by Drew_3 » 30 Nov 2011 09:19
by Bandini » 30 Nov 2011 09:21
by 1871 Royal » 30 Nov 2011 09:30
by melonhead » 30 Nov 2011 09:35
by Wycombe Royal » 30 Nov 2011 09:35
by Svlad Cjelli » 30 Nov 2011 09:37
Svlad Cjelli By any criteria of being well-run we undoubtedly are - we know exactly what our financial situation is, we are not tied into long-term contracts so we have financial flexibility, we pay our bills and have liquidity and no massive interest overheads - and we are in complete control of our finances (unlike most other football clubs). And we survived relegation, financially, unlike so many others. Why does "well-run" have to equal "making a profit" - because the latter is impossible the way football finance is currently structured.
by Svlad Cjelli » 30 Nov 2011 09:38
melonhead do they give any other detail?
does this mean we'll need to sell another 5 million worth of players in the summer? cos im not sure we have that in the club right now...........
worrying times
by JC » 30 Nov 2011 09:40
by melonhead » 30 Nov 2011 09:43
Svlad Cjellimelonhead do they give any other detail?
does this mean we'll need to sell another 5 million worth of players in the summer? cos im not sure we have that in the club right now...........
worrying times
Not really - results are for last year, and the loss was smaller than expected, so good times, really - just the usual EP stirring wthout understanding.
by melonhead » 30 Nov 2011 09:43
JC As the accounts are to 30th June I assume they would not include the income from the sale of Matt Mills and Shane Long
by Mid Sussex Royal » 30 Nov 2011 09:44
by Mid Sussex Royal » 30 Nov 2011 09:45
JC As the accounts are to 30th June I assume they would not include the income from the sale of Matt Mills and Shane Long
by Wycombe Royal » 30 Nov 2011 09:48
by Extended-Phenotype » 30 Nov 2011 09:49
by Svlad Cjelli » 30 Nov 2011 09:51
Wycombe Royal Also aren't these the first set of account without parachute payments. If so then surely a large loss is predictable and further to that it underpins why we have had to make substantial sales and cuts to the playing squad since relegation.
by melonhead » 30 Nov 2011 09:51
Mid Sussex RoyalJC As the accounts are to 30th June I assume they would not include the income from the sale of Matt Mills and Shane Long
No but they include Gylfie sale and we were told the black hole at the time was £4M - and what about the cup run?
by rhroyal » 30 Nov 2011 09:53
Wycombe Royal You also need to understand the difference between accounting profit and the actual cash movements. If we have lost £5.3m in the year due to depreciation of assets then this is not cash that has been lost as depreciation is not a cash item.
As for players I always thought it was their contract that was the asset and that is what is depreciated. So a player with six months to go an a contract may have an asset value of practically nothing, yet he could be sold in the January transfer window for a few million. I may be wrong on that assumption though.
But we don't know which assets have been depreciated - it could be players, it could be the stadium, it could be the training ground, etc......I guess we'll have to wait and see when the accounts are published.
by Wycombe Royal » 30 Nov 2011 09:59
rhroyalWycombe Royal You also need to understand the difference between accounting profit and the actual cash movements. If we have lost £5.3m in the year due to depreciation of assets then this is not cash that has been lost as depreciation is not a cash item.
As for players I always thought it was their contract that was the asset and that is what is depreciated. So a player with six months to go an a contract may have an asset value of practically nothing, yet he could be sold in the January transfer window for a few million. I may be wrong on that assumption though.
But we don't know which assets have been depreciated - it could be players, it could be the stadium, it could be the training ground, etc......I guess we'll have to wait and see when the accounts are published.
Obviously cash is highly important, but you can't go discounting losses saying "It's only depreciation."
Ultimately losses mean the club is worse off than they were 12 months ago. End of.
by Harpers So Solid Crew » 30 Nov 2011 10:03
by Drew_3 » 30 Nov 2011 10:08
Harpers So Solid Crew If the players and the Stadium have decreased in value by £5.3m does it really matter, I assume we are talking about the players that are here and those sold do not come into the equation.
Or as has been alluded now that we have sold the jewels what is left is less valuable. So the assets of the players are now say, £15mill, but were £20m at the start, so the money from the players went into an income pot, and it is less likely that we will be able to fill that pot again from what we have, so will have to cut the cloth accordingly.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 166 guests