|
Post by warehamgas on Apr 7, 2020 17:30:53 GMT
If we owe £24m it’s not the how we arrived there it’s more about how we survive and then go about getting out of the hole we’re in. UTG!
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Apr 7, 2020 17:56:47 GMT
I would imagine that the £24m figure comes from Capital and Reserves section of the accounts (p10) taking the in-year losses and adding them to the figure disclosed the previous year (year on year profit/loss). What seems to have been omitted from that £24m figure is that the net liabilities (debt) is discounted by the shareholding meaning the actual liability is £17m. What does that mean I plain English though, either we owe somebody, whoever it is, £24m or we don't? I assume if the ALQ's ever sold us, or put us into Admin(!), they'd want the full £24m not just a discounted debt? As Stuart has rightly said the £ 24 million figure comes from the Capital & Reserves section of the accounts. The actual net liabilities at 30th June 2019 were £ 17 million and this is the difference between our assets and liabilities. The company was worth minus £ 17 million in June 2019 and will probably be worth minus £ 20 million in June 2020. We owed £ 17 million in June 2019 and will probably owe £ 20 million in June 2020. The next bit is what a lot of fans won't want to hear. The difference between the £ 24 million and £ 17 million is the amount which, over the years, owners and share scheme members have invested in the club in return for shares. They knew that by doing it this way they were handing over the money to the club permanently and (this being football) those shares would likely end up being worthless. And that is what happened when Dwane Sports acquired the club, the main shareholders transferred their shares for free. I have never been an apologist for Nick Higgs but to be fair to him he invested cash into the club via shares. For example in the 2013 accounts he gives a very detailed Chairman's report to explain the loss that year of £ 781 K and you can tell by the wording that he cared. But those accounts also show that during 2013 he invested £ 700 K cash for shares in the club so, effectively, he took responsibility for the loss because when he left the club that money and more which he invested in earlier years was lost. When you say "if the ALQ's ever sold us or put us into Admin they'd want the full £ 24m" I'm not sure what you mean. Any Administrator might recognize the charge against the Mem and pay the owners whatever that sold for but after that the owners would come at the bottom of the list of creditors. And the price of anything is the price a buyer is prepared to pay so has no connection whatsoever to the amount the seller has put in. I think the worry for many of us is that the ship will slide under the water while Wael is in the process of learning this.
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Apr 7, 2020 19:16:55 GMT
What does that mean I plain English though, either we owe somebody, whoever it is, £24m or we don't? I assume if the ALQ's ever sold us, or put us into Admin(!), they'd want the full £24m not just a discounted debt? As Stuart has rightly said the £ 24 million figure comes from the Capital & Reserves section of the accounts. The actual net liabilities at 30th June 2019 were £ 17 million and this is the difference between our assets and liabilities. The company was worth minus £ 17 million in June 2019 and will probably be worth minus £ 20 million in June 2020. We owed £ 17 million in June 2019 and will probably owe £ 20 million in June 2020. The next bit is what a lot of fans won't want to hear. The difference between the £ 24 million and £ 17 million is the amount which, over the years, owners and share scheme members have invested in the club in return for shares. They knew that by doing it this way they were handing over the money to the club permanently and (this being football) those shares would likely end up being worthless. And that is what happened when Dwane Sports acquired the club, the main shareholders transferred their shares for free. I have never been an apologist for Nick Higgs but to be fair to him he invested cash into the club via shares. For example in the 2013 accounts he gives a very detailed Chairman's report to explain the loss that year of £ 781 K and you can tell by the wording that he cared. But those accounts also show that during 2013 he invested £ 700 K cash for shares in the club so, effectively, he took responsibility for the loss because when he left the club that money and more which he invested in earlier years was lost. When you say "if the ALQ's ever sold us or put us into Admin they'd want the full £ 24m" I'm not sure what you mean. Any Administrator might recognize the charge against the Mem and pay the owners whatever that sold for but after that the owners would come at the bottom of the list of creditors. And the price of anything is the price a buyer is prepared to pay so has no connection whatsoever to the amount the seller has put in. I think the worry for many of us is that the ship will slide under the water while Wael is in the process of learning this. So we're not £24m in debt then are we? Are you sure you're the full ticket? Share capital is not and never has been debt. It is equity. An asset. Above the line. You tout yourself as some dispassionate business expert then try a lie as blatant as this. You can write as many 1,000 word posts as you want to try and make it true but share capital is not a debt.
|
|
|
Post by tbonegas on Apr 7, 2020 19:34:35 GMT
All this to-ING and fro-ING and still nobody has answered the O. P. 's question. Where has the £24 million Department come from?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2020 19:45:42 GMT
All this to-ING and fro-ING and still nobody has answered the O. P. 's question. Where has the £24 million Department come from? Accountant = Clueless
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Apr 7, 2020 19:50:47 GMT
All this to-ING and fro-ING and still nobody has answered the O. P. 's question. Where has the £24 million Department come from? First we have to work out if it's £24m or "only" £17m in true Gaschat style that'll take 100 pages to get a straight answer!
