football
Latest News:
 

Higgosboots
Higgosboots (IP Logged)

2016 accounts
13 September, 2017 20:25
Posted this on another thread, posted as topic in case people want to read them.

The overalls appear to be down as follows (rounded up or down), Cash down 91 % Net worth down 33% assetts down 22%, liabilities up 186% to 3.7 mil

Link to abreviated version here, [companycheck.co.uk]

Link to full report filed at companies house here (you must download the PDF read at your leisure) [beta.companieshouse.gov.uk]

Full report indicates that if we got promoted the extra income would sustain a top 3rd budget, other issues covered are reduction in academy grant of 50% and loss of parachute payment.

Next years books will show the loss of Wirral Live at £200k.

 
MESSAGES->author
Doogie'sGhost (IP Logged)

Re: 2016 accounts
13 September, 2017 21:05
Worth pointing out that these figures are for our first NL season. You will have to wait until about April for last season's figures (presumably including Wirral Live) and things lime the impact of losing academy funding will be another year after before they show up.

 
Higgosboots
Higgosboots (IP Logged)

Re: 2016 accounts
13 September, 2017 21:30
Quote:
Doogie'sGhost
Worth pointing out that these figures are for our first NL season. You will have to wait until about April for last season's figures (presumably including Wirral Live) and things lime the impact of losing academy funding will be another year after before they show up.

Yes good point, and this season there will be even less as the parachute only lasted two years.

 
Jack of all Trades
Jack of all Trades (IP Logged)

Re: 2016 accounts
14 September, 2017 11:37
Why has the liabilities figure shot up to £3.7 million, are there provisions included for future right offs/losses?

On this basis did we loose £1.8 Million in the financial year?

 
Aldo'smuzzy
Aldo'smuzzy (IP Logged)

Re: 2016 accounts
14 September, 2017 11:50
Quote:
Jack of all Trades
Why has the liabilities figure shot up to £3.7 million, are there provisions included for future right offs/losses?
On this basis did we loose £1.8 Million in the financial year?

No, the 'creditors due within one year' figure shot up because the £2.1m owed to Peter Johnson is now included in the £3.7m, whereas in the previous year it was included as a long term creditor instead. The third last paragraph on page 2 explains a bit more, and this amount will be written off (rather than being physically paid to PJ) in the 2017 accounts.

We actually made a tidy profit on the sale of land at Ingleborough (reflected in the 2015 accounts). That money is largely what's been financing us at our current level over the last year or two, which is why it's critical that the club develops other sources of income because this money will obviously run out. The accounts do say that the Palios are actively seeking further investment, and I guess China is a major part of that aim going forward.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 14/09/2017 11:57 by Aldo'smuzzy.

 
MESSAGES->author
Doogie'sGhost (IP Logged)

Re: 2016 accounts
14 September, 2017 13:12
Quote:
Aldo'smuzzy
Quote:
Jack of all Trades
Why has the liabilities figure shot up to £3.7 million, are there provisions included for future right offs/losses?
On this basis did we loose £1.8 Million in the financial year?

No, the 'creditors due within one year' figure shot up because the £2.1m owed to Peter Johnson is now included in the £3.7m, whereas in the previous year it was included as a long term creditor instead. The third last paragraph on page 2 explains a bit more, and this amount will be written off (rather than being physically paid to PJ) in the 2017 accounts.

We actually made a tidy profit on the sale of land at Ingleborough (reflected in the 2015 accounts). That money is largely what's been financing us at our current level over the last year or two, which is why it's critical that the club develops other sources of income because this money will obviously run out. The accounts do say that the Palios are actively seeking further investment, and I guess China is a major part of that aim going forward.

Well done, nice analysis. It just proves how useless it is trying to analyse top line figures like this. The devil is always in the detail, with some losses and write-offs being purely paper transactions.

 
ADD
ADD (IP Logged)

Re: 2016 accounts
14 September, 2017 13:40
Quote:
Aldo'smuzzy
Quote:
Jack of all Trades
Why has the liabilities figure shot up to £3.7 million, are there provisions included for future right offs/losses?
On this basis did we loose £1.8 Million in the financial year?

No, the 'creditors due within one year' figure shot up because the £2.1m owed to Peter Johnson is now included in the £3.7m, whereas in the previous year it was included as a long term creditor instead. The third last paragraph on page 2 explains a bit more, and this amount will be written off (rather than being physically paid to PJ) in the 2017 accounts.

We actually made a tidy profit on the sale of land at Ingleborough (reflected in the 2015 accounts). That money is largely what's been financing us at our current level over the last year or two, which is why it's critical that the club develops other sources of income because this money will obviously run out. The accounts do say that the Palios are actively seeking further investment, and I guess China is a major part of that aim going forward.
Agreed new cash generation is needed as the trading cash outflow was even worse than shown due to effectively borrowing £632k by taking out new operating leases.

