|
|
Post by jqhtfc on Jun 4, 2021 8:50:04 GMT 1
Kieron maguire done abit on town, I’m sure some more savvy than myself in looking at balances sheets can see what sort of position we’re in as a club.
|
|
|
|
Post by dezzly on Jun 4, 2021 9:01:12 GMT 1
Kieron maguire done abit on town, I’m sure some more savvy than myself in looking at balances sheets can see what sort of position we’re in as a club. Yes I’d like to know too as none of it makes any sense to me.Absolutely no clue when comes to this kind of thing. |
|
|
|
Post by Gag_N_Bone_Man (Destabiliser) on Jun 4, 2021 9:06:11 GMT 1
Favourite quote from him on that thread "Huddersfield also wrote down player values by £6m as they were bobbins."
AS for whether the accounts are any good:
|
|
|
|
Post by dezzly on Jun 4, 2021 9:10:10 GMT 1
Yeh also someone just commented basically reminding me that accounts are effectively a year behind.Was a good point to remember for myself as any debts stated on these accounts aren’t what the current state of play is financially.Or that’s what I took the comment to mean.
|
|
deo1
Andy Booth Terrier
[M0:0]
Posts: 3,885
|
Post by deo1 on Jun 4, 2021 9:44:11 GMT 1
What does in mean about the £80,000 interest on loans per week? Is that what we’re paying a bank or certain individual? I’ve no idea about club accounts but that figure seems quite steep over an entire year!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by merseysideterrier on Jun 4, 2021 9:57:15 GMT 1
What does in mean about the £80,000 interest on loans per week? Is that what we’re paying a bank or certain individual? I’ve no idea about club accounts but that figure seems quite steep over an entire year!!! I suspect the interest will be the bank loan, as I can't see interest mentioned in the section on related party transactions (i.e the directors loans). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2021 9:59:55 GMT 1
What does in mean about the £80,000 interest on loans per week? Is that what we’re paying a bank or certain individual? I’ve no idea about club accounts but that figure seems quite steep over an entire year!!! am a bit of a thicko with stuff like this,,, But i was wondering where the interest was going too. So if i win the Euro lotto and take over Town i wouldnt be really using any of my money, Just loaning it to my club and make lots of interest on my loans. Like a dodgy money lending company rather than a fan. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2021 10:01:15 GMT 1
What does in mean about the £80,000 interest on loans per week? Is that what we’re paying a bank or certain individual? I’ve no idea about club accounts but that figure seems quite steep over an entire year!!! I suspect the interest will be the bank loan, as I can't see interest mentioned in the section on related party transactions (i.e the directors loans). Note 17 specifically mentions that Dean's loans are interest free. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2021 10:04:28 GMT 1
What does in mean about the £80,000 interest on loans per week? Is that what we’re paying a bank or certain individual? I’ve no idea about club accounts but that figure seems quite steep over an entire year!!! am a bit of a thicko with stuff like this,,, But i was wondering where the interest was going too. So if i win the Euro lotto and take over Town i wouldnt be really using any of my money, Just loaning it to my club and make lots of interest on my loans. Like a dodgy money lending company rather than a fan. As per note 17, DH's loans are interest free. The proposed repayment schedule also scotches the rumour that Dean is taking the bulk of the parachute payments as fast as he can (I've been guilty of that). But it also dismisses the idea that he's only getting a significantly reduced proportion of his loans back, as a few have said on here. The arrangement takes into account every penny he's put in. |
|
|
|
Post by impact on Jun 4, 2021 10:21:16 GMT 1
Sales of 22m means either we have let players go for cheaper than we thought, or they're contingent on future events happening. Supposedly:
Billing 15m
Smith 4m
Zanka 2m
VLP 1m
That's before Mooy's as well.
Wage bill is essentially 28m to ignore the extra month. That's higher than Cowley made out (possibly not a massive surprise) but also means we must have paid a fair bit out in the loans.
