West Ham accounts reveal loss of £37m

The very best posts from KUMB over the years ...

Moderator: Gnome

Re: £100m - Hammers count the cost of Eggy’s big splurge

Postby hammer1975 on Wed Sep 09, 2009 7:34 pm

cheers CH

can we re-name this - hammers count the cost of BG's childish negligent running of a football club (ably assisted by Scott 'ask no questions' Duxbury and Nick 'finance not my job' Igoe)
User avatar
hammer1975
 
Posts: 3493
Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 10:16 pm

Re: £100m - Hammers count the cost of Eggy’s big splurge

Postby cockney hammer on Wed Sep 09, 2009 7:35 pm

hammer1975 wrote:cheers CH

can we re-name this - hammers count the cost of BG's childish negligent running of a football club (ably assisted by Scott 'ask no questions' Duxbury and Nick 'finance not my job' Igoe)



could not fit it all in the box :wink:
User avatar
cockney hammer
Resident badge expert
 
Posts: 56607
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2002 1:52 pm
Location: http://www.boleynbadges.webs.com/

Re: £100m - Hammers count the cost of Eggy’s big splurge

Postby Denbighammer on Wed Sep 09, 2009 7:55 pm

Mr Cockney Hammer, sterling detective-type work as ever. Thanks. :thup:


cockney hammer wrote:As of May 2008, Arsenal owed £416m, Fulham £197m, Manchester United £699m, Manchester City £147m and Liverpool around £300m.


What have Fulham been spending their dough on then? I know they renovated Craven Cottage but it can't of cost them that much can it? They've not spent massively on players or (I assume) wages so have I missed something?

cockney hammer wrote:Allegedly, Magnusson and chief executive Scott Duxbury would check with Gudmundsson as to whether they could afford to continue spending and the owner gave them the all clear, suggesting he was funding it with his own money, when in reality he was doing it via bank loans.


Only West Ham could end up with a pillock like this. How did someone who is clearly so thick end up so minted? Makes me sick.

cockney hammer wrote:"West Ham purchased three high-profile players in 2007-08 at a combined cost of £20m with total annual wages in excess of £12m. The players concerned were Freddie Ljungberg, Craig Bellamy and Kieron Dyer,


Bellamy 8m, Dyer 6m and Freddie 3m I thought. Thats 17mil. Shirley the 'missing' 3million isn't in signing on fees?
User avatar
Denbighammer
 
Posts: 7532
Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2007 7:53 pm
Location: Dodging, Dipping, Diving, Ducking and Dodging.

Re: £100m - Hammers count the cost of Eggy’s big splurge

Postby student_hammer on Wed Sep 09, 2009 8:17 pm

cockney hammer wrote:The sales of Bellamy, Anton Ferdinand, George McCartney, Bobby Zamora, Hayden Mullins, Matty Etherington, James Collins and Savio have helped to recoup some money and slash the wage bill, but at what cost to the first team?


It has improved

apart from the sale of bellamy, all the others have been replaced in the first team by much better players and i wouldn't want any of them back.
User avatar
student_hammer
 
Posts: 343
Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 8:47 pm
Location: London

Re: £100m - Hammers count the cost of Eggy’s big splurge

Postby smuts on Wed Sep 09, 2009 8:39 pm

Denbighammer wrote:Only West Ham could end up with a pillock like this. How did someone who is clearly so thick end up so minted? Makes me sick.


Thick? A f*cking lying crook more like.

I still don't buy that Duckers and Igoe didn't know that the players were funded via loans in the clubs name.
User avatar
smuts
 
Posts: 9717
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 10:28 am
Location: East, East, East London

Re: £100m - Hammers count the cost of Eggy’s big splurge

Postby wayneo1974 on Wed Sep 09, 2009 8:43 pm

smuts wrote:I still don't buy that Duckers and Igoe didn't know that the players were funded via loans in the clubs name.


I agree they must have known. But they probably thought the loans were guaranteed by a billionaire who owns the bank. Of course he turned out to be skint and so was the bank. Who would have predicted that!
User avatar
wayneo1974
 
Posts: 3092
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2007 10:12 pm
Location: The swingers club

Re: West Ham accounts reveal loss of £37m

Postby Apples an Pairs on Wed Sep 09, 2009 9:01 pm

QuintonNimoy wrote:You'll have to elaborate on the TV revenues bit. Our single home game in the PL so far was attended reasonably well, how would you quanitify plummetting?


