|
Post by followyoudown on Sept 4, 2013 7:46:44 GMT
LP- What do you think of the theory I outlined above. It's not my theory but it seems believable. The £30m figure seemed too strange for a number of reasons: (i) it came from an interview with Denise 12 months before we'd expect to see the accounts, (ii) it didn't tally with the noises coming from PC about sustainabilty, (iii) there was nothing particularly remarkable about our spending in 2012/2013 to think that our losses would have increased so dramatically and (iv) 'amortising' player fees should 'smooth' out the accounts. I don't know enough about accounting to know it is true or not. I will be interested to see the club accounts for the same period when they are published, though. The loss will have to agree with the figure already published but it will be good to see any extra detail. We should be warned though, the club accounts have never been strong on detail. I know enough about accounting to tell you the theory is completely wrong. The football club accounts run 1st June to 31st May and as such don't have to be filed at companies house until 9 months after that date. The figures will be known before that date and would have been audited to some extent as they would need to take the figures for 1st April-31st March into the Bet365 group accounts. www.theguardian.com/football/2013/apr/18/premier-league-finances-club-by-clubThis article has the Stoke losses at £10m for the year to 31st May 2012 and shows £5m for the Europa League (figures I've seen before have said £8m-£10m including TV money). So in reality the loss was £15m+ without the one off europa league, the £6m loss for 31\5\11 included one offs in the FA cup semi and final otherwise I'd assume losses would have been £5m+ higher. www.theguardian.com/business/2013/jun/21/bet365-profits-leap-by-a-thirdHere's the article on the current years accounts which itself refers to another large increase in wagebill of £7m+ which takes the loss upto £22m, the rest to take it up to £31m could be many things. It's possible the redundancy costs for TP and team are included if they could demonstrate to the auditors a plan was in place to replace him at 31\3\13 a provision could have been recognised. You'll probably never find this out though as Stoke accounts run to 31\5\13 and Pulis was sacked mid to late May and there is no need to disclose in the Stoke accounts when this was recognised. The only way to confirm it wasn't is if it was disclosed as a post balance sheet event in the Bet365 group accounts, however due to the size of Bet365 this would probably not be considered material. I'm no fan of Coates but I see nothing iffy or unbelievable in the figures.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Sept 4, 2013 8:14:11 GMT
Can anybody explain how we suddenly went from relatively small losses year on year to a full £30,000,000 last season? Somebody posted here that the £30m figure came from Bet365 accounts rather than SCFC accounts. Basically, the club accounts are published seperately from Bet365. We won't see the SCFC accounts published until next spring. Bet 365 extends interest free loans to SCFC to cover operating losses. I think this £30m relates to loans that were extended in previous seasons. The theory is that Bet 365 chose this financial year to 'write off' a chunk of the overall losses because it was tax efficient to do so in a year where they made record profits. I'm not 100% sure this is correct but it seems the most plausible explanation. The theory is 100% wrong. The £30m was lent to SCFC and would have been expensed in their accounts as it was spent on wages etc. This leaves a loan payable of £30m in the SCFC accounts and a loan receivable of £30m in the Bet 365 company accounts, when these are consolidated in the Bet 365 group accounts these loan balances are eliminated which to explain simply means as the Bet365 group is one entity for reporting purposes rather than showing a debtor for £30m of a loan from itself and a creditor for £30m for a loan to itself these are both shown as zero. If Bet 365 were to write the loan off as an expense in their company accounts, it would have to be as a bad debt and SCFC would then have to write the loan off as "income" in their books. For the Bet 365 Group where tax is paid on the profits there would be zero profit or loss on this (or any other intercompany transaction) so there is not and never will be a loss to write off.
