Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
king canary

Accounts released

Recommended Posts

[quote user="Big Vince"][quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="Donkey dangler"][quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="Derby Canary"]the board are unfit through lack of football knowledge to run a Club......[/quote]Twenty one years at the helm and you reckon they know nothing - [:S][/quote]

Well they know how to get us into the third tier of football for the first time in fifty years![/quote]But they got us promoted to the Prem THREE times Tangy - or did you forget? [/quote]

TWO out of those THREE were entirely the work of McNasty and nothing to do with the SS. It was McNasty who got Lambert and McNasty who got Neil.

The other promotion to the EPL they simply got lucky with one player who galvanised the whole team for one season.[/quote]You forgot how much input the Groundsman had in our successful seasons, in the relegations DS&MWJ had the keys to the mower.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Buncey"]As usual, Purple has excellently covered most of the big points. All I can do is chime in with a few minor ones.

That said, this is, again, a rather boring set of accounts. Very little surprising information and again showing a company with good financial strength (despite us losing our Premier League status).

So onto my few minor minor points:

1. Despite what the "doom-mongers" may say, the accounts show that when it comes to buying and selling players the club is doing a really good job. Overall the total book value of our players declined by only 3m last year, that''s despite us selling Redmond, VOO, Van Wolfswinkel, Olsson, Brady and Canos and spending far less in replacements (Pritchard, Nelson, Yanic and also Canos).

This means that, generally speaking, we sell players for more money than we buy them for. This is very important for us as a club, as over the last two year selling players has accounted for £32m whilst we collectively made only £7m in net profits. Many clubs will be very envious that we are doing so well in the transfer market.

Unfortunately, I''d expect next years'' accounts to perhaps not look so rosy as we released a lot of "deadwood" over the summer for little return. On the other hand, we sold Jacob Murphy for a good deal of money, which from a financial perspective will likely offset that loss.

2. The second place where our good player trading shows up is in impairment - there is none. That means we aren''t "writing off" players as duds. Last year there was an amount for around a 4 million which was likely due to us "cutting our losses" on RVW and writing down Naismith. It remains to be seen if we''ll be writing off any more players this year, but really beyond perhaps Jarvis due to his injury problems or Naismith (if he wasn''t written down enough already), I can''t see any more write-offs to come.

3. Collectively, what 1 & 2 mean is that if things were to go "mega tits-up", we are very likely have at a min. £30m in the bank in readily saleable players (the £30m being what''s in the books for the players). That doesn''t mean we will sell those players, but it makes it much easier for us to borrow money (if we need to) against the value of those players. Furthermore, we are due a net excess £3m in cash for our player trading last season which will also help with our cash position plus and extra £8m in net sales for this season.

4. A minor, but interesting thing is that unlike during the McNally era we didn''t cut down on staff numbers last year. McNasty was almost comically ruthless in cutting staff numbers to the bone whenever we were relegated, but last year the total number of staff actually ticked up. Of course, this means that job losses were in the pipeline once we missed out on promotion - which we have seen over the summer. This is a necessary result of us being a Championship club and not a Premier League club for now.

5. Super minor thing, but the club has provided (i.e. taken an extra hit) on tax liabilities for "certain overseas loan players". As the only overseas loan player was Dijks then it means we might have to pay an extra £0.6m to £3.4m on that deal. The tax boffins have already done lots of number crunching and think that it''ll be around £0.7m, so unless it''s more than that, we won''t have any further losses.

A final thing which isn''t in the accounts, but I was hoping for some clarification on is to do with Steve Stone. In the summer he was made Managing Director and relinquished his financial role at the company. The new FD is Ben Dack. The curious thing is that Steve resigned from the board over the summer (after the year end), so technically speaking, despite "running the company", he doesn''t have to be at board meetings. I was hoping the accounts may have shed a bit more light on how Steve will interact with the board, and perhaps why it was felt necessary for him to no longer be a board member. My instinct is that nothing in practice will change, Steve will still be giving key input into the board. But, as I''ve said in the past, the board are a bit clumsy on their admin/legal matters and would do a good job of being a bit more transparent on them.[/quote]Buncey, those are hardly just minor points! Particularly your reading of the significance of our transfer dealings and the lack of impairment. I had noticed the lack of job cuts (they WILL be coming soon), but was concentrating on analysing the broad question of whether the board had been ambitious enough in trying to get promotion straight back last season. Yes, as it turns out. If anything erring on the side of ambition.As to your question about Stone, I don''t believe he has ever been a director. The club calls people directors (as in finance director or sporting director) when they do not sit on the board, and I am sure Stone was not elevated to the board when he stepped in for McNally and then for Moxey.No doubt he went to board meetings, but not as a member. And when the new structure was announced it was said he and Webber would attend all board meetings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"whether the board had been ambitious enough in trying to get promotion straight back last season. Yes, as it turns out. If anything erring on the side of ambition."

How could the Board possibly have been ambitious in getting promotion last season when it took them 20 weeks to sack the failing Alex Neil?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That season Big Vince is banging on about where we got promoted by getting lucky with one player can anybody confirm he is talking about the one where we finished 8 points clear of 2nd place and 15 points clear of the play offs ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"1. Despite what the "doom-mongers" may say, the accounts show that when

it comes to buying and selling players the club is doing a really good

job."
BunceyOh dearIf we get back into the play off places then added with the above comment, this forum could almost fizzle out.Haven''t you got any ''bad news'' Mr Buncey ?

