[60s 70s Spireite]

azul, on 21 October 2015 - 10:04 AM, said:

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.

Specifically:
The account showed last year: Trade debtors £118k- 'other debtors' £641k. Total 'debtors' £759k. We know other debtors included monies owed by the Community Trust at £249k (see F2 answers above also).
In the 2015 figures trade debtors have risen to £572k, which suggests the Doyle balance is in there. Other debtors are down to £229k (now only £76k owing from the Trust - as per F2 again also.

The question left unanswered is what else was and is classified as other debtors, and why has it gone down so much, even after taking into account the reduction in the sum due from the Trust? In 2014 perhaps the figure included the Johnstone Paints prize monies/gates? But one could put up a good arguments that was trade debtors not other debtors. There will be prepayments in there also.

[shaun1866]

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?

No I mean exactly what I said, if we had all our money in (accounted or not) then we would have the funds to pay the debts off but we don't have that money in (that's accounted for as they have it as credit)

I owe you 10k at 50% annual increase
My customer owes me 10k on a 6 month credit agreement payable after 6 months.
The money I owe you is accruing interest even though the invoice is showing done in the accounts to my customer.
If I had the 10k in from my customer then I would pay you and clear the debt. What do they call it "asset rich cash poor"

[shaun1866]

60s 70s Spireite, on 21 October 2015 - 10:21 AM, said:

Specifically:
The account showed last year: Trade debtors £118k- 'other debtors' £641k. Total 'debtors' £759k. We know other debtors included monies owed by the Community Trust at £249k (see F2 answers above also).
In the 2015 figures trade debtors have risen to £572k, which suggests the Doyle balance is in there. Other debtors are down to £229k (now only £76k owing from the Trust - as per F2 again also.

The question left unanswered is what else was and is classified as other debtors, and why has it gone down so much, even after taking into account the reduction in the sum due from the Trust? In 2014 perhaps the figure included the Johnstone Paints prize monies/gates? But one could put up a good arguments that was trade debtors not other debtors. There will be prepayments in there also.

Could it be sponsorship ?

[60s 70s Spireite]

shaun1866, on 22 October 2015 - 07:14 AM, said:

Could it be sponsorship ?

It could be. Matter of opinion whether sponsorship owing is a trade debtor or other debtor, so yes is the answer.

[Norton Blue]

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

All the more baffling given he's better than what we have.

What do you base that on?

[dazcarrlegend]

Now there is this mega TV deal in the Premier League, does this mean that League 1 prize money is increasing? Will that have any kind of a positive impact on the finances going forward?

[60s 70s Spireite]

shaun1866, on 22 October 2015 - 07:07 AM, said:

No I mean exactly what I said, if we had all our money in (accounted or not) then we would have the funds to pay the debts off but we don't have that money in (that's accounted for as they have it as credit)

I owe you 10k at 50% annual increase
My customer owes me 10k on a 6 month credit agreement payable after 6 months.
The money I owe you is accruing interest even though the invoice is showing done in the accounts to my customer.
If I had the 10k in from my customer then I would pay you and clear the debt. What do they call it "asset rich cash poor"

But you wouldn't be any more profitable. (That's what you were originally saying).
You are talking balance sheet figures. Not profit and loss. Equal movements between cash, debtors and creditors doesn't affect the p & l. It doesn't change the net asset value in the balance sheet. It does change your liquidity.

[forevablue]

60s 70s Spireite, on 21 October 2015 - 10:21 AM, said:

Specifically:
The account showed last year: Trade debtors £118k- 'other debtors' £641k. Total 'debtors' £759k. We know other debtors included monies owed by the Community Trust at £249k (see F2 answers above also).
In the 2015 figures trade debtors have risen to £572k, which suggests the Doyle balance is in there. Other debtors are down to £229k (now only £76k owing from the Trust - as per F2 again also.