|
|
|
Post by swampmongrel on Sept 4, 2013 8:15:51 GMT
I don't know enough about accounting to know it is true or not. I will be interested to see the club accounts for the same period when they are published, though. The loss will have to agree with the figure already published but it will be good to see any extra detail. We should be warned though, the club accounts have never been strong on detail. I know enough about accounting to tell you the theory is completely wrong. The football club accounts run 1st June to 31st May and as such don't have to be filed at companies house until 9 months after that date. The figures will be known before that date and would have been audited to some extent as they would need to take the figures for 1st April-31st March into the Bet365 group accounts. www.theguardian.com/football/2013/apr/18/premier-league-finances-club-by-clubThis article has the Stoke losses at £10m for the year to 31st May 2012 and shows £5m for the Europa League (figures I've seen before have said £8m-£10m including TV money). So in reality the loss was £15m+ without the one off europa league, the £6m loss for 31\5\11 included one offs in the FA cup semi and final otherwise I'd assume losses would have been £5m+ higher. www.theguardian.com/business/2013/jun/21/bet365-profits-leap-by-a-thirdHere's the article on the current years accounts which itself refers to another large increase in wagebill of £7m+ which takes the loss upto £22m, the rest to take it up to £31m could be many things. It's possible the redundancy costs for TP and team are included if they could demonstrate to the auditors a plan was in place to replace him at 31\3\13 a provision could have been recognised. You'll probably never find this out though as Stoke accounts run to 31\5\13 and Pulis was sacked mid to late May and there is no need to disclose in the Stoke accounts when this was recognised. The only way to confirm it wasn't is if it was disclosed as a post balance sheet event in the Bet365 group accounts, however due to the size of Bet365 this would probably not be considered material. I'm no fan of Coates but I see nothing iffy or unbelievable in the figures. Thanks for posting this. I certainly don't think the figures are iffy or that there's anything untoward going on. I just think that it seems possible that we've been comparing apples with oranges when we look at the headline loss figures. I certainly expected to see the losses increase in 2012/13 and your workings out seem reasonable enough to me. The problem is we still can't really fully account for the total £31m unless there's alot of speculation. In my view, both theories are equally plausible. I guess we won't find out in next Spring when we see the club's accounts.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Sept 4, 2013 8:16:08 GMT
I don't know enough about accounting to know it is true or not. I will be interested to see the club accounts for the same period when they are published, though. The loss will have to agree with the figure already published but it will be good to see any extra detail. We should be warned though, the club accounts have never been strong on detail. I know enough about accounting to tell you the theory is completely wrong. The football club accounts run 1st June to 31st May and as such don't have to be filed at companies house until 9 months after that date. The figures will be known before that date and would have been audited to some extent as they would need to take the figures for 1st April-31st March into the Bet365 group accounts. www.theguardian.com/football/2013/apr/18/premier-league-finances-club-by-clubThis article has the Stoke losses at £10m for the year to 31st May 2012 and shows £5m for the Europa League (figures I've seen before have said £8m-£10m including TV money). So in reality the loss was £15m+ without the one off europa league, the £6m loss for 31\5\11 included one offs in the FA cup semi and final otherwise I'd assume losses would have been £5m+ higher. www.theguardian.com/business/2013/jun/21/bet365-profits-leap-by-a-thirdHere's the article on the current years accounts which itself refers to another large increase in wagebill of £7m+ which takes the loss upto £22m, the rest to take it up to £31m could be many things. It's possible the redundancy costs for TP and team are included if they could demonstrate to the auditors a plan was in place to replace him at 31\3\13 a provision could have been recognised. You'll probably never find this out though as Stoke accounts run to 31\5\13 and Pulis was sacked mid to late May and there is no need to disclose in the Stoke accounts when this was recognised. The only way to confirm it wasn't is if it was disclosed as a post balance sheet event in the Bet365 group accounts, however due to the size of Bet365 this would probably not be considered material. I'm no fan of Coates but I see nothing iffy or unbelievable in the figures. Cheers fyd. I am never sure to be pleased or sorry that I managed to avoid any education at all in the dark art of accountancy!
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Sept 4, 2013 8:50:19 GMT
I know enough about accounting to tell you the theory is completely wrong. The football club accounts run 1st June to 31st May and as such don't have to be filed at companies house until 9 months after that date. The figures will be known before that date and would have been audited to some extent as they would need to take the figures for 1st April-31st March into the Bet365 group accounts. www.theguardian.com/football/2013/apr/18/premier-league-finances-club-by-clubThis article has the Stoke losses at £10m for the year to 31st May 2012 and shows £5m for the Europa League (figures I've seen before have said £8m-£10m including TV money). So in reality the loss was £15m+ without the one off europa league, the £6m loss for 31\5\11 included one offs in the FA cup semi and final otherwise I'd assume losses would have been £5m+ higher. www.theguardian.com/business/2013/jun/21/bet365-profits-leap-by-a-thirdHere's the article on the current years accounts which itself refers to another large increase in wagebill of £7m+ which takes the loss upto £22m, the rest to take it up to £31m could be many things. It's possible the redundancy costs for TP and team are included if they could demonstrate to the auditors a plan was in place to replace him at 31\3\13 a provision could have been recognised. You'll probably never find this out though as Stoke accounts run to 31\5\13 and Pulis was