winding up order to sort out before any impact can be made on the playing side

Who is this you speak of? They sound like a "massive" club!

 

[Micalijo]

Kevin's statement to me speaks of investment/selling etc; Correct me if I am wrong the football club, stadium and academy does not have any debt and any external debts seem to have been underwritten by the Group. I still would like Mic, Len or Beighton to show me the £50 million debt they have been telling the world about?

What on earth are you on about?

I'm well aware that the £50m debt was in the books and 'backed' by equivalent value of assets. Are you saying we didn't have debts of around £50m? Unfortunately, as I have been saying time and time again, the assets were not worth as much as people thought hence the desperate restructuring.

What do you mean external debt underwritten by the group? No idea at all what that means? Bank debt underwritten by selling Kyle Walker? By not having any of our own players?

PS - totally agree that no football debt is good for investment. Have said that before.

 

[Robbie]

Yeah I read it the same way. Makes a club like us much more attractive to an investor than, lets say, one with a battered old stadium, crap academy, no training facilities with massive debts and a tax bill and winding up order to sort out before any impact can be made on the playing side

Should they go into admin though, they will become a very attractive proposition.

 

[beechblade]

Who is this you speak of? They sound like a "massive" club!

They are, were, still are, oh maybe not so massive, are still again, got investment coming massive, but royally $%$^*)

 

[super_pig]

frankly with all of these conflicting opinions i'm a bit lost .. i don't suppose one of you financial types sum up all of this hyperbole in a paragraph for some of us mere mortals?
i.e. how much we are in debt, what we own/ don't own etc

 

[Micalijo]

Swiss, may I just remind you that as of very soon, Wendy will have no bank debt and will in all likelihood be on a very rapid rise under a decent owner who sacks managers when they need sacking and generally provides fans with decent players to watch. Could not care less about his tax affairs.

 

[SwissBlade]

Swiss, may I just remind you that as of very soon, Wendy will have no bank debt and will in all likelihood be on a very rapid rise under a decent owner who sacks managers when they need sacking and generally provides fans with decent players to watch. Could not care less about his tax affairs.

True, but they'll be in another relegation battle with at least -10pts deduction.

And no doubt they won't own the ground

The bit in Bold really confused me. Who's taking them over, Abramovic???

 

[Flatulent_Bob]

I must be missing something, apart from the ridiculing of Mica, which again he seems not to be able to back up.

So we've made a huge loss, but via the restructuring we've got the ground, the academy, the club looking at being debt free by 2013. All our liabilities like the hotel have now been taken off our hands by McCabe although we have the option to buy back should we decide to.
All interests in China have gone along with those liabilities and now we are in a perfect position for investment or sale.

So basically we have to tame our current wage bill to realistic levels and we move forward with little or no debt.

While I still think it was a prudent idea to try and diversify our turnover into areas outside of football, the economic situation has gone against us and we couldn't wait any longer so we've had to bail. But looking at that statement it seems it is with no loss or foul.
Ideal? Not at all but it was a gamble worth taking in my opinion.

On the plus side I bet Len's PC suddenly makes a quick recovery.

 

[beightonblade]

frankly with all of these conflicting opinions i'm a bit lost .. i don't suppose one of you financial types sum up all of this hyperbole in a paragraph for some of us mere mortals?
i.e. how much we are in debt, what we own/ don't own etc

one man knows.............. and a lot pretend they know ! ............ as i've said yer may as well read the Beano!

 

[Flatulent_Bob]

Swiss, may I just remind you that as of very soon, Wendy will have no bank debt and will in all likelihood be on a very rapid rise under a decent owner who sacks managers when they need sacking and generally provides fans with decent players to watch. Could not care less about his tax affairs.

Are you talking about Milan?
:rofl::rofl:

Managers: Rob Kelly, Nigel Worthington, Martin Allen, Gary Megson, Burrows/Taggart, Holloway, Nigel Pearson, Paulo Sousa, 8 managers in 40 months.

They were sold in August this year, during which time they'd lost 3 league games and drawn 1 from their first 4.


Yeah great performance by the owner.

 

[SteelCity Blade]

Should they go into admin though, they will become a very attractive proposition.

That depends Robbie, its not a given. Common sense in most cases would suggest that your theory is right but it totally depends on their circumstances and assets. What assets do they have to speak of?.......

I would like to bet the sty itself isnt worth as much as their fans would like to think and the same goes for the training ground. Besides that, assets are only worth what someone would be prepared to pay for them and as a club they dont seem to be attractive enough at the moment for someone to put serious enough money on the table. Hence the lack of a conclusion to the whole saga.

IMO there is an unsavoury element somewhere that doesnt come out in the press.....something that puts potential investors right off. Perhaps its when they see the books, who knows? But something doesnt seem right to me.

If/when they go into admin, they will have to either sell the club to new owners (not happening at the moment) or break up the pieces and sell them off. In the case of the former, anyone coming in will have to invest serious money to resolve their debts and in the case of the latter.....see my point about assets.

 

[sheffielder]

What on earth are you on about?

I'm well aware that the £50m debt was in the books and 'backed' by equivalent value of assets. Are you saying we didn't have debts of around £50m? Unfortunately, as I have been saying time and time again, the assets were not worth as much as people thought hence the desperate restructuring.

What do you mean external debt underwritten by the group? No idea at all what that means? Bank debt underwritten by selling Kyle Walker? By not having any of our own players?

PS - totally agree that no football debt is good for investment. Have said that before.

