Financial Accounts upto 30 June 2017

[oxford1985]

accounts now available on companies house, show a profit of £649,984

turnover was up and losses slightly down.

 

[Deleted member 462]

This is bullshit ! Can’t be true, how can we be losing £2m a year, and have a chairman strip £11m from the business and still turn a profit !! We’re a shambles, a shambles a tell thee

 

[Shosho]

I look forward to Mark G and his Analysis. Along with PriceOfFootball on Twitter.

 

[Banbury2018]

I look forward to Mark G and his Analysis. Along with PriceOfFootball on Twitter.

Where are the certain individuals who constantly slate the running of the club. Give them some time to bang heads together I am sure they will come up with something ?

 

[Craig]

Just started reading - the auditor noted, as a concern, that we currently have £11.4m more liabilities than assets. So we made a profit for the financial year, as mentioned above, and reduced debt from over £12m to £11.4m.

So in February 2018, Ensco was granted a fixed and floating charge over monies owed to the club, which is noted to be around £3 million.

So unless I am mistaken, the club owed £11.4 million to Ensco as of 30 June 2017. Next years financial statements, with the fallout of the takeover etc will be very interesting.

Interesting note: the average number of employees in 2017 was 154, down from 179 in 2016.

We were (still are?) in dispute with Kassam for additional service charges. He believes he was owed £521,418 as of June ‘17. I would love to know how he arrived at that figure.

 

[outsidethebox]

This is bullshit ! Can’t be true, how can we be losing £2m a year, and have a chairman strip £11m from the business and still turn a profit !! We’re a shambles, a shambles a tell thee

Maybe the 11m was stripped on 1 July 2017?

 

[Shosho]

Made 3.4m in player sales?

Amortisation = cancelling player contracts?

 

[MarkG]

Interesting to see profit on player sales in 2017 of £3.4 million

Made 3.4m in player sales?

Amortisation = cancelling player contracts?

no - amortisation = writing down the value of signing on fees paid. See note 4. Looks like we paid £1,027,001 in signing on fees, which get written down (amortised) over the length of the contracts. So looking at it roughly, if we'd signed players on two to three year deals, you would write down those fees by a half or a third each year, which is where the £411K comes from.

I'm not 100% sure what the loss for "payments in respect of player contracts" is of £802,000. Is it extra fees payable to other clubs after the sales above of £3.4 million? So for instance when we sold Johnson there was a fee due to Motherwell.

Also see note 13, net player sales in year to June 2018 = £3million.

 

[Shosho]

Interesting to see profit on player sales in 2017 of £3.4 million

no - amortisation = writing down the value of signing on fees paid. See note 4. Looks like we paid £1,027,001 in signing on fees, which get written down (amortised) over the length of the contracts. So looking at it roughly, if we'd signed players on two to three year deals, you would write down those fees by a half or a third each year, which is where the £411K comes from.

I'm not 100% sure what the loss for "payments in respect of player contracts" is of £802,000. Is it extra fees payable to other clubs after the sales above of £3.4 million? So for instance when we sold Johnson there was a fee due to Motherwell.

Also see note 13, net player sales in year to June 2018 = £3million.

So total player sales of 3.4 and 3 million from 2017 onwards?

 

[MarkG]

So total player sales of 3.4 and 3 million from 2017 onwards?

2017 profit on player sales +3,400K. what I think is sell-on clauses to other clubs -802K. signing on fees paid -1,027K
2018 - net player sales less signing on fees +3,000K
TOTAL +4,057K.

 

[Deleted member 462]

So total player sales of 3.4 and 3 million from 2017 onwards?

2017 profit on player sales +3,400K. what I think is sell-on clauses to other clubs -802K. signing on fees paid -1,027K
2018 - net player sales less signing on fees +3,000K
TOTAL +4,057K.

£4K ? I made a bigger profit than that in player sales [emoji6]

 

[Manorlounger]

Already posted on another thread but if folks want to have a look themselves: Accounts for year ending 30 June 2017

 

[Banbury2018]

2017 profit on player sales +3,400K. what I think is sell-on clauses to other clubs -802K. signing on fees paid -1,027K
2018 - net player sales less signing on fees +3,000K
TOTAL +4,057K.

Unfortunately though the profits from player sales are received over a period of time so not entirely reflected in figures. Wasn’t our sell on with Roofe 40%. We also pay for signings over a period of time. The figures quoted onRoofe also include 500k if Leeds get promoted during his first contact so not gaurunteed

 

[myles]

Unfortunately though the profits from player sales are received over a period of time so not entirely reflected in figures. Wasn’t our sell on with Roofe 40%. We also pay for signings over a period of time. The figures quoted onRoofe also include 500k if Leeds get promoted during his first contact so not gaurunteed

And at least £4.3m of the player sales income will be going into Ensco's coffers, and not the clubs.....

There's also the remainder of the £11.4m owed to Ensco to be accounted for somehow (£4m-ish of which is the debt bought from WPL for £1).

 

[MarkG]

Unfortunately though the profits from player sales are received over a period of time so not entirely reflected in figures. Wasn’t our sell on with Roofe 40%. We also pay for signings over a period of time. The figures quoted onRoofe also include 500k if Leeds get promoted during his first contact so not gaurunteed

Look at note 7 trade debtors. This is up from £186K (just for DaveT this means one hundred and eighty six thousand) to £1,880,799. So the club sells a player and books the sale price to income. Cash received gets paid into the bank, and any amounts due but unpaid are in trade debtors.