sacked mid to late May and there is no need to disclose in the Stoke accounts when this was recognised. The only way to confirm it wasn't is if it was disclosed as a post balance sheet event in the Bet365 group accounts, however due to the size of Bet365 this would probably not be considered material. I'm no fan of Coates but I see nothing iffy or unbelievable in the figures. Thanks for posting this. I certainly don't think the figures are iffy or that there's anything untoward going on. I just think that it seems possible that we've been comparing apples with oranges when we look at the headline loss figures. I certainly expected to see the losses increase in 2012/13 and your workings out seem reasonable enough to me. The problem is we still can't really fully account for the total £31m unless there's alot of speculation. In my view, both theories are equally plausible. I guess we won't find out in next Spring when we see the club's accounts. It is apples with oranges in the sense that the true losses for the last two financial years have been "hidden" by additional income streams that are not there for 2013. I can't explain the £31m loss without seeing a full set of accounts however there is no plausability in the previous theory as intercompany trading between 100% owned subsidiaries generates no profit or loss at group level so any losses at Stoke are of the real money out of the door variety. You need to bear in mind that the amortisation of player transfer fees is generally over the length of the contract so the £20m on Palacios and Crouch would be at £5m a year, they were signed in August 2011 so the March 2012 accounts would only have a charge for £2.9m, the 31/3/13 accounts have the full year charge of £5m apply this to the other signings in August like Jerome, and those signed in subsequent windows and it starts to add up.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Sept 4, 2013 8:55:49 GMT
I know enough about accounting to tell you the theory is completely wrong. The football club accounts run 1st June to 31st May and as such don't have to be filed at companies house until 9 months after that date. The figures will be known before that date and would have been audited to some extent as they would need to take the figures for 1st April-31st March into the Bet365 group accounts. www.theguardian.com/football/2013/apr/18/premier-league-finances-club-by-clubThis article has the Stoke losses at £10m for the year to 31st May 2012 and shows £5m for the Europa League (figures I've seen before have said £8m-£10m including TV money). So in reality the loss was £15m+ without the one off europa league, the £6m loss for 31\5\11 included one offs in the FA cup semi and final otherwise I'd assume losses would have been £5m+ higher. www.theguardian.com/business/2013/jun/21/bet365-profits-leap-by-a-thirdHere's the article on the current years accounts which itself refers to another large increase in wagebill of £7m+ which takes the loss upto £22m, the rest to take it up to £31m could be many things. It's possible the redundancy costs for TP and team are included if they could demonstrate to the auditors a plan was in place to replace him at 31\3\13 a provision could have been recognised. You'll probably never find this out though as Stoke accounts run to 31\5\13 and Pulis was sacked mid to late May and there is no need to disclose in the Stoke accounts when this was recognised. The only way to confirm it wasn't is if it was disclosed as a post balance sheet event in the Bet365 group accounts, however due to the size of Bet365 this would probably not be considered material. I'm no fan of Coates but I see nothing iffy or unbelievable in the figures. Cheers fyd. I am never sure to be pleased or sorry that I managed to avoid any education at all in the dark art of accountancy! My experience of dealing with many clients over many years indicates not having an education in accounting does not necessarily hold you back from having a job in accounting Still shouldn't complain if they employed staff who knew what they were doing they wouldn't need me and I might have to get a real job instead of messing around on here :De
|
|
|
Post by Pugsley on Sept 4, 2013 8:57:49 GMT
LP- What do you think of the theory I outlined above. It's not my theory but it seems believable. The £30m figure seemed too strange for a number of reasons: (i) it came from an interview with Denise 12 months before we'd expect to see the accounts, (ii) it didn't tally with the noises coming from PC about sustainabilty, (iii) there was nothing particularly remarkable about our spending in 2012/2013 to think that our losses would have increased so dramatically and (iv) 'amortising' player fees should 'smooth' out the accounts. I'd need to see the original "article" from which Denise's quotes were taken. However, it is most likely that - you are right, Swampy - the £30m is the loss written off (charge taken) by B365. Actually, probably by the Group Parent company ... but I have lost all track of what is going on there. Some other things I have seen in the last 12-24 months make it possible there's been some shennanigans behind the scenes between B365, SCFC and "The Family Trust" (which was once, at least, the parent company). What with inter-company loans paying for player bonueses, signing on fees and wages themselves, it's pretty easy to imagine how a loss could be "built up" and then taken at a later date (by the company making "loans" or by the Group company itself). Whatever, you are correct, Swampy; the SCFC loss would not have been "officially" known at that date (although it could probably have been "readily guessed at" by those behind the scenes and Denise maybe pulling the age-old business trick of trailing some "bad news" yonks a head of its official announcement ... just to prepare the ground as it were (possibly hinting that there would be less cash sloshing around for SCFC in 2013/14? Or possibly not ...) Anyrode ... I doubt Pugs has lost so many of his brain cells that he's actually as hyped about this subject as he - and many others - are making out. If you see what I mean? I just load the gun mate.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Sept 4, 2013 8:58:08 GMT
It is still a huge stretch to believe that club losses increased by £20M in 12 months when transfer outgoings fell and a new sponsorship deal with a firm called bet365 came into operation. I am dubious about the Europe League figure also as Fulham reported making less than £6M for reaching the final.
