Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Tangible Fixed Assets anyone?

NCFC Plc Accounts to 31/5/09 - some observations

Recommended Posts

Some observations relating to the latest Accounts:

 

a)       Value per ordinary share based on Net Assets (Book value)

 

2008:  Net Assets £15,245k (per Consolidated Balance Sheer on page 8 of the 2009 Accounts)

/ 535,442 ordinary shares (per note 23 on page 26 of the 2009 Accounts)

= £28.47 per ordinary share

 

2009: Net Assets £9,212k (page 8) / 535,526 (note 23 on page 26)  = £17.20 per ordinary share.

 

 

 

b)       Player wages

 

2008 Turnover (group - excluding hotel joint venture) on page 7    £18960k

Player wage costs as a percentage of turnover (middle of page 2)   35%

= £6636k

 

 

2009 Turnover (group - excluding hotel joint venture) on page 7   £17929k

Player wage costs as a percentage of turnover (middle of page 2)   41%

= £7350k

 

These figures exclude social security costs (10%) - employers NIC.

 

 

 

c)       Other employment costs (including loan players)

 

Source : note 5 on page 14 of the 31/5/09 NCFC Plc Accounts

 

2008 : £725k              2009:  £1,578k

 

 

 

 

a)       Analysis of the debt

 

"External"

Loan notes (AXA)                                                £11.1m 

Loan re ex. LSE land (Bank of Scotland?)          £   2.588m

Loan (Bank of Scotland)                                      £   1.125m

Bank overdraft                                                      £    1.5m

Offset by cash                                                         0.826m)

Total                                                                         £15,5m

 

 

Repayble if we play in The Premiership

B Prefs - directors                                                        £742k

B Prefs - others                                                             £810k

Turners loan ( repayable at the earliest of

18/5/2017 or NCFC playing in The Premiership)    £2500k

Total                                                                            £4.05m.

 

 

Other loans

Delia & MWJ                                                              £2142k

M Foulger                                                                     £670k

Other                                                                              £503k

Total                                                                              £3.3m                                                       

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thats just a load of numbers to me. Are there specific points that you find interesting?Please expand for those of us who haven''t read teh document.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Tangible Fixed Assets anyone"]

 

2008:

 535,442 ordinary shares  

2009:  535,526

 

[/quote]Well, those figures at least are interesting, because they show there are (or were a few months ago) still around 33,000 shares available for someone to buy and so inject close to £1m in the club. That answers a question I posed on another thread, so thanks for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Tangible Fixed Assets anyone"]

 

2008:

 535,442 ordinary shares  

2009:

  535,526


 

[/quote]

Well, those figures at least are interesting, because they show there are (or were a few months ago) still around 33,000 shares available for someone to buy and so inject close to £1m in the club. That answers a question I posed on another thread, so thanks for that.[/quote]

Why would anyone pay £30 per ordinary share (based on book value) when the figure based on the Accounts to 31st May 2009 is £17.20 per the following calculation:

2009: Net Assets £9,212k (page 8) / 535,526 (note 23 on page 26)  = £17.20 per ordinary share.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Tangible Fixed Assets anyone"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Tangible Fixed Assets anyone"]

 

2008:

 535,442 ordinary shares  

2009:  535,526

 

[/quote]Well, those figures at least are interesting, because they show there are (or were a few months ago) still around 33,000 shares available for someone to buy and so inject close to £1m in the club. That answers a question I posed on another thread, so thanks for that.[/quote]

Why would anyone pay £30 per ordinary share (based on book value) when the figure based on the Accounts to 31st May 2009 is £17.20 per the following calculation:

2009: Net Assets £9,212k (page 8) / 535,526 (note 23 on page 26)  = £17.20 per ordinary share.

 

 

[/quote]
Because - and this is something so obvious it shouldn''t need stating - there are various reasons why people buy shares in football clubs that are unlisted PLCs. And with most of those reasons book value is not even a minor factor, let alone a major one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What makes you say that Buckethead?

I would assume the value would be based on the net present value of the cashflows that any financier would receive in relation to the stadium. The value of the stadium would only be relevant to the extent we default on payments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Buckethead"]No lessons learned by the banking industry then.
[/quote]

 

Again, what makes you say that? So long as they are satisfied they have adequate security, what''s the problem? I need a little more explanation of your point to be able to discuss this really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My concern is that by "overextending credit" to the club the banks might be putting us in a position whereby in the event of financial difficulties a few years down the road, we find that our assets do not cover our liabilities. It''s all well and good lending us £34.5m secured against £9m assets but the £10m or so this would realise could easily be squandered in just a couple of years, leaving us heavily in negative equity. There''s a reason a bank will not lend you £500k secured against a £125k house, if it all goes horribly wrong then the bank will find itself dreadfully exposed. By lending our club £34.5m against net assets of £9m the banks stand to find themselves twenty five million quid out of pocket even if they realise the stadium, colney, and any other assets tangible or non tangible for development etc. Whilst I am not supportive of banks lending in the manner you describe I do accept that it can work but unlike the old traditional method of secured lending the success of this lending model is wholly reliant upon the creditor making all repayments as scheduled. Recent events in this country have proven that the entire house of cards can be tumbled by a small percentage of defaulting debtors and that this banking model is inherently fragile. Had we entered this deal ten years ago we''d have probably gone bust by now as nobody could have predicted the spiralling wages and transfer fees that have created the mad world of football finance as we know it today. Are you prepared to take a similar chance with our clubs future now, entering a long term deal based on todays market not knowing what will happen by 2012, 2018, 2025 etc? All it would take would be for Sky to pull out or one dodgy judgment in the European Courts (eg Bosman) and the financial model is turned on its head again.remember the ITV digital fiasco? Didn''t we borrow in anticipation then get into quite a bit of trouble that we are still in all honesty paying for today?A deal like the one mooted is tantamount to all or nothing for the club, it might work and be for the good but it might not and the penalty for it not working will not be administration but insolvency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Buckethead"]My concern is that by "overextending credit" to the club the banks might be putting us in a position whereby in the event of financial difficulties a few years down the road, we find that our assets do not cover our liabilities. It''s all well and good lending us £34.5m secured against £9m assets but the £10m or so this would realise could easily be squandered in just a couple of years, leaving us heavily in negative equity. There''s a reason a bank will not lend you £500k secured against a £125k house, if it all goes horribly wrong then the bank will find itself dreadfully exposed. By lending our club £34.5m against net assets of £9m the banks stand to find themselves twenty five million quid out of pocket even if they realise the stadium, colney, and any other assets tangible or non tangible for development etc.
Whilst I am not supportive of banks lending in the manner you describe I do accept that it can work but unlike the old traditional method of secured lending the success of this lending model is wholly reliant upon the creditor making all repayments as scheduled. Recent events in this country have proven that the entire house of cards can be tumbled by a small percentage of defaulting debtors and that this banking model is inherently fragile.
Had we entered this deal ten years ago we''d have probably gone bust by now as nobody could have predicted the spiralling wages and transfer fees that have created the mad world of football finance as we know it today. Are you prepared to take a similar chance with our clubs future now, entering a long term deal based on todays market not knowing what will happen by 2012, 2018, 2025 etc? All it would take would be for Sky to pull out or one dodgy judgment in the European Courts (eg Bosman) and the financial model is turned on its head again.
remember the ITV digital fiasco? Didn''t we borrow in anticipation then get into quite a bit of trouble that we are still in all honesty paying for today?

A deal like the one mooted is tantamount to all or nothing for the club, it might work and be for the good but it might not and the penalty for it not working will not be administration but insolvency.
[/quote]

You should be looking at our assets rather than our net assets. The financier could have a fixed charge over all our assets to the extent they lend more than the worth of the stadium which would give very good security (albeit I don''t know the quantum of our assets). To the extent there is a shortfall, it could be guaranteed by other parties, directors and a like.

I never said that the financier should lend more than the value of the security. I agree that the method of lending I have described values Carrow Road on the basis that all repayments are made, therefore the extent to which it is used as security by the lender should be limited to its value when not being used as a football stadium.