External debt to me is money's owed which has fook all to do with football. hotels etc;

You don't seem to grasp the word 'debt'. To say we had a £50 million debt would say we had zero assets. Neither statements have ever been true. I would just like to point that out

---------- Post added at 01:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:44 PM ----------

That depends Robbie, its not a given. Common sense in most cases would suggest that your theory is right but it totally depends on their circumstances and assets. What assets do they have to speak of?.......

I would like to bet the sty itself isnt worth as much as their fans would like to think and the same goes for the training ground. Besides that, assets are only worth what someone would be prepared to pay for them and as a club they dont seem to be attractive enough at the moment for someone to put serious enough money on the table. Hence the lack of a conclusion to the whole saga.

IMO there is an unsavoury element somewhere that doesnt come out in the press.....something that puts potential investors right off. Perhaps its when they see the books, who knows? But something doesnt seem right to me.

If/when they go into admin, they will have to either sell the club to new owners (not happening at the moment) or break up the pieces and sell them off. In the case of the former, anyone coming in will have to invest serious money to resolve their debts and in the case of the latter.....see my point about assets.

The directors at SWFC have been sat on their hands for a few years waiting for the bank to write off the majority of the debt. All they would have to do is pay what the bank wants which sounds like 7million and they don't have to pay back a majority of the loan notes. A few of their directors have been privately funding the survival of the pigs for a few years and see this as something owed. Remember the MM deal can't go through without a deal with the same note holders who want the club themselves

 

[Micalijo]

External debt to me is money's owed which has fook all to do with football. hotels etc;

You don't seem to grasp the word 'debt'. To say we had a £50 million debt would say we had zero assets. Neither statements have ever been true. I would just like to point that out

---------- Post added at 01:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:44 PM ----------



The directors at SWFC have been sat on their hands for a few years waiting for the bank to write off the majority of the debt. All they would have to do is pay what the bank wants which sounds like 7million and they don't have to pay back a majority of the loan notes. A few of their directors have been privately funding the survival of the pigs for a few years and see this as something owed. Remember the MM deal can't go through without a deal with the same note holders who want the club themselves

are you taking the piss? I said in the post you quoted that I totally understand that our debt owed to banks etc was backed by assets.

Approximately we owed McCabe £22m and the bank £28m as per June 2009?

The external debt though was based on property values in Realty and hotel - they have slumped and bankl wanted cash - step in SUFC Ltd.

What is wrong with that analysis?

 

[Railway Blade]

This 10 million property write down.

We have sold Chengdu and the hotel.

As far as I knew we didnt own the Chengdu property, it is a community stadium.

Does that mean we have sold the hotel to Scarborough for 10 million less than its value in the previous accounts ?

 

[sheffielder]

are you taking the piss? I said in the post you quoted that I totally understand that our debt owed to banks etc was backed by assets.

Approximately we owed McCabe £22m and the bank £28m as per June 2009?

The external debt though was based on property values in Realty and hotel - they have slumped and bankl wanted cash - step in SUFC Ltd.

What is wrong with that analysis?

Because you only ever tell one side of the story. Answer these questions

Do we still owe McCabe £22 Million?
Do we owe the bank £28 million?
Are we still £50 million in debt?

I think what you mean by debt actually means liability to the rest of us.

 

[SwissBlade]

This 10 million property write down.

We have sold Chengdu and the hotel.

As far as I knew we didnt own the Chengdu property, it is a community stadium.

Does that mean we have sold the hotel to Scarborough for 10 million less than its value in the previous accounts ?

Probably, its connected to a Football Ground so they got it cheap because of the noisy neighbours

 

[Micalijo]

This 10 million property write down.

We have sold Chengdu and the hotel.

As far as I knew we didnt own the Chengdu property, it is a community stadium.

Does that mean we have sold the hotel to Scarborough for 10 million less than its value in the previous accounts ?

Not just the hotel but also the value of our share of Realty - the property subsidiary. I think the basic answer to your question Railway is yes. But don't worry, Bob is confident that if the hotel goes back up in value nice old Kevin will let us have it back again.

 

[Flatulent_Bob]

and by my limited understanding of it McCabe seems to have acquired all the debt and risk and left us pretty much free.

---------- Post added at 01:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:57 PM ----------

But don't worry, Bob is confident that if the hotel goes back up in value nice old Kevin will let us have it back again.

Ha Ha Mica, so are you saying there isn't an option to buy it back at a later date? If so you are deciding which parts to believe and which not to from the article based on nothing but your own bias.

 

[Sothall_Blade]

frankly with all of these conflicting opinions i'm a bit lost .. i don't suppose one of you financial types sum up all of this hyperbole in a paragraph for some of us mere mortals?
i.e. how much we are in debt, what we own/ don't own etc

I'm not a "financial type" but my reading of it is as follows. (Please correct me if I'm wrong):-

1) We lost £18.7M despite making a £10.6M profit on transfer fees. Without the big transfer profit we'd have lost £28.3M. We don't have £10.6M worth of players left to sell in 2010/2011!

2) Gate receipts fell by £2M but that was mainly due to not making the play-offs rather than attendances slumping. Since June 2010 attendances HAVE slumped massively. So we're probably set to lose circa £30M this season depending how much the wage bill has been slashed?

3) Speed will have to sell before he can sign anyone in January ("teem and ladle"). Even then probably on on loan unless we get new investment.

4) Speed is apparently an "excellent young manager". Not "potentially an excellent manager" or "a promising young manager". He's just excellent, despite his results, so that's that.

5) We've sold Chengdu, the hotel and 50% of Blades Realty for unspecified sums. Presumably the sales values will be in the annual accounts? We must have lost out in a big way though or why not mention the sales values in the main announcement?

6) All in all, very depressing. WTTWY indeed.