Back in the Black!

[Flatulent_Bob]

Anyone? I know I'm missing something huge but I can't see it.

 

[JohnDenver]

Does Crouch End still lurk in these parts? He's the man to turn numbers into meaningful sentences.

 

[oldblade]

Do the profits include any of the Tevez money?

Plus you have to consider the income we have received from transfers (£8m Kyles etc...). So is it really any better than last year?

Yesterday my copy of the club accounts arrived. I don't know how many other people have got a copy, but on page 50 at the very bottmm (under section 4, Other Operating Income, is an entry as follows: "Settlement received from West Ham Football Club less associated costs" - £18.093 million.


I always find these sort of documents very difficult to understand and have no idea whether or not this means we have received payment in full or if this is a part payment.

I was under the impression that the payment would come in several instalments, but can't believe we are going to get several £18 million payments!!

And this would seem to be borne out by something in the last paragraph of page 10 - "West Ham have agreed to pay the settlement in increasing instalments over five years".

Also in the first paragraph of that page is the following - SU plc's profit (of £6 million) "has been realised from the recognition of the settlement payable by West Ham in respect of the 'Tevez Affair' after deducting the costs of the legal battle". That would tend to suggest we haven't actually got the money yet, or at least not all of it!

 

[Highbury_Blade]

Yesterday my copy of the club accounts arrived. I don't know how many other people have got a copy, but on page 50 at the very bottmm (under section 4, Other Operating Income, is an entry as follows: "Settlement received from West Ham Football Club less associated costs" - £18.093 million.


I always find these sort of documents very difficult to understand and have no idea whether or not this means we have received payment in full or if this is a part payment.

I was under the impression that the payment would come in several instalments, but can't believe we are going to get several £18 million payments!!

And this would seem to be borne out by something in the last paragraph of page 10 - "West Ham have agreed to pay the settlement in increasing instalments over five years".

Also in the first paragraph of that page is the following - SU plc's profit (of £6 million) "has been realised from the recognition of the settlement payable by West Ham in respect of the 'Tevez Affair' after deducting the costs of the legal battle". That would tend to suggest we haven't actually got the money yet, or at least not all of it!

Interesting. So are they accounting for the full payment in this accounting year, meaning that without the tevez money we would have actually lost £12m?

Accounting is right up there with particle physics on the list of things that i'm shit at so don't jump on me all at once!

 

[oldblade]

Interesting. So are they accounting for the full payment in this accounting year, meaning that without the tevez money we would have actually lost £12m?

Accounting is right up there with particle physics on the list of things that i'm shit at so don't jump on me all at once!

The problem is that these documents seem to be written by accountants for accountants, and I find much of it to be beyond my understanding.

But I think it looks as though the settlement after deducting legal fees was £18.093 million and that at least some (if not all) of this is being used in the balance sheet of the football part of the group.

 

[beightonblade]

The problem is that these documents seem to be written by accountants for accountants, and I find much of it to be beyond my understanding.

But I think it looks as though the settlement after deducting legal fees was £18.093 million and that at least some (if not all) of this is being used in the balance sheet of the football part of the group.

hey up owdblde.....

I've not read em yet but yer may as well read the Beano
I've never known a company been bought on the stregnth of submitted accounts.
My understanding was the Cheats money was to be paid over a number of years just touching the Blades bank account before buggering off to McCabes coffers repaying the debt owed to him.

 

[Highbury_Blade]

What's our wages ratio without the tevez and parachute payments like?

(wages/(turnover - tevezCash - ParachutePayments))*100

 

[Autumn]

Players Wages

Total First Team Costs (Mostly wages) was £18.5m in 2008 and £15.3m in 2009.

Cash from sales of playing squad were £7.3m (£9.3m in 2008)

Cash paid for playing squad purchases was £5.2m (£8.1m in 2008)

"Cash" is used as it doesn't include any deferred payments (installments etc).

Net Cash spent on the first team squad is down from £17.3m in 2008 to £15.3m in 2009.

We spent another £5.4m on the hotel in 2009 and also £12.1m in 2008

Financing and Debt

£12.1m was paid to HBOS and we now owe only £2.5m to them.

Based on the directors' cash flow forecasts for 2010, we need to raise further financing, reduce costs (wages), or sell assets (players). We need to raise additional cash of £4.5m to achieve this.

McCabe has been talking to the press about the football related debt being reduced to £2.5m. However the net debt for the WHOLE business this reflects something different, then this has increased from £39m in 2008 to £47m as of 30 June 2009.