Edit: that bit above is bollocks, I thought we'd extended the accounting period by a month.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2021 10:27:07 GMT 1
Sales of 22m means either we have let players go for cheaper than we thought, or they're contingent on future events happening. Supposedly: Billing 15m Smith 4m Zanka 2m VLP 1m That's before Mooy's as well. Wage bill is essentially 28m to ignore the extra month. That's higher than Cowley made out and means we must have paid a fair bit out in the loans. There's two separate things listed in relation to transfers: Profit on transfers in the period: £18.1m Profit from transfers since the accounts were prepared: £24.9m |
|
|
|
Post by impact on Jun 4, 2021 10:28:32 GMT 1
Sales of 22m means either we have let players go for cheaper than we thought, or they're contingent on future events happening. Supposedly: Billing 15m Smith 4m Zanka 2m VLP 1m That's before Mooy's as well. Wage bill is essentially 28m to ignore the extra month. That's higher than Cowley made out and means we must have paid a fair bit out in the loans. There's two separate things listed in relation to transfers: Profit on transfers in the period: £18.1m Profit from transfers since the accounts were prepared: £24.9m Correct, but the 24.9m doesn't include any of those players, as they were all sold in the accounting period in question. The 22m is sales rather than profit. Edit: just noticed c6m of loan income, which is around 3m higher than the year before. Assume this is mostly Mooy. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2021 10:30:31 GMT 1
Sales of 22m means either we have let players go for cheaper than we thought, or they're contingent on future events happening. Supposedly: Billing 15m Smith 4m Zanka 2m VLP 1m That's before Mooy's as well. Wage bill is essentially 28m to ignore the extra month. That's higher than Cowley made out (possibly not a massive surprise) but also means we must have paid a fair bit out in the loans. Isn't that the wage bill for the entire club? 176 staff and 77 players. It doesn't represent the first team cost. |
|
|
|
Post by impact on Jun 4, 2021 10:34:23 GMT 1
Sales of 22m means either we have let players go for cheaper than we thought, or they're contingent on future events happening. Supposedly: Billing 15m Smith 4m Zanka 2m VLP 1m That's before Mooy's as well. Wage bill is essentially 28m to ignore the extra month. That's higher than Cowley made out (possibly not a massive surprise) but also means we must have paid a fair bit out in the loans. Isn't that the wage bill for the entire club? 176 staff and 77 players. It doesn't represent the first team cost. Yeah. But IIRC Cowley said it was 22m pre-Jan, 19m after. I struggle to see how approx a third of wages has gone on non-playing staff/academy. |
|
|
|
Post by Solihull Terrier on Jun 4, 2021 10:41:19 GMT 1
On the whole given the situation we found ourselves in I don't think those accounts are too bad. Not great but we're not in dire straits like some others in our division.
Points that caught my interest were £1m lost to a sponsor who refused to pay what they owed us. Who was that?! OPE??
Also amazed that we made £5.6m from player loans, was that all from Sobhi? It shows why Chelsea hoard so many young players, the loan fees each season probably allow them to buy a senior player.
|
|
|
|
Post by impact on Jun 4, 2021 10:45:31 GMT 1
On the whole given the situation we found ourselves in I don't think those accounts are too bad. Not great but we're not in dire straits like some others in our division. Points that caught my interest were £1m lost to a sponsor who refused to pay what they owed us. Who was that?! OPE?? Also amazed that we made £5.6m from player loans, was that all from Sobhi? It shows why Chelsea hoard so many young players, the loan fees each season probably allow them to buy a senior player. It was some drinks company last year who didn't pay. I think the increase in loans will be Mooy. Agree that the accounts seem ok (for football anyway). Hoyle's loan repayments have been extended as people were asking for and we have stabilised with player sales this year. I don't buy the argument from some that we are skint. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2021 10:46:11 GMT 1
On the whole given the situation we found ourselves in I don't think those accounts are too bad. Not great but we're not in dire straits like some others in our division. Points that caught my interest were £1m lost to a sponsor who refused to pay what they owed us. Who was that?! OPE??Also amazed that we made £5.6m from player loans, was that all from Sobhi? It shows why Chelsea hoard so many young players, the loan fees each season probably allow them to buy a senior player. I'm guessing it's these guys: www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/3477124/Who are the company behind: "The club's official hydration partner" |
|
|
|
Post by Waterloo Terrier on Jun 4, 2021 11:02:48 GMT 1
This is a crazy graph. All water under the bridge now, but just goes to show just how stupid it was to appoint Siewert to lead us into the Championship. Disgusting that we nearly got relegated.
