Please show your appreciation

[Micalijo]

of a fine, cultured half century.

I'm referring to the £50m liabilities of Blades Realty, a company that to my knowledge is still owned 50% by SUFC plc. What a solid achievement. All figures are as at February 2009, a date on which per my understanding of what I am reading, it owed the bank £39m.

The total assets of Realty are £47m. Quite clearly when a company has assets worth less than its liabilities there are problems to address.

Realty had a turnover of £2.9m. Clearly it is holding on to properties in the hope of a shift in the market. The cost of these sales however was £6m. Add on interest payments of £2.6 million and other bits and bobs and you have a loss for the year of £5.8m.

I'm no auditor but my information shows that the audit report had an 'emphasis or qualification'. I think that an emphasis is a paragraph that highlights a particular figure or concern. A qualification could be, for example, because the auditor cannot substantiate an entry in the accounts. Who knows? There are several reasons why a report is qualified or emphasised but they are rarely good news in my opinion.

I have no idea how these figures sit in the June 2009 plc accounts. I assume the plc auditors had to get management (non-audited) figures off Realty as at June 2009.

Given the recession it is hard to imagine that Realty has improved in the year to February 2010.

I personally find this very concerning.

 

[judge]

of a fine, cultured half century.

I'm referring to the £50m liabilities of Blades Realty, a company that to my knowledge is still owned 50% by SUFC plc. What a solid achievement. All figures are as at February 2009, a date on which per my understanding of what I am reading, it owed the bank £39m.

The total assets of Realty are £47m. Quite clearly when a company has assets worth less than its liabilities there are problems to address.

Realty had a turnover of £2.9m. Clearly it is holding on to properties in the hope of a shift in the market. The cost of these sales however was £6m. Add on interest payments of £2.6 million and other bits and bobs and you have a loss for the year of £5.8m.

I'm no auditor but my information shows that the audit report had an 'emphasis or qualification'. I think that an emphasis is a paragraph that highlights a particular figure or concern. A qualification could be, for example, because the auditor cannot substantiate an entry in the accounts. Who knows? There are several reasons why a report is qualified or emphasised but they are rarely good news in my opinion.

I have no idea how these figures sit in the June 2009 plc accounts. I assume the plc auditors had to get management (non-audited) figures off Realty as at June 2009.

Given the recession it is hard to imagine that Realty has improved in the year to February 2010.

I personally find this very concerning.

give it a rest man

 

[raul]

Is there anything about when these debts have to be repaid? And to whom?

 

[Micalijo]

give it a rest man

Why? I'm interested in it.

 

[alcoblade]

Is there anything about when these debts have to be repaid? And to whom?

If we're paying £2.6M a year in interest alone, then I doubt they're in a rush to get it back.



UTB

 

[Houso]

I personally find this very concerning.

We'd never have known.

Anyone know what colour the sky is?

 

[Houso]

Is there anything about when these debts have to be repaid? And to whom?

I believe around 13 million is owed to the 'bank' and has been converted into an 18 year long loan. Or something like that.

 

[raul]

deleted.....

 

[raul]

We'd never have known.

Anyone know what colour the sky is?

Whatever colour Big Kev says it is:thumbup:

 

[Sensiblade]

We'd never have known.

Anyone know what colour the sky is?

at the moment, Black!

[youtube]QRJxafiqHvw[/youtube]

 

[judge]

Why? I'm interested in it.

because its boring ,youre boring

 

[Houso]

Whatever colour Big Kev says it is:thumbup:

It was better the first time you told it :thumbup:

 

[Micalijo]

because its boring ,youre boring

Ask a question, get an answer - can't complain. Thanks.

You can't mean that though Judgey? You love my posts, I know you do.

 

[Studge]

of a fine, cultured half century.

I'm referring to the £50m liabilities of Blades Realty, a company that to my knowledge is still owned 50% by SUFC plc. What a solid achievement. All figures are as at February 2009, a date on which per my understanding of what I am reading, it owed the bank £39m.

The total assets of Realty are £47m. Quite clearly when a company has assets worth less than its liabilities there are problems to address.

Realty had a turnover of £2.9m. Clearly it is holding on to properties in the hope of a shift in the market. The cost of these sales however was £6m. Add on interest payments of £2.6 million and other bits and bobs and you have a loss for the year of £5.8m.

I'm no auditor but my information shows that the audit report had an 'emphasis or qualification'. I think that an emphasis is a paragraph that highlights a particular figure or concern. A qualification could be, for example, because the auditor cannot substantiate an entry in the accounts. Who knows? There are several reasons why a report is qualified or emphasised but they are rarely good news in my opinion.

I have no idea how these figures sit in the June 2009 plc accounts. I assume the plc auditors had to get management (non-audited) figures off Realty as at June 2009.

Given the recession it is hard to imagine that Realty has improved in the year to February 2010.

I personally find this very concerning.

Dont think that this is actually groundbreaking news. If you look in the PLCs accounts you will see that SUFCs share of Realitys gross assets is £23,532M and share of its gross liabilities is £24,880M. Double these figures and you get the same figures that you are quoting. It is all covered in note 13 to the accounts on page 55 including the loss of £2.698M . I assume the loss is down to property revaluations as we still seem to have a taxation liability arising on this loss.