I'm sure there is nothing legally 'iffy or unbelievable' in the figure but it is clearly not a single 12 month loss as the public understand the term. It is purely political.
|
|
|
Post by swampmongrel on Sept 4, 2013 9:35:28 GMT
Thanks for posting this. I certainly don't think the figures are iffy or that there's anything untoward going on. I just think that it seems possible that we've been comparing apples with oranges when we look at the headline loss figures. I certainly expected to see the losses increase in 2012/13 and your workings out seem reasonable enough to me. The problem is we still can't really fully account for the total £31m unless there's alot of speculation. In my view, both theories are equally plausible. I guess we won't find out in next Spring when we see the club's accounts. It is apples with oranges in the sense that the true losses for the last two financial years have been "hidden" by additional income streams that are not there for 2013. I can't explain the £31m loss without seeing a full set of accounts however there is no plausability in the previous theory as intercompany trading between 100% owned subsidiaries generates no profit or loss at group level so any losses at Stoke are of the real money out of the door variety. You need to bear in mind that the amortisation of player transfer fees is generally over the length of the contract so the £20m on Palacios and Crouch would be at £5m a year, they were signed in August 2011 so the March 2012 accounts would only have a charge for £2.9m, the 31/3/13 accounts have the full year charge of £5m apply this to the other signings in August like Jerome, and those signed in subsequent windows and it starts to add up. Is it right that SCFC is 100% owned by Bet 365? I thought Rawlins still had a share? My understanding is that if Bet365 extend a loan to SCFC then that counts as an asset (on the books of Bet365). If Bet365 choose to write off that loan then it shows up as a loss. The loan can be written off in any financial year that is convenient for them and it will show up as a 'loss' when that happens. I understand the amortisation but I also believe that the costs of most of the signings that we made in the Summer of 2008 (£30million in total) should now be dropping of the books. You seem to know your onions, and I think you could be right, but it doesn't seem too clear cut (at least to my non-expert eye).
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Sept 4, 2013 12:02:34 GMT
It is apples with oranges in the sense that the true losses for the last two financial years have been "hidden" by additional income streams that are not there for 2013. I can't explain the £31m loss without seeing a full set of accounts however there is no plausability in the previous theory as intercompany trading between 100% owned subsidiaries generates no profit or loss at group level so any losses at Stoke are of the real money out of the door variety. You need to bear in mind that the amortisation of player transfer fees is generally over the length of the contract so the £20m on Palacios and Crouch would be at £5m a year, they were signed in August 2011 so the March 2012 accounts would only have a charge for £2.9m, the 31/3/13 accounts have the full year charge of £5m apply this to the other signings in August like Jerome, and those signed in subsequent windows and it starts to add up. Is it right that SCFC is 100% owned by Bet 365? I thought Rawlins still had a share? My understanding is that if Bet365 extend a loan to SCFC then that counts as an asset (on the books of Bet365). If Bet365 choose to write off that loan then it shows up as a loss. The loan can be written off in any financial year that is convenient for them and it will show up as a 'loss' when that happens. I understand the amortisation but I also believe that the costs of most of the signings that we made in the Summer of 2008 (£30million in total) should now be dropping of the books. You seem to know your onions, and I think you could be right, but it doesn't seem too clear cut (at least to my non-expert eye). You're right about the asset in bet365 company books, SCFC would then book a liability to repay the loan and the cash is an asset in SCFC bank until spent. If Bet365 company write off that loss, SCFC have to write off the liability which becomes a profit, at Bet365 group level when these are added together there is no loss or profit. The signings in 2008 included people like Kitson whose remaining cost would have been written off when they were sold \ released as was Kitson was. The part ownership is too boring for me to explain and isn't a factor.