|
|
|
|
Post by alexdire on Jun 4, 2021 12:02:58 GMT 1
Sales of 22m means either we have let players go for cheaper than we thought, or they're contingent on future events happening. Supposedly: Billing 15m Smith 4m Zanka 2m VLP 1m That's before Mooy's as well. Wage bill is essentially 28m to ignore the extra month. That's higher than Cowley made out (possibly not a massive surprise) but also means we must have paid a fair bit out in the loans. But Billing's transfer etc. is paid over the life of their contract. Therefore it will be 'booked' as we get the payments. |
|
|
|
Post by colnevalleyblue on Jun 4, 2021 12:04:39 GMT 1
Mad to think that our wage budget of just over £30 million last season was below average compared to other Championship Clubs!
Does make you wonder how other Clubs can manage this longer term and Hodgkinson's comments about Clubs going bankrupt etc are probably right.
Reading are surely close to breahing FFP. If they don't go up next season....
Pretty certain Hodgkinson talked about that £30 million wage budget halving to £15ish million, going to have to get creative if we want to compete further up the table.
|
|
|
|
Post by alexdire on Jun 4, 2021 12:05:14 GMT 1
am a bit of a thicko with stuff like this,,, But i was wondering where the interest was going too. So if i win the Euro lotto and take over Town i wouldnt be really using any of my money, Just loaning it to my club and make lots of interest on my loans. Like a dodgy money lending company rather than a fan. As per note 17, DH's loans are interest free. The proposed repayment schedule also scotches the rumour that Dean is taking the bulk of the parachute payments as fast as he can (I've been guilty of that).But it also dismisses the idea that he's only getting a significantly reduced proportion of his loans back, as a few have said on here. The arrangement takes into account every penny he's put in. That was renegotiated during the Covid break. Which where in this accounting period. We still paid the first £11m as per the old schedule. |
|
|
|
Post by impact on Jun 4, 2021 12:59:03 GMT 1
Sales of 22m means either we have let players go for cheaper than we thought, or they're contingent on future events happening. Supposedly: Billing 15m Smith 4m Zanka 2m VLP 1m That's before Mooy's as well. Wage bill is essentially 28m to ignore the extra month. That's higher than Cowley made out (possibly not a massive surprise) but also means we must have paid a fair bit out in the loans. But Billing's transfer etc. is paid over the life of their contract. Therefore it will be 'booked' as we get the payments. No it isn't in the accounts. Sales are done at the point of sale. The fees are usually spread over 3 years to actually be paid, but that 22m is players who we sold in the 19/20 accounting period. |
|
|
|
Post by Mecha Corte on Jun 4, 2021 13:26:21 GMT 1
On the whole given the situation we found ourselves in I don't think those accounts are too bad. Not great but we're not in dire straits like some others in our division. Points that caught my interest were £1m lost to a sponsor who refused to pay what they owed us. Who was that?! OPE?? Also amazed that we made £5.6m from player loans, was that all from Sobhi? It shows why Chelsea hoard so many young players, the loan fees each season probably allow them to buy a senior player. It was some drinks company last year who didn't pay. I think the increase in loans will be Mooy. Agree that the accounts seem ok (for football anyway). Hoyle's loan repayments have been extended as people were asking for and we have stabilised with player sales this year. I don't buy the argument from some that we are skint. Drinks company ? John Smith’s ? A few weeks ago Sean Jarvis posted on here and said unlike some other Online Betting Sponsors that OPE had paid upfront but it seems to me to lose £1M from a drinks company reeks of being “careless” ? |
|
|
|
Post by impact on Jun 4, 2021 14:14:26 GMT 1
It was some drinks company last year who didn't pay. I think the increase in loans will be Mooy. Agree that the accounts seem ok (for football anyway). Hoyle's loan repayments have been extended as people were asking for and we have stabilised with player sales this year. I don't buy the argument from some that we are skint. Drinks company ? John Smith’s ? A few weeks ago Sean Jarvis posted on here and said unlike some other Online Betting Sponsors that OPE had paid upfront but it seems to me to lose £1M from a drinks company reeks of being “careless” ? As Iffy posted earlier, it was these guys www.sportspromedia.com/news/huddersfield-town-hydrate-with-coco-fuzionI think careless probably sums up that partnership quite well. |
