Gemmel Posted 13 May, 2014 Share Posted 13 May, 2014 https://www.duedil.com/company/00053301/southampton-football-club-limited Is this right? Do we have any guru's on here that can add anything Ignore the "Networth" (I think) that is just a metric that doesn't include player values and deducts the liabilities from the assets (From what I can work out - Happy to be corrected) Anyway we know we have 27 million in outstanding player fees - Does this mean that loan from the BVI company is around 30 million? We also saw reports that we still owed for the development at Staplewood, but as was pointed out, work would not have been completed or still in progress if they hadn't been paid, so may be that was what the loan was for? For those that are judging the board on things that haven't happened yet, it might be worth bearing in mind these figures, especially if they came as a shock to them...... 64 million is 14 million over and above what they have put in to date!!! It might be we are better off with these people in charge as cortese might of had to sell, to balance the books and least the new lot can decide how much if any, they will continue to invest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 13 May, 2014 Share Posted 13 May, 2014 You can't take one figure out of context. It could include the salary bill for the remainder of the players' contracts, for example. The balance sheet is what matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farawaysaint Posted 13 May, 2014 Share Posted 13 May, 2014 Sounds right-ish, advance on funds, 27 million transfer fees, loan from KL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bewildered Posted 13 May, 2014 Share Posted 13 May, 2014 https://www.duedil.com//company/00053301/southampton-football-club-limited/financials More detailed financial info for this year/last year (might ask you to sign up, but it is free and you can use a junk email address) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmel Posted 13 May, 2014 Author Share Posted 13 May, 2014 You can't take one figure out of context. It could include the salary bill for the remainder of the players' contracts, for example. The balance sheet is what matters. But players aren't listed on the balance sheet are they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farawaysaint Posted 13 May, 2014 Share Posted 13 May, 2014 But players aren't listed on the balance sheet are they?Purchased players are, so our biggest transfers would be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
once_bitterne Posted 13 May, 2014 Share Posted 13 May, 2014 How can the figures be a shock to the new board? Gareth Rogers was the CFO of the old board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmel Posted 13 May, 2014 Author Share Posted 13 May, 2014 Purchased players are, so our biggest transfers would be. Ok thanks - I always thought that was one of the anomalies with football finances , but happy to be corrected..... Although that leaves me struggling with companies net worth being minus 56 million Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wurzel Posted 13 May, 2014 Share Posted 13 May, 2014 Can't help with financial know how but have you tried looking at results for other clubs of similar size. I they all have that sort of figure (or worse) it must be normal football business accounting practise. If ours sticks out like a sore thumb it's time to worry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olallana Posted 13 May, 2014 Share Posted 13 May, 2014 Isn´t it so that the Sky Money for season 13/14 is payed out soon and not in there at the moment...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmel Posted 13 May, 2014 Author Share Posted 13 May, 2014 How can the figures be a shock to the new board? Gareth Rogers was the CFO of the old board. Who reported to Cortese. He wouldn't have any control over what Cortese did or didn't tell the estate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farawaysaint Posted 13 May, 2014 Share Posted 13 May, 2014 Who reported to Cortese. He wouldn't have any control over what Cortese did or didn't tell the estate. Bull, they would have received financials annually as shareholders Hell, they could have paid 5quid and got them from the company's house. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint86 Posted 13 May, 2014 Share Posted 13 May, 2014 https://www.duedil.com/company/00053301/southampton-football-club-limited Is this right? Do we have any guru's on here that can add anything Ignore the "Networth" (I think) that is just a metric that doesn't include player values and deducts the liabilities from the assets (From what I can work out - Happy to be corrected) Anyway we know we have 27 million in outstanding player fees - Does this mean that loan from the BVI company is around 30 million? We also saw reports that we still owed for the development at Staplewood, but as was pointed out, work would not have been completed or still in progress if they hadn't been paid, so may be that was what the loan was for? For those that are judging the board on things that haven't happened yet, it might be worth bearing in mind these figures, especially if they came as a shock to them...... 64 million is 14 million over and above what they have put in to date!!! It