[60s 70s Spireite]

shaun1866, on 20 October 2015 - 05:54 PM, said:

We just turned over 1.4 million and made a profit of 84k but we have 220k owed in, if we had the 220k banked we would have made a profit of 254k as the debt would have been paid and no interest accrued.

Aaaargh....! !!!
We wouldn't. The £84k includes the £220k owed. How many times do we have to say it?

[plannerj]

60s 70s Spireite, on 20 October 2015 - 09:35 PM, said:

Aaaargh....! !!!
We wouldn't. The £84k includes the £220k owed. How many times do we have to say it?

To be fair, very few, if any, of the contributors to this thread have a detailed accountancy knowledge, so why not leave it to the experts. Now, my understanding is that Walton Spireite is an Accountant. He's been untypically silent on this important matter which leads me to believe that all is rosy at number 1866. I could, of course, be wrong!

[Doughnut]

plannerj, on 20 October 2015 - 10:01 PM, said:

To be fair, very few, if any, of the contributors to this thread have a detailed accountancy knowledge, so why not leave it to the experts. Now, my understanding is that Walton Spireite is an Accountant. He's been untypically silent on this important matter which leads me to believe that all is rosy at number 1866. I could, of course, be wrong!

Walton won't have logged on tonight - we won!

[Goku]

plannerj, on 20 October 2015 - 10:01 PM, said:

To be fair, very few, if any, of the contributors to this thread have a detailed accountancy knowledge, so why not leave it to the experts. Now, my understanding is that Walton Spireite is an Accountant. He's been untypically silent on this important matter which leads me to believe that all is rosy at number 1866. I could, of course, be wrong!

Sensible probing questions are being asked. Why try and halt the discussion?

[plannerj]

Goku, on 20 October 2015 - 10:09 PM, said:

Sensible probing questions are being asked. Why try and halt the discussion?

Since you are such a know-best on all matters, I stand corrected young man. Congratulations, by the way, on your positive post on the team's performance tonight. I was impressed.

[Goku]

plannerj, on 20 October 2015 - 10:29 PM, said:

Since you are such a know-best on all matters, I stand corrected young man. Congratulations, by the way, on your positive post on the team's performance tonight. I was impressed.

I don't know a deal about the club's finances but I recognise that people like Freelander are asking seemingly valid questions.

And thanks

[twistedspire]

Very worrying accounts.

[60s 70s Spireite]

plannerj, on 20 October 2015 - 10:01 PM, said:

To be fair, very few, if any, of the contributors to this thread have a detailed accountancy knowledge, so why not leave it to the experts. Now, my understanding is that Walton Spireite is an Accountant. He's been untypically silent on this important matter which leads me to believe that all is rosy at number 1866. I could, of course, be wrong!

Does 40 years as a fully qualified one not count in my case? (Although I do prefer to keep it quiet, you would wouldn't you?)
And you are wrong. If the lenders of the £8M debt were a commercial lender, they would want a debt to profit ratio of around six times. In other words an annual regular profit of £1M per annum. A profit to debt ratio of 100 is a mere drop in the ocean, totally unsustainable in the commercial world.

All this in a year when we sold players to the tune of over £1M.

[shaun1866]

60s 70s Spireite, on 20 October 2015 - 09:35 PM, said:

Aaaargh....! !!!
We wouldn't. The £84k includes the £220k owed. How many times do we have to say it?

Aaaaargh !!!
I was on about my own company so are you peeking through my books ???

[60s 70s Spireite]

shaun1866, on 21 October 2015 - 06:06 AM, said:

Aaaaargh !!!
I was on about my own company so are you peeking through my books ???

Ok. But at that turnover level, you should be accounting for income on an accrued basis not cash receipts basis. Once a customer is invoiced, that sale should in the profit and loss account, whether he has paid you or not.

Perhaps you mean something else?

[plannerj]

60s 70s Spireite, on 21 October 2015 - 05:37 AM, said:

Does 40 years as a fully qualified one not count in my case? (Although I do prefer to keep it quiet, you would wouldn't you?)
And you are wrong. If the lenders of the £8M debt were a commercial lender, they would want a debt to profit ratio of around six times. In other words an annual regular profit of £1M per annum. A profit to debt ratio of 100 is a mere drop in the ocean, totally unsustainable in the commercial world.

All this in a year when we sold players to the tune of over £1M.

Yes it does and it's good to know that you post from an informed position. I've run my own company for over 20 years but I wouldn't express a view on accounts that I've not seen, as some contributors appear prepared to do. My post was more an invite to draw Walton into the fray, as you might have guessed, but I only provoked Goku, which was perhaps predictable. Just an observation, rather than a criticism, however. We are not dealing with a strictly commercial debt here, otherwise, as is the case with many football clubs, it is unlikely that we would still be trading. I hold no brief for DA, but my understanding is that what you say is something that he has repeatedly emphasised. Don't hide your light under a bushel!

This post has been edited by plannerj: 21 October 2015 - 07:13 AM

[Goku]

You didn't provoke me. It just seemed very typical of you to deflect any type of probing question away from the club when it seems pretty clear to me that we have at least a couple of posters who know what they're on about.

[warfey is a spireite]

Cartman, on 20 October 2015 - 01:22 PM, said:

What are you on about now?

Gibberish

keep up sweetheart nixon /coach . as fitting on team coach , ill come back when ure in

[60s 70s Spireite]

plannerj, on 21 October 2015 - 07:12 AM, said:

Yes it does and it's good to know that you post from an informed position. I've run my own company for over 20 years but I wouldn't express a view on accounts that I've not seen, as some contributors appear prepared to do. My post was more an invite to draw Walton into the fray, as you might have guessed, but I only provoked Goku, which was perhaps predictable. Just an observation, rather than a criticism, however. We are not dealing with a strictly commercial debt here, otherwise, as is the case with many football clubs, it is unlikely that we would still be trading. I hold no brief for DA, but my understanding is that what you say is something that he has repeatedly emphasised. Don't hide your light under a bushel!

Cheers.
I would add DA has said himself he feels the maximum debt a club like ours should have is about £3M to £4M. We are a long way short of reducing ours to that level, and these results don't help much.

[The Black Triangle]

warfey is a spireite, on 21 October 2015 - 07:35 AM, said:

keep up sweetheart nixon /coach . as fitting on team coach , ill come back when ure in

That's the most childish load of nonsense seen on here for ages.

How old are you?

[The Black Triangle]

I'm no accountant, nor do I try to be. So in simple terms we made a profit of (sic)£84,000 after selling all those players without paying any money back to Mr Allen? Is that about it in a nutshell? If it is, it seems there is something very seriously wrong. Can someone explain in simple terms for the less knowledgable please?

[dim view]

acarson, on 20 October 2015 - 02:15 PM, said:

The main reason for the increase in the Trade Debtors is that £450,000 was owed from Cardiff City FC at 30.6.15 in respect of the sale of Doyle

£400,000 was due on 1 July 2015 and more is due in January 2016

proof then that the Doyle fee was more than £850k?.

£450k which looks as though it should have been paid by 30.6.15 but wasn't.
£400k + another payment due this financial year.

[CFC91]

Don't ask questions mate the Chancellor will kick off

[dim view]

freelander2, on 20 October 2015 - 04:05 PM, said:

Pete,

>>>>>>

Page 21 - The total book debt owed by the Trust to the company was discussed with Trust representatives during the year, and as a result the company has agreed to support the Trust by writing off a portion of the debt and agreeing to capitalise an amount relating to improvements to the East Stand. As a result the amount owing to the company at 30 June 2015 was £79,746 (2014: £249,358).

So, the Trust has been let off a payment to CFC of £170k, deemed to be the value of East stand improvements which will benefit CFC. Are they constructing a Supporters Bar in secret?.

There must be some very influential people on the Trust Board. I wonder who they are?.

[azul]

60s 70s Spireite, on 21 October 2015 - 06:34 AM, said:

Ok. But at that turnover level, you should be accounting for income on an accrued basis not cash receipts basis. Once a customer is invoiced, that sale should in the profit and loss account, whether he has paid you or not.

Perhaps you mean something else?

So one thing I don't understand, AC confirmed we were owed almost half a million from Cardiff, which you are saying should be shown under debtors and when you think about that it make perfect sense to non accountant. However the actual debtors amounted to £800K when last year it was circa £750. Who on earth owed us that much money last year? I would have thought the debtors would have gone up significantly, in the this case roughly the amount owded to us by Cardiff.