The Accounts

2008 in brackets

Group Turnover £32.061m (£32.438m)
Gross Profit £6.451m (£6.401)

This suggests that any net profit shouted about in the press, has come from cost reductions not turnover.
You can't run a business on cost reductions alone and that at some point turnover has to increase.

Cost of terminating Players Contracts £181k
Profit on Disposal of Player Registrations (sales) £3.8m

Profit Before Tax £5.8m (£6.4m loss)

Profit after tax £5.7m (£6.1m loss)

A profit of 2.05p per share.

Our assets have reduced in value from £24.1m in 2008 to £24.8m.

Where the actual revenue come from....

Gate recipts: £6.9m (£6.2m)
Chengdu Gate Receipts: £79k
TV Income: £14.2m (UK) and £134k (China) total £14.4m (£14.2m)
Sponsors etc: £857k (China) and £4.9m (UK), total £5.8m (£4.8m)
Total revenue from football: £27.3m (£25.3m) - China (£1m)

Hotel Revenue: £793k (£0k)
Biz Centre: £804k (£965k)
Leisure: £2.9m (£4.4m)
Property Ventures: £180k (£142k)


The football side is keeping the others afloat.

In terms of asset value, the football business is valued at £46m (£38m in 2008) but is affected by Chengdu being de-valued by £6.5m.

The Hotel is valued at £21m
Biz Centre £131k
Leisure £1.3m
Property was devalued by £1.4m

Debtors: Our debtors (money owed to us by others) is up from £1.7m in 2008 to £4.8m in 2009.

Other Debtors has increased a few thousand to £20m. I suspect money owed from West Ham

Our overdraft is down from £20m to £17 for the group. Football overdraft is down from £8.3m to £3.7m.

Our total debt is £47m as stated before.

£37m is due in less than one year or on demand

 

[Autumn]

Hope that helps

 

[Robbie]

Thanks autumn,

Makes for decent reading.

I didn't notice a 'footballing debt' though? Have you this figure? Or did I miss it?

 

[Autumn]

It's near the hbos figures, that's the only footballing debt I could see.

 

[S64 Blade]

Interesting. So are they accounting for the full payment in this accounting year, meaning that without the tevez money we would have actually lost £12m?

Accounting is right up there with particle physics on the list of things that i'm shit at so don't jump on me all at once!

I assume this has all been done to aid the alleged investment we're looking to bring in. The problem as far as I can see is, a) invsestors will see that in theory we actually made a loss, and b) if we don't gain investment/or promotion, next year's accounts wont look good at all, as all the Tevez money seems to have been brought forward.

 

[Muttley]

The figures look good.......shame the bloody team dosen't!!!!

 

[raul]

What the f has the £37m we are due to pay back been spent on??

 

[beightonblade]

What the f has the £37m we are due to pay back been spent on??

beighton burgers !

 

[Flatulent_Bob]

The figures look good.......shame the bloody team dosen't!!!!

Edit scratch that, football side looks ok.

Autumn can you elaborate on this?

"Based on the directors' cash flow forecasts for 2010, we need to raise further financing, reduce costs (wages), or sell assets (players). We need to raise additional cash of £4.5m to achieve this".

Is that the group or the football club?

Also the debt payment on demand of £30 odd million is that again by the group not by us?

 

[Autumn]

Edit scratch that, football side looks ok.

Autumn can you elaborate on this?

"Based on the directors' cash flow forecasts for 2010, we need to raise further financing, reduce costs (wages), or sell assets (players). We need to raise additional cash of £4.5m to achieve this".

Is that the group or the football club?

Also the debt payment on demand of £30 odd million is that again by the group not by us?

the 4.5 mill is cash flow for the group as a whole to keep ticking. I am speculating how they will finance this, but they may suprise me and sell some property. But we all know what they sell first.

The 37 mill is owed by the group, but it is a Sheffield united debt, because it is tied into our assets. They have factored everything into this report, more so than in previous years...that could be for 2 reasons, but I don't wish to elaborate, as I've been involved in some of it this year.

 

[Autumn]

What the f has the £37m we are due to pay back been spent on??

This isn't clear cut, but the property side of things and various projects. I'll try and get a break down

don't look at the debt as a bad thing, investors love lots of fruitful projects within a whole group. I have faith things will continue to grow. The recession has just hit property hard this year that's all. The football is making us profit.

