Jump to content
ricardo

Annual Report

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, sgncfc said:

Changing the subject slightly, what's all this about "donating your shareholder dividend to the CSF"? What dividend? Are they planning to pay a dividend to us mere mortals?

Ordinary shares do not pay a dividend, this relates to those who own Preference shares.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Parmas comments re the accounts are very relevant. They merely take a snapshot for a particular period. If for example the transfer profits of £60k were averaged out over the last 2 accounting years - a quite reasonable way to look at it - then 2021 would be a loss of around 7k and 2022 a profit of around 9k. If any normal business increased its turnover (income) by some 80k in a year they would invariably be laughing all the way to the Bank. But with football all what comes in more or less goes straight out on player expenditure - mainly due to "fans pressure" !!!.

Of course in theory such activity should lead to more entertainment and enjoyment of the game. In that context the time wasting antics of such teams like Watford leave much to be desired.

And by the way the over the top glossy presentation of the accounts is a huge waste of money.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

If trickle-down economics is really a thing maybe there'll be a couple of quid under my seat tomorrow night....

I only get trickle down if I can't  get out of my seat for a wee quick enough.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, vos said:

Parmas comments re the accounts are very relevant. They merely take a snapshot for a particular period. If for example the transfer profits of £60k were averaged out over the last 2 accounting years - a quite reasonable way to look at it - then 2021 would be a loss of around 7k and 2022 a profit of around 9k. If any normal business increased its turnover (income) by some 80k in a year they would invariably be laughing all the way to the Bank. But with football all what comes in more or less goes straight out on player expenditure - mainly due to "fans pressure" !!!.

Of course in theory such activity should lead to more entertainment and enjoyment of the game. In that context the time wasting antics of such teams like Watford leave much to be desired.

And by the way the over the top glossy presentation of the accounts is a huge waste of money.

That's how I see it after reading Parma's post VOS.

See you for another meet up on 10th?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

That's how I see it after reading Parma's post VOS.

See you for another meet up on 10th?

 

Great minds think alike. Will see you on the 10th.

P.S. You might be lucky tomorrow night. Liz Truss is officially in hiding but I have heard rumours she will be in your part of the ground !!

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wages v turnover % worryingly high. As others have said clearly ambitious, for me as Lord Widgery once wrote ‘bordering on the reckless’. It does make me question whether the holy grail is worth it, but I’m not sure if mid 2nd tier holds the same charm it used to for me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, CANARYKING said:
15 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

What fascinates me about you is you dismiss the validity in the use of statistics to try and evaluate performance and plan for the future, while somehow believing everybody running the club should actually be capable of magic, look into their crystal balls, and see whether any decisions they make will actually work, because that's the standard you seem to judge them by. 

Welcome to TuBs world. Stats don't count but random comparisons do.

I call it TuBs Top Trump's.

It can be fun but he's a bad loser.

But a highly inventive mind.

😇

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, ricardo said:

I only get trickle down if I can't  get out of my seat for a wee quick enough.

I think you're forgetting the time we went 2-0 up against Man City 🙄

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, ricardo said:

I only get trickle down if I can't  get out of my seat for a wee quick enough.

Watching football or Party Girls on Freeview? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A mixed bag of results. 

The good: 

  • Record turnover (£133m v £119m (2019/20)), principally from increased broadcasting revenue. [edit: corrected a figure] 
  • Record catering income (£6.1m v £4.6m (2019/20)).
  • Loan player income came in at £6.4m. The club has done a good job at monetising players not ready or wanted in the first team. Over the past 10 years the club has made £20.8m in loan player income.

The not-so good:

  • Gate receipts still down compared to 10(!) years ago (£10.8m v £11.3m (2012/13)). Reflective of the relative lack of investment into Carrow Road.
  • Commercial income down on 2019/20 £7.4m v £10.3m. I imagine principally due to the BK8 fiasco (although post-covid effects should not be ruled out). I would say the club has done a good job here in salvaging a poor situation. I'd also say it shows that some of the comments about the financial hit were overblown.