 

[judge]

Ask a question, get an answer - can't complain. Thanks.

You can't mean that though Judgey? You love my posts, I know you do.

point proved

 

[RIP Niftos]

Yawn.

Plus more characters.

 

[Micalijo]

Dont think that this is actually groundbreaking news. If you look in the PLCs accounts you will see that SUFCs share of Realitys gross assets is £23,532M and share of its gross liabilities is £24,880M. Double these figures and you get the same figures that you are quoting. It is all covered in note 13 to the accounts on page 55 including the loss of £2.698M . I assume the loss is down to property revaluations as we still seem to have a taxation liability arising on this loss.

I never said it was. I agree it isn't, although I'd be interested to know what your opinion is on the audit emphasis or qualification.

I imagine they have sold a property for £2.9m that cost them £6m to build or acquire. I don't think that has anything to do with revaluations does it? That is a £3.1m loss on a disposal.

The revaluation of stock affects the balance sheet doesn't it not the P&L figures?

 

[SwissBlade]

Ask a question, get an answer - can't complain. Thanks.

You can't mean that though Judgey? You love my posts, I know you do.

Keep it up Micalijo. I actually find it quite interesting to read because its obviously something that you're bothered about and have done some digging to get the info

And besides you've been like a dog with a bone about Blades realty for so long its good that you finally have some meat to go on that bone

 

[alcoblade]

I never said it was. I agree it isn't, although I'd be interested to know what your opinion is on the audit emphasis or qualification.

I imagine they have sold a property for £2.9m that cost them £6m to build or acquire. I don't think that has anything to do with revaluations does it? That is a £3.1m loss on a disposal.

The revaluation of stock affects the balance sheet doesn't it not the P&L figures?

I'm pretty sure that if something has lost value (be it the amount of cash in your account or the valuation of your assets) it shows as a loss on the balance sheet. This is how companies can keep making huge losses year after year yet still operate. Their assets are depreciating yet something in the business is generating enough cash to pay the bills. That's why it's often better to focus on cash generation rather than assets, as some like to.

Then again, it's 15 years since I knew about this stuff! Clearly Studge knows his stuff so it would be nice to get any input from him / her.

UTB

 

[Flatulent_Bob]

So basically what you are saying is a property business has lost money in the past 18 months. But it still holds most of its assets which it intends to sell in the upturning market.

Thanks for the insight.

 

[LouTheBlade]

If we're paying £2.6M a year in interest alone, then I doubt they're in a rush to get it back.



UTB

Similar to a point I was making the other day on another thread. Lenders love giving loans to football clubs and are happy for the debt to run for as long as its being serviced. The interest they rake in while the debt stands is phenomenal. They make their money back before its even half repaid in some cases!

 

[Micalijo]

Yes, I'm talking facts Bob. Unlike you, who, regularly trots out any old figures about multi million pound rental income from office blocks and hotels and who marvels in the wonder of McCabe.

I can't win. If I speculate I get stick, if I state facts I get called boring. Oh well, I'll live.

 

[Houso]

Yes, I'm talking facts Bob. Unlike you, who, regularly trots out any old figures about multi million pound rental income from office blocks and hotels and who marvels in the wonder of McCabe.

I can't win. If I speculate I get stick, if I state facts I get called boring. Oh well, I'll live.

You do make me chuckle Mic.

You throw out the same facts and figures that are always presented with a negative slant and when people argue with you, you spit the dummy out and act all offended.

What exactly do you expect the response to be?

 

[judge]

 

[judge]

 

[judge]

 

[Flatulent_Bob]

Yes, I'm talking facts Bob. Unlike you, who, regularly trots out any old figures about multi million pound rental income from office blocks and hotels and who marvels in the wonder of McCabe.

I can't win. If I speculate I get stick, if I state facts I get called boring. Oh well, I'll live.

Mard-arse.


Have I missed something? I know I normally need patronising through these types of thing by yourself.

If I've missed something and my comments come across as a touch glib please put me right? Always willing to learn from a past master.

Or as per my original post have you posted facts that a property portfolio hasn't made money in the last 18 months?

I just thanked you for your insight.

 

[Micalijo]

You do make me chuckle Mic.

You throw out the same facts and figures that are always presented with a negative slant and when people argue with you, you spit the dummy out and act all offended.

What exactly do you expect the response to be?

I think you'll find that of many people I get abuse rather than arguments.

I think you'll also find that if people argue sensibly with me I'll argue back sensibly.

 

[Micalijo]

Mard-arse.


Have I missed something? I know I normally need patronising through these types of thing by yourself.

If I've missed something and my comments come across as a touch glib please put me right? Always willing to learn from a past master.

Or as per my original post have you posted facts that a property portfolio hasn't made money in the last 18 months?

I just thanked you for your insight.

Nice try Bob.

It may have escaped your attention but SUFC, the football club that this forum relates to, owns 50% of a property company and therefore I will post about it on here. If you want to reply with clever, know it all responses that's fine, but I'll have a pop back.

 

[Flatulent_Bob]

Have you been taking lessons from Len?

Does your post basically state that a property portfolio hasn't made money in the last 18 months?