might be we are better off with these people in charge as cortese might of had to sell, to balance the books and least the new lot can decide how much if any, they will continue to invest. Yup, family loan of £30m, transfer debt of £27m, loss last season of £7m... took me 10 seconds to come up with those numbers..... £64m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sour Mash Posted 13 May, 2014 Share Posted 13 May, 2014 How can the figures be a shock to the new board? Gareth Rogers was the CFO of the old board. The rest of them weren't on the board though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sour Mash Posted 13 May, 2014 Share Posted 13 May, 2014 Bull, they would have received financials annually as shareholders Hell, they could have paid 5quid and got them from the company's house. Yeah, annually. So, they could have got the reports, not been happy with them and tried to implement greater control of NC which he wasn't happy with and walked? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 13 May, 2014 Share Posted 13 May, 2014 Who reported to Cortese. He wouldn't have any control over what Cortese did or didn't tell the estate. It is absolutely impossible that the owner had no knowledge of the companies finances unless she was in some way excluded from the fiscal circuit for a while. They were converting owners loans into equity, providing finance on a constant basis as well. Then there was NC threatening to wander off last summer over "backing". Must have given some sort of figures to his claims surely.It is all so opaque and murky that one really doesn't know about the owner (or owners) at all. I just suspect that the owner is getting generally worried about the level of liabilty and future investment required exceeeding her means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmel Posted 13 May, 2014 Author Share Posted 13 May, 2014 Yup, family loan of £30m, transfer debt of £27m, loss last season of £7m... took me 10 seconds to come up with those numbers..... £64m Problem is the family loan was converted into equity, so may be try again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farawaysaint Posted 13 May, 2014 Share Posted 13 May, 2014 Yeah, annually. So, they could have got the reports, not been happy with them and tried to implement greater control of NC which he wasn't happy with and walked? Any big transaction would have required a special resolution and shareholder's approval, director's do not have carte blanche to do as they please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 13 May, 2014 Share Posted 13 May, 2014 Yup, family loan of £30m, transfer debt of £27m, loss last season of £7m... took me 10 seconds to come up with those numbers..... £64m The family loan exceeds by far 30 million and it is mainly converted into equity. The problem is the major overun on the training ground. Wasn't it 30 million instead of 15 million, that's a major liability because it's not really an asset. Not much call for second hand training ground complexes in Marchwood...one careful owner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmel Posted 13 May, 2014 Author Share Posted 13 May, 2014 Any big transaction would have required a special resolution and shareholder's approval, director's do not have carte blanche to do as they please. The loans that were taken out with the BVI company, were signed by Gareth Rodgers and make no reference or directive to any shareholders approval either provided or required. - That probably doesn't mean anything and in any event I am sure you are right, but the comment about the financial situation being "difficult" is a strange one to make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sour Mash Posted 13 May, 2014 Share Posted 13 May, 2014 Any big transaction would have required a special resolution and shareholder's approval, director's do not have carte blanche to do as they please. You know that for a fact? What is the definition of a big transaction? We enter into a £15m contract for the training ground, get hit with variations, extension of time etc by the contractor to take the costs up to £30m, KL would have no choice but to make sure the £30m is covered, too late by then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmel Posted 13 May, 2014 Author Share Posted 13 May, 2014 Bull, they would have received financials annually as shareholders Hell, they could have paid 5quid and got them from the company's house. That will be our first season in the prem's accounts that have just come out? Everything that preceded the Prem was chickenfeed in comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 13 May, 2014 Share Posted 13 May, 2014 The loans that were taken out with the BVI company, were signed by Gareth Rodgers and make no reference or directive to any shareholders approval either provided or required. - That probably doesn't mean anything and in any event I am sure you are right, but the comment about the financial situation being "difficult" is a strange one to make. I worked out the annual interest on 3 billion sterling the other day, even on 10 year gilts or similar it exceeds 80 million £/annum. I am pretty certain that our owner has nowhere near the funds popularly attributed to her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VectisSaint