The bad:

  • Staff costs ballooned to £118m. The highest in the club's history. As a percentage of turnover (88%) it is the highest proportion in a premier league season in the last 20 years. Excluding promotion bonuses, it is likely the highest in any season in the last 20 years (promotion bonuses are not always split out). Given the on pitch performance, this represents appalling value for money. As Norwich are the first team from last year's prem (excluding Man U) to publish accounts, we can't make any direct comparisons. But this figure is higher than /similar to costs for 4 premier league clubs I quickly checked for the 2020/21 season: Brighton - £113m; Leeds - £108m; Southampton - £107m; Wolves - £139m). [edit: got the Norwich figure wrong] 
  • Other employment costs came in at £14.8m. This includes loan fees (before wages) and likely compensation for loss of office. The average over the past 5 to 10 years is around £3-4m. It's safe to say that the 'extra' £10m or so compared to priors years did not provide much value on the pitch. 

Other things of note:

  • Negligible player trading but that's mainly due to the Buendia sale falling into the previous year's accounts.
  • Net debt (my figures) now stands at a whopping £66.8m. This is primarily a facility to receive accelerated payments for media income and transfer receipts. Interest is charged at 5.6% / 5.75% up to March / September 2024. Interest costs were £4m last year. These arrangements are very common in football. I personally think (whilst acknowledging many people would disagree with me) that the benefit of such arrangements is overblown. Whilst these can help manage cashflow (and meant the club did not run out of cash), it can become a perpetual cycle of having to do this whilst eating interest costs. For example, Norwich started doing this in 2020 borrowing £10m against future income, then did the same in 2021 but for £25m (in part because the club had already borrowed £10m+ of that year's income). Then last year £66m. If Norwich get promoted again, the club will again have to borrow against future to be able to invest in the team as the club will not see some £20m+ of next year's income. 
  • Finally, capital expenditure was down by just under a £1m last year (£3.2m v £4.2m). The prior three years the club had invested around £18m in fixed assets. The reduction sees the figure only just beat out depreciation (£2.9m) which means the improvement in the club's fixed assets was effectively negated by their loss in value/natural wearing down over time. There's a balance to be had between investing on the pitch and off it. I think it is fair to say, with the benefit of hindsight, that the club got the balance wrong last year. I personally think the club need to keep up capital expenditure. 
Edited by MrBunce
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheers @MrBunce

Never did I think i'd see the day where Norwich get accused of spending too much money on wages!

How the turns have tabled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MrBunce said:

A mixed bag of results. 

The good: 

  • Record turnover (£133m v £119m (2019/20)), principally from increased broadcasting revenue. [edit: corrected a figure] 
  • Record catering income (£6.1m v £4.6m (2019/20)).
  • Loan player income came in at £6.4m. The club has done a good job at monetising players not ready or wanted in the first team. Over the past 10 years the club has made £20.8m in loan player income.

The not-so good:

  • Gate receipts still down compared to 10(!) years ago (£10.8m v £11.3m (2012/13)). Reflective of the relative lack of investment into Carrow Road.
  • Commercial income down on 2019/20 £7.4m v £10.3m. I imagine principally due to the BK8 fiasco (although post-covid effects should not be ruled out). I would say the club has done a good job here in salvaging a poor situation. I'd also say it shows that some of the comments about the financial hit were overblown.

The bad:

  • Staff costs ballooned to £118m. The highest in the club's history. As a percentage of turnover (88%) it is the highest proportion in a premier league season in the last 20 years. Excluding promotion bonuses, it is likely the highest in any season in the last 20 years (promotion bonuses are not always split out). Given the on pitch performance, this represents appalling value for money. As Norwich are the first team from last year's prem (excluding Man U) to publish accounts, we can't make any direct comparisons. But this figure is higher than /similar to costs for 4 premier league clubs I quickly checked for the 2020/21 season: Brighton - £113m; Leeds - £108m; Southampton - £107m; Wolves - £139m). [edit: got the Norwich figure wrong] 
  • Other employment costs came in at £14.8m. This includes loan fees (before wages) and likely compensation for loss of office. The average over the past 5 to 10 years is around £3-4m. It's safe to say that the 'extra' £10m or so compared to priors years did not provide much value on the pitch. 