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Apr 7, 2020 20:03:49 GMT
All this to-ING and fro-ING and still nobody has answered the O. P. 's question. Where has the £24 million Department come from? First we have to work out if it's £24m or "only" £17m in true Gaschat style that'll take 100 pages to get a straight answer! Well he's just told you. It's not £24m. When he was telling you he really tried to make it sound as if it was. But he told you, it isn't. You don't just add up all the numbers in a set of accounts and go "Oh that's a big number! Big number is bad!"
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Apr 7, 2020 20:04:18 GMT
As Stuart has rightly said the £ 24 million figure comes from the Capital & Reserves section of the accounts. The actual net liabilities at 30th June 2019 were £ 17 million and this is the difference between our assets and liabilities. The company was worth minus £ 17 million in June 2019 and will probably be worth minus £ 20 million in June 2020. We owed £ 17 million in June 2019 and will probably owe £ 20 million in June 2020. The next bit is what a lot of fans won't want to hear. The difference between the £ 24 million and £ 17 million is the amount which, over the years, owners and share scheme members have invested in the club in return for shares. They knew that by doing it this way they were handing over the money to the club permanently and (this being football) those shares would likely end up being worthless. And that is what happened when Dwane Sports acquired the club, the main shareholders transferred their shares for free. I have never been an apologist for Nick Higgs but to be fair to him he invested cash into the club via shares. For example in the 2013 accounts he gives a very detailed Chairman's report to explain the loss that year of £ 781 K and you can tell by the wording that he cared. But those accounts also show that during 2013 he invested £ 700 K cash for shares in the club so, effectively, he took responsibility for the loss because when he left the club that money and more which he invested in earlier years was lost. When you say "if the ALQ's ever sold us or put us into Admin they'd want the full £ 24m" I'm not sure what you mean. Any Administrator might recognize the charge against the Mem and pay the owners whatever that sold for but after that the owners would come at the bottom of the list of creditors. And the price of anything is the price a buyer is prepared to pay so has no connection whatsoever to the amount the seller has put in. I think the worry for many of us is that the ship will slide under the water while Wael is in the process of learning this. So we're not £24m in debt then are we? Are you sure you're the full ticket? Share capital is not and never has been debt. It is equity. An asset. Above the line. You tout yourself as some di****sionate business expert then try a lie as blatant as this. You can write as many 1,000 word posts as you want to try and make it true but share capital is not a debt. Calm down it's only a commercial discussion. I never said we were £ 24 million in debt. The difference of £ 7 million between the £ 24 million accumulated losses shown in the accounts and the £ 17 million current debt is the amount which, over the years, owners and share scheme members have put in as cash for shares. If the owners did sell the Mem for the £ 11.1 million value shown in the accounts they should get more than half of their loan back.
|
|
|
Post by garystash on Apr 7, 2020 20:20:47 GMT
All this to-ING and fro-ING and still nobody has answered the O. P. 's question. Where has the £24 million Department come from? I can't get it to £24m, but here's my rough idea... When the AQ's bought the club, it was maybe £6m in debt, £3m to Barclays and £3m to existing directors/owners (could be wrong in this). Dwane Sports paid this and transferred that debt as owed to them. So we have £6m. The AQ's also paid £6m for the club. This was put as debt owed to Dwane Sports (I believe this to be a common business practice). So we now have £12m. There were some legal fees with the Sainsbury debacle to settle, and the whole UWE thing was touted as being "costly". Let's say this cost a generous £3m. We're up to £15m - probably all owed to Dwane Sports. We are apparently losing £65k per week. Over 4 years (since the AQ's came in) that amounts to about £3m. So now we owe Dwane Sports £18m. Last I heard, Dwane Sports kindly charge 6% interest on the debt, and this goes back on as more debt (because we're not actually paying it). I believe this is called compound interest. I can't calculate the compound interest exactly, but 6% of £18m is about £1m per year - so if we say £4m over the four years we're up to £22m. Little bit short of the £24m, and my figures are very rough - but hopefully illustrates where I see the debt arising from.