 
Higgosboots
Higgosboots (IP Logged)

Re: 2016 accounts
14 September, 2017 20:08
Quote:
ADD
Quote:
Aldo'smuzzy
Quote:
Jack of all Trades
Why has the liabilities figure shot up to £3.7 million, are there provisions included for future right offs/losses?
On this basis did we loose £1.8 Million in the financial year?

No, the 'creditors due within one year' figure shot up because the £2.1m owed to Peter Johnson is now included in the £3.7m, whereas in the previous year it was included as a long term creditor instead. The third last paragraph on page 2 explains a bit more, and this amount will be written off (rather than being physically paid to PJ) in the 2017 accounts.

We actually made a tidy profit on the sale of land at Ingleborough (reflected in the 2015 accounts). That money is largely what's been financing us at our current level over the last year or two, which is why it's critical that the club develops other sources of income because this money will obviously run out. The accounts do say that the Palios are actively seeking further investment, and I guess China is a major part of that aim going forward.
Agreed new cash generation is needed as the trading cash outflow was even worse than shown due to effectively borrowing £632k by taking out new operating leases.

The non football income was up only 30 odd grand (ish) which has been my point all along, unless there is massive up surge in footfall to these things in the next account , which I can't see, the outlay doesn't justify the income, if you base it on "Income benefits the playing budget", the money would better be spent on the promotion efforts. If however the money was spent with a view to making the club prettier and less ramshackle to try and offload it as it would appear the club is for sale as such, from reading the accounts then maybe the owners should have portrayed it that way. There is also the loss of live output to compound the other losses due. It maybe that we are in a poor state after all then they realised they were getting into, liabilities are level haven't reduced much if any (if you drop out PJ's loan) and we have little saleable assets left other than the ground, Solar Campai is in a lease is it not.

 
Aldo'smuzzy
Aldo'smuzzy (IP Logged)

Re: 2016 accounts
14 September, 2017 21:07
It's not that bad Higgo, though it has the potential to be.

Palios said from day 1 his aim was to get the club self-sufficient and that he wasn't going to throw too much of his own money at it. The accounts don't raise any concerns that he's deviated from that.

To achieve this meant developing new income streams. He's had to spend money up front on getting that going because we had no non-football income streams and obviously these things don't just start generating money by magic.

We know we got hammered by Wirral Live but we don't yet know what the Riverhill is going to contribute (all profits will go to the club, according to the accounts), we don't know what China will generate and we don't yet know what the suites etc at Prenton Park have been generating. If these all go belly up - or, heaven forbid, we abandoned these activities to throw the cash at the team for what would effectively be a sh*t or bust crack at promotion - then we'd have a very serious problem.

In the absence of non-football revenues, we all complained at PJ for not investing more when we were treading water in League 1, and then we dropped like a stone. We can't get into that situation again. Palios has set out his strategy to make sure we don't and is working towards it. Despite Wirral Live, it's still too early to say how successful that strategy will be.

 
Higgosboots
Higgosboots (IP Logged)

Re: 2016 accounts
14 September, 2017 21:15
Quote:
Aldo'smuzzy
It's not that bad Higgo, though it has the potential to be.
Palios said from day 1 his aim was to get the club self-sufficient and that he wasn't going to throw too much of his own money at it. The accounts don't raise any concerns that he's deviated from that.

To achieve this meant developing new income streams. He's had to spend money up front on getting that going because we had no non-football income streams and obviously these things don't just start generating money by magic.

We know we got hammered by Wirral Live but we don't yet know what the Riverhill is going to contribute (all profits will go to the club, according to the accounts), we don't know what China will generate and we don't yet know what the suites etc at Prenton Park have been generating. If these all go belly up - or, heaven forbid, we abandoned these activities to throw the cash at the team for what would effectively be a sh*t or bust crack at promotion - then we'd have a very serious problem.

In the absence of non-football revenues, we all complained at PJ for not investing more when we were treading water in League 1, and then we dropped like a stone. We can't get into that situation again. Palios has set out his strategy to make sure we don't and is working towards it. Despite Wirral Live, it's still too early to say how successful that strategy will be.

No it's not that bad yet, but Riverhill will deliver sweet FA, if it were such a profitable business why did the chap who owned it sell it, if it was profitable enough to support a football club with a 13k all seater stadia and turnover of in excess of 2 mil then it wouldn't have been sold.

 
Aldo'smuzzy
Aldo'smuzzy (IP Logged)

Re: 2016 accounts
14 September, 2017 21:31
The Riverhill is obviously just one piece of the jigsaw. I assume China is the biggest piece, in some shape or form. Given Palios' background in business and business recovery, I assume he's done his due diligence on the Riverhill and is confident it can deliver something worthwhile to the club.