Other things of note:

  • Negligible player trading but that's mainly due to the Buendia sale falling into the previous year's accounts.
  • Net debt (my figures) now stands at a whopping £66.8m. This is primarily a facility to receive accelerated payments for media income and transfer receipts. Interest is charged at 5.6% / 5.75% up to March / September 2024. Interest costs were £4m last year. These arrangements are very common in football. I personally think (whilst acknowledging many people would disagree with me) that the benefit of such arrangements is overblown. Whilst these can help manage cashflow (and meant the club did not run out of cash), it can become a perpetual cycle of having to do this whilst eating interest costs. For example, Norwich started doing this in 2020 borrowing £10m against future income, then did the same in 2021 but for £25m (in part because the club had already borrowed £10m+ of that year's income). Then last year £66m. If Norwich get promoted again, the club will again have to borrow against future to be able to invest in the team as the club will not see some £20m+ of next year's income. 
  • Finally, capital expenditure was down by just under a £1m last year (£3.2m v £4.2m). The prior three years the club had invested around £18m in fixed assets. The reduction sees the figure only just beat out depreciation (£2.9m) which means the improvement in the club's fixed assets was effectively negated by their loss in value/natural wearing down over time. There's a balance to be had between investing on the pitch and off it. I think it is fair to say, with the benefit of hindsight, that the club got the balance wrong last year. I personally think the club need to keep up capital expenditure. 

To wrap this up into on-field football strategy - and in relation to the point I made earlier about ‘how one cuts the cake’ - there was a Sporting decision around Covid-lockdown to run a bigger, deeper squad. 

Keeping a very wide squad happy is difficult for Manchester United, it is surely too much to ask of a Norwich Head Coach

Personally I am never a fan of this strategy for clubs like Norwich. I do not believe that the maths favours it. 

The binary judgment of success in the top tier for similar clubs to Norwich is ‘stay up or don’t’. I think if you look at teams that have managed to stay up, one thing you will consistently find is relatively low injuries to ‘weapons’ and ‘changing-room architects’ (leaders).

This bleeds into operating strategy and finance. 

In crude terms you can keep Toney and attract Eriksen - or - you have lots of Placheta and Onels, a punt on some Tzolis’s and Sargents and a squad of 25-30 decent players who are much-of- muchness. Even at the start of last season, the first xi was not an obvious call at Norwich. 

This is a club-sporting Director-head coach strategic approach and - as such - deliberate. 

The downside to this approach is several-fold. Decent players (not weapons) do not typically command high transfer from other premier clubs. Their wages are decent (putting off lower clubs). ‘Competition for places’ means that there is quite a lot of ‘bums on seats’.

Add to this a few top level punts, some hefty (quite sensible) wage uplifts for your relative stars, plus some very wage loanees - and you get to c£118m.

Thus the ‘appalling value for money’ that @MrBunce talks about is somewhat a product of strategic approach.
 

The risk of relegation is ever present and must be at the forefront of planning of course. Though will you be ‘lumbered’ with an Eriksen? A Toney? A Buendia? Really?

This safe amortisation of risk spread across a wide portfolio of players proves to be no such thing. And the ‘vultures’ that buy your weapons upon relegation are actually your friends. 

Thus the lessons from Brentford, Sheff Utd, Brighton, Watford et al is surely:

1. Run a tight squad

2. Pray for no injuries

4.Keep weapons and pay them

5. Buy only weapons (not ‘stocking fillers’), pay what that takes. It will only be one or two max. 

6. Pay high for loanees (if they are weapons)

7.  Or save your money and trust the hugely valuable commodity that is ‘momentum’ 

Running a huge wage bill with no weapons, after selling your only weapon, to be left with a very squad of equally-half-decent players is not an optimum strategy in my view. 

Parma

Edited by Parma Ham's gone mouldy
  • Like 7
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 17/10/2022 at 14:01, Badger said:

It certainly shows that trying to buy success at staying up is extremely difficult, as Fulham and others have found in previous years.

If you can't spend money getting proven EPL players then you shouldn't waste money on rubbish players like PLM, etc. Too much money thrown away on wing and a prayer type players. Should not be spending money just to prove you are giving it a go. Would have been better to put all their baskets in one egg and gone for the boy Abraham.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

To wrap this up into on-field football strategy - and in relation to the point I made earlier about ‘how one cuts the cake’ - there was a Sporting decision around Covid-lockdown to run a bigger, deeper squad. 

Keeping a very wide squad happy is difficult for Manchester United, it is surely too much to ask of a Norwich Head Coach

Personally I am never a fan of this strategy for clubs like Norwich. I do not believe that the maths favours it. 

The binary judgment of success in the top tier for similar clubs to Norwich is ‘stay up or don’t’. I think if you look at teams that have managed to stay up, one thing you will consistently find is relatively low injuries to ‘weapons’ and ‘changing-room architects’ (leaders).