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Apr 7, 2020 20:36:49 GMT
So we're not £24m in debt then are we? Are you sure you're the full ticket? Share capital is not and never has been debt. It is equity. An asset. Above the line. You tout yourself as some di****sionate business expert then try a lie as blatant as this. You can write as many 1,000 word posts as you want to try and make it true but share capital is not a debt. Calm down it's only a commercial discussion. I never said we were £ 24 million in debt. The difference of £ 7 million between the £ 24 million accumulated losses shown in the accounts and the £ 17 million current debt is the amount which, over the years, owners and share scheme members have put in as cash for shares. If the owners did sell the Mem for the £ 11.1 million value shown in the accounts they should get more than half of their loan back. Well the clear question is how is the £24m debt arrived at. This is a figure you've again and again played your repetition game with. So, finally you give an answer and the essence of your answer is "There isn't £24m debt". But you don't say that do you? No, you say that it's something the fans won't like. Repeat it as much as you want. Adding up liabilities and share capital is not and never has been the way to calculate the debt figure of a business. If you're telling everyone you're an accountant expert in buying businesses and trying to pretend that this liability + share cap bollocks is true, you too are posting in bad faith.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Apr 7, 2020 20:40:21 GMT
I thought there was two slices of UWE/Sainsbury's money, the first slice when we had to pay the legal fees after we lost the case then a further one when we wrote down the value of all the fees spent on UWE MK2 post the takeover? Although I'm not sure we were losing £65K p.w. in the first couple of years of ownership?
It's going to take some savage cuts to get our losses below £2m if interest is running at approx £1m p.a. as that means football club losses are going to be reduced to just £1m, ignoring whatever losses are now incurred due to CV. The only obvious way is sell players for £1m+ but then that'll probably lead to relegation if we sell the likes of JCH & AK and costs us over £1m anyway.
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Apr 7, 2020 20:40:24 GMT
All this to-ING and fro-ING and still nobody has answered the O. P. 's question. Where has the £24 million Department come from? I can't get it to £24m, but here's my rough idea... When the AQ's bought the club, it was maybe £6m in debt, £3m to Barclays and £3m to existing directors/owners (could be wrong in this). Dwane Sports paid this and transferred that debt as owed to them. So we have £6m. The AQ's also paid £6m for the club. This was put as debt owed to Dwane Sports (I believe this to be a common business practice). So we now have £12m. There were some legal fees with the Sainsbury debacle to settle, and the whole UWE thing was touted as being "costly". Let's say this cost a generous £3m. We're up to £15m - probably all owed to Dwane Sports. We are apparently losing £65k per week. Over 4 years (since the AQ's came in) that amounts to about £3m. So now we owe Dwane Sports £18m. Last I heard, Dwane Sports kindly charge 6% interest on the debt, and this goes back on as more debt (because we're not actually paying it). I believe this is called compound interest. I can't calculate the compound interest exactly, but 6% of £18m is about £1m per year - so if we say £4m over the four years we're up to £22m. Little bit short of the £24m, and my figures are very rough - but hopefully illustrates where I see the debt arising from. The answer is there isn't. They're saying liabilities plus share capital = £24m. That's just a nonsense figure. Shares are an asset. The opposite of debt. It's like adding the amount of fuel in your car to the amount of screen wash and saying "Yeah I could make it to London and back on that".