|
|
|
Post by Mecha Corte on Jun 4, 2021 14:20:01 GMT 1
Drinks company ? John Smith’s ? A few weeks ago Sean Jarvis posted on here and said unlike some other Online Betting Sponsors that OPE had paid upfront but it seems to me to lose £1M from a drinks company reeks of being “careless” ? As Iffy posted earlier, it was these guys www.sportspromedia.com/news/huddersfield-town-hydrate-with-coco-fuzionI think careless probably sums up that partnership quite well. Genuinely never heard of them, perhaps they should phone up and ask if they can put their money back in in an attempt to get some brand awareness for their product. |
|
|
|
Post by colnevalleyblue on Jun 4, 2021 14:49:32 GMT 1
Genuinely never heard of them, perhaps they should phone up and ask if they can put their money back in in an attempt to get some brand awareness for their product. Paying Town £1 million to become 'official hydration partner', there must be something in the water to come to a decision like that! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2021 16:26:28 GMT 1
It was some drinks company last year who didn't pay. I think the increase in loans will be Mooy. Agree that the accounts seem ok (for football anyway). Hoyle's loan repayments have been extended as people were asking for and we have stabilised with player sales this year. I don't buy the argument from some that we are skint. Drinks company ? John Smith’s ? A few weeks ago Sean Jarvis posted on here and said unlike some other Online Betting Sponsors that OPE had paid upfront but it seems to me to lose £1M from a drinks company reeks of being “careless” ? Word is our old commercial team would sell to anybody, payment would look after itself. |
|
|
|
Post by Ibiza Town on Jun 4, 2021 17:11:21 GMT 1
Biggest question regarding these accounts is the 4.39 million in annual interest payments, what are they for?
I thought Dean Hoyles loans were interest free, or maybe I'm wrong.
At an average 5% interest that infers a debt of 80 million. Is that the debt to DH?, or is that debt accumulated over time and exists in addition to the debt he has just extended to 2025 (as payment for the club), which would mean we owe significantly more that 80 mil
|
|
pterrier
Iain Dunn Terrier
Posts: 598
Member is Online
|
Post by pterrier on Jun 4, 2021 17:18:50 GMT 1
Biggest question regarding these accounts is the 4.39 million in annual interest payments, what are they for? I thought Dean Hoyles loans were interest free, or maybe I'm wrong. At an average 5% interest that infers a debt of 80 million. Is that the debt to DH?, or is that debt accumulated over time and exists in addition to the debt he has just extended to 2025 (as payment for the club), which would mean we owe significantly more that 80 mil If memory serves me correct, we had to take out a loan shortly after Phil was appointed chairman to cover losses. I don’t think Dean’s loans have interest, but the fact that we have had to take out loans (which do have interest) makes the use of parachute payments to pay back Dean even more disgusting. The parachute payments are designed for the very purpose of stabilising clubs financially so that we don’t have to take out loans; with us the opposite has happened. |
|
|
|
Post by impact on Jun 4, 2021 17:59:08 GMT 1
Biggest question regarding these accounts is the 4.39 million in annual interest payments, what are they for? I thought Dean Hoyles loans were interest free, or maybe I'm wrong. At an average 5% interest that infers a debt of 80 million. Is that the debt to DH?, or is that debt accumulated over time and exists in addition to the debt he has just extended to 2025 (as payment for the club), which would mean we owe significantly more that 80 mil I don't know but I'd assume its the bank loan taken out (31m) which is being repaid with the parachute payment from this year just gone. The loan on the books is 4m less than last year which suggests either the initial 31m included interest, or it has reduced with parachute payments reducing. |
|