Furthermore, I never said that we should or shouldn''t enter into a repo or leaseback, I just wanted to understand the basis for your comments. For what it''s worth, I don''t think a deal like this would be the magic answer we''re looking for. Given the structured nature of our current debt, I don''t see the benefit, if however we had short-term cash flow problems, or had been unable to refinance our existing commitments then it might be a viable option to keep us going. I certainly don''t think this is the kind of thing the board would do on a whim.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Buckethead"]My concern is that by "overextending credit" to the club the banks might be putting us in a position whereby in the event of financial difficulties a few years down the road, we find that our assets do not cover our liabilities. It''s all well and good lending us £34.5m secured against £9m assets but the £10m or so this would realise could easily be squandered in just a couple of years, leaving us heavily in negative equity. There''s a reason a bank will not lend you £500k secured against a £125k house, if it all goes horribly wrong then the bank will find itself dreadfully exposed. By lending our club £34.5m against net assets of £9m the banks stand to find themselves twenty five million quid out of pocket even if they realise the stadium, colney, and any other assets tangible or non tangible for development etc.
Whilst I am not supportive of banks lending in the manner you describe I do accept that it can work but unlike the old traditional method of secured lending the success of this lending model is wholly reliant upon the creditor making all repayments as scheduled. Recent events in this country have proven that the entire house of cards can be tumbled by a small percentage of defaulting debtors and that this banking model is inherently fragile.
Had we entered this deal ten years ago we''d have probably gone bust by now as nobody could have predicted the spiralling wages and transfer fees that have created the mad world of football finance as we know it today. Are you prepared to take a similar chance with our clubs future now, entering a long term deal based on todays market not knowing what will happen by 2012, 2018, 2025 etc? All it would take would be for Sky to pull out or one dodgy judgment in the European Courts (eg Bosman) and the financial model is turned on its head again.
remember the ITV digital fiasco? Didn''t we borrow in anticipation then get into quite a bit of trouble that we are still in all honesty paying for today?

A deal like the one mooted is tantamount to all or nothing for the club, it might work and be for the good but it might not and the penalty for it not working will not be administration but insolvency.
[/quote]

 

That was my point on the "Should we Sell Carrow road" thread.  It would be an absolute disaster, as all Football Directors look to get through the current season and would allow managers to blow any cash raised in next to no time.  Having non-cash assets in our control maintains a certain degree of realism, cash unfortunately goes to people''s heads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="SimonOTBC"]

[quote user="Buckethead"]My concern is that by "overextending credit" to the club the banks might be putting us in a position whereby in the event of financial difficulties a few years down the road, we find that our assets do not cover our liabilities. It''s all well and good lending us £34.5m secured against £9m assets but the £10m or so this would realise could easily be squandered in just a couple of years, leaving us heavily in negative equity. There''s a reason a bank will not lend you £500k secured against a £125k house, if it all goes horribly wrong then the bank will find itself dreadfully exposed. By lending our club £34.5m against net assets of £9m the banks stand to find themselves twenty five million quid out of pocket even if they realise the stadium, colney, and any other assets tangible or non tangible for development etc.
Whilst I am not supportive of banks lending in the manner you describe I do accept that it can work but unlike the old traditional method of secured lending the success of this lending model is wholly reliant upon the creditor making all repayments as scheduled. Recent events in this country have proven that the entire house of cards can be tumbled by a small percentage of defaulting debtors and that this banking model is inherently fragile.
Had we entered this deal ten years ago we''d have probably gone bust by now as nobody could have predicted the spiralling wages and transfer fees that have created the mad world of football finance as we know it today. Are you prepared to take a similar chance with our clubs future now, entering a long term deal based on todays market not knowing what will happen by 2012, 2018, 2025 etc? All it would take would be for Sky to pull out or one dodgy judgment in the European Courts (eg Bosman) and the financial model is turned on its head again.
remember the ITV digital fiasco? Didn''t we borrow in anticipation then get into quite a bit of trouble that we are still in all honesty paying for today?

A deal like the one mooted is tantamount to all or nothing for the club, it might work and be for the good but it might not and the penalty for it not working will not be administration but insolvency.
[/quote]

You should be looking at our assets rather than our net assets. The financier could have a fixed charge over all our assets to the extent they lend more than the worth of the stadium which would give very good security (albeit I don''t know the quantum of our assets). To the extent there is a shortfall, it could be guaranteed by other parties, directors and a like.

I never said that the financier should lend more than the value of the security. I agree that the method of lending I have described values Carrow Road on the basis that all repayments are made, therefore the extent to which it is used as security by the lender should be limited to its value when not being used as a football stadium.

Furthermore, I never said that we should or shouldn''t enter into a repo or leaseback, I just wanted to understand the basis for your comments. For what it''s worth, I don''t think a deal like this would be the magic answer we''re looking for. Given the structured nature of our current debt, I don''t see the benefit, if however we had short-term cash flow problems, or had been unable to refinance our existing commitments then it might be a viable option to keep us going. I certainly don''t think this is the kind of thing the board would do on a whim.

 

[/quote]

Simon

In any other business your observations are spot on.  Unfortunately Football is not that kind of business.  Cash in hand would be blown by managers pronto.  We need to retain control of our fixed assets to ensure the long term survival of the club and to maintain our football league status, given the lack of any white knights.  As a shareholder (albeit a very minor one) I would oppose any such decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="shefcanary"][quote user="SimonOTBC"]

[quote user="Buckethead"]My concern is that by "overextending credit" to the club the banks might be putting us in a position whereby in the event of financial difficulties a few years down the road, we find that our assets do not cover our liabilities. It''s all well and good lending us £34.5m secured against £9m assets but the £10m or so this would realise could easily be squandered in just a couple of years, leaving us heavily in negative equity. There''s a reason a bank will not lend you £500k secured against a £125k house, if it all goes horribly wrong then the bank will find itself dreadfully exposed. By lending our club £34.5m against net assets of £9m the banks stand to find themselves twenty five million quid out of pocket even if they realise the stadium, colney, and any other assets tangible or non tangible for development etc.
Whilst I am not supportive of banks lending in the manner you describe I do accept that it can work but unlike the old traditional method of secured lending the success of this lending model is wholly reliant upon the creditor making all repayments as scheduled. Recent events in this country have proven that the entire house of cards can be tumbled by a small percentage of defaulting debtors and that this banking model is inherently fragile.
Had we entered this deal ten years ago we''d have probably gone bust by now as nobody could have predicted the spiralling wages and transfer fees that have created the mad world of football finance as we know it today. Are you prepared to take a similar chance with our clubs future now, entering a long term deal based on todays market not knowing what will happen by 2012, 2018, 2025 etc? All it would take would be for Sky to pull out or one dodgy judgment in the European Courts (eg Bosman) and the financial model is turned on its head again.
remember the ITV digital fiasco? Didn''t we borrow in anticipation then get into quite a bit of trouble that we are still in all honesty paying for today?

A deal like the one mooted is tantamount to all or nothing for the club, it might work and be for the good but it might not and the penalty for it not working will not be administration but insolvency.
[/quote]

You should be looking at our assets rather than our net assets. The financier could have a fixed charge over all our assets to the extent they lend more than the worth of the stadium which would give very good security (albeit I don''t know the quantum of our assets). To the extent there is a shortfall, it could be guaranteed by other parties, directors and a like.

I never said that the financier should lend more than the value of the security. I agree that the method of lending I have described values Carrow Road on the basis that all repayments are made, therefore the extent to which it is used as security by the lender should be limited to its value when not being used as a football stadium.

Furthermore, I never said that we should or shouldn''t enter into a repo or leaseback, I just wanted to understand the basis for your comments. For what it''s worth, I don''t think a deal like this would be the magic answer we''re looking for. Given the structured nature of our current debt, I don''t see the benefit, if however we had short-term cash flow problems, or had been unable to refinance our existing commitments then it might be a viable option to keep us going. I certainly don''t think this is the kind of thing the board would do on a whim.

 

[/quote]

Simon

In any other business your observations are spot on.  Unfortunately Football is not that kind of business.  Cash in hand would be blown by managers pronto.  We need to retain control of our fixed assets to ensure the long term survival of the club and to maintain our football league status, given the lack of any white knights.  As a shareholder (albeit a very minor one) I would oppose any such decision.

[/quote]

I think you are right that it isn''t a good idea. The only merit to it that I can see is if we needed cash to keep wolves from the door.

A tricky business....but to me it would be simply a case of robbing peter to pay paul if you like, i.e. replacing one hideous burden with another, and quite possibly one, as pointed out, which is more likely to result in insolvency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Responsible Banks do not lend money purely on the strength of security alone. They are more concerned with viability and ability to repay. At the moment the Club''s outgoings exceed income by £5 million p.a. so no sensible outside qualified lender would provide further funds. By some means or other the Club has to close this gap to survive.