The question left unanswered is what else was and is classified as other debtors, and why has it gone down so much, even after taking into account the reduction in the sum due from the Trust? In 2014 perhaps the figure included the Johnstone Paints prize monies/gates? But one could put up a good arguments that was trade debtors not other debtors. There will be prepayments in there also.

I don't usually study the accounts closely as I normally go to the AGM and listen to the explanations there. However, I can't make it this year and so I have read through them, and the comments on here, with some interest.

I am not an accountant but like most others I am trying to figure out where all of this leaves us going forward. One question, could someone explain the significance, or not, of the differences listed in Section 22. Analysis of Changes in Net Debt? At 30th June 2015 the debts due within a year has risen by £522 and the debts due after more than one year has fallen by £261k making a net difference of £261k being due.

Many thanks if you can.

[Guest_freelander2_*]

Another observation, a real head-scratcher!

Y/E 06/11
£270,179 of social security costs were charged to the P&L account

£73,178 of taxation & social security was shown as a liability on the balance sheet


Y/E 06/12
£289,737 of social security costs were charged to the P&L account

£70,652 of taxation & social security was shown as a liability on the balance sheet


Y/E 06/13
£259,410 of social security costs were charged to the P&L account

£90,240 of taxation & social security was shown as a liability on the balance sheet


Y/E 06/14
£329,043 of social security costs were charged to the P&L account

£97,484 of taxation & social security was shown as a liability on the balance sheet


So, over the past four years (2011 - 2014) social security costs have averaged £287,227 pa & the taxation and social security liability has averaged £82,889 at the year end.


Now this is where the real fun starts!

Y/E 06/15

£374,770 of social security costs were charged to the P&L account

£257,997 of taxation & social security was shown as a liability on the balance sheet. Given that the previous 4 years worth of accounts have shown an average liability of £82,889 at year end, what's going off here? Why has the liability to HMRC grown so significantly compared with previous years?

If you strip down 'taxation & social security' it really covers three areas, Corporation Tax (which in this case is not applicable), National Insurance & VAT. We know from looking at the P&L that total social security costs for the year were £374,770. Assuming that best practice is adopted by the club and only 1/12th (approximately £31,231) of this was outstanding at the year end, it just leaves the VAT liability at approximately £226,766.

Assuming that the club haven't changed their VAT period from previous years and all payments to HMRC are up-to-date, I'm struggling to identify what, from a trading point of view has caused this significant increase, even allowing for the VAT on the increased level of turnover for the year.

Before I post in another thread on this messageboard, I'd like a second opinion on the above from 60s/70s Spireite.

[Torteval]

freelander2, on 23 October 2015 - 05:40 PM, said:

Another observation, a real head-scratcher!

Y/E 06/11
£270,179 of social security costs were charged to the P&L account

£73,178 of taxation & social security was shown as a liability on the balance sheet


Y/E 06/12
£289,737 of social security costs were charged to the P&L account

£70,652 of taxation & social security was shown as a liability on the balance sheet


Y/E 06/13
£259,410 of social security costs were charged to the P&L account

£90,240 of taxation & social security was shown as a liability on the balance sheet


Y/E 06/14
£329,043 of social security costs were charged to the P&L account

£97,484 of taxation & social security was shown as a liability on the balance sheet


So, over the past four years (2011 - 2014) social security costs have averaged £287,227 pa & the taxation and social security liability has averaged £82,889 at the year end.


Now this is where the real fun starts!

Y/E 06/15

£374,770 of social security costs were charged to the P&L account

£257,997 of taxation & social security was shown as a liability on the balance sheet. Given that the previous 4 years worth of accounts have shown an average liability of £82,889 at year end, what's going off here? Why has the liability to HMRC grown so significantly compared with previous years?

If you strip down 'taxation & social security' it really covers three areas, Corporation Tax (which in this case is not applicable), National Insurance & VAT. We know from looking at the P&L that total social security costs for the year were £374,770. Assuming that best practice is adopted by the club and only 1/12th (approximately £31,231) of this was outstanding at the year end, it just leaves the VAT liability at approximately £226,766.

Assuming that the club haven't changed their VAT period from previous years and all payments to HMRC are up-to-date, I'm struggling to identify what, from a trading point of view has caused this significant increase, even allowing for the VAT on the increased level of turnover for the year.

Before I post in another thread on this messageboard, I'd like a second opinion on the above from 60s/70s Spireite.

I've a feeling that transfer fees are chargeable to VAT - perhaps someone can confirm.

If so, then bearing in mind transfer fees received will have increased significantly, then this could be responsible for some of this increase. Also, I would have thought that the VAT outstanding at year end would be likely to be higher due to a combination of the higher turnover, the move to profit and increase in non-vatable costs.

Just throwing a few ideas in - not expert opinion - but perhaps someone could indicate whether these suggestions have any merit? Also if it is linked to transfer fees received, how much in fees would have been received in the last quarter of the financial year.

This post has been edited by Torteval: 23 October 2015 - 11:33 PM

[60s 70s Spireite]

freelander2, on 23 October 2015 - 05:40 PM, said:

Another observation, a real head-scratcher!

Y/E 06/11
£270,179 of social security costs were charged to the P&L account

£73,178 of taxation & social security was shown as a liability on the balance sheet


Y/E 06/12
£289,737 of social security costs were charged to the P&L account

£70,652 of taxation & social security was shown as a liability on the balance sheet


Y/E 06/13
£259,410 of social security costs were charged to the P&L account

£90,240 of taxation & social security was shown as a liability on the balance sheet


Y/E 06/14
£329,043 of social security costs were charged to the P&L account

£97,484 of taxation & social security was shown as a liability on the balance sheet


So, over the past four years (2011 - 2014) social security costs have averaged £287,227 pa & the taxation and social security liability has averaged £82,889 at the year end.


Now this is where the real fun starts!

Y/E 06/15

£374,770 of social security costs were charged to the P&L account

£257,997 of taxation & social security was shown as a liability on the balance sheet. Given that the previous 4 years worth of accounts have shown an average liability of £82,889 at year end, what's going off here? Why has the liability to HMRC grown so significantly compared with previous years?

If you strip down 'taxation & social security' it really covers three areas, Corporation Tax (which in this case is not applicable), National Insurance & VAT. We know from looking at the P&L that total social security costs for the year were £374,770. Assuming that best practice is adopted by the club and only 1/12th (approximately £31,231) of this was outstanding at the year end, it just leaves the VAT liability at approximately £226,766.

Assuming that the club haven't changed their VAT period from previous years and all payments to HMRC are up-to-date, I'm struggling to identify what, from a trading point of view has caused this significant increase, even allowing for the VAT on the increased level of turnover for the year.

Before I post in another thread on this messageboard, I'd like a second opinion on the above from 60s/70s Spireite.

It's a question to be asked as the sum sue does seems very high. Torteval is right to say the Vat due will have been exceptionally high in the quarter the Doyle sale was invoiced, However if we assume that the sale went through in January, the latest the vat would be due would be for a quarter to say March, so that sum should have been remitted to HMRC we'll before 30 June.

As regards Torteval other suggestions for the increase, my accounts are not with me at the moment, but I am sure the losses brought forward from previous years will ensure there is no Corporation Tax due for the year.

[dim view]

freelander2, on 23 October 2015 - 05:40 PM, said:

Another observation, a real head-scratcher!


Assuming that the club haven't changed their VAT period from previous years and all payments to HMRC are up-to-date, I'm struggling to identify what, from a trading point of view has caused this significant increase, even allowing for the VAT on the increased level of turnover for the year.

Before I post in another thread on this messageboard, I'd like a second opinion on the above from 60s/70s Spireite.

well, even as a ignoramus, what immediately occurs to me is that the increase in VAT liability is in the same ballpark (£170k ish) as the amount that DA has written off to the Trust. Has he paid their VAT and agreed a new method of repayment, scrapping the 99 year lease?. This is pure guesswork.

[60s 70s Spireite]

dim view, on 24 October 2015 - 11:10 AM, said:

well, even as a ignoramus, what immediately occurs to me is that the increase in VAT liability is in the same ballpark (£170k ish) as the amount that DA has written off to the Trust. Has he paid their VAT and agreed a new method of repayment, scrapping the 99 year lease?. This is pure guesswork.

It might be true, it might not.
But for an 'ignoramus' it is a damn good effort at guesswork. Unless someone from the club steps forward with an explanation, we will have to wait for the Trust accounts to be published to get a clearer picture.

The good news is their accounts save far greater disclosure.

[Guest_freelander2_*]

And of course, not forgetting AC's post back in March:

#1093273User is offline acarson

Posted 08 March 2015 - 09:16 PM
AZUL
Totally agree with you. This year we have also seen some other expenses that have crawled out of the woodwork. I am not at liberty to divulge yet, but the annual accounts will reflect these.

They were not budgeted for and are in excess of £140,000. Don't forget the loan to Chesterfield Borough Council too !!!

When you add all of these up there is no wonder the cash flow is shot !!

AshleyC

[Ernie Ernie Ernie]

60s 70s Spireite, on 24 October 2015 - 11:25 AM, said:

It might be true, it might not.
But for an 'ignoramus' it is a damn good effort at guesswork. Unless someone from the club steps forward with an explanation, we will have to wait for the Trust accounts to be published to get a clearer picture.

The good news is their accounts save far greater disclosure.

I'm not sure how expenses keep crawling out of the woodwork as Ashley puts it. Who do we have as a fking accountant. When an expense crops up someone authorises payment and the budget is adjusted. If they come out the woodwork are they actually ours to pay? Who is spending money they aren't authorised to do and money that isn't budgeted for? Does someone need sacking?

[Torteval]

60s 70s Spireite, on 24 October 2015 - 10:25 AM, said:

It's a question to be asked as the sum sue does seems very high. Torteval is right to say the Vat due will have been exceptionally high in the quarter the Doyle sale was invoiced, However if we assume that the sale went through in January, the latest the vat would be due would be for a quarter to say March, so that sum should have been remitted to HMRC we'll before 30 June.

As regards Torteval other suggestions for the increase, my accounts are not with me at the moment, but I am sure the losses brought forward from previous years will ensure there is no Corporation Tax due for the year.

Just on your last point, I would agree Corporation Tax would not be paid but my thought was that the combined effect of higher turnover, move to profit and increase in non-vatable costs would all be changes that would overall give rise to a higher vat payment each quarter.

Also, even if the Doyle fee was not invoiced at all in the quarter, there is still the Roberts fee and if compensation for Cook is treated in the same way for VAT, there will be VAT due running into 10's of thousands.

[60s 70s Spireite]

Torteval, on 25 October 2015 - 10:15 AM, said:

Just on your last point, I would agree Corporation Tax would not be paid but my thought was that the combined effect of higher turnover, move to profit and increase in non-vatable costs would all be changes that would overall give rise to a higher vat payment each quarter.

Also, even if the Doyle fee was not invoiced at all in the quarter, there is still the Roberts fee and if compensation for Cook is treated in the same way for VAT, there will be VAT due running into 10's of thousands.

Tens of thousands, yes, hundreds of hundreds of thousands no.

[Skywalker]

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


The Accounts include receipts for player sales of Cooper, Doyle, Roberts, also Paul Cook compensation received. Non are listed individually.

They do not reflect the sale of Darikwa or Clucas as they happened this year.

Yes there was also costs involved on the termination of several other coaching staff.

AshleyC

Oh dear