The Accounts

Does exactly what it says on the tin - the forum for football-related discussion.

Moderators: bristolhammerfc, sicknote, -DL-, Rio, Gnome, chalks, the pink palermo

Re: The Accounts

Postby the pink palermo on Tue Mar 13, 2018 9:03 pm

ESM I have a theory that in all the years they have been in football Sullivan and Gold havent used ANY non football generated money to run either club.

The £26m is less than the profit they made when they sold BCFC to Carsen Yeung.

Supporters put money in to football . Directors take money out.
User avatar
the pink palermo
Huge noggin
 
Posts: 38018
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Malcontented

Re: The Accounts

Postby Puff Daddy on Tue Mar 13, 2018 9:03 pm

East Stand Martin wrote:Exactly.

I was only saying the other day that this business model is EXACTLY the same as Old Man Brown's was.

If you believed the owners' PR you would have thought that they were doing the whole thing out of altruism.

No, this is called putting £49 m in loans and £26 m in share capital (£75 m).

The interest pays out on the loans and they are/were secured against assets (The Boleyn, for example). I keep saying this but £16.4 million was taken out of the company by Sullivan and Gold between Aug 16 and August 17. This covered interest and repayment of loans.

Look at the G&S tenure (2010-17) and you an see £148 m cash coming from the club's own operations and £28.7m from the sale of the Boleyn. Add in their £75 m and you get around £252.4 m.

Of that cash £161.1 m was spent (net) on players. If I were being mischievous I would make direct correlation between the cash generated by the club plus the sale of assets and the actual amount net spent on players.

Now, what, my friends does that tell you?


That they are just moving money around purely for their own financial gain. These actions certainly aren't for the best interests of the club
User avatar
Puff Daddy
Gone for a Burton
 
Posts: 20431
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 3:08 pm
Location: Westham Way

Re: The Accounts

Postby East Stand Martin on Tue Mar 13, 2018 9:23 pm

the pink palermo wrote:ESM I have a theory that in all the years they have been in football Sullivan and Gold havent used ANY non football generated money to run either club.

The £26m is less than the profit they made when they sold BCFC to Carsen Yeung.

Supporters put money in to football . Directors take money out.


Mr Pink,

Well, they did put money in at the outset. Of that there is no doubt. We were f*cked at that point.

Your point is that the money is never lost to them, they get it back....although obviously took a risk at the outset as they might not have got their money out within a reasonable time frame or not at all. The fact is they acquired a very valuable brand and paid absolutely nothing for that accrued brand value. It was a very shrewd move....but that's what commercially astute people do, buy sh*t and turn it into gold. (For the avoidance of doubt I am not calling our great club sh*t....merely pointing out that the club was deep in sh*t at the time with huge debts).

Their argument no doubt is that they are using their commercial expertise to help the club be a success and that doesn't require their money as the club itself is generating enough money as a result of their commercial success.

You have no doubt seen what the Swiss Ramble has said about this. The club's financial fortunes have undoubtedly improved hugely since 2010 and that 16/17 profit was I think the 9th highest in PL history. OK, no-one knew with great certainty just how crazy the TV deal would be that has largely fuelled all of this. They made a call and it worked, for sure.

The problem with that approach is that owners get so used to it that they fail to spot times when more investment is required. Brown made that mistake in the Summer before we got relegated on 42 points if I am not mistaken. Didn't spend a penny.

Sullivan is personally in charge of player dealing (or was, not clear exactly what the current position is). This is where he has f*cked up big time. And it could cost him and the club dear. That's why when I look at the claimed commercial success, I say wait and see. Sound commerciality comes from good investment plans. They even had the cash to splash without dipping into their own pockets. They have lost the plot, basically. Their PR is absolutely the worst. Their decision-making is highly questionable. They have knocked the stuffing out of the fan base and turned them largely into enemies.

For God's Sake, go!
User avatar
East Stand Martin
Wasted on this site
 
Posts: 3989
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2003 12:07 pm
Location: Enfield in the heart of Tottscum territory

Re: The Accounts

Postby MB on Tue Mar 13, 2018 9:41 pm

That’s it ESM. I can live with them not spending their own money. They are businessmen who ceased upon an opportunity. Happens every day.

