Blades Leisure Accounts

[Blade58]

£1,198,000 of new shares created by yesterday's allotment of shares, maybe the first transfer fee?

Fked if I know what that means?

Why “new shares created” ?

 

[Westran]

Fked if I know what that means?

Why “new shares created” ?

Maybe Sean Thornton can explain, my understanding is that it's a way of the Prince diluting the share value to allow him to put money into the club, but I could be wildly wrong with that assumption.

 

[Harrisblade]

Maybe Sean Thornton can explain, my understanding is that it's a way of the Prince diluting the share value to allow him to put money into the club, but I could be wildly wrong with that assumption.

Last time he created shares instead of having a loan by him repaid as cash.
It means he will get his loan money back as his shares will be bought by the new owner when the club is sold.

 

[mancunianblade]

£1,198,000 of new shares created by yesterday's allotment of shares, maybe the first transfer fee?

That’s £1 for every kidney punched during the 20-21 season

 

[Sean Thornton]

Just the written resolution regarding the £1198000 issue.

Get those pissed bedsheets in the wash girls!

 

[Sean Thornton]

Maybe Sean Thornton can explain, my understanding is that it's a way of the Prince diluting the share value to allow him to put money into the club, but I could be wildly wrong with that assumption.

He effectively owns al the shares himself. Why dilute them and to what end?

It’s just tidying up the recent allotment.

 

[Revolution]

I was under the impression that the main reason for allotting new shares these days is that the funds earned as a result do not count towards FFP in the same way that loans do.

 

[Sean Thornton]

I was under the impression that the main reason for allotting new shares these days is that the funds earned as a result do not count towards FFP in the same way that loans do.

Not sure of the current rules exactly but loans are not included when calculating club FFP as it grows club debt. Equity monies were however.

 

[Carlton Blade]

Keen Blade important to note that the accounts don't differentiate between the loans taken out to purchase the ground and other assets and the loans taken out against future TV income.

Deeper in the accounts is the breakdown of the tangible fixed assets:
View attachment 163844

Follow that back and you get to the purchase in the 19/20 accounts for £48.9m but there's nothing which directly or indirectly alludes to how much of that was funded by the mortgage.

View attachment 163843


You're conflating cashflow/balance sheet items (payments owing for prior purchases) with P&L items (loss, reductions in income, increase in expenses). For what it's worth I would estimate a loss of £25-30m for 22/23: income down £5m or so (£8m reduction in parachute payment offset by FA cup run), £10m increase in wages (contract reductions, no settlements but promotion bonuses); reduction in amortisation; small profit on disposal (Lankshear & Midwood).

View attachment 163845

FWIW my esimates for 21/22 were good on income, bad on wages (didn't factor Jokanovic's payoff), unbelievable on amortisation (ie I estimated the transfer fees paid really well) and under on the profit on disposal of Ramsdale.

I thought the land/asset purchase was 100% mortgage?

 

[Balham]

I thought the land/asset purchase was 100% mortgage?

I'm going on what's in the accounts. I have no idea personally.

 

[Sean Thornton]

I thought the land/asset purchase was 100% mortgage?

No. The mortgage would then have been in excess of £42m. It wasn’t.

 

[Houston_Blade]

I thought the land/asset purchase was 100% mortgage?

Even 4 or 5 years ago no sane bank would have lent at 100% LTV to a business, 55% is the cap for most of the major banks in the current climate, you'd have got 80%-85% prior to the world going to shit.