This bleeds into operating strategy and finance. 

In crude terms you can keep Toney and attract Eriksen - or - you have lots of Placheta and Onels, a punt on some Tzolis’s and Sargents and a squad of 25-30 decent players who are much-of- muchness. Even at the start of last season, the first xi was not an obvious call at Norwich. 

This is a club-sporting Director-head coach strategic approach and - as such - deliberate. 

The downside to this approach is several-fold. Decent players (not weapons) do not typically command high transfer from other premier clubs. Their wages are decent (putting off lower clubs). ‘Competition for places’ means that there is quite a lot of ‘bums on seats’.

Add to this a few top level punts, some hefty (quite sensible) wage uplifts for your relative stars, plus some very wage loanees - and you get to c£118m.

Thus the ‘appalling value for money’ that @MrBunce talks about is somewhat a product of strategic approach.
 

The risk of relegation is ever present and must be at the forefront of planning of course. Though will you be ‘lumbered’ with an Eriksen? A Toney? A Buendia? Really?

This safe amortisation of risk spread across a wide portfolio of players proves to be no such thing. And the ‘vultures’ that buy your weapons upon relegation are actually your friends. 

Thus the lessons from Brentford, Sheff Utd, Brighton, Watford et al is surely:

1. Run a tight squad

2. Pray for no injuries

4.Keep weapons and pay them

5. Buy only weapons (not ‘stocking fillers’), pay what that takes. It will only be one or two max. 

6. Pay high for loanees (if they are weapons)

7.  Or save your money and trust the hugely valuable commodity that is ‘momentum’ 

Running a huge wage bill with no weapons, after selling your only weapon, to be left with a very squad of equally-half-decent players is not an optimum strategy in my view. 

Parma

So, put your money in a bit of Gold, not a huge pile of Aluminum. 🤷😇

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

To wrap this up into on-field football strategy - and in relation to the point I made earlier about ‘how one cuts the cake’ - there was a Sporting decision around Covid-lockdown to run a bigger, deeper squad. 

Keeping a very wide squad happy is difficult for Manchester United, it is surely too much to ask of a Norwich Head Coach

Personally I am never a fan of this strategy for clubs like Norwich. I do not believe that the maths favours it. 

The binary judgment of success in the top tier for similar clubs to Norwich is ‘stay up or don’t’. I think if you look at teams that have managed to stay up, one thing you will consistently find is relatively low injuries to ‘weapons’ and ‘changing-room architects’ (leaders).

This bleeds into operating strategy and finance. 

In crude terms you can keep Toney and attract Eriksen - or - you have lots of Placheta and Onels, a punt on some Tzolis’s and Sargents and a squad of 25-30 decent players who are much-of- muchness. Even at the start of last season, the first xi was not an obvious call at Norwich. 

This is a club-sporting Director-head coach strategic approach and - as such - deliberate. 

The downside to this approach is several-fold. Decent players (not weapons) do not typically command high transfer from other premier clubs. Their wages are decent (putting off lower clubs). ‘Competition for places’ means that there is quite a lot of ‘bums on seats’.

Add to this a few top level punts, some hefty (quite sensible) wage uplifts for your relative stars, plus some very wage loanees - and you get to c£118m.

Thus the ‘appalling value for money’ that @MrBunce talks about is somewhat a product of strategic approach.
 

The risk of relegation is ever present and must be at the forefront of planning of course. Though will you be ‘lumbered’ with an Eriksen? A Toney? A Buendia? Really?

This safe amortisation of risk spread across a wide portfolio of players proves to be no such thing. And the ‘vultures’ that buy your weapons upon relegation are actually your friends. 

Thus the lessons from Brentford, Sheff Utd, Brighton, Watford et al is surely:

1. Run a tight squad

2. Pray for no injuries

4.Keep weapons and pay them

5. Buy only weapons (not ‘stocking fillers’), pay what that takes. It will only be one or two max. 

6. Pay high for loanees (if they are weapons)

7.  Or save your money and trust the hugely valuable commodity that is ‘momentum’ 

Running a huge wage bill with no weapons, after selling your only weapon, to be left with a very squad of equally-half-decent players is not an optimum strategy in my view. 