 
MESSAGES->author
Matt34 (IP Logged)

Re: 2016 accounts
14 September, 2017 23:57
Quote:
Higgosboots
No it's not that bad yet, but Riverhill will deliver sweet FA, if it were such a profitable business why did the chap who owned it sell it, if it was profitable enough to support a football club with a 13k all seater stadia and turnover of in excess of 2 mil then it wouldn't have been sold.

Why not? Maybe the person who sold it was getting too old and couldn't be bothered, or wanted to emigrate and retire or do business abroad, or didn't want to run it anymore due to health concerns.

I don't know who that person was, so I can't comment directly on their circumstances, but almost everyone running a business that is profitable, can logically be described as someone who doesn't want to do it until they literally drop dead and 99% of the time dropping dead when you run a successful business or two, is down to premature finality of your life, not because you're still on the premises creaking about at 110, overseeing staff, purchasing and accounts.



Then I ate his Liver.......... with some baked beans and a can of coke.

 
Higgosboots
Higgosboots (IP Logged)

Re: 2016 accounts
15 September, 2017 06:51
Quote:
Matt34
Quote:
Higgosboots
No it's not that bad yet, but Riverhill will deliver sweet FA, if it were such a profitable business why did the chap who owned it sell it, if it was profitable enough to support a football club with a 13k all seater stadia and turnover of in excess of 2 mil then it wouldn't have been sold.

Why not? Maybe the person who sold it was getting too old and couldn't be bothered, or wanted to emigrate and retire or do business abroad, or didn't want to run it anymore due to health concerns.

I don't know who that person was, so I can't comment directly on their circumstances, but almost everyone running a business that is profitable, can logically be described as someone who doesn't want to do it until they literally drop dead and 99% of the time dropping dead when you run a successful business or two, is down to premature finality of your life, not because you're still on the premises creaking about at 110, overseeing staff, purchasing and accounts.

A fair point, but my statement was made as a bit of a guesstimate with some figures,

Hotel turn over was £749,000 in 2012, which does not amount to profit, and it's not to say it doesn't make a profit, average net profit for a business in the hotel industry is 5%, a good profit is conisddered 8%.

The owner however appears to have decided not to sell his sister hotel so one can only assume he has not retired.

So the club will see estimated benefits at the lower end of just over 37k and at the top end just under 60k. Nit a bad little earner but as I say won't prop up the club, pays a p,Ayer in 2k a week for just on 7 months.

 
ADD
ADD (IP Logged)

Re: 2016 accounts
15 September, 2017 09:25
Quote:
Higgosboots
Quote:
ADD
Quote:
Aldo'smuzzy
Quote:
Jack of all Trades
Why has the liabilities figure shot up to £3.7 million, are there provisions included for future right offs/losses?
On this basis did we loose £1.8 Million in the financial year?

No, the 'creditors due within one year' figure shot up because the £2.1m owed to Peter Johnson is now included in the £3.7m, whereas in the previous year it was included as a long term creditor instead. The third last paragraph on page 2 explains a bit more, and this amount will be written off (rather than being physically paid to PJ) in the 2017 accounts.

We actually made a tidy profit on the sale of land at Ingleborough (reflected in the 2015 accounts). That money is largely what's been financing us at our current level over the last year or two, which is why it's critical that the club develops other sources of income because this money will obviously run out. The accounts do say that the Palios are actively seeking further investment, and I guess China is a major part of that aim going forward.
Agreed new cash generation is needed as the trading cash outflow was even worse than shown due to effectively borrowing £632k by taking out new operating leases.

The non football income was up only 30 odd grand (ish) which has been my point all along, unless there is massive up surge in footfall to these things in the next account , which I can't see, the outlay doesn't justify the income, if you base it on "Income benefits the playing budget", the money would better be spent on the promotion efforts. If however the money was spent with a view to making the club prettier and less ramshackle to try and offload it as it would appear the club is for sale as such, from reading the accounts then maybe the owners should have portrayed it that way. There is also the loss of live output to compound the other losses due. It maybe that we are in a poor state after all then they realised they were getting into, liabilities are level haven't reduced much if any (if you drop out PJ's loan) and we have little saleable assets left other than the ground, Solar Campai is in a lease is it not.
Not correct. That £30k increase is principal football club related commercial income. If you look at the accounts there is further operating income of £650k which is up by £557k year on year. For some reason there is no note to say what that is but given it is not in the turnover figure it must be none mainstream football related. I can only assume this is China/ Riverhill but that is a guess.... anyone else know as it is a massive increase?

 
Aldo'smuzzy
Aldo'smuzzy (IP Logged)

Re: 2016 accounts
15 September, 2017 12:12
Don't know what that £650k other income is - it might be something to do with China or maybe we also got some money from sell on clauses from past transfers?

I doubt it'll include any of the Riverhill profits as I'm not sure the Palios' owned it in that financial year.

From some of the earlier posts, it's worth remembering the Riverhill is owned by MP/NP and not the club. Any money being spent on the Riverhill will be its own money plus, I suppose, anything else MP/NP have put in personally - there's no reason at all to believe the club is funding any of it. The owners have kindly agreed to transfer all profits from this - their own personal venture - to the football club. It's a no-lose situation for the club and just because these profits alone won't prop up the club is no reason to dismiss it.

 
Higgosboots
Higgosboots (IP Logged)

Re: 2016 accounts
15 September, 2017 20:28
Quote:
Aldo'smuzzy
Don't know what that £650k other income is - it might be something to do with China or maybe we also got some money from sell on clauses from past transfers?
I doubt it'll include any of the Riverhill profits as I'm not sure the Palios' owned it in that financial year.

From some of the earlier posts, it's worth remembering the Riverhill is owned by MP/NP and not the club. Any money being spent on the Riverhill will be its own money plus, I suppose, anything else MP/NP have put in personally - there's no reason at all to believe the club is funding any of it. The owners have kindly agreed to transfer all profits from this - their own personal venture - to the football club. It's a no-lose situation for the club and just because these profits alone won't prop up the club is no reason to dismiss it.

Personally I am not dismissing it, it's just not the "Noah's Ark" some are making it out to be, it's probably a nice little earner that will provide a few quid to the club in the region of 30-60k a year, it's not going to prop the club up though, and is certainly not the 650k in the accounts, as all mention it's a private venture owned by the Paliai so it offers no asset benifit to the club either.

At a guess the 650k maybe a reassessment of the clubs share prices.

 
Hoots Mon
Hoots Mon (IP Logged)

Re: 2016 accounts
15 September, 2017 21:26
Quote:
Higgosboots
Quote:
Aldo'smuzzy
Don't know what that £650k other income is - it might be something to do with China or maybe we also got some money from sell on clauses from past transfers?
I doubt it'll include any of the Riverhill profits as I'm not sure the Palios' owned it in that financial year.

From some of the earlier posts, it's worth remembering the Riverhill is owned by MP/NP and not the club. Any money being spent on the Riverhill will be its own money plus, I suppose, anything else MP/NP have put in personally - there's no reason at all to believe the club is funding any of it. The owners have kindly agreed to transfer all profits from this - their own personal venture - to the football club. It's a no-lose situation for the club and just because these profits alone won't prop up the club is no reason to dismiss it.

Personally I am not dismissing it, it's just not the "Noah's Ark" some are making it out to be, it's probably a nice little earner that will provide a few quid to the club in the region of 30-60k a year, it's not going to prop the club up though, and is certainly not the 650k in the accounts, as all mention it's a private venture owned by the Paliai so it offers no asset benifit to the club either.

At a guess the 650k maybe a reassessment of the clubs share prices.

Or 32500 of your ripped up £20 notes.

 
ADD
ADD (IP Logged)

Re: 2016 accounts
15 September, 2017 22:03
Quote:
Higgosboots
Quote:
Aldo'smuzzy
Don't know what that £650k other income is - it might be something to do with China or maybe we also got some money from sell on clauses from past transfers?
I doubt it'll include any of the Riverhill profits as I'm not sure the Palios' owned it in that financial year.

From some of the earlier posts, it's worth remembering the Riverhill is owned by MP/NP and not the club. Any money being spent on the Riverhill will be its own money plus, I suppose, anything else MP/NP have put in personally - there's no reason at all to believe the club is funding any of it. The owners have kindly agreed to transfer all profits from this - their own personal venture - to the football club. It's a no-lose situation for the club and just because these profits alone won't prop up the club is no reason to dismiss it.

Personally I am not dismissing it, it's just not the "Noah's Ark" some are making it out to be, it's probably a nice little earner that will provide a few quid to the club in the region of 30-60k a year, it's not going to prop the club up though, and is certainly not the 650k in the accounts, as all mention it's a private venture owned by the Paliai so it offers no asset benifit to the club either.

At a guess the 650k maybe a reassessment of the clubs share prices.
Whatever it is it isn't that. It is trading income - share revaluations would not come through the P& L. But it is not directly related football income. If it isn't China I have no idea what it is but the fact it has grown by over £500k is good news as football turnover is down and given loss of all parachute payments etc. will likely continue to be unless we get a good cup run going which looks unlikely at present....


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
We record all IP addresses on the Sportnetwork message boards which may be required by the authorities in case of defamatory or abusive comment. We seek to monitor the Message Boards at regular intervals. We do not associate Sportnetwork with any of the comments and do not take responsibility for any statements or opinions expressed on the Message Boards. If you have any cause for concern over any material posted here please let us know as soon as possible by e-mailing abuse@sportnetwork.net
 

Who is online?

Total users online:  

Most users online:  

Users on this site:  

Where are they?