Spurs didnt sell out
Liverpool hasnt sold out
Millwall was half empty
What do you think we are going to get for the Wigans of this world?

As for TV we will get half of what we got for every PPV game under Setanta.

No one is going to take us on because we are geared to the hilt. Barring a crazy minted arab, we're in admin.
Apples an Pairs
 
Posts: 89
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2009 9:48 am

Re: £100m - Hammers count the cost of Eggy’s big splurge

Postby hammer on Wed Sep 09, 2009 10:23 pm

AlfieG wrote:Yep, It was all eggys AND CURBISHLEY'S fault
:arry:
User avatar
hammer
Strangely fascinated with Bonehead's arse.
 
Posts: 14577
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 12:05 am
Location: 我支持西汉姆联队

Re: £100m - Hammers count the cost of Eggy’s big splurge

Postby AlfieG on Wed Sep 09, 2009 11:11 pm

hammer wrote:Yep, It was all eggys AND CURBISHLEY'S fault :arry:


Lets get the quotes right eh! :wink:
User avatar
AlfieG
 
Posts: 3176
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 3:20 am
Location: London

Re: £100m - Hammers count the cost of Eggy’s big splurge

Postby Albie Beck on Wed Sep 09, 2009 11:39 pm

smuts wrote:I still don't buy that Duckers and Igoe didn't know that the players were funded via loans in the clubs name.

wayneo1974 wrote:I agree they must have known. But they probably thought the loans were guaranteed by a billionaire who owns the bank. Of course he turned out to be skint and so was the bank. Who would have predicted that!

Duckers is quoted as saying that he & Igoe thought it was BG's money. I still don't understand how, if that is actually true, the club came to "own" loans that BG had taken out himself. Even if as the owner he was the final decision-maker, BG couldn't impose this without the knowledge of his CEO and his FD without breaching Company Law. There's still a strong aroma of Grimsby about this...
User avatar
Albie Beck
 
Posts: 3110
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2007 1:42 am
Location: On the Golden Road...

Re: West Ham accounts reveal loss of £37m

Postby hammer1975 on Wed Sep 09, 2009 11:58 pm

something grimsby about it.... you're not allowed to question dux albie....

....clearly we acted like no other company where a finance director countersigns any loan agreements, clearly also BG must have arranged for the cash for these players to be paid straight from landesbanki, straumer etc straight to brum, l'arse, newcastle etc as dux thought it was BG's money so if it had come into a west ham bank account from any of those banks he would have questioned it..if BG signed and organised those loans etc without consultation with the rest of the board they'd be able to sue him - ok he may not have any money left, but dux did say he felt sorry for him despite BG undermining dux's role by agreeing loans in secret without his knowledge and allowing dux's reputation to be forever tarnished with almost bringing west ham to the brink.....utter rubbish and stinks to the heavens...would have more respect for the bloke if he said 'we knew it was coming from the banks and not BG but BG was running the banks atthe time and whoever thought the whole icelandic banking system would go under'....i know that he has to tell some porkies in order to protect west ham but I'd be interested in his truth to bull**** ratio because my money would be on close to full on bull****....
User avatar
hammer1975
 
Posts: 3493
Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 10:16 pm

Re: West Ham accounts reveal loss of £37m

Postby QuintonNimoy on Thu Sep 10, 2009 7:56 am

Apples an Pairs wrote:Sp*rs didnt sell out
Liverpool hasnt sold out
Millwall was half empty
What do you think we are going to get for the Wigans of this world?

As for TV we will get half of what we got for every PPV game under Setanta.

No one is going to take us on because we are geared to the hilt. Barring a crazy minted arab, we're in admin.

So you wouldn't quantify it then, just rely on panicking?
QuintonNimoy
 
Posts: 7042
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 9:24 am

Re: £100m - Hammers count the cost of Eggy’s big splurge

Postby QuintonNimoy on Thu Sep 10, 2009 7:58 am

Albie Beck wrote:....BG couldn't impose this without the knowledge of his CEO and his FD without breaching Company Law.

He's never done that before obviously!
QuintonNimoy
 
Posts: 7042
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 9:24 am

Re: West Ham accounts reveal loss of £37m

Postby bristolhammerfc on Thu Sep 10, 2009 7:59 am

:lol: :thup:
User avatar
bristolhammerfc
 
Posts: 4633
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 5:50 pm
Location: Only responsible for what I say not what you understand

Re: West Ham accounts reveal loss of £37m

Postby Damn Yankee on Wed Sep 16, 2009 4:43 pm

Club's accounts still overdue?


