Financial Accounts upto 30 June 2017

[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....

https://twitter.com/x/status/982013927549816832

 

[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.....

 

[Essexyellows]

Its just numbers on paper................ and I`m sure everyone will manipulate the numbers to suit their own agenda`s....

However there is diddly we can do it about it except enjoy the roller coaster.

Has Charlie found a new life saver for the club who will build a new ground at WE ?

 

[Banbury2018]

Why?

The club is not going

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...

Sorry only irrelevant as post below yours says if and when Eales opts to receive it. Maybe we are being bled dry by our landlord which doesn’t help our operating profit. Maybe the missing approximate 1.2 to 1.5 million a year does not help. Does Tiger have the clout to manage it we will see but unlike some other people on here I am not a fortune teller. If the next tax payment is late then I will be concerned and were you involved in the takeover negotiations and transactions or are you able to mind read as well

 

[Deleted member 462]

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.

And ? If those payment had been made in full up front then he would have had it anyway wouldn’t he ?

 

[Sarge]

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.

Bleach, mops, brushes, disinfectant, rubber gloves urinal blocks...and another ancillary stadium toilet cleaning equipment and necessities? .... oooh, wait a minute, perhaps not

 

[myles]

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.

Disagree.

If you read clauses 9.1 and 9.2 together, looking at the sums involved, and the dates, it reflects a payment structure for Ensco's shares in OUFC.

The secured loan is £4,275,708.

It would appear that the first payment is due by 30th April 2018, and this would be £995,817.

There is then another payment for the same amount due by 30th September 2018 for the same amount.

The final payment is due sometime after 30th September 2018 and would be for £1,284.074.

Add those three sums together and it comes to £3,275,708, suggesting that £1m may have already been paid (although why secure a sum which has already been paid?)

So, if the club's income means that there are excess sums prior to the above payment dates, then the club can have access to those funds. But it's £4.3m which is owed, not £1.3m.

 

[Banbury2018]

Disagree.

If you read clauses 9.1 and 9.2 together, looking at the sums involved, and the dates, it reflects a payment structure for Ensco's shares in OUFC.

The secured loan is £4,275,708.

It would appear that the first payment is due by 30th April 2018, and this would be £995,817.

There is then another payment for the same amount due by 30th September 2018 for the same amount.

The final payment is due sometime after 30th September 2018 and would be for £1,284.074.

Add those three sums together and it comes to £3,275,708, suggesting that £1m may have already been paid (although why secure a sum which has already been paid?)

So, if the club's income means that there are excess sums prior to the above payment dates, then the club can have access to those funds. But it's £4.3m which is owed, not £1.3m.

Secured against what exactly.

 

[myles]

Secured against what exactly.

Any money the club brings in, including future payments due under the Roofe, O'Dowda, Lundstram and Jonson transfers.

 

[Banbury2018]

Any money the club brings in, including future payments due under the Roofe, O'Dowda, Lundstram and Jonson transfers.

The club will not receive 3.25m million by September though.

 

[Manorlounger]

And ? If those payment had been made in full up front then he would have had it anyway wouldn’t he ?

Not quite the same thing Dave. OUFC would have shown income and Eales would/could have paid that to Ensco and then to Alycidon which are both his companies, of course, but, that income has now been separated from the club purely to benefit Ensco/Alycidon/Eales.

The club is left with debt including that wonderful £4 million bought for a quid. (I don't understand that at all)

 

[Deleted member 462]

And ? If those payment had been made in full up front then he would have had it anyway wouldn’t he ?

Not quite the same thing Dave. OUFC would have shown income and Eales would/