(otherwise an enjoyable read)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Duncan Edwards wrote the following post at 02/11/2017 11:02 PM:

Yeah but not a proper one.

Which in your definition of what a proper doctor is puts me in the same category as Einstein, Hawkins, Cox et al.

Yep, I''d rather be in that group than the jobs worthy Edwards massif.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@Purple - He was a director according to companies house and resigned in August. I think that perhaps re-emphasises my point - which I mentioned last year - there has been a lack of transparency as to how decisions are being made since McNally left.

@Eddie - thanks for the kind words.

@Rhubarb - I know my post may be construed as being overly "positive" but I think the big negatives have been covered in great detail (the loss, decrease in revenues, compensation payouts). I''m just trying to add a few things that others may not have picked up or elaborated on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crafty, you''re definitely in the same category as Cox.

Never heard of this Hawkins chap either? Don''t go digging yourself a black hole, there''s a good lad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Buncey"]@Purple - He was a director according to companies house and resigned in August. I think that perhaps re-emphasises my point - which I mentioned last year - there has been a lack of transparency as to how decisions are being made since McNally left.

@Eddie - thanks for the kind words.

@Rhubarb - I know my post may be construed as being overly "positive" but I think the big negatives have been covered in great detail (the loss, decrease in revenues, compensation payouts). I''m just trying to add a few things that others may not have picked up or elaborated on.[/quote]not by mebut by those desperate to attack the club though- and they won''t welcome facts and reasoned argument either

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Buncey"]@Purple - He was a director according to companies house and resigned in August. I think that perhaps re-emphasises my point - which I mentioned last year - there has been a lack of transparency as to how decisions are being made since McNally left.

@Eddie - thanks for the kind words.

@Rhubarb - I know my post may be construed as being overly "positive" but I think the big negatives have been covered in great detail (the loss, decrease in revenues, compensation payouts). I''m just trying to add a few things that others may not have picked up or elaborated on.[/quote]Buncey, I don''t think that is right. Having just looked, it says Stone stopped being company secretary in August, not that he ceased to be a director. And there is no filing for him having become a director before that. And these latest accounts do not have him listed as  being a director on June 30, 2017, which they should do if he stepped down in August. And since he was only filling in as CEO making him a director before he got the job permanently, even assuming he was going to, would have been unusual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Big Vince"]"whether the board had been ambitious enough in trying to get promotion straight back last season. Yes, as it turns out. If anything erring on the side of ambition."

How could the Board possibly have been ambitious in getting promotion last season when it took them 20 weeks to sack the failing Alex Neil?[/quote]

Exactly.... And now we know why they dithered as they had to pay Alex Neil much more compensation than otherwise had Balls not updated Neil''s contract unnecessarily !!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Crafty Canary"]your definition of what a proper doctor is puts me in the same category as Einstein.....[/quote]Blimey, I didn''t realise Einstein had worked for May and Baker. Who''d have thunk it. [:S]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Buncey"]@Purple - He was a director according to companies house and resigned in August. I think that perhaps re-emphasises my point - which I mentioned last year - there has been a lack of transparency as to how decisions are being made since McNally left.

@Eddie - thanks for the kind words.

@Rhubarb - I know my post may be construed as being overly "positive" but I think the big negatives have been covered in great detail (the loss, decrease in revenues, compensation payouts). I''m just trying to add a few things that others may not have picked up or elaborated on.[/quote]Buncey, I don''t think that is right. Having just looked, it says Stone stopped being company secretary in August, not that he ceased to be a director. And there is no filing for him having become a director before that. And these latest accounts do not have him listed as  being a director on June 30, 2017, which they should do if he stepped down in August. And since he was only filling in as CEO making him a director before he got the job permanently, even assuming he was going to, would have been unusual.[/quote]

Quite right. Thanks Purple!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@buncey

Interesting but I just can''t agree on point one.

The success or failure in the transfer market isn''t shown on the balance sheet, it''s shown on the pitch. For example I don''t really see Leroy Fer as a great signing despite the fact we made a profit on him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really. He wasn''t very successful for us. What they do after leaving us is irrelevant as to whether he was a successful signing for us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="king canary"]Not really. He wasn''t very successful for us. What they do after leaving us is irrelevant as to whether he was a successful signing for us.[/quote]I don''t think statistics can tell everything but..,The season before, our main central midfielders were Johnson (37 PL starts), Howson (22) and Tettey (21). Surman started 4 games. And that lot scored a total of 3 goals.The next season - Johnson 28 starts and 3 goals, Howson 23 and 2, Tettey 17 and 1, and Fer 28 and 3. It looks like Fer may not have dazzled but that he improved our central midfield, which has to mean he was at least a qualified success.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That is a pretty simplistic take on it Purple. Would make a bit more sense if he was a striker to just look at his goal contribution.

He was ok but we got relegated, he didn''t do a great deal and then left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="king canary"]That is a pretty simplistic take on it Purple. Would make a bit more sense if he was a striker to just look at his goal contribution.

He was ok but we got relegated, he didn''t do a great deal and then left.[/quote]I wasn''t doing that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just re-read, yes I missed what you were getting at.

Still don''t agree it would make him a success though. Anyway, it is a fairly unimportant debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Duncan Edwards wrote the following post at 03/11/2017 7:35 PM:

Crafty, you''re definitely in the same category as Cox.

Never heard of this Hawkins chap either? Don''t go digging yourself a black hole, there''s a good lad.

Oh dear I made a typo, never mind. Just for your benefit, you can''t dig black holes however I suppose if you bent over there might well be one to be seen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...