|
|
|
Post by swampmongrel on Sept 4, 2013 12:51:03 GMT
Is it right that SCFC is 100% owned by Bet 365? I thought Rawlins still had a share? My understanding is that if Bet365 extend a loan to SCFC then that counts as an asset (on the books of Bet365). If Bet365 choose to write off that loan then it shows up as a loss. The loan can be written off in any financial year that is convenient for them and it will show up as a 'loss' when that happens. I understand the amortisation but I also believe that the costs of most of the signings that we made in the Summer of 2008 (£30million in total) should now be dropping of the books. You seem to know your onions, and I think you could be right, but it doesn't seem too clear cut (at least to my non-expert eye). You're right about the asset in bet365 company books, SCFC would then book a liability to repay the loan and the cash is an asset in SCFC bank until spent. If Bet365 company write off that loss, SCFC have to write off the liability which becomes a profit, at Bet365 group level when these are added together there is no loss or profit. The signings in 2008 included people like Kitson whose remaining cost would have been written off when they were sold \ released as was Kitson was. The part ownership is too boring for me to explain and isn't a factor. But when the liability is written off it isn't shown as a 'profit' in the breakdown of the accounts published in the press. Otherwise we would either see a profit/loss figure of nill (every year) or some years we might expect to see a profit if a substantial liability had been written off. This isn't how it's been reported in the past because we a see a loss (virtually) every year. What I'm trying to say is that (in my view) it's conceivable that Denise Coates is talking about a loss related to a one off write off loans within the Bet365 accounts which is (or could be) a different figure from the loss incurred from SCFC's normal trading.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Sept 4, 2013 13:25:57 GMT
It is still a huge stretch to believe that club losses increased by £20M in 12 months when transfer outgoings fell and a new sponsorship deal with a firm called bet365 came into operation. I am dubious about the Europe League figure also as Fulham reported making less than £6M for reaching the final. I'm sure there is nothing legally 'iffy or unbelievable' in the figure but it is clearly not a single 12 month loss as the public understand the term. It is purely political. There's a website you can get copies of accounts for free from you just need an e-mail to sign up for it. www.companiescheck.co.ukFascinating stuff on the football club from bits in the Bet365 accounts Income was down £10m (Europa League and ????) Admin expenses up £14m - £4.2m increase in amortisation of player registrations and a £6.1m impairment in player registrations (Arismendi, Kitson, Palacios depending on when they left ?) Bet365 paid £1.644m to sponsor Stoke for the season So nothing political as was said before losses are due to spending on players
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Sept 4, 2013 13:29:07 GMT
You're right about the asset in bet365 company books, SCFC would then book a liability to repay the loan and the cash is an asset in SCFC bank until spent. If Bet365 company write off that loss, SCFC have to write off the liability which becomes a profit, at Bet365 group level when these are added together there is no loss or profit. The signings in 2008 included people like Kitson whose remaining cost would have been written off when they were sold \ released as was Kitson was. The part ownership is too boring for me to explain and isn't a factor. But when the liability is written off it isn't shown as a 'profit' in the breakdown of the accounts published in the press. Otherwise we would either see a profit/loss figure of nill (every year) or some years we might expect to see a profit if a substantial liability had been written off. This isn't how it's been reported in the past because we a see a loss (virtually) every year. What I'm trying to say is that (in my view) it's conceivable that Denise Coates is talking about a loss related to a one off write off loans within the Bet365 accounts which is (or could be) a different figure from the loss incurred from SCFC's normal trading. That's kind of my point there has been no loan write off, anyway I got the Bet365 accounts and the answer is in my above post Income down by £10m Admin expenses up £14m £10m of this is due to spending on players
|
|
|
Post by Gary Hackett on Sept 4, 2013 14:18:03 GMT
Couldn't we manipulate this fair play rule as bet 365 sponsor our shirts?
|
|
|
Post by swampmongrel on Sept 4, 2013 14:38:47 GMT
It is still a huge stretch to believe that club losses increased by £20M in 12 months when transfer outgoings fell and a new sponsorship deal with a firm called bet365 came into operation. I am dubious about the Europe League figure also as Fulham reported making less than £6M for reaching the final. I'm sure there is nothing legally 'iffy or unbelievable' in the figure but it is clearly not a single 12 month loss as the public understand the term. It is purely political. There's a website you can get copies of accounts for free from you just need an e-mail to sign up for it. www.companiescheck.co.ukFascinating stuff on the football club from bits in the Bet365 accounts Income was down £10m (Europa League and ????) Admin expenses up £14m - £4.2m increase in amortisation of player registrations and a £6.1m impairment in player registrations (Arismendi, Kitson, Palacios depending on when they left ?) Bet365 paid £1.644m to sponsor Stoke for the season So nothing political as was said before losses are due to spending on players Thanks. You were right! The other theory was a load of cobblers. I never doubted it I'm just looking through the report now. That reduction in revenue is a bit shocking. The Europa League was more lucrative than I thought. Impairments - do you think an auditor just took a look at Palacios and thought 'Nah he's knackered'? Trying to work out how they've calculated the value of player registrations is starting to make my head hurt.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Sept 4, 2013 15:11:07 GMT
There's a website you can get copies of accounts for free from you just need an e-mail to sign up for it. www.companiescheck.co.ukFascinating stuff on the football club from bits in the Bet365 accounts Income was down £10m (Europa League and ????) Admin expenses up £14m - £4.2m increase in amortisation of player registrations and a £6.1m impairment in player registrations (Arismendi, Kitson, Palacios depending on when they left ?) Bet365 paid £1.644m to sponsor Stoke for the season So nothing political as was said before losses are due to spending on players Thanks. You were right! The other theory was a load of cobblers. I never doubted it I'm just looking through the report now. That reduction in revenue is a bit shocking. The Europa League was more lucrative than I thought. Impairments - do you think an auditor just took a look at Palacios and thought 'Nah he's knackered'? Trying to work out how they've calculated the value of player registrations is starting to make my head hurt. The income fall is also down to the FA Cup semi and Final played in April and May 2011 this would go into the 31 March 2012 Bet 365 group accounts but the 31 May 11 Stoke city accounts - right who do I send my bill too ?!