But not spending the clubs money and cashing in on players in January when the squad needed investment is just criminal. It is bizarre as they have risked their own investment for no discernible gain.
User avatar
MB
Cricket's Darren Anderton
 
Posts: 14997
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2002 6:13 pm

Re: The Accounts

Postby Samba on Tue Mar 13, 2018 9:50 pm

When they 'saved us', how much did G&S pay to buy WHU in 2010?
User avatar
Samba
 
Posts: 2041
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2017 3:36 pm
Location: Asking stupid questions on a World Cup forum

Re: The Accounts

Postby East Stand Martin on Tue Mar 13, 2018 10:01 pm

Samba wrote:When they 'saved us', how much did G&S pay to buy WHU in 2010?


At the outset the media reported that the club was valued at £110m on the basis of a 50% acquisition of the shares.

They had got £82 m not long before that for the sale of Birmingham.

They did save us mate. We were royally f*cked at the time and they were the only game in town.
User avatar
East Stand Martin
Wasted on this site
 
Posts: 3989
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2003 12:07 pm
Location: Enfield in the heart of Tottscum territory

Re: The Accounts

Postby Believer on Tue Mar 13, 2018 10:10 pm

MB wrote:But not spending the clubs money and cashing in on players in January when the squad needed investment is just criminal. It is bizarre as they have risked their own investment for no discernible gain.


This is the thing and this is the point that I want the press to pick up on. They've made record profits yet we are still allegedly £100m in debt. In debt to them and paying ridiculously inflated interest rates.

People say "they saved us". Personally I think that's crap but what is not in doubt is that they have definitely killed a big part of us.
User avatar
Believer
 
Posts: 5077
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2010 9:35 pm

Re: The Accounts

Postby rare as rockinghorse shat on Tue Mar 13, 2018 10:20 pm

Unless I misread (that same SwissRamble piece that ESM referred to), didn't it say that our debt had dropped from around £96m to £75m?
User avatar
rare as rockinghorse shat
 
Posts: 54614
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 3:43 am
Location: Sponsor my SkyDive for Mind - mental health - http://bit.ly/rars-skydive

Re: The Accounts

Postby East Stand Martin on Tue Mar 13, 2018 10:41 pm

rare as rockinghorse shat wrote:Unless I misread (that same SwissRamble piece that ESM referred to), didn't it say that our debt had dropped from around £96m to £75m?


The debt is indeed £75m in those accounts. £45m (long term debt) owed I think to G&S, £30m to a finance company that was repaid last August (and a new £25m loan taken out).

£9.5 m is now owed too to the Yank (interest free loan interestingly enough).
Last edited by East Stand Martin on Tue Mar 13, 2018 10:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
East Stand Martin
Wasted on this site
 
Posts: 3989
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2003 12:07 pm
Location: Enfield in the heart of Tottscum territory

Re: The Accounts

Postby mywhufc on Tue Mar 13, 2018 10:46 pm

East Stand Martin wrote: £30m to a finance company that is repayable in August.

That may not be 30 million though.
The fiancee people put the money up,
west ham only pay interest on what they draw down on, if they only take 20 million then obviously less is paid back.
Its basically a loan facility, you only pay for what you use, when you use it
User avatar
mywhufc
 
Posts: 3234
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 8:25 pm

Re: The Accounts

Postby Puff Daddy on Tue Mar 13, 2018 10:47 pm

East Stand Martin wrote:
The debt is indeed £75m in those accounts. £45m (long term debt) owed I think to G&S, £25m to a finance company that is repayable in August. £9.5 m owed to the Yank (interest free loan interestingly enough).



So bang go's any new summer signings then
User avatar
Puff Daddy
Gone for a Burton
 
Posts: 20431
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 3:08 pm
Location: Westham Way

Re: The Accounts

Postby kenthammer1984 on Tue Mar 13, 2018 10:56 pm

What about the profit we have? Can’t that be used on players?