Posted 13 May, 2014 Share Posted 13 May, 2014 I worked out the annual interest on 3 billion sterling the other day, even on 10 year gilts or similar it exceeds 80 million £/annum. I am pretty certain that our owner has nowhere near the funds popularly attributed to her. You and I were discussing this the other day but I ran out of posts. I was checking and I think it was in the Telegraph back in January that quoted that she had inherited Markus' (note, nothing to do with the Liebherr family) 3bn fortune. I don't recall whether it was GBP or CH Farncs (?) or euros or Turkish Lire, but my point is that the 3bn is nothing to do with the family, it was Markus' personal fortune, which is what i thought was quited when he took over and we were being quoted as something like the 4th richest club in England. i don't believe it is populist attribution, i think it is based on real financial data. Whether that fortune increased or decreased following Markus' untimely demise or not I have no idea, and what the result of the winding up of MALI was again i don't know, but pretty sure that she is/was worth something like 3bn somethings The only other reason i can think if she is not is if the fortune was shared with others rather than just to KL, which I guess is perfectly possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 13 May, 2014 Share Posted 13 May, 2014 (edited) You and I were discussing this the other day but I ran out of posts. I was checking and I think it was in the Telegraph back in January that quoted that she had inherited Markus' (note, nothing to do with the Liebherr family) 3bn fortune. I don't recall whether it was GBP or CH Farncs (?) or euros or Turkish Lire, but my point is that the 3bn is nothing to do with the family, it was Markus' personal fortune, which is what i thought was quited when he took over and we were being quoted as something like the 4th richest club in England. i don't believe it is populist attribution, i think it is based on real financial data. Whether that fortune increased or decreased following Markus' untimely demise or not I have no idea, and what the result of the winding up of MALI was again i don't know, but pretty sure that she is/was worth something like 3bn somethings The only other reason i can think if she is not is if the fortune was shared with others rather than just to KL, which I guess is perfectly possible. But it has never been formally established the Markus Liebherr had 3 million anythings (well probably Nigerian Nagwes or siimilar) It is a figure bandied about in the void, it doesn't appear in Forbes or any other major "rich list". The what I call main Liebherr family possesses about 3 billion dollars according to Forbes but the late Markus is just an unknown. All I know it that his little enterprises have all been wound up and Mail International Holdings AG is now run by an Austrian and another Swiss. However if you want to actually share a link to the "financial data" with me and not just a baseless fag packet calculation of how much he would have had if he hadn't given his shares back to the others of the family then I might be reconciled to the populist figures bandied about. Edited 13 May, 2014 by Window Cleaner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmel Posted 13 May, 2014 Author Share Posted 13 May, 2014 its always going to show on our accounts... No it is not 33 million was converted in equity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 13 May, 2014 Share Posted 13 May, 2014 No it is not 33 million was converted in equity Which means that if the club is ever sold they take at least that back and probably more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingdomCome Posted 13 May, 2014 Share Posted 13 May, 2014 Nothing to worry about, just the cost of running a premier league club. Look at any other club and you'll find they have similar (although scaled) figures. Man City for example had over £1bil in liabilities for 2012 As Adrian says, having bills does not mean being unable to pay them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 13 May, 2014 Share Posted 13 May, 2014 But players aren't listed on the balance sheet are they? Usually their value is written down over the length of their contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 13 May, 2014 Share Posted 13 May, 2014 The problem is the major overun on the training ground. Wasn't it 30 million instead of 15 million, that's a major liability because it's not really an asset. Not much call for second hand training ground complexes in Marchwood...one careful owner. It's still a valuable asset for anybody wanting to buy the club though, isn't it? Therefore it is an asset to the club. It certainly isn't a liability unless you mean that the overun on expenditure on it added to the financial liability. But even then, one assumes that additional value was added to the training ground because of the extra expenditure rather than the cost being wrong by a factor of two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 13 May, 2014 Share Posted 13 May, 2014 (edited) It's still a valuable asset for anybody wanting to buy the club though, isn't it? Therefore it is an asset to the club. It certainly isn't a liability unless you mean that the overun on