Of course HBOS did not worry about ability to repay etc and look what happened to them !!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="vos"]Responsible Banks do not lend money purely on the strength of security alone. They are more concerned with viability and ability to repay. At the moment the Club''s outgoings exceed income by £5 million p.a. so no sensible outside qualified lender would provide further funds. By some means or other the Club has to close this gap to survive. Of course HBOS did not worry about ability to repay etc and look what happened to them !!![/quote]

That''s a good point. Although I think the £5m figure needs to be flexed for finance costs and non-cash items, (I assume £5m is a P&L value?).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]
Well, those figures at least are interesting, because they show there are (or were a few months ago) still around 33,000 shares available for someone to buy and so inject close to £1m in the club. That answers a question I posed on another thread, so thanks for that.
[/quote]

No it doesn''t. Just because there are authorised shares doesn''t mean you can issue. And doesn''t mean that you will get anything like the net asset value for them.

[quote user="Buckethead"]This does beg the question of where the hell that figure of £34,500,000 achievable through selling and leasing back FCR came from.
[/quote]

That will be the fair market value of the land. Nothing to do with the accounting, which will be historic cost less accumulated depreciation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Bobzilla"]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]
Well, those figures at least are interesting, because they show there are (or were a few months ago) still around 33,000 shares available for someone to buy and so inject close to £1m in the club. That answers a question I posed on another thread, so thanks for that.
[/quote]

No it doesn''t. Just because there are authorised shares doesn''t mean you can issue. And doesn''t mean that you will get anything like the net asset value for them.

[quote user="Buckethead"]This does beg the question of where the hell that figure of £34,500,000 achievable through selling and leasing back FCR came from.
[/quote]

That will be the fair market value of the land. Nothing to do with the accounting, which will be historic cost less accumulated depreciation.

[/quote]

Good points. Although you''re second point is subject to any revaluation reserves, (of which I do not recall any, but don''t have the accounts to hand).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rather annoyingly I’ve left my set at work but having had a good look over lunch I seem to recall the club is owed nearly £4.5m by other clubs in transfer fees?   

Now I may have got this wrong and perhaps if any of you have your set to hand you could check but it’s certainly something to rise at the AGM. 

Somehow the West Ham thing might just be involved with this if indeed I am correct given  who we sold to them and the numbers involved?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Bobzilla"]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]Well, those figures at least are interesting, because they show there are (or were a few months ago) still around 33,000 shares available for someone to buy and so inject close to £1m in the club.[/quote]

No it doesn''t. Just because there are authorised shares doesn''t mean you can issue. And doesn''t mean that you will get anything like the net asset value for them.

[/quote]Er, it almost certainly does in this case. Since those extra shares were authorised in October 2007 at least some of them HAVE been issued (ie bought). And under the current circumstances, with the club short of money, it is inconceivable that anyone offering to buy the 33,000 that remain unissued would be turned down. Why on earth create the possibility of £1m-worth of extra funding if you don''t want to make use of it?As to "And doesn''t mean that you will get anything like the net asset value for them." I''m afraid I''m not sure what is the relevance of that statement. The price of the shares is £30. That is what the club will get for them. That is the only thing that matters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bury Green - You are correct. The Report states that most of the trade debtors £4.5m are owed by other Clubs. May be agreed extended payment terms, but a bit worrying. Classic football finance. You sell a player to ease your financial problems but the purchasing Club has also got financial problems so they then struggle to pay you !!

SimonOTBC - You are correct. There is depreciation of around £1.6m plus bits and bobs so the cash flow is about £3 million short. It looks as if everyone is grimly hanging on in the hope of promotion whereupon there is little alternative other than to increase ticket prices by 25% to raise £2 million. Even then it will be touchand go - like every other football club.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would like to mention that the Norwich City Supporters Trust purchased £2550 worth of shares at £30 from the club in October 2009. See link.Will they be part of the 33000 shares available?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="vos"]Bury Green - You are correct. The Report states that most of the trade debtors £4.5m are owed by other Clubs. May be agreed extended payment terms, but a bit worrying. Classic football finance. You sell a player to ease your financial problems but the purchasing Club has also got financial problems so they then struggle to pay you !! SimonOTBC - You are correct. There is depreciation of around £1.6m plus bits and bobs so the cash flow is about £3 million short. It looks as if everyone is grimly hanging on in the hope of promotion whereupon there is little alternative other than to increase ticket prices by 25% to raise £2 million. Even then it will be touchand go - like every other football club.[/quote]

Thanks for that, might it be reasonable to expect Archant to latch onto this sooner rather than later as by my reckoning we could do with the loot? 