Parma

Criticism of Webbers and the clubs strategy then, nice to see the likes for this post. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks @Parma Ham's gone mouldy. Very interesting. I agree with your comments.

If you're looking for a number to support why this strategy does not work / failed it is this: 106%.

This number is the total staff cost plus amortisation divided by revenue. What this figure represents is the total cost (salary plus proportion of transfer fees) of putting the team onto the pitch. Last year, Norwich's team cost more money than the club brought in in total.

How does that compare to previous seasons? Well this is the highest figure in the last twenty years, and the only time it has been greater than 100% when Norwich have been in the premier league (88% in 2016 being the previous record, when McNally "pissed the money away"...). It's only been higher in seasons where Norwich have been promoted from the championship to the premier league.

Why is this a problem? Because if Norwich had stayed up, the club would have had to sell players to balance the books and replace with those with cheaper players. Those players are the 'weapons' and you are left with the 'bums on seats'. The strategy last season, as Parma set out, was to sign a lot of players and hope one or two might 'luck out' as a weapon. But as explained above, that is unsustainable at the cost Norwich ran at last year. Obviously, such a strategy looks worse given the club were relegated. One could argue we have no 'weapons' at all and we didn't 'bank' any premier league money unlike in previous seasons.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Midlands Yellow said:

Criticism of Webbers and the clubs strategy then, nice to see the likes for this post. 

You'll always get likes for what can be seen as criticism on this board. That said I don't think @Parma Ham's gone mouldy was necessarily being critical, as opposed to explaining a strategy. You can imagine the dog's abuse Webber would get if the squad was light and we had injuries. In fact you don't need to imagine just remember the posts saying we need a squad with 5 CBs, 3 LBs or cover in every position.

I seem to remember Liverpool winning the League while using only 13 players all season in the 70s. Its an option but don't come crying on here as soon as your weapon does his ACL in week 1.

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@BigFish I was reflecting on my last post and wondered if I should add something, which your post has encouraged me to do.

That is, I'm being a critical friend. The reality is, Norwich is an extremely well run club. That we are talking about wages being so high would be amusing to many other clubs who would only dream of balancing the books and achieving such regular success. 

I recall years ago we would have these threads on the accounts and the numbers would be a trainwreck. I (and others like @PurpleCanary and tangie) would write huge screeds about how "this doesn't look good" and "that is not ideal". Our accounts have been boring for the last few years, that's coming from someone who 'loves'* reading accounts. 

* according to my wife

Edited by MrBunce
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, MrBunce said:

@BigFish I was reflecting on my last post and wondered if I should add something, which your post has encouraged me to do.

That is, I'm being a critical friend. The reality is, Norwich is an extremely well run club. That we are talking about wages being so high would be amusing to many other clubs who would only dream of balancing the books and achieving such regular success. 

I recall years ago we would have these threads on the accounts and the numbers would be a trainwreck. I (and others like @PurpleCanary and tangie) would write huge screeds about how "this doesn't look good" and "that is not ideal". Our accounts have been boring for the last few years, that's coming from someone who 'loves'* reading accounts. 

* according to my wife

Cheers again @MrBunce, appreciate your summaries on this 🙂

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My main thoughts on the accounts are, bottom line, we spent £10m more than we should have. I accept the club was trying to be more competitive at EPL level, but to get relegated and see net retained losses of £9m is a big reality check. Given the performance of both Rashica and Tzolis last season, as others have eloquently said, it really was a gamble too far which is reflected in our retained losses. There seems next to no chance now of either gamble paying off.

It also underlines how the club came up with the £10m figure for Attanasio's investment. This patches up the financial position, but is only a sticking plaster, which may get wet if resuls take a turn for the worse. 

Once you have retained losses, it is extremely difficult to trade normally back to a positive position. I'm beginning to hope that a big six club pays £40m for Omo, despite wanting him to be the rock we build our future teams around. It may be the only way the executive can broaden their horizons as to where the club can go.

I'm normally a Percy Positive, but these accounts have really deflated me, not because the club is in danger of imminent financial collapse, but because the freedom to invest in our future has disappeared. Given recent performances on the pitch, it all adds up to a period of attrition, on and off it despite the Milwaukee injection of hope.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Big Vince said:

If you can't spend money getting proven EPL players then you shouldn't waste money on rubbish players like PLM, etc. Too much money thrown away on wing and a prayer type players. Should not be spending money just to prove you are giving it a go. Would have been better to put all their baskets in one egg and gone for the boy Abraham.

