[azul]

Brookie, on 20 October 2015 - 11:26 AM, said:

This means in day to day running they have improved income by £1154, not insignificant and yes they are running in black and sets out a good prospect for the next end of year figures.

Debt has probably risen by interest on existing loans, they may have chosen to pay off other debts in the knowledge they will have funds to address longer term loans this year

That has baffled me surely debt is debt and it has grown according to that. All you are talking about is moving debt around for what ever reason

[azul]

Spire-Power, on 20 October 2015 - 11:32 AM, said:

According to our financial experts on this forum the full amount of the sale is included in the year when the transaction takes place, regardless of instalments.

Maybe the financial experts could tell us where the full transfer fees appears on the accounts

If it appears on the turnover but has't actually appeared as cash it would make the accounts hard to interpret

The turnover went up be less than a million, surely that suggests the full fees were not included or the reported fees were exaggerated

[60s 70s Spireite]

Spire-Power, on 20 October 2015 - 11:32 AM, said:

According to our financial experts on this forum the full amount of the sale is included in the year when the transaction takes place, regardless of instalments.

Indeed. Not got my copy yet, but last years has a specific note that says:
Transfer fees received are credited to the profit and loss account in the year the transfer is completed.

Which is generally accepted accounting practice.

[60s 70s Spireite]

azul, on 20 October 2015 - 11:43 AM, said:

Maybe the financial experts could tell us where the full transfer fees appears on the accounts

If it appears on the turnover but has't actually appeared as cash it would make the accounts hard to interpret

The turnover went up be less than a million, surely that suggests the full fees were not included or the reported fees were exaggerated

No, the sum due would be in debtors on the balance sheet. What is the debtors this year and have they gone up?
Without seeing the figures, one has to worry that the fees have been exaggerated.

Or the so called 'first million pound sale' included a contingent fee based on say goals scored, international appearances etc. Which haven't transpired.

[azul]

60s 70s Spireite, on 20 October 2015 - 11:47 AM, said:

No, the sum due would be in debtors on the balance sheet. What is the debtors this year and have they gone up?
Without seeing the figures, one has to worry that the fees have been exaggerated.

Or the so called 'first million pound sale' included a contingent fee based on say goals scored, international appearances etc. Which haven't transpired.

I see

So we should see the debtors column to be in the high £100,000s which would subtracted from creditors/loans/debentures to give the total debt, give or take whatever we've got lying around in the piggy bank

[Westbars Spireite]

The simple question is what would the accounts show without any player sales?

[Wooden Spoon]

Dancingwilldoit, on 20 October 2015 - 11:23 AM, said:

Why will they ? If its not income during last year then it shouldn't be included.

Because the sale date is the date the fee is included.

[Mr Mercury]

Tell you what, carry on at this rate and the first average season without any player sales or cup run and lower gates and things will look grim!
I thought Ashley said the accounts were promising.....I think they're more frightening than last years!

[60s 70s Spireite]

azul, on 20 October 2015 - 11:56 AM, said:

I see

So we should see the debtors column to be in the high £100,000s which would subtracted from creditors/loans/debentures to give the total debt, give or take whatever we've got lying around in the piggy bank

Two questions:

So we should see the debtors column to be in the high £100,000s Yes, much higher than last season. (Looking back last year's debtors were £118k 'trade debtors' and 'other debtors' of £641k. Without explanation I can't comment on what the club/its auditors classify as which.)
which would subtracted from creditors/loans/debentures to give the total debt, give or take whatever we've got lying around in the piggy bank Not necessarily. Depends whether the club are talking about net debt or gross debt. Gross debt is all the money owed to third parties, net debt tends to mean all debts owing less the more liquid assets, that is cash, debtors etc.

[azul]

60s 70s Spireite, on 20 October 2015 - 12:11 PM, said:

Two questions:

So we should see the debtors column to be in the high £100,000s Yes, much higher than last season. (Looking back last year's debtors were £118k 'trade debtors' and 'other debtors' of £641k. Without explanation I can't comment on what the club/its auditors classify as which.)
which would subtracted from creditors/loans/debentures to give the total debt, give or take whatever we've got lying around in the piggy bank Not necessarily. Depends whether the club are talking about net debt or gross debt. Gross debt is all the money owed to third parties, net debt tends to mean all debts owing less the more liquid assets, that is cash, debtors etc.