|
|
|
Post by swampmongrel on Sept 4, 2013 15:16:07 GMT
Thanks. You were right! The other theory was a load of cobblers. I never doubted it I'm just looking through the report now. That reduction in revenue is a bit shocking. The Europa League was more lucrative than I thought. Impairments - do you think an auditor just took a look at Palacios and thought 'Nah he's knackered'? Trying to work out how they've calculated the value of player registrations is starting to make my head hurt. who do I send my bill too ?! Denise Coates. I think she can afford it.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Sept 4, 2013 16:16:28 GMT
It is still a huge stretch to believe that club losses increased by £20M in 12 months when transfer outgoings fell and a new sponsorship deal with a firm called bet365 came into operation. I am dubious about the Europe League figure also as Fulham reported making less than £6M for reaching the final. I'm sure there is nothing legally 'iffy or unbelievable' in the figure but it is clearly not a single 12 month loss as the public understand the term. It is purely political. Admin expenses up £14m Thanks fyd I will log in when I get in, it's certainly not something I want to row about but the key figure is the above one clearly. After our £6M loss Coates himself is quoted as saying we well on our way to self sufficiency but suddenly we are a £30M a year loss making club?! I don't buy it. I know nothing but I know accountants and I know there is wiggle room for, shall we say, the opportunity to exaggerate for maximum benefit if Political is too strong a word!
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Sept 4, 2013 16:47:47 GMT
Thanks fyd I will log in when I get in, it's certainly not something I want to row about but the key figure is the above one clearly. After our £6M loss Coates himself is quoted as saying we well on our way to self sufficiency but suddenly we are a £30M a year loss making club?! I don't buy it. I know nothing but I know accountants and I know there is wiggle room for, shall we say, the opportunity to exaggerate for maximum benefit if Political is too strong a word! No one's rowing mate everyone is entitled to their opinion would be interested to see more detail but there isn't much more there or in the football club accounts. It's not all £30m out of the door this year but it is cash that has gone out of the door on spending as I say the £6m loss was in a year we reached an FA Cup semi final and final, the £10m loss was after the europa league reality seems to be that on underlying figures we've been running at a loss of £10m-£15m a year for a while. The numbers stack upto me, I don't see them pulling out just cutting back on expenditure that was mostly dead money in terms of transfers, I was no TP fan but that's not a criticism of him he bought to make sure we stayed up and did that well but in hindsight the crouch \ palacios deal has turned out to be exceptionally bad value and is obviously the deal that marked a change in how we operate from now on. But read the accounts look at the dividend payments and the £16m or whatever it was gain on the valuation of the stadium etc and try not to shed too much of a tear for the Coates family ! The other thing it highlights is how wank the sentinel reporting is took me 5 mins to pick up these numbers, all they reported was the loss and the payroll increase from the chairwoman's report if they'd read on a page or two they might have given us some worthwhile information.
|
|
|
Post by lastoftheldk on Sept 4, 2013 19:54:29 GMT
Maxdecarlo, what do you think now ?
|
|
|
Post by riponstokie on Sept 4, 2013 20:45:21 GMT
Only one person to blame... Tony Pulis. Erm..... TP doesn't control the purse strings my friend, Coates does! As I've stated before we have actually spent relatively very little in the last few windows - peanuts in fact. TP got 8m last august, 2-3m Jan. you talk crap!
