Football Clubs & Debt

[LeazesMag 0]

?

 

I was being serious, progress from here is overtaking 5th and challenging for the CL places. Despite an amazing season and even with significant investment , that's still a big ask.

 

that is the big statement.

 

I'm being serious too, I always have been.

 

Whatever the pros and cons right now of borrowing money and spending ambitiously/beyond your means (delete as appropriate), the argument is pointless going forward as all clubs are restricted from doing it.

 

plenty of money left from the sale of Carroll though, if they truly want to "go forward" they will do what they did in January this summer, as you have pointed out. However, I expect more excuses instead.

[Tom 13915]

Did our results include the Carroll fees?

 

Surely that would suggest we only just got by and had to sell an important to do so?

[Happy Face 29]

Did our results include the Carroll fees?

 

Surely that would suggest we only just got by and had to sell an important to do so?

 

We made a £32m profit after player trading.

[LeazesMag 0]

Did our results include the Carroll fees?

 

Surely that would suggest we only just got by and had to sell an important to do so?

 

We made a £32m profit after player trading.

 

exactly

[Baggio 0]

How did they reach that figure anyway?

 

Since we bought Ben Arfa and Tiote in the same window and only sold Carroll? Anyone I've forgot?

 

Also what tax would they pay on such a profit?

[jonasjuice 0]

I wonder what their stance will be when teams are building new stadiums. If a club like Everton wanted to build a new ground then it would obviously make it very hard for them to avoid making losses for a while, surely they would make exceptions when its clear that the short term losses are for the long term benefit of the club?

 

Will be interesting to see how strictly they are able to enforce these rules, they've got to be air tight because say they refused Man City champions league entry they'd be costing them tens of millions of pounds, you can bet they'd have the best lawyers money can buy looking for any sort of loophole. And FIFA would have to be sure of getting the call correct because they'd be terrified of being sued by a club for lost earnings.

[Baggio 0]

Sunderland are like Villa, living beyond their means for a few years and now they've got to pull it all back in.

 

I presume the Henderson deal will be on next year.

[Baggio 0]

I wonder what their stance will be when teams are building new stadiums. If a club like Everton wanted to build a new ground then it would obviously make it very hard for them to avoid making losses for a while, surely they would make exceptions when its clear that the short term losses are for the long term benefit of the club?

 

Will be interesting to see how strictly they are able to enforce these rules, they've got to be air tight because say they refused Man City champions league entry they'd be costing them tens of millions of pounds, you can bet they'd have the best lawyers money can buy looking for any sort of loophole. And FIFA would have to be sure of getting the call correct because they'd be terrified of being sued by a club for lost earnings.

 

Money spent on stadiums, training grounds and academy are not included in the figures UEFA want.

 

They closed any loopholes in court a few weeks back too.

[ewerk 26828]

Baggio, there should be no tax due thanks to the massive losses made in recent years. Provided that the losses haven't been utilised elsewhere.

[Baggio 0]

Baggio, there should be no tax due thanks to the massive losses made in recent years. Provided that the losses haven't been utilised elsewhere.

 

Oh right, so is there a certain length of time they use? For example 3 years net?

 

Looking at the accounts I think they've used some of the Carroll money to wipe out any outside debt, since the overdraft is pretty much gone.

[BigWalrus 0]

Looking at the accounts I think they've used some of the Carroll money to wipe out any outside debt, since the overdraft is pretty much gone.

 

That was a Mike Ashley cash injection. His loan balance increased slightly to cover it.

[Baggio 0]

Looking at the accounts I think they've used some of the Carroll money to wipe out any outside debt, since the overdraft is pretty much gone.

 

That was a Mike Ashley cash injection. His loan balance increased slightly to cover it.

 

Thanks for that.

 

Do they give details about how much is in the club account?

[BigWalrus 0]

Looking at the accounts I think they've used some of the Carroll money to wipe out any outside debt, since the overdraft is pretty much gone.

 

That was a Mike Ashley cash injection. His loan balance increased slightly to cover it.

 

Thanks for that.