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Apr 7, 2020 21:16:12 GMT
Calm down it's only a commercial discussion. I never said we were £ 24 million in debt. The difference of £ 7 million between the £ 24 million accumulated losses shown in the accounts and the £ 17 million current debt is the amount which, over the years, owners and share scheme members have put in as cash for shares. If the owners did sell the Mem for the £ 11.1 million value shown in the accounts they should get more than half of their loan back. Well the clear question is how is the £24m debt arrived at. This is a figure you've again and again played your repetition game with. So, finally you give an answer and the essence of your answer is "There isn't £24m debt". But you don't say that do you? No, you say that it's something the fans won't like. Repeat it as much as you want. Adding up liabilities and share capital is not and never has been the way to calculate the debt figure of a business. If you're telling everyone you're an accountant expert in buying businesses and trying to pretend that this liability + share cap bollocks is true, you too are posting in bad faith. Stuart answered the question yesterday. In the Capital & Reserves section of the accounts there is a line for the Profit & Loss account. This adds or subtracts the profit or loss made each year to reach a cumulative figure. In an ideal World we would make a profit so these figures would be positive and year on year the Profit & Loss line would grow positively. But, as with most football clubs, ours is growing negatively because we tend to make losses. A snapshot of these cumulative figures is below. 2007 accumulated profit & loss ( £ 2.0 million ) 2010 accumulated profit & loss ( 4.6 million ) 2013 accumulated profit & loss ( 9.1 million ) 2016 accumulated profit & loss ( 13.6 million ) 2019 accumulated profit & loss ( 24.0 million ) The reason I said some fans wouldn't like the issue of the share capital and share premium account being brought up is that they believe, as I think you do, there is no difference between putting money into Rovers as loans or as shares. What the accounts show is that between 2007 and 2016 our owners and share scheme members put £ 4.1 million into the company as share capital which, for them, became worthless. They had their fun, tried to make a success of it, but in the end had to lose that £ 4.1 million so that the new owners could make a fresh start. The big question now is whether Wael is also prepared to accept a financial loss, by writing off some of the Dwane Sports loan, so that others can make a fresh start.
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Apr 7, 2020 22:07:04 GMT
Well the clear question is how is the £24m debt arrived at. This is a figure you've again and again played your repetition game with. So, finally you give an answer and the essence of your answer is "There isn't £24m debt". But you don't say that do you? No, you say that it's something the fans won't like. Repeat it as much as you want. Adding up liabilities and share capital is not and never has been the way to calculate the debt figure of a business. If you're telling everyone you're an accountant expert in buying businesses and trying to pretend that this liability + share cap bollocks is true, you too are posting in bad faith. Stuart answered the question yesterday. In the Capital & Reserves section of the accounts there is a line for the Profit & Loss account. This adds or subtracts the profit or loss made each year to reach a cumulative figure. In an ideal World we would make a profit so these figures would be positive and year on year the Profit & Loss line would grow positively. But, as with most football clubs, ours is growing negatively because we tend to make losses. A snapshot of these cumulative figures is below. 2007 accumulated profit & loss ( £ 2.0 million ) 2010 accumulated profit & loss ( 4.6 million ) 2013 accumulated profit & loss ( 9.1 million ) 2016 accumulated profit & loss ( 13.6 million ) 2019 accumulated profit & loss ( 24.0 million ) The reason I said some fans wouldn't like the issue of the share capital and share premium account being brought up is that they believe, as I think you do, there is no difference between putting money into Rovers as loans or as shares. What the accounts show is that between 2007 and 2016 our owners and share scheme members put £ 4.1 million into the company as share capital which, for them, became worthless. They had their fun, tried to make a success of it, but in the end had to lose that £ 4.1 million so that the new owners could make a fresh start. The big question now is whether Wael is also prepared to accept a financial loss, by writing off some of the Dwane Sports loan, so that others can make a fresh start. Yeah, that's a really long post to try and obfuscate the fact you're bullshitting. Share capital is not debt. It is simply not. It never has been. It never will be. You're trying to treat people like mugs. I'm afraid the repetition game doesn't work with provable facts. You just make yourself look more and more disingenuous. So, in less than 50 words if you can. When did the basic principles of accounting change to make share capital debt and not an asset? Not a big old splurge to try to keep up your obfuscation bollocks. Just in a few words answer that question. Since when did the most basic accounting principles change to categorise share capital as debt?
