Davie P 4 Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 Bluedell, would you like to comment on the point attached: "Why is the club now having to pay for the purchase of assets from the administrators? The original investors paid for the assets and have already saw the value of shares from the purchase increase by 600%. Surely the club should not be saddled with paying back this money?" If this is being paid for by the club, then did CG and his consortium ever pay anything for their shareholding? Dont get me wrong, they were the only ones prepared to put their hands in their pockets at the time and for that, there is definately a debt of gratitude, but from the accounts this would then appear to have been bridging finance only, or am I showing my ignorance? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,354 Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 Bluedell, would you like to comment on the point attached: "Why is the club now having to pay for the purchase of assets from the administrators? The original investors paid for the assets and have already saw the value of shares from the purchase increase by 600%. Surely the club should not be saddled with paying back this money?" If this is being paid for by the club, then did CG and his consortium ever pay anything for their shareholding? Dont get me wrong, they were the only ones prepared to put their hands in their pockets at the time and for that, there is definately a debt of gratitude, but from the accounts this would then appear to have been bridging finance only, or am I showing my ignorance? I haven't studied who has paid for what shares in any detail. However what I would say is that there is a difference between "the club" (RFC) and the "holding company" that owns the club (RIFC). These accounts show the combined results of both companies, but in effect the original investor's cash was used to buy the trade and assets of the club and for that they have got shares of RIFC. It's not bridging finance. They just got shares for it. It may be that they got more shares for their money than the other investors but that's all part of getting in at the start and taking the risk. There may be some element of the original investors getting cash back but I can't see it from these accounts. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,050 Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 Basically what this means is that if you purchased a season ticket for £300 and the accounts are being published halfway through the season then only £150 of your season ticket money will show up on the balance sheet. Itâ??s an accounting practice that a lot of clubs donâ??t follow hence you normally find a club makes a profit for the first six months then a big loss for the second six months so this is something I like. Wouldn't £50 of every £300 immediately go to the VAT man? hence the £150 would become £125. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,282 Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 Sidenote ... I very much doubt that any club doesn't not follow what we have done. To me that is a tricky sentence, you know!? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,354 Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 Sidenote ... To me that is a tricky sentence, you know!? Yeah. the double negatives stink. Sorry. Wasn't that happy when I was using them. I was just trying to write in context of what he had said. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,282 Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 Am I right in saying that all income from the recent Puma and Blackthorne deals will only enter the account of next season, as they are only implemented for that? Despite the odd irritation here and there, are our business people on here satisfied that we are on a sound(er) financial footing, given where we are? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,354 Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 Am I right in saying that all income from the recent Puma and Blackthorne deals will only enter the account of next season, as they are only implemented for that? Correct, although any cash advances would be included in the cash balance and a corresponding deferred income amount. Despite the odd irritation here and there, are our business people on here satisfied that we are on a sound(er) financial footing, given where we are? The soundbites are reassuring (although we've heard them from previous regimes) but as was said earlier in the thread, it's next season that will be of most interest. It's difficult to know what element of costs are on the high side due to players (Edu, Bocanegra, Goian etc) being paid a lot at the start of the season, for example. I don't feel I have enough information to make a judgement on it. there's certainly nothing that gives me a sleepless night but there are still some unanswered questions. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 a 10 million loss is certainly far more than we were led to believe was likely. but i don't see anything particularly worrying. incomes on commercial and sponsorship seem very low but perhaps thats to be expected. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 Wouldn't £50 of every £300 immediately go to the VAT man? hence the £150 would become £125. unless your whyte. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.