Then take a look at note 13. "At the year-end further amounts were potentially receivable in respect of players sold, conditional upon future events. ... These will be accounted for in the year in which the condition is met"

So the straight forward sale price gets booked right away once the contract is signed, even if the cashflow is spread over two years. The sell on for Roofe is presumably part of the "payments in respect of player contracts £802,000". If your figure of 40% is correct, that could mean we sold Roofe for £2,005,000 with a 40% sell on costing £802,000 (assuming no other sell ons payable in that year).

The example of extra cash for Roofe if Leeds gets promoted is only booked as income if that condition is met.

 

[Shosho]

£4K ? I made a bigger profit than that in player sales [emoji6]

No way thousand? Says 3million?

Am I being dumb?

 

[MarkG]

And at least £4.3m of the player sales income will be going into Ensco's coffers, and not the clubs.....

There's also the remainder of the £11.4m owed to Ensco to be accounted for somehow (£4m-ish of which is the debt bought from WPL for £1).

Sorry, I think you've got that wrong. It's the first £1,284,074 that gets paid into the segregated bank account and then paid out to Ensco at debt repayment dates. Any money received above that will be then paid into a company (OUFC controlled) bank account. If that money then gets paid to Ensco then that's a separate matter.

 

[Manorlounger]

And at least £4.3m of the player sales income will be going into Ensco's coffers, and not the clubs.....

There's also the remainder of the £11.4m owed to Ensco to be accounted for somehow (£4m-ish of which is the debt bought from WPL for £1).

Yes. It helps if folks read the entire report and not just the first couple of pages.

 

[Keepitreal]

I have a feeling that all will become much clearer over the coming weeks and months.

 

[Navegante]

So, excluding player trading, we still made an Operating Loss of 1.5M - this, despite another day out at Wembley and reaching the 5th round of the FA cup?

 

[Deleted member 462]

So, excluding player trading, we still made an Operating Loss of 1.5M - this, despite another day out at Wembley and reaching the 5th round of the FA cup?

But why exclude player trading? That’s what the whole fabled model was based on. I bet there are next to no clubs in the country at our level that break even or turn a profit if u discount player trading

 

[Shosho]

But why exclude player trading? That’s what the whole fabled model was based on. I bet there are next to no clubs in the country at our level that break even or turn a profit if u discount player trading

Brentford who are held up as the blueprint....

 

[MarkG]

But why exclude player trading? That’s what the whole fabled model was based on. I bet there are next to no clubs in the country at our level that break even or turn a profit if u discount player trading

Well I think the point is that looking forward, this is perhaps the bare minimum that Tiger has to fund each year, seeing as the player trading model has pretty much gone by the wayside.

Also most people will agree that the club / Eales got lucky with the sales of O'Dowda, Roofe, Lundstram and Johnson for quite so much.

There might be a little bit more of a trickle down in EPL solidarity payments as their tv money goes up, but not much.

 

[Deleted member 462]

But why exclude player trading? That’s what the whole fabled model was based on. I bet there are next to no clubs in the country at our level that break even or turn a profit if u discount player trading

Well I think the point is that looking forward, this is perhaps the bare minimum that Tiger has to fund each year, seeing as the player trading model has pretty much gone by the wayside.

Also most people will agree that the club / Eales got lucky with the sales of O'Dowda, Roofe, Lundstram and Johnson for quite so much.

There might be a little bit more of a trickle down in EPL solidarity payments as their tv money goes up, but not much.

Got lucky or did very good business. To be honest I don’t understand a fair few of the terms despite reading the entire thing. But there’s nothing that really stands out as a surprise. £1.5m a year is 1/4 smaller than the £2m a year we’re told the club loses. And that’s only the second season in 20+ years I think that we have turned a profit isn’t it ?

 

[Banbury2018]

So, excluding player trading, we still made an Operating Loss of 1.5M - this, despite another day out at Wembley and reaching the 5th round of the FA cup?

Complete irrelevant to exclude player sales unless you are just quoting the bits that suit your argument

 

[Manorlounger]

Complete irrelevant to exclude player sales unless you are just quoting the bits that suit your argument

Why?

The club is not going to benefit from that income.

 

[Banbury2018]

Well I think the point is that looking forward, this is perhaps the bare minimum that Tiger has to fund each year, seeing as the player trading model has pretty much gone by the wayside.

Also most people will agree that the club / Eales got lucky with the sales of O'Dowda, Roofe, Lundstram and Johnson for quite so much.

There might be a little bit more of a trickle down in EPL solidarity payments as their tv money goes up, but not much.

Or Eales held out for maximum particularly the Jonson transfer where Hull started at 1.2 million and in the end Boro payed us 2.5 despite the fact the usual moaners said we would get nowhere near that.

 

[Manorlounger]

Or Eales held out for maximum particularly the Jonson transfer where Hull started at 1.2 million and in the end Boro payed us 2.5 despite the fact the usual moaners said we would get nowhere near that.

You are still assuming that the club will benefit, it won't. All that income is due and payable to D Eales.

 

[Navegante]

Complete irrelevant to exclude player sales unless you are just quoting the bits that suit your argument

Your comment is completely irrelevant - Operating profit gives the true health of the business by excluding irregular or one-off revenues/costs. I'm genuinely shocked that after the great success enjoyed during that season with the cup runs we couldn't break even on that level.

Any profits from future sales of the playing staff will be going to Eales so there will some serious financial holes to fill going forward. Does Tiger have the clout to manage it? Late tax payments and purchasing the club on tick doesn't exactly feel me with confidence...

 

[Oxymoron]

Only when (or if) he elects to receive it - there is no fixed repayment date that I can see in the charge.

The only cash that I see "not available" is the near million that the club are required to build up/hold in a separate account - and DE can authorise payments from that for OUFC purposes.....