Proven premier league players don't generally want to go to newly-promoted clubs. They will only go to one if nobody else wants them.

The Jesse Lingard one-year deal being an interesting exception to this rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many thanks to all the accountancy bods who have so expertly explained the ins and outs of the latest set of accounts. Most of us amateurs only look at the bottom line so its nice to be educated in some of the finer points that we don't  understand.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, BigFish said:

You'll always get likes for what can be seen as criticism on this board. That said I don't think @Parma Ham's gone mouldy was necessarily being critical, as opposed to explaining a strategy. You can imagine the dog's abuse Webber would get if the squad was light and we had injuries. In fact you don't need to imagine just remember the posts saying we need a squad with 5 CBs, 3 LBs or cover in every position.

I seem to remember Liverpool winning the League while using only 13 players all season in the 70s. Its an option but don't come crying on here as soon as your weapon does his ACL in week 1.

 

 

I think it important for balance to acknowledge that this is the downside of the proposed strategy. 

It only takes an injury to Buendia - after betting the farm on him, increasing his wages and no doubt a knock-on increase in wages for Demi-stars like Pukki or Krul - to leave you staring at relegation….

…..however…

…my autistic maths has you looking at relegation anyway.

So a strategy that has an outside chance of working, with less downside than previously feared I would suggest (looking at those who have succeeded this way), versus an amortised strategy that ‘over-believes’ in a wider pool of nice, decent players which has been demonstrably shown to fail. 

It is not ‘doing a Forest’, a Fulham or similar… it is acknowledging that even getting one weapon into a Norwich building is a historically significant achievement (Peters, Buendia, Crouch, Huckerby, maybe Earnshaw…Ashton possibly ‘just’ arguably a really good player), so biting and scratching to keep weapons for as long as possible - especially on ascent to the top tier (come on!) - must be the strategy. Then pitch hard, pay well and know you’ll have to sell on demotion, even at a loss …(how much could the loss be?)…for one or two weapons, more if you can. 

Don’t buy a slightly better Giannoulis, or rent a slightly better Gibson. Don’t do it. Risk it. You’ll probably come down anyway. 

Thinning out 25-30 decent Championship players is not easy. Who buys them?

Even in the Championship it is still the Pukkis that get you promoted. 

Parma 

Edited by Parma Ham's gone mouldy
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 17/10/2022 at 16:46, GMF said:

Possibly, but they’ve always been careful to previously refer to MF having control of the beneficial interest in the 98,200 shares (the voting rights) rather than the full legal rights.

Of course, your comment could also still be true but you would have thought that there might be an explanation, no? 

The B preference share figure has been declared at 14,186 yet again despite being reported at 14,052 at the recent EGM. Also there are no liabilities shown for these under the Creditors note as they have all been categorised incorrectly under A preference shares.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, essex canary said:

The B preference share figure has been declared at 14,186 yet again despite being reported at 14,052 at the recent EGM. Also there are no liabilities shown for these under the Creditors note as they have all been categorised incorrectly under A preference shares.

Sadly, this is indicative of a shoddy set of accounts, masked by glossy front pages.

Notes 18 and 19 are poor - how can a “short term” loan be > 1 year and it should be clearer that the wording in 19 also covers amounts in note 18.

The “short term loan” is incorrectly merged with “Other loans” in note 19 too.

As a chartered accountant, I personally would be embarrassed if these were my accounts.

I also note a change of auditors to an obscure firm, which is a red flag.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Davidlingfield said:

Sadly, this is indicative of a shoddy set of accounts, masked by glossy front pages.

Notes 18 and 19 are poor - how can a “short term” loan be > 1 year and it should be clearer that the wording in 19 also covers amounts in note 18.

The “short term loan” is incorrectly merged with “Other loans” in note 19 too.

As a chartered accountant, I personally would be embarrassed if these were my accounts.

I also note a change of auditors to an obscure firm, which is a red flag.

 

I’ve not had the opportunity to check properly, however, from recollection, one of the resolutions at last year’s AGM was for shareholders to reappoint BDO LLP, no? It’s quite unusual to change auditors mid-year, especially without explanation.

Which rather begs the question, is this in any way linked to the qualified going concern statement that has appeared this year? 

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

×
×
  • Create New...