And didn’t Gold say the £25m we had for a DM is still there?
User avatar
kenthammer1984
 
Posts: 4133
Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2011 5:21 pm

Re: The Accounts

Postby hadleighhammer on Wed Mar 14, 2018 12:54 pm

East Stand Martin wrote:They did save us mate. We were royally f*cked at the time and they were the only game in town.


I thought they were just the only game in town willing to buy a portion rather than 100% of the club (e.g. Fernandez). They seemed to have re-written history unless my memory is off.
User avatar
hadleighhammer
Gentrified
 
Posts: 9593
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 6:18 pm
Location: On my computer trying to keep up with the Sky fixture changes

Re: The Accounts

Postby bristolhammerfc on Wed Mar 14, 2018 1:04 pm

East Stand Martin wrote:
At the outset the media reported that the club was valued at £105m on the basis of a 50% acquisition of the shares. So around £25 million each.

They had got £82 m not long before that for the sale of Birmingham.

They did save us mate. We were royally f*cked at the time and they were the only game in town.


They bought just over 50% at a combined £50 million with the club valued at £110 million.

Had the club gone into administration, the cost would have been a lot less but more people would have been in a position to bid.

They didn't save us, they ensured their purchase.
User avatar
bristolhammerfc
 
Posts: 7975
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 5:50 pm
Location: In the city of Brunel, balloons and banksy

Re: The Accounts

Postby East Stand Martin on Thu Mar 15, 2018 1:59 am

hadleighhammer wrote:I thought they were just the only game in town willing to buy a portion rather than 100% of the club (e.g. Fernandez). They seemed to have re-written history unless my memory is off.


Yeah, Fernandes didn't want to find himself in partnership with the Icelandics and wanted 100% control. Problem was that at that time the Icelandics did not want to sell the 100% on the basis that by retaining a slice of the action they could get more value out later.

That was their position not something dictated by G&S.

So, G&S were the only game in town.

I actually look at Fernandes and what has happened QPR and conclude I'm afraid that he would not have been a demonstrably better choice than G&S, but that is purely a hypothetical call.
User avatar
East Stand Martin
Wasted on this site
 
Posts: 3989
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2003 12:07 pm
Location: Enfield in the heart of Tottscum territory

Re: The Accounts

Postby East Stand Martin on Thu Mar 15, 2018 2:10 am

bristolhammerfc wrote:They bought just over 50% at a combined £50 million with the club valued at £110 million.

Had the club gone into administration, the cost would have been a lot less but more people would have been in a position to bid.

They didn't save us, they ensured their purchase.


Not sure I understand that.

Why would the owners have put the club into administration? You lose control at that point, they wouldn't have wanted that to happen.

It wasn't G&S who were calling the shots on that, although obviously I can see them selling the concept in their bid that a partial sale was the best option for the Icelandics.

For G&S they were parting with less money, would have less liability if the company failed, yet still exercised ultimate control. For the Icelandics, they must have believed that they would get a better exit with a partial sale. That's the sort of thing you do when you believe that the current position is not so disastrous and that things will get better over time. You also make a judgment of the people you are selling to turning things around.
User avatar
East Stand Martin
Wasted on this site
 
Posts: 3989
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2003 12:07 pm
Location: Enfield in the heart of Tottscum territory

Re: The Accounts

Postby East Stand Martin on Thu Mar 15, 2018 2:20 am

hadleighhammer wrote:I thought they were just the only game in town willing to buy a portion rather than 100% of the club (e.g. Fernandez). They seemed to have re-written history unless my memory is off.


Yeah, Fernandes didn't want to find himself in partnership with the Icelandics and wanted 100% control. Problem was that at that time the Icelandics did not want to sell the 100% on the basis that by retaining a slice of the action they could get more value out later.

That was their position not something dictated by G&S.

So, G&S were the only game in town.

I actually look at Fernandes and what has happened QPR and conclude I'm afraid that he would not have been a demonstrably better choice than G&S, but that is purely a hypothetical call.