 

[Autumn]

Take into account money after June 2009 paid to us isn't in these figures, so the Kyle money and maybe even west hams money may now have been honoured, and added to the coffers. It's only an outlook on the past and what we owe unfortunatly, the true figures for the year ending December should be a more accurate state of affairs

 

[rachyblade]

So the 18 million is less legal costs which would have probably been about 10 roughly, so the overall figure from West Ham would of been about 30 million

 

[oldblade]

What's our wages ratio without the tevez and parachute payments like?

(wages/(turnover - tevezCash - ParachutePayments))*100

Total wage costs are shown as £24.867 million. But I think that includes eveyone employed at the club. It also includes pension costs and other costs.

In the written blurb in the first part of the brochure, first team and management wage costs are given as £17.5 million. But after taking into account player sales and player purchases it is shown as £15.5 million.

Cash generated from player sales is shown as £7.4 million. Cash paid for purchases as £5.2 million. So I'm guessing that the sale of the two Kyles has not yet been taken into account.

If I'm reading it right, football turnover is £27.338 million. This doesn't include the hotel, business centre, leisure and property ventures.

One thing that looked a bit ominous was something on page 29. It states that the group can continue as a going concern, "but are reliant on the Group raising further financing facilities, reducing costs, sourcing additional equity investment or selling assets to generate cash of £4.5 million. The Directors have entered into negotiations with certain financial institutions and are confident that such funds can be raised from one or more of the above sources."

 

[oldblade]

Should have read the full thread first. Didn't realise Autumn had already posted much of the above!!

 

[Autumn]

Should have read the full thread first. Didn't realise Autumn had already posted much of the above!!

The last paragraph you pointed out from page 29 is the key point that I haven't highlighted, and it's good to hear what others make of it

 

[Micalijo]

What the f has the £37m we are due to pay back been spent on??

Various 'assets' held by Blades Realty Limited is my guess. These assets are in the following companies - USE Rushden, USE Leicester, USE Richmond and so on wherever the development is.

I think the debt Autumn is referring to is a bank overdraft held by Realty or a subsidiary thereof or some other Scarborough entity. I also think Autumn is suggesting that the figures are included in the SUFC accounts because the borrowings are secured on assets held by SUFC - other than BDTBL, I fail to see what this security could be. Quite understand why Autumn can't divulge if he works for the bank or is an auditor but all we can do is summise and speculate. Obvioulsy we aint selling BDTBL so the only alternative way without external finance is selling players - because the properties are not sellable at the moment - all in my opinion etc etc.

I don't see why the property downturn should make us have to sell players but unfortunately I think there is a direct link.

Cheers for all comments Autumn - very interesting to me.

 

[lenners]

The sales of the Kyles, Killa, Cotts (and probably Hendo..) will account for more than £4.5m.
The only downside is the unfortunate £3m spent on you know who but we might be able to offload in Jan.

 

[Micalijo]

The sales of the Kyles, Killa, Cotts (and probably Hendo..) will account for more than £4.5m.
The only downside is the unfortunate £3m spent on you know who but we might be able to offload in Jan.

Very true.

Until I'm told otherwise, I will always be thinking that these actual and potential sales are necessitated not by a loss on football activities but by the current and medium term impossibility of making money out of property developments and basically I think it stinks.

 

[rachyblade]

Can someone tell me what the Bobby Charlton International Limited is?

 

[lenners]

Very true.

Until I'm told otherwise, I will always be thinking that these actual and potential sales are necessitated not by a loss on football activities but by the current and medium term impossibility of making money out of property developments and basically I think it stinks.

Maybe but didn't we owe McCabe a fair whack for loans as well?
If he wants out, that money will have to be paid off one way or another.

 

[Micalijo]

Can someone tell me what the Bobby Charlton International Limited is?

I think it came as part of the reverse takeover when we were listed.

SUFC took over a small plc (name escapes me) that included BCI as one of its subsids. Could be wrong.

It used to run football holiday camps but I don't think we have pursued it at all - no idea why it still exists really. Not many kids will be excited by the name Bobby Charlton

 

[Micalijo]

Maybe but didn't we owe McCabe a fair whack for loans as well?
If he wants out, that money will have to be paid off one way or another.

Yes, accept that. McCabe is perfectly entitled to take his cash out as and when funds allow him to do so. Very few chairmen have the luxury of being able to get the loan back without new investment and it appears he has done so or is doing so. Fair play to him and on face of it the football club is an attractive proposition - unlike the property side of things imo. Problem is, as Autumn suggests - the football club is tied up with property debts.