expenditure on it added to the financial liability. But even then, one assumes that additional value was added to the training ground because of the extra expenditure rather than the cost being wrong by a factor of two. Ah yes, for someone wanting to buy a nearly there club but with a state of the art training ground, but it has to be paid for as of yet and we don't have that much swanning about in cash I presume. Hopefully we've got some sort of long term mortgage or loan on it though and don't have to pay for it out of current disposable cash. At the end of the day it is costing too much for a club of our size. SMS dragged the old setup down, I sincerely hope that this latest princely dream won't drag the new one down. Edited 13 May, 2014 by Window Cleaner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special K Posted 13 May, 2014 Share Posted 13 May, 2014 The figures in the OP link were up to 30th June 2013, before Osvaldo and Wanyama were signed, so presumably don't include for that particular bit of trading? I'm sure someone can verify. For info of OP looking at the 64m current liabilities, they are split into; Creditors - trade creditors 2,552k group loans 8,253k deferred income / accruals 16,618k tax 5,096k Financial Current Liabilities hp 8k other short term loans 18,099k Other liabilities - 13,513k Add in long term liabilities of £10,409k Total liabilities of 74,550k Does this tell us that the "equity" is split between long term and short term loans or is the short term loan the borrowing for the training ground?? Can't be arsed to delve too deeply as I know someone else will know! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmel Posted 13 May, 2014 Author Share Posted 13 May, 2014 Ah yes, for someone wanting to buy a nearly there club but with a state of the art training ground, but it has to be paid for as of yet and we don't have that much swanning about in cash I presume. Hopefully we've got some sort of long term mortgage or loan on it though and don't have to pay for it out of current disposable cash. At the end of the day it is costing too much for a club of our size. SMS dragged the old setup down, I sincerely hope that this latest princely dream won't drag the new one down. LOL - I think you are about the only football fan in country that would say that. Totally bizarre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 13 May, 2014 Share Posted 13 May, 2014 LOL - I think you are about the only football fan in country that would say that. Totally bizarre. Yes, it is bizarre, isn't it? On the other side of the coin, it is these facilities and our ethos regarding the academy that has produced the likes of Bale, Walcott, the Ox and the current batch of Shaw, Chambers, Reed and many others. The future academy stars will not only be attracted to us because of the success of those mentioned, but also the fact that the training facilities we have are second to none elsewhere. And if also bizarrely the cost of the training ground did drag us down to the extent that KL had to sell the club, then of course the training ground would set us apart as an asset from most other similar sized clubs. That and Jackson's Farm, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 13 May, 2014 Share Posted 13 May, 2014 LOL - I think you are about the only football fan in country that would say that. Totally bizarre. This is because I am now conditioned to French football economics where the DCNG has the power to relegate you if you don't get the columns in your in/out ledger balanced correctly. They let clubs go to the wall like Le Mans, plenty have been hit with recruitment bans, fines. If you want great facilities you have to be able to ppay for them and as I don't really believe that our owner is in fact a billionaire then I see problems up ahead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 13 May, 2014 Share Posted 13 May, 2014 On another note. Leicester are saying they will spend another £180m to get top 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Block34 Posted 13 May, 2014 Share Posted 13 May, 2014 From the little I understand about accounts (I'm self employed but have no idea what the hell goes in in my annual accounts - I tend to go to the end to see how much tax I've got to pay!).... Liabilities will include things like employees Income Tax, NI, VAT, Corporation Tax, Rates etc etc that were due to be paid when the accounts were done. Loans can be used to lower tax liabilities Staplewood is possibly marked as a Liability since it costs money to run, it does not generate income as an Asset would (your car is a liability, not an asset for example) - although it will have a notional net worth or value. Also any 'loss' you make can be offset against tax in the future. If you saw my accounts you'd think it was all about to go under, it isn't, doing ok as it happens, but that's not what it immediately looks like - but as my accountants say, they follow the most productive tax and accounting schema for my business, just as SFCs will. In other words, if you're not an accountant, you simply don't have all the knowledge to be able to make valid calls on the accounts of SFC. So, if any accountants happen to be passing by - what do the accounts look like? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now