Lets hope the figure quoted is Gross debt then, otherwise we are in **** creek again

[lindo-spireite]

I wonder if dave Allen has accepted that he'll never get his money back yet.

[Mr Mercury]

Oh and regarding settlement for the coaching staff surely we shod have received fees for Cook and Richardson. And if Nixon got anything more than a bag of toffee apples then we were robbed!

[azul]

Mr Mercury, on 20 October 2015 - 12:11 PM, said:

Tell you what, carry on at this rate and the first average season without any player sales or cup run and lower gates and things will look grim!
I thought Ashley said the accounts were promising.....I think they're more frightening than last years!

As I said earlier all football costs are £3M. Turnover is £7.4M, where has the other £4.4M gone?

I'm sure the lowest turnover we've had at the new stadium was around £5.5 so if we have another year like that, imagine the loss on the year, circa £2M, god almighty

[warfey is a spireite]

Mr Mercury, on 20 October 2015 - 12:30 PM, said:

Oh and regarding settlement for the coaching staff surely we shod have received fees for Cook and Richardson. And if Nixon got anything more than a bag of toffee apples then we were robbed!

elvis got a pair of sideburns as compo thats all he was worth , stealing a wage , cooks mate another scouser

[SpireiteFitzy]

Mr Mercury, on 20 October 2015 - 12:30 PM, said:

Oh and regarding settlement for the coaching staff surely we shod have received fees for Cook and Richardson. And if Nixon got anything more than a bag of toffee apples then we were robbed!

Shinner would have cost us money. All the more baffling given he's better than what we have.

[Cartman]

warfey is a spireite, on 20 October 2015 - 12:50 PM, said:

elvis got a pair of sideburns as compo thats all he was worth , stealing a wage , cooks mate another scouser

I love how everyone thinks they know how effective the coaching staff were

We have our best season in years yet the coaches are stealing a wage

Every mistake Tommy Lee made last season was down to Nixon's coaching and cos Tommy missed Crossley (yet not a lot said about Lee's error vs Gillingham being Crossleys fault)

Let's face it, everyone on here knows **** all about how effective the staff were during training and comments such as stealing a wage are pathetic and baseless, I have no idea how good a coach Nixon, Lynch or Richardson were, but performances suggest they were doing something right

[Cartman]

SpireiteFitzy, on 20 October 2015 - 12:53 PM, said:

Shinner would have cost us money. All the more baffling given he's better than what we have.

Again, you have no idea that he is better than what we have!

Just as daft as warfys statement re: Nixon

Evidence suggests Nicholson did a great job, but we still have no idea whether Purchase is better at the job or not, and probably never will, too many variables that affect players for us to judge

[brianclose]

Cartman, on 20 October 2015 - 01:09 PM, said:

I love how everyone thinks they know how effective the coaching staff were

We have our best season in years yet the coaches are stealing a wage

Every mistake Tommy Lee made last season was down to Nixon's coaching and cos Tommy missed Crossley (yet not a lot said about Lee's error vs Gillingham being Crossleys fault)

Let's face it, everyone on here knows **** all about how effective the staff were during training and comments such as stealing a wage are pathetic and baseless, I have no idea how good a coach Nixon, Lynch or Richardson were, but performances suggest they were doing something right

You have to admit though Carty, seeing a fat Elvis impersonator skewing high punts to Tommy then throwing a few balls to the kids in the crowd to head was a bit of a joke. No wonder he's selling double glazing now.

[Cartman]

brianclose, on 20 October 2015 - 01:13 PM, said:

You have to admit though Carty, seeing a fat Elvis impersonator skewing high punts to Tommy then throwing a few balls to the kids in the crowd to head was a bit of a joke. No wonder he's selling double glazing now.

Yet we have no idea what they did in training

Just find it ridiculous to slag any of the backroom staff off after the season we had, yet daft people on here will always think they know best and know exactly how effective all our coaches are/were

[warfey is a spireite]

Cartman, on 20 October 2015 - 01:17 PM, said:

Yet we have no idea what they did in training

Just find it ridiculous to slag any of the backroom staff off after the season we had, yet daft people on here will always think they know best and know exactly how effective all our coaches are/were

HED NEVER FIT ON A COACH