 

Do they give details about how much is in the club account?

 

As in the club bank account?

 

I'm not sure off the top of my head and don't have a set of accounts to hand. But the numbers tend to be quite large at year end, as most of the season ticket money has come in (although that may change as more people take up direct debit options...).

 

Arsenal, for instance, have a massive cash balance, but it reduces gradually all year as they spend it on player wages. It's not like a normal business where they're generating cash evenly throughout the year. Football cash flows are heavily impacted by seasonality.

[Gemmill 35582]

How do you know what happens to Arsenal's bank balance throughout the season?

[Happy Face 29]

Looking at the accounts I think they've used some of the Carroll money to wipe out any outside debt, since the overdraft is pretty much gone.

 

That was a Mike Ashley cash injection. His loan balance increased slightly to cover it.

 

Mike Ashley made no cash injection this year...or at least only a very small one....

 

[Happy Face 29]

Do they give details about how much is in the club account?

 

[Happy Face 29]

Baggio, there should be no tax due thanks to the massive losses made in recent years. Provided that the losses haven't been utilised elsewhere.

 

Oh right, so is there a certain length of time they use? For example 3 years net?

 

 

 

Not sure if this means we still have £55m of losses left to utilise?

[Happy Face 29]

Reading it again, I guess it's more likely to be the £16m figure.

[ChezGiven 0]

It's good to at least see the proof that no cash has been pocketed too.

[Baggio 0]

Thanks for that, HF.

[Matt 0]

Deferred tax asset will arise when a companys taxable profit on a tax basis is different to its profit on an accounting basis (and in the case of an asset, the tax paid by the club is greater) and that the variance between the two is temporary and will unwind in time (ie the club will pay less tax on a tax basis than accounting basis in future years).

 

If none of that makes any sense, I don't blame you.

 

But I'm pretty sure that they will be seperate to the losses which can be harvested.

[LeazesMag 0]

It's good to at least see the proof that no cash has been pocketed too.

 

did you reply to the post from HF where he pointed out to you that the club kept its best players and added a good player to the team in January, hence it consolidated its position rather than go downwards ?

[Baggio 0]

Another quick question...

 

I'm trying to get my head around how we made so much after transfer dealings as it doesn't add up when you include the players bought, now looking at the SMB in their financial results thread someone has said that transfers fee's when you buy a player don't go through as one hit and will be fed through over the length of the players contract, unlike when you sell a player and it all goes at once. Is that correct?

 

Here's the thread if anyone is interested.

 

http://www.readytogo.net/smb/showthread.php?t=686290

[BigWalrus 0]

Another quick question...

 

I'm trying to get my head around how we made so much after transfer dealings as it doesn't add up when you include the players bought, now looking at the SMB in their financial results thread someone has said that transfers fee's when you buy a player don't go through as one hit and will be fed through over the length of the players contract, unlike when you sell a player and it all goes at once. Is that correct?

 

Here's the thread if anyone is interested.

 

http://www.readytogo...ad.php?t=686290

 

It can get quite complicated.

 

But here's a simple example.

 

We sign Fred Bloggs for £10m. He is on a 5 year contract, so we add his transfer fee to the books at £10m (as an intangible asset), and account for £2m of it each season.

 

If we sell him when he's 4 years into his contract, he will be "valued" at £2m. If we sell for more than £2m, the excess will be profit. If we sell for less than £2m, we make a loss.

 

Additionally, if we work out after a year that he's actually Xisco in disguise, we might have grounds for writing off his entire contract in one go, taking the hit straight away (I believe we've already done this with Xisco and Alan Smith).

[BigWalrus 0]

Looking at the accounts I think they've used some of the Carroll money to wipe out any outside debt, since the overdraft is pretty much gone.

 

That was a Mike Ashley cash injection. His loan balance increased slightly to cover it.

 

Mike Ashley made no cash injection this year...or at least only a very small one....

 

 

So he didn't, after all. I may be confusing it with the season before, when he pumped in cash to stop us going over our overdraft limit (paying £60k a week out to several players in the Championship).