|
|
|
Post by dragonfly on Apr 7, 2020 22:17:13 GMT
Stuart answered the question yesterday. In the Capital & Reserves section of the accounts there is a line for the Profit & Loss account. This adds or subtracts the profit or loss made each year to reach a cumulative figure. In an ideal World we would make a profit so these figures would be positive and year on year the Profit & Loss line would grow positively. But, as with most football clubs, ours is growing negatively because we tend to make losses. A snapshot of these cumulative figures is below. 2007 accumulated profit & loss ( £ 2.0 million ) 2010 accumulated profit & loss ( 4.6 million ) 2013 accumulated profit & loss ( 9.1 million ) 2016 accumulated profit & loss ( 13.6 million ) 2019 accumulated profit & loss ( 24.0 million ) The reason I said some fans wouldn't like the issue of the share capital and share premium account being brought up is that they believe, as I think you do, there is no difference between putting money into Rovers as loans or as shares. What the accounts show is that between 2007 and 2016 our owners and share scheme members put £ 4.1 million into the company as share capital which, for them, became worthless. They had their fun, tried to make a success of it, but in the end had to lose that £ 4.1 million so that the new owners could make a fresh start. The big question now is whether Wael is also prepared to accept a financial loss, by writing off some of the Dwane Sports loan, so that others can make a fresh start. Yeah, that's a really long post to try and obfuscate the fact you're bullshitting. Share capital is not debt. It is simply not. It never has been. It never will be. You're trying to treat people like mugs. I'm afraid the repetition game doesn't work with provable facts. You just make yourself look more and more disingenuous. So, in less than 50 words if you can. When did the basic principles of accounting change to make share capital debt and not an asset? Not a big old splurge to try to keep up your obfuscation bollocks. Just in a few words answer that question. Since when did the most basic accounting principles change to categorise share capital as debt? LJG what do you think our debt fiqure is?
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Apr 7, 2020 22:51:54 GMT
Stuart answered the question yesterday. In the Capital & Reserves section of the accounts there is a line for the Profit & Loss account. This adds or subtracts the profit or loss made each year to reach a cumulative figure. In an ideal World we would make a profit so these figures would be positive and year on year the Profit & Loss line would grow positively. But, as with most football clubs, ours is growing negatively because we tend to make losses. A snapshot of these cumulative figures is below. 2007 accumulated profit & loss ( £ 2.0 million ) 2010 accumulated profit & loss ( 4.6 million ) 2013 accumulated profit & loss ( 9.1 million ) 2016 accumulated profit & loss ( 13.6 million ) 2019 accumulated profit & loss ( 24.0 million ) The reason I said some fans wouldn't like the issue of the share capital and share premium account being brought up is that they believe, as I think you do, there is no difference between putting money into Rovers as loans or as shares. What the accounts show is that between 2007 and 2016 our owners and share scheme members put £ 4.1 million into the company as share capital which, for them, became worthless. They had their fun, tried to make a success of it, but in the end had to lose that £ 4.1 million so that the new owners could make a fresh start. The big question now is whether Wael is also prepared to accept a financial loss, by writing off some of the Dwane Sports loan, so that others can make a fresh start. Yeah, that's a really long post to try and obfuscate the fact you're bullshitting. Share capital is not debt. It is simply not. It never has been. It never will be. You're trying to treat people like mugs. I'm afraid the repetition game doesn't work with provable facts. You just make yourself look more and more disingenuous. So, in less than 50 words if you can. When did the basic principles of accounting change to make share capital debt and not an asset? Not a big old splurge to try to keep up your obfuscation bollocks. Just in a few words answer that question. Since when did the most basic accounting principles change to categorise share capital as debt? I never said share capital was debt.
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Apr 8, 2020 0:13:37 GMT
From the time it started till 30.06.19 BRFC 1883 Ltd paid out 24 million more than it received. So the accounts show an accumulated loss of 24 million.
How was this loss of 24 million financed ?
By raising cash through selling shares in the company. 7 million. (Equity)
By raising cash through borrowing. 17 million. ( Debt)
|
|
|
Post by Gasshole on Apr 8, 2020 3:20:21 GMT
By the time the East Stand goes up it will be over 24 mill .
|
|
|
Post by bodies on Apr 8, 2020 3:30:46 GMT
So, just who keeps lending a business money that history shows has no discernible means of ever paying it back?
|
|
|
Post by blueridge on Apr 8, 2020 5:30:31 GMT
Having nothing else to do at the moment and certainly not being an expert in any way.
If the major Shareholder (the ALQ’s) have a 92% holding of preferenced shares in the Club with a contractual non-discretionary payment of dividend or interest on the shares and the shares are redeemed at a later date, they are treated as an on going debt rather than equity. This is because there is a contractual obligation for the Company (themselves) to pay cash in the way of dividend or interest to the holder (themselves) of the preferenced shares if it hasn’t already been taken. The difference is, if the payment of dividend or interest on shares is discretionary it will not be shown in the accounts as a debt or liability - which doesn’t appear to be the case in this instance.
Basically if there is a contractual obligation to pay cash on preferenced shares (non-discretionary) by way of dividend or interest at fair value at their point of issue - preferenced shares are shown as a liability. It may well that the owners have accrued the dividend/interest and not taken it to date.
|
|