Edit: Appears they are now available...on the Companies House Website...
Damn Yankee
 
Posts: 968
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 4:14 am
Location: New Jersey, USA

Re: West Ham accounts reveal loss of £37m

Postby mano-obe on Wed Sep 16, 2009 7:15 pm

Paying the likes of Neill 60k a week, Dyer 70k, Ljungberg 70k a week, while being in debt is stupid. Even Spurs have a stricter wager bill and know how to run a club properly
User avatar
mano-obe
 
Posts: 105
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 5:27 am
Location: Essex

Re: West Ham accounts reveal loss of £37m

Postby MrBen on Fri Sep 18, 2009 12:23 pm

So the Accounts are in - Pnl highlights for the period ended 28 May 2008 are;

£(37m) before tax is the headline but there are a couple of key numbers which pique ones interest…

Turnover up £24m to £81m from the £57m during the Tevez season.

Wages & Salaries up £21m to £63m from £42m reflecting the Magmusson Galactico's coming on-board (According to the accounts we were the sixth highest spenders on player wages).

Other admin up £5m to £22.8m from £17.8m.

An astonishing figure of £27m exceptional expenses vs. the £9m in the previous accounts which were attributable to the Premier League fine and associated legal costs as well as compo for Curbs.

We settled with Sheffield United for £21m payable over four-and-a-half years.

The auditors have not added any qualifications to their audit opinion.

So, without the Exceptional expenses we would have lost £5m before interest and player amortisation.

Let's have a look at that exceptional figure…ah, it's the settlement of the Blades claim plus £3.7m in associated legal fees and a few other odds and sods. I wonder who got £450k in compo for loss of office - Eggy?

The Balance Sheet

Debtors have jumped massively from £7.5m in 2007 to over £25m - £8m from player transfers and £10m owed by West Ham's parent Company…?

Our total creditors as at 28 May '07 were £124m, up £26m from the previous period. The breakdown is as follows;

Within one year (i.e. before May '09)

Bank loan and overdraft of £43m (£28m was re-negotiated after the accounting period to be paid between 2 and 5 years - interest @ 2.5% over LIBOR - not too penal in this current climate - a positive!)
Amount owing to parent Co £11m
Players bought £17m

Everything else is pretty much on par with the previous periods numbers.

Over one year;

Vultures claim £21m
Players Bought £5m

In short

The accounts reflect the gross-mismanagement of the Icelandic regime in terms of players bought & wages paid in addition to loans taken-out bearing high interest (~ 8%) whose ultimate beneficiary was Gudmundsson as well as the Sheffield United settlement.

Old news

Indeed - the account are drawn up to May '08 and were signed-off in June this year however, can the Post Balance Sheet Events note shed any light as to the current position?

We received £12m from transferred players +£4m contingent on future events.

Property values have dropped by about £12m.

Nothing of real value here…



I'll have another Butcher's later KUMBers to see if I've missed anything pertinent. :think:
Last edited by MrBen on Fri Sep 18, 2009 12:31 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
MrBen
 
Posts: 269
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 12:48 pm
Location: Our side of Millwall

Re: West Ham accounts reveal loss of £37m

Postby dapablo on Fri Sep 18, 2009 12:28 pm

big thanks sir
User avatar
dapablo
Sourpuss, grumpy face
 
Posts: 4464
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 12:12 am

Re: West Ham accounts reveal loss of £37m

Postby old fart on Fri Sep 18, 2009 12:33 pm

MrBen wrote:An astonishing figure of £27m exceptional expenses vs. the £9m in the previous accounts which were attributable to the Premier League fine and associated legal costs as well as compo for Curbs.

ink:


that included the 21m for McCunt 3.7m legals in relation to that. there was also a £750k settlement of litigation ( i wonder what that was) and £458k for loss of office (eggy?)

The prev years 9m included the £5.5m fine plus £1.7 m for loss of office
Last edited by old fart on Fri Sep 18, 2009 12:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
old fart
 
Posts: 3040
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2003 12:31 pm

Re: West Ham accounts reveal loss of £37m

Postby Georgee Paris on Fri Sep 18, 2009 12:35 pm

Is this what you might call a damp squid?
User avatar
Georgee Paris
 
Posts: 15708
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 4:07 pm
Location: When the Pilot Light Goes Out

PreviousNext

Return to KUMB Hall of Fame

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests