shaggy Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 I didn't say it was positive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electric Avenue Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 (edited) The £90m write off from Lerner is quite positive that's about the only thing that is though. Next set of accounts should be great but we'll have a very shite football team Edited March 1, 2014 by Electric Avenue 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 (edited) Id love to see how we lose 50m if it is just day to day operations and not depreciation of assets.One of the costs will be the overall depreciation of the players' registrations for that particular year (a figure which was £3.1 million lower than the previous FY according to the article).As it also says in the article, " Exceptional charges increased by £2.4million to £8.3 million and included the accelerated amortisation of certain players’ registrations and their employment costs ", which suggests a further reduction in that annual charge (all other things being equal) in subsequent years.p.s. I take no responsibility for the accuracy of any of my comments and I may well still be a little tired and. Edited March 1, 2014 by snowychap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonno_2004 Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 Fair play SnowyChap - reading this thread has literally played out like one of my classes early on in the qualification with frustrated lecturers and confused students! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
briny_ear Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 Can we cut out the I'm a better accountant than you shenanigans ;-)Spoilsport. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nick76 Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 Loved reading this thread, sometimes forget how my chosen career is not always straight forward to the non-accountants. Sad as it sounds I would love Robin's job. Ok to most that doesn't sound appealing but for a realistic job for me I would love it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRO Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 well in isolation of all the other crap ...That is good news!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romavillan Posted March 1, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted March 1, 2014 This is the season before the increase in TV money. With the increased cost cutting this year and the extra £60m? TV money, plus Randy writing off £90m in the money he's put in, does that mean we are actually currently quite well off? Hence why it says the club is self-sustainable. I may be completely wrong. If the £60m more is correct then I'd say that means we will be turning a profit as opposed to £50m annual loss. Which is extremely positive, either for Randy to sell up and find a tattoo removal specialist, or as a platform on which to invest to secure higher revenue from improved performance on the pitch. It would seem the MON/RL/Faulkner circle is complete at last and we can, erm, go again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Pangloss Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 The £90m write off from Lerner is quite positive that's about the only thing that is though. Next set of accounts should be great but we'll have a very shite football team Yes but the pseudo-accountants on here will be delighted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodgyknees Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 The £90m write off from Lerner is quite positive that's about the only thing that is though. Next set of accounts should be great but we'll have a very shite football team Yes but the pseudo-accountants on here will be delighted. And if we go down - which could very well happen - it will be another set of cuts. Make no mistake about it, the financial mismanagement from those at the top means we will not be competitive for years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romavillan Posted March 1, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted March 1, 2014 The £90m write off from Lerner is quite positive that's about the only thing that is though. Next set of accounts should be great but we'll have a very shite football team Yes but the pseudo-accountants on here will be delighted. And if we go down - which could very well happen - it will be another set of cuts. Make no mistake about it, the financial mismanagement from those at the top means we will not be competitive for years. Wait what? So even with the increased TV money, we won't be in the black this time next year (assuming the usual £20m summer kitty). IF we go down, we were in worse shape last year and found 5 wins a lot of people weren't expecting to pull us out of a much deeper hole than the current one, then the parachute payments are bigger and last longer right? This woud give us a massive competitve edge if the accounts are indeed now sorted surely? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pez1974 Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 (edited) I am an accountant, so here's my take: The £90m write off from Randy is not exactly that, as he has taken shares. But given that he already owned 100% of the club, that is merely cosmetic so it is, in effect, a write off of the debt owed to him. The word 'amortisation' is simply depreciation of an intangible asset, which it's appears that players registrations no are (in other words, they are not physical, like the ground or BMH). It's an accountancy thing, and effectively means the same thing. Please don't confuse cash and profit, they are very different things. Profitable businesses go bust all the time because they run out of cash. It is clear this year that the value of certain players has been written off - Bent? Hutton? Zog? Given? Others that have already left? What I believe will have happened is that when we bought them, all of the costs of their contract, including wages and bonuses and signing on fees and agent fees will have been put on the balance sheet and 'amortised' over the length of their contracts. So for example, if Bent cost a possible £24m plus say, £20m in wages over 4 years, then we would have charged to profit £11m a year for 4 years. I hope that makes sense! So, if we have written off the remaining balance of all the bomb squad in the last years accounts, then 18 months of Bent and Hutton, 30 months of Given and Zog, etc would have been charged to profit. Add Delfounseo, Ireland, Warnock, and others, it is quite easy to see that perhaps £40m or even more could have been written off last year, hence the loss. But once that's done, it's done, so there is nothing else to come out is year. What I would really like to see is the cash position, because that would be far more telling, because the cash movement in the year would be a better indicator of trading the year that profit. Can I stress that I don't have a detailed knowledge of the books of AVFC because, as a privately owned company, you can only get limited information, but in over 20 years experience in this rather tedious game, it all appears to make sense to me! UTV! Edited March 1, 2014 by Pez1974 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electric Avenue Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 Can anyone tell me out EBITDA please Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonno_2004 Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 Can anyone tell me out EBITDA please Earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation. Essentially by looking at the profit of the entity excluding those expenses you get a 'truer' idea of how well the business is performing. It is one method of valuing a business by for example taking an EBITDA multiple i.e using normalised earnings and focusing on 'operational' profit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suttonpaul Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 Thanks that is what I was trying to say Pez but I put it as over a year instead of the length of contract. It makes sense to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 I think we already knew the info about the £90m, didn't we? (Been the subject of a separate thread, I'm sure.) These figures look to me very much like we would have expected, but I await those more expert at reading accounts to comment. Well, we knew that £90m had been put in the club, or the trust, or something like that. I don't think it was actually clear what had been done and why. Randy has not put £90m into the club, he has converted some of the debt into into shares. The benefit for the club is they no longer have to pay the interest or rack a big creditor for unpaid interest. If he is looking to sell I doubt it makes much difference as Randy would be looking for a sum to cover his investment whether it is in equity or debt. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 I am an accountant, so here's my take: The £90m write off from Randy is not exactly that, as he has taken shares. But given that he already owned 100% of the club, that is merely cosmetic so it is, in effect, a write off of the debt owed to him. The word 'amortisation' is simply depreciation of an intangible asset, which it's appears that players registrations no are (in other words, they are not physical, like the ground or BMH). It's an accountancy thing, and effectively means the same thing. Please don't confuse cash and profit, they are very different things. Profitable businesses go bust all the time because they run out of cash. It is clear this year that the value of certain players has been written off - Bent? Hutton? Zog? Given? Others that have already left? What I believe will have happened is that when we bought them, all of the costs of their contract, including wages and bonuses and signing on fees and agent fees will have been put on the balance sheet and 'amortised' over the length of their contracts. So for example, if Bent cost a possible £24m plus say, £20m in wages over 4 years, then we would have charged to profit £11m a year for 4 years. I hope that makes sense! So, if we have written off the remaining balance of all the bomb squad in the last years accounts, then 18 months of Bent and Hutton, 30 months of Given and Zog, etc would have been charged to profit. Add Delfounseo, Ireland, Warnock, and others, it is quite easy to see that perhaps £40m or even more could have been written off last year, hence the loss. But once that's done, it's done, so there is nothing else to come out is year. What I would really like to see is the cash position, because that would be far more telling, because the cash movement in the year would be a better indicator of trading the year that profit. Can I stress that I don't have a detailed knowledge of the books of AVFC because, as a privately owned company, you can only get limited information, but in over 20 years experience in this rather tedious game, it all appears to make sense to me! UTV! Given the size of the company they should be filing full accounts so they should give plenty of detail albeit without any glossy pictures and stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 ...it is quite easy to see that perhaps £40m or even more could have been written off last year...As I posted above, the article says:Exceptional charges increased by £2.4million to £8.3 million and included the accelerated amortisation of certain players’ registrations and their employment costs.So, the most that could have been written off (with regards to 'bomb squad' w/off) is £8.3 million, surely?I'm also not sure about your idea of capitalizing the players' wages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 I am an accountant, so here's my take: The £90m write off from Randy is not exactly that, as he has taken shares. But given that he already owned 100% of the club, that is merely cosmetic so it is, in effect, a write off of the debt owed to him. The word 'amortisation' is simply depreciation of an intangible asset, which it's appears that players registrations no are (in other words, they are not physical, like the ground or BMH). It's an accountancy thing, and effectively means the same thing. Please don't confuse cash and profit, they are very different things. Profitable businesses go bust all the time because they run out of cash. It is clear this year that the value of certain players has been written off - Bent? Hutton? Zog? Given? Others that have already left? What I believe will have happened is that when we bought them, all of the costs of their contract, including wages and bonuses and signing on fees and agent fees will have been put on the balance sheet and 'amortised' over the length of their contracts. So for example, if Bent cost a possible £24m plus say, £20m in wages over 4 years, then we would have charged to profit £11m a year for 4 years. I hope that makes sense! So, if we have written off the remaining balance of all the bomb squad in the last years accounts, then 18 months of Bent and Hutton, 30 months of Given and Zog, etc would have been charged to profit. Add Delfounseo, Ireland, Warnock, and others, it is quite easy to see that perhaps £40m or even more could have been written off last year, hence the loss. But once that's done, it's done, so there is nothing else to come out is year.What I would really like to see is the cash position, because that would be far more telling, because the cash movement in the year would be a better indicator of trading the year that profit. Can I stress that I don't have a detailed knowledge of the books of AVFC because, as a privately owned company, you can only get limited information, but in over 20 years experience in this rather tedious game, it all appears to make sense to me! UTV! Definitely agree with that conclusion. My guess is they have, as Pez suggests, a complete 'clear out' in the accounts. The objective of the cost costing over the past couple of years will be to make the club cash self sufficient, at least on a operating basis thus removing the need for Randy to keep putting money in a regular basis to pay the bills. Of course it does beg the question as to whether transfers will have to be funded out of that cash-flow too. I would imagine if we continue in this vein the club will show profits in the future assuming we stay in the Premier League. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
briny_ear Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 (edited) ...it is quite easy to see that perhaps £40m or even more could have been written off last year... As I posted above, the article says: Exceptional charges increased by £2.4million to £8.3 million and included the accelerated amortisation of certain players’ registrations and their employment costs. So, the most that could have been written off (with regards to 'bomb squad' w/off) is £8.3 million, surely? I'm also not sure about your idea of capitalizing the players' wages. That was my thought, Snowychap. The specific reference to accelerated amortisation is for £8.3m so is more likely to be for contracts that have been terminated early (e.g.does Ireland come into this category?) To a non-accountant, It sounds like sharp practice to accelerate the amortisation of contracts we still hold. The real problem here is we are floating up into accountancy fantasy-land, speculating increasingly freely about information no-one has actually seen. Edited March 1, 2014 by briny_ear 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts