Accounts released for NCFC

[morty 0]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="morty"][quote user="cityangel"]

Could someone explain to me in plain English, what the difference is between the two 2010 columns, one says we lost £4.1m and one says we lost £1.7m?

Thankyou

[/quote]2.4mGlad to be of help.[:)][/quote]

 

-

 

Suddenly everyone''s a comedian, eh Morty?!

 

Cherub, I don''t have the full accounts, only the club''s rather limited and partial statement, but I think one of those 2010 columns probably has an asterisk which relates to "excluding exceptional costs". It is natural for the club to draw attention to the asterisked figures because they tend to look better. Me, I go by the unasterisked figures. That is why I''ve given the loss as £5.8m rather than the.asterisked ££.1m.

 

[/quote]Theres always a place for comedy in any serious debate.[:)]

[nutty nigel 7,534]

[quote user="City1st"]"Gate receipts and ticket sales - £6,989,000

Catering                               - £3,757,000





[/quote]

Interesting that this shows income from catering to be over half that from gate receipts and ticket sales. Now I know these figures show income and not profit but that catering figure looks really high unless the gate receipts and ticket sales are low.

 

[ca 1]

Purple

If you''re still around, if we have lost £5.8 in the last financial year how come the debt has gone down from £22.9m to £20.9m, cause thought the land deal money wouldnt be taken into account this year?

CA

[PurpleCanary 5,560]

[quote user="cityangel"]

Thanks Purple, I get it now and can see where the £5.8m loss is stated now. Thanks for your help.

[/quote]

---

 

No trouble, Angel, and it did give Morty the chance to be "clever"![:P]

 

The point about whether or not to count exceptional items can be a tricky one. Sometimes companies genuinely have really exceptional one-off costs that skew the account, and that needs to be taken into account. But most years, and I think is the case here, what are called exceptional items are not really that exceptional at all, and  tend to balance out over the years.

 

That is why I have taken that £5.8m post-tax figure, which includes exceptionals, as the loss for the year, as against a loss last year of £5m.

 

[morty 0]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="cityangel"]

Thanks Purple, I get it now and can see where the £5.8m loss is stated now. Thanks for your help.

[/quote]

---

 

No trouble, Angel, and it did give Morty the chance to be "clever"![:P]

 

The point about whether or not to count exceptional items can be a tricky one. Sometimes companies genuinely have really exceptional one-off costs that skew the account, and that needs to be taken into account. But most years, and I think is the case here, what are called exceptional items are not really that exceptional at all, and  tend to balance out over the years.

 

That is why I have taken that £5.8m post-tax figure, which includes exceptionals, as the loss for the year, as against a loss last year of £5m.

 

[/quote]Ooh, "clever" in inverted commas, I''m quite hurt.[:)]

[vos 155]

[quote user="cityangel"]

Could someone other than Morty answer my question please about the 2 columns £4.2m loss and £1.2m loss and where does Ricardo get £5.75m loss from.

I''m confused [:)]

[/quote]

You need to look on Page 5 for the best summary.

Income £16.7 m Operating Expenses £22.1 m This leaves loss (after small adjustment) of £5.1 m. There is then add income of £1m re players transferred (assume Clingan etc)plus associate income reducing loss to £4.1 m. Then add interest charge of £1.6 m to make overall loss of £5.7 m.

Hope this helps - can''t quite see where the other figs you refer - which page ?

[ca 1]

[quote user="vos"][quote user="cityangel"]

Could someone other than Morty answer my question please about the 2 columns £4.2m loss and £1.2m loss and where does Ricardo get £5.75m loss from.

I''m confused [:)]

[/quote] You need to look on Page 5 for the best summary. Income £16.7 m Operating Expenses £22.1 m This leaves loss (after small adjustment) of £5.1 m. There is then add income of £1m re players transferred (assume Clingan etc)plus associate income reducing loss to £4.1 m. Then add interest charge of £1.6 m to make overall loss of £5.7 m. Hope this helps - can''t quite see where the other figs you refer - which page ?[/quote]

I have received my copy of the accounts yet so can''t look at page 5 [:)] but your post and Purple''s has helped thanks.

Still dont understand how the debt has gone down from £22.9m to £20.9m ??

[PurpleCanary 5,560]

[quote user="cityangel"]

Purple

If you''re still around, if we have lost £5.8 in the last financial year how come the debt has gone down from £22.9m to £20.9m, cause thought the land deal money wouldnt be taken into account this year?

CA

[/quote]

 

Angel, that is a very good question. It is surprising that the debt has gone down. I''d assumed it would have gone up. Shows what I know! However I''m stuck for an answer at least until I actually get to see the full accounts rather than the club''s feelgood abridged version, and even then it might not be clear. However from reading various comments from other posters there seem to be all sorts of interesting statistics hidden away there.

 

[ca 1]

I meant  haven''t received my copy of accounts yet [:)]

[ca 1]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="cityangel"]

Purple

If you''re still around, if we have lost £5.8 in the last financial year how come the debt has gone down from £22.9m to £20.9m, cause thought the land deal money wouldnt be taken into account this year?

CA

[/quote]

 

Angel, that is a very good question. It is surprising that the debt has gone down. I''d assumed it would have gone up. Shows what I know! However I''m stuck for an answer at least until I actually get to see the full accounts rather than the club''s feelgood abridged version, and even then it might not be clear. However from reading various comments from other posters there seem to be all sorts of interesting statistics hidden away there.

 

[/quote]

 

ok, thanks Purple [:)] Glad I''m not the only one who doesn''t understand them, even though I want to.

[nutty nigel 7,534]

 

Why can''t you see them on here ?

 

 

[Canary_on_the Trent 0]

[quote user="ricardo"]

Why does a loss of five and three quarter million quid make positive reading?[/quote]

We were always going to make a loss of £5m+ in the year ended May 2010. In 2009, the club made a loss of £5.0m post tax in the second tier, so to spend a season in the third tier with substancially lower revenue, win promotion and lower the clubs net-debt and costs can only be considered good.

Because of the return to the second tier and the lowering of the net-debt, it''s expected the club will break even next season, not many clubs outside the Premier League can say that and have a team on the pitch performing.

The club was a bit of a mess financially when McNally & co came in and there wasn''t going to be a quick fix, the fact we''ll be back breaking even so soon is testament to the tough decisions made by all involved at the club recently.

[paul moy 235]

A key figure to me is the Increase in Creditors figure for 2010 which is an enormous 5.186 million pounds !!!   [:O]

[paul moy 235]

[quote user="cityangel"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="cityangel"]

Purple

If you''re still around, if we have lost £5.8 in the last financial year how come the debt has gone down from £22.9m to £20.9m, cause thought the land deal money wouldnt be taken into account this year?

CA

[/quote]

 

Angel, that is a very good question. It is surprising that the debt has gone down. I''d assumed it would have gone up. Shows what I know! However I''m stuck for an answer at least until I actually get to see the full accounts rather than the club''s feelgood abridged version, and even then it might not be clear. However from reading various comments from other posters there seem to be all sorts of interesting statistics hidden away there.

 

[/quote]

 

ok, thanks Purple [:)] Glad I''m not the only one who doesn''t understand them, even though I want to.

[/quote]

My take on that is that long-term debt has gone down but short-term debt (creditors) has risen by the 5.18 million.  

 

[Canary_on_the Trent 0]

Just had a closer look at the balance sheet and a lot of the long-term debt now seems to be short-term debt due in the next year, interesting to see what impact this has on the accounts for the coming year.

[PurpleCanary 5,560]

[quote user="paul moy"][quote user="cityangel"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="cityangel"]

Purple

If you''re still around, if we have lost £5.8 in the last financial year how come the debt has gone down from £22.9m to £20.9m, cause thought the land deal money wouldnt be taken into account this year?

CA

[/quote]

 

Angel, that is a very good question. It is surprising that the debt has gone down. I''d assumed it would have gone up. Shows what I know! However I''m stuck for an answer at least until I actually get to see the full accounts rather than the club''s feelgood abridged version, and even then it might not be clear. However from reading various comments from other posters there seem to be all sorts of interesting statistics hidden away there.

 

[/quote]

 

ok, thanks Purple [:)] Glad I''m not the only one who doesn''t understand them, even though I want to.

[/quote]

My take on that is that long-term debt has gone down but short-term debt (creditors) has risen by the 5.18 million.  

 

[/quote]

---

 

But we''ve had a repayment holiday on the long-term bank debt (and now a delayed date of 2022 to pay it all back) while the land sale to pay off long-term debt came after the period of these accounts. This is why is seems strange that overall debt has been cut.

 

[paul moy 235]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="paul moy"][quote user="cityangel"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="cityangel"]

Purple

If you''re still around, if we have lost £5.8 in the last financial year how come the debt has gone down from £22.9m to £20.9m, cause thought the land deal money wouldnt be taken into account this year?

CA

[/quote]

 

Angel, that is a very good question. It is surprising that the debt has gone down. I''d assumed it would have gone up. Shows what I know! However I''m stuck for an answer at least until I actually get to see the full accounts rather than the club''s feelgood abridged version, and even then it might not be clear. However from reading various comments from other posters there seem to be all sorts of interesting statistics hidden away there.

 

[/quote]

 

ok, thanks Purple [:)] Glad I''m not the only one who doesn''t understand them, even though I want to.

[/quote]

My take on that is that long-term debt has gone down but short-term debt (creditors) has risen by the 5.18 million.  

 

[/quote]

---

 

But we''ve had a repayment holiday on the long-term bank debt (and now a delayed date of 2022 to pay it all back) while the land sale to pay off long-term debt came after the period of these accounts. This is why is seems strange that overall debt has been cut.

 

[/quote]

Overall debt has not been cut though but has actually increased by virtue of increased finance via increased short-term creditors that will probably fall due in the next year. That could be a worrying situation.  

 

[vos 155]

I agree with recent posters. The long term debt - mainly loans - has been cut by £2m. This has only been achieved by increasing short term debt. I think part of this is due to the restructuring of loans which has not yet been finalised in balance sheet terms. Other factors are that we are holding an extra £2 m in advanced ticket sales (a good source of borrowing money for nothing by the way) £1m extra owed in tax (a bit worrying) £3m accruals (which I think is arrears in loan interest etc which is being switched to new bigger loan).

Its all a massive juggling act and all the various lenders are out on a limb. Nobody can get tough under normal business arrangements as otherwise they will upset a lot of supporters !!! Merely a case of trying to keep all the balls in the air for another season. As I said earlier, classic football accounts and one day the blindingly obvious will have to happen - players wages reduced to equate with income.

[shefcanary 2,407]

There is a very good note in the accounts that discusses why short term debt has increased.  About £5 million of the debt (specifically the preference shares that were issued prior to our last Premier league campaign) is repayable when we return to the Premier League.  In last years accounts, as we had been relegated to the third tier, we were effectively at least two years away from being promoted to the Premier league.  Thus this £5 million of debt was moved from current liabilities to long term liabilities as it would not be repayable for two years.  Now that we are back in the second tier, technically we could be back in the Premier League within 12 months, thus the debt becomes due within one year again.

What implications does this have - well any Premier League income will more than cover the cost of this debt, but last time most of the debt holders did not seek repayment instead offering the Club the opportunity to use it for transfers (fat lot of good that did!).  So not a great deal to worry about with this significant change - it just takes us back to the position prior to relegation. 

Potentially though the directors may not like the idea of repaying all this on promotion but that doesn''t seem to be the current game plan.

[Canary_on_the Trent 0]

Cheers for that shef, I should have looked a little more closely at note 18 rather than skimming over before commenting.

[Davo 0]

I''m not so sure that the 7 year slan is spin. Just because they have extened the lentgth of the long-term loan to end in 2022 doesn''t mean they don''t plan to pay it off if we reach the Prem.

Could they have done this to lower the mandatory repayments so that we''re spending less in the short-term paying it off?

i.e. £20,000,000 over 12 years is roughly £1.7 milliion a year compared to £2.9 million. Then they can pay off more as and when they can afford to like with payments from being promoted?

This way it would free up cash in the short-term to improve the side so that it make sit more realistic that we will get to the Prem.

 

Davo

[mrs miggins 0]

This should also attract new investors!!

[Joanna Grey 0]

Ewwww, stinks of fishy tissues in here.