|
|
|
Post by sportsman on Sept 4, 2013 20:55:49 GMT
Its all bollocks. We dont go from doing well and having half decent accounts to losing 30m. All how they want to massage figures for whatever reasons
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2013 21:05:38 GMT
Even if we have lost money and the Coats family have subsidised. Bet365 surly have made millions through the advertising of Stoke being in the Prem! The Coats are deffo the winners!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2013 2:55:06 GMT
Several points: 1. You/we are reading one thing (interviews with parent company's Chairwoman) and reading another thing (B365 Accounts) while trying to discuss a third thing (SCFC financial performance). It's never going to be pretty 2. This is an important point. 5 years ago, b365 did NOT own a controlling interest in SCFC (it now owns 95%). So some shennanigans have been going on, over that time period, with (one assumes) b365 taking shares in SCFC as repayment for "loans" ... this is something previously done and so seems very likely; but I have NOT checked back to confirm (b365 may have also bought shares from people who previously owned them - Old Man Coates - but I doubt it). 3. The club owes B365 £39m. In previous years such "inter company loans" have been "cancelled" in return for shares in the club. This WOULD APPEAR TO BE how B365 has ended up with a majority stake in the club. No interest is charged on the existing loan(s) and no repayment schedule has been set. To the best of my knowledge, no "inter company loan" has ever been repaid by the club (to b365 nor the Old Man) 4. B365 owns both the GROUND and the TRAINING GROUND (the club do not). I hated this arrangement when they came out with it, years ago, and I still hate it today. These assets are not held as security for the group loans, B365 have always owned stadium and training ground (when Pete bought the club back from the Icelandics* and did a deal with Stoke council). Some people will tell you it makes no difference, but see Coventry for what can happen when a club does not own it's own ground. 5. People have been posting that Our Denis(e) has been talking about amortizing player contracts ... I can find no speeches about it myself, though?? (But it could be where some/all of the increase in player wages came from) Upshot: A £30m loss isn't a great suprise for a premier league football club playing "catch up" to most of the rest of its peers. And it is possible SCFC will see less of a loss in future years (if player contracts are better "spread"). She also reiterates that she isn't going to keep forking out for the club her dad runs. That is the bit we all knew and the most worrying bit in all of this stuff. But at £39m debt - plus what has been previously written off, over the years since Saint Pete came back - we can hardly complain if eventually she pulls (or has pulled) some of the rug from under Dad's feet. In the end, as FYD says, only the SCFC Accounts will tell you the detail of the club's performance, when they are published for 2013 (if they are not already?); but those figures will not tie up with the published group accounts as the financial periods are not the same (as FYD has said). Many, many groups do that intentionally for that very reason. (bless The Family; we would not be where we are today without them )
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Sept 5, 2013 13:33:58 GMT
Several points: 1. You/we are reading one thing (interviews with parent company's Chairwoman) and reading another thing (B365 Accounts) while trying to discuss a third thing (SCFC financial performance). It's never going to be pretty 2. This is an important point. 5 years ago, b365 did NOT own a controlling interest in SCFC (it now owns 95%). So some shennanigans have been going on, over that time period, with (one assumes) b365 taking shares in SCFC as repayment for "loans" ... this is something previously done and so seems very likely; but I have NOT checked back to confirm (b365 may have also bought shares from people who previously owned them - Old Man Coates - but I doubt it). 3. The club owes B365 £39m. In previous years such "inter company loans" have been "cancelled" in return for shares in the club. This WOULD APPEAR TO BE how B365 has ended up with a majority stake in the club. No interest is charged on the existing loan(s) and no repayment schedule has been set. To the best of my knowledge, no "inter company loan" has ever been repaid by the club (to b365 nor the Old Man) 4. B365 owns both the GROUND and the TRAINING GROUND (the club do not). I hated this arrangement when they came out with it, years ago, and I still hate it today. These assets are not held as security for the group loans, B365 have always owned stadium and training ground (when Pete bought the club back from the Icelandics* and did a deal with Stoke council). Some people will tell you it makes no difference, but see Coventry for what can happen when a club does not own it's own ground. 5. People have been posting that Our Denis(e) has been talking about amortizing player contracts ... I can find no speeches about it myself, though?? (But it could be where some/all of the increase in player wages came from) Upshot: A £30m loss isn't a great suprise for a premier league football club playing "catch up" to most of the rest of its peers. And it is possible SCFC will see less of a loss in future years (if player contracts are better "spread"). She also reiterates that she isn't going to keep forking out for the club her dad runs. That is the bit we all knew and the most worrying bit in all of this stuff. But at £39m debt - plus what has been previously written off, over the years since Saint Pete came back - we can hardly complain if eventually she pulls (or has pulled) some of the rug from under Dad's feet. In the end, as FYD says, only the SCFC Accounts will tell you the detail of the club's performance, when they are published for 2013 (if they are not already?); but those figures will not tie up with the published group accounts as the financial periods are not the same (as FYD has said). Many, many groups do that intentionally for that very reason. (bless The Family; we would not be where we are today without them ) Well even though you've clearly spent less time than Sportsman assessing the situation I'll do my best to answer some of your points / questions 1. The Bet 365 accounts contain a consolidated P&L showing football club and facilities for the current year (and in in Note 1 a segmental report for the prior year) as the football club side is such a different business from the betting operations this is pretty much the football club results, the only differences are the income for sponsorship approx £1.6m will have been eliminated (excluded) as will the £4.4m rent paid to Stoke property limited (as this is income for them) but equally it includes a similar amount for Stoke property limited admin expenses so these are pretty much the football club accounts. 2 & 3 & 4 Not realy shennanigans it's the owners of any businesses responsibility to fund that business and if you want to maintain that stake you need to contribute proportionately, put simply if Stoke needed £40m and you owned 25% you either put in £10m or watch your shareholding fall. Another point to understand is that it is Stoke Holdings who own both Stoke Property and 95% of Stoke City Football club, Bet 365 do of course own Stoke Holdings 100%. The cancellation of loans seems to have happened once in the year to 31/5/10 (£24m). With regards to the £39m debt, £11m of this has been lent to Stoke Property limited. The ownership of the ground is one that always causes worry but the simple reason here I think is that if the £43m (including £30m revaluation) value of the ground / training facilities was put into the football club you are effectively giving away 5% of this to the minority shareholders. 5 The figures for amortisation are from the group accounts Note 4 profit on ordinary activities before tax, in the notes to the accounts it also partially explains what these are (third party costs associated with acquisition of players registrations and coaching staff so agents fees, legal fees and transfer fees). This are classed as intangible assets so won't be part of the £59.4m wage bill. I put a wrong link up previously it should be companycheck.co.uk/ to get sets of accounts.
|
|
|
Post by sportsman on Sept 5, 2013 13:41:01 GMT
Sure I remember Europe being talked about at the time as making a loss, certainly not a profit
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2013 15:48:06 GMT
Well even though you've clearly spent less time than Sportsman assessing the situation I'll do my best to answer some of your points / questions 1. The Bet 365 accounts contain a consolidated P&L showing football club and facilities for the current year (and in in Note 1 a segmental report for the prior year) as the football club side is such a different business from the betting operations this is pretty much the football club results, the only differences are the income for sponsorship approx £1.6m will have been eliminated (excluded) as will the £4.4m rent paid to Stoke property limited (as this is income for them) but equally it includes a similar amount for Stoke property limited admin expenses so these are pretty much the football club accounts. Yes. But not for the same period as the published club accounts will be. The only point I was making is it won't be possible (from the outside) to tie the two sets up. 2 & 3 & 4 Not realy shennanigans it's the owners of any businesses responsibility to fund that business and if you want to maintain that stake you need to contribute proportionately, put simply if Stoke needed £40m and you owned 25% you either put in £10m or watch your shareholding fall. Another point to understand is that it is Stoke Holdings who own both Stoke Property and 95% of Stoke City Football club, Bet 365 do of course own Stoke Holdings 100%. The cancellation of loans seems to have happened once in the year to 31/5/10 (£24m). With regards to the £39m debt, £11m of this has been lent to Stoke Property limited. I'm not using shenanigans in a bad way, really. But there was zero chance, at the time the loans were made, that the club could/would ever repay them, and so evntually shares would/could be issued instead. So only shennanigans in that way. Many people think it is good the old man and B365 do this (rather than charge interest and let the loans fester). Stoke holdings has always been the vehicle. But it appears ownership of it has changed over the years. The ownership of the ground is one that always causes worry but the simple reason here I think is that if the £43m (including £30m revaluation) value of the ground / training facilities was put into the football club you are effectively giving away 5% of this to the minority shareholders. Yes, I should imagine that is 100% of the reason why. For the club (as in us) it is a concern (but probably not while we fly this high ) 5 The figures for amortisation are from the group accounts Note 4 profit on ordinary activities before tax, in the notes to the accounts it also partially explains what these are (third party costs associated with acquisition of players registrations and coaching staff so agents fees, legal fees and transfer fees). This are classed as intangible assets so won't be part of the £59.4m wage bill. But the "write down" for the current year will be on the P&L. How that amort is done depends on what figure occurs across what period. So, say bonueses (FA Cup, Europe, appearances, goals scored ... for some teams ) make it difficult to spread the total cost of the contract over its duration (to an extent, impossible). I did all this 5 or 6 years ago. I relinked the stuff a few months back (for some reason I can't now remember!). Good to see people still taking an interest in it (even in our current lofty position).
|
|
|
Post by basingstokie on Sept 8, 2013 16:53:11 GMT
Just a couple of points from my accounting background.
1, if Bet365 provided for the loans due from SCFC this doesn't mean SCFC derecognise the need to pay.Bet365 make a provision to recognise that there may be some doubt over SCFC's ability to pay. This has no impact on the group accounts but does affect the Bet365 entity accounts which show an expense equal to the amount provided.
2, Bet365 don't get to choose when they book this charge. It is booked at the point the recoverability of the debt becomes uncertain, clearly there is some wiggle room here, but you can't just pick the financial year that suits you best.
3, as a previous poster pointed out it maybe that we have taken a big impairment (expense) on Palacios & others. If I remember correctly Palacios cost 8m in 2011 and signed a 4 year contract, so at end of May his book value would be about £4.5m. Hard to imagine he is worth that much, so his true value would be assessed and the difference between that and the 4.5m would be expensed.
Incidentally, you can't increase the value of players, so, hypothetically, if WP was worth 10m we couldn't increase his value in our books. Seems unfair, but thats accounting.
|
|