I think Fernandes then went back to G&S later with a bid to take on 50% of the club but this was deemed to be at a level that was totally unacceptable to G&S.
User avatar
East Stand Martin
Wasted on this site
 
Posts: 3989
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2003 12:07 pm
Location: Enfield in the heart of Tottscum territory

Re: The Accounts

Postby IronworksDave on Thu Mar 15, 2018 4:06 am

East Stand Martin wrote: I actually look at Fernandes and what has happened QPR and conclude I'm afraid that he would not have been a demonstrably better choice than G&S, but that is purely a hypothetical call.


After a very difficult seven years at QPR TF is still there and has invested over 300m into the club ... I suspect it's been a very hard learning curve ....

I also suspect he will eventually find a site for his 40,000 FOOTBALL stadium and that he will stump up the cash to build it ....

https://www.getwestlondon.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/tony-fernandes-pays-glowing-respect-12946994

Can you imagine GSB saying this or putting in 100's of millions with only a very long term dream of getting it back .... not a feckin' prayer

The guy travels half way around the world to watch them and the fans get what he's trying to do ... chalk and cheese compared to GSB ....
User avatar
IronworksDave
 
Posts: 713
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 3:25 am

Re: The Accounts

Postby Wembley1966 on Thu Mar 15, 2018 9:34 am

mywhufc wrote:That may not be 30 million though.
The fiancee people put the money up,
west ham only pay interest on what they draw down on, if they only take 20 million then obviously less is paid back.
Its basically a loan facility, you only pay for what you use, when you use it

Whilst it may have been a facility, the accounts state that they have actually taken £25m out as a loan. The charge against the training grounds and stadium lease was executed on 14th August 2017 and the next day they drew down £6.0m of this. 3 days later when they realised that they had not got enough cash to pay out to G&S some of their interest, they drew down a further £19m - that same day they paid G&S £10m of their accrued interest!

The mere existence of a facility might sometimes be a note to the accounts for the current reporting period to provide confidence as a going concern, but taking out an actual loan after the end of the accounting period is a material event and as such must be reported in the accounts as a Post Balance Sheet Event - as was the repayment of the previous £30m loan.

Image

Similarly for the £30m loan taken out the previous year - there the charge was taken out against the end of season broadcasting payments and the Premier League were party to the loan and it was the PL that actually paid off the loan, not the club.

PBSE's are typically the first thing I look at in the accounts as they are material things that have happened more recently.
User avatar
Wembley1966
 
Posts: 5349
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 1:48 pm

Re: The Accounts

Postby East Stand Martin on Thu Mar 15, 2018 2:48 pm

IronworksDave wrote:After a very difficult seven years at QPR TF is still there and has invested over 300m into the club ... I suspect it's been a very hard learning curve ....

I also suspect he will eventually find a site for his 40,000 FOOTBALL stadium and that he will stump up the cash to build it ....

https://www.getwestlondon.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/tony-fernandes-pays-glowing-respect-12946994

Can you imagine GSB saying this or putting in 100's of millions with only a very long term dream of getting it back .... not a feckin' prayer

The guy travels half way around the world to watch them and the fans get what he's trying to do ... chalk and cheese compared to GSB ....


Hmmmmm.

Not seen any recent analysis but maybe this piece by Swiss Ramble might help everybody take a view on whether Fernandes would have been better than G&S...

http://swissramble.blogspot.co.uk/2016/ ... t-buy.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
User avatar
East Stand Martin
Wasted on this site
 
Posts: 3989
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2003 12:07 pm
Location: Enfield in the heart of Tottscum territory

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Burnley Hammer, Chislehurst_hammer, defconone, FEH, GAZY1, Google [Bot], hammernsickle, I am Lawro, irons88, Jim Aldgate, Ludo1973, Max Fischer, Mean Ashton, monkeyboyjnr, Odessa, OohAahButler, Phil Parkes' Gloves, Phil S, psychoscoredthelot, PVETSL, simonirons, spod, SpongeBob's Pants, steveyrockstar, swash, The Old Man of Storr, ThreeSixes, westhamwalsh, Zippycat57 and 165 guests