It would be fascinating to know who owes what

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="SI"]I would like to mention that the Norwich City Supporters Trust purchased £2550 worth of shares at £30 from the club in October 2009. See link.Will they be part of the 33000 shares available?[/quote]SI, that is bound to be the case, that the purchase by the Supporters'' Trust was of a small number (85) from that tranche of 33,000. So the number available has been reduced very slightly.And the comment from the trust secretary ("We are pleased that our application to purchase shares was accepted by the Club.") bears out what I said in my post above, that the club is hardly going to create all these shares and then refuse to sell them. So there is a potential funding boost of nearly £1m.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Tangible Fixed Assets anyone"]

 

 

Other loans

M Foulger                                                                     £670k

 [/quote]

 

Is this the money that Foulger pledged to match the fans who waived their season ticket discount? 

 

I didn''t realise it was a loan.  It''s just as well that only 1/3 of our fans waived their rebate then.  If everyone had done it the debt would be over £24m . . . [:S]

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="canary cherub "][quote user="Tangible Fixed Assets anyone"]

 

 

Other loans

M Foulger                                                                     £670k

 [/quote]

 

Is this the money that Foulger pledged to match the fans who waived their season ticket discount? 

 

I didn''t realise it was a loan.  It''s just as well that only 1/3 of our fans waived their rebate then.  If everyone had done it the debt would be over £24m . . . [:S]

 

[/quote]No this is different  The rebate money is accounted somewhere else as a gift.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="SI"][quote user="canary cherub "][quote user="Tangible Fixed Assets anyone"]

 

 

Other loans

M Foulger                                                                     £670k

 [/quote]

 

Is this the money that Foulger pledged to match the fans who waived their season ticket discount? 

 

I didn''t realise it was a loan.  It''s just as well that only 1/3 of our fans waived their rebate then.  If everyone had done it the debt would be over £24m . . . [:S]

 

[/quote]

No this is different  The rebate money is accounted somewhere else as a gift.....
[/quote]

Thanks for that SI.  How much was it?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="SI"]I would like to mention that the Norwich City Supporters Trust purchased £2550 worth of shares at £30 from the club in October 2009. See link.Will they be part of the 33000 shares available?[/quote]SI, that is bound to be the case, that the purchase by the Supporters'' Trust was of a small number (85) from that tranche of 33,000. So the number available has been reduced very slightly.And the comment from the trust secretary ("We are pleased that our application to purchase shares was accepted by the Club.") bears out what I said in my post above, that the club is hardly going to create all these shares and then refuse to sell them. So there is a potential funding boost of nearly £1m.[/quote]Just to finish off this point, it is possible, indeed likely, that the three new directors have bought some of these 33,000 shares, but that will show up in the next accounts, not the ones just published.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="canary cherub "][quote user="SI"][quote user="canary cherub "][quote user="Tangible Fixed Assets anyone"]

 

 

Other loans

M Foulger                                                                     £670k

 [/quote]

 

Is this the money that Foulger pledged to match the fans who waived their season ticket discount? 

 

I didn''t realise it was a loan.  It''s just as well that only 1/3 of our fans waived their rebate then.  If everyone had done it the debt would be over £24m . . . [:S]

 

[/quote]No this is different  The rebate money is accounted somewhere else as a gift.....[/quote]

Thanks for that SI.  How much was it?

 

[/quote]£360k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="canary cherub "][quote user="Tangible Fixed Assets anyone"]

 

 

Other loans

M Foulger                                                                     £670k

 [/quote]

 

Is this the money that Foulger pledged to match the fans who waived their season ticket discount? 

 

I didn''t realise it was a loan.  It''s just as well that only 1/3 of our fans waived their rebate then.  If everyone had done it the debt would be over £24m . . . [:S]

 

[/quote]

Amusing Cherub. It takes you one sentence to go from asking a question to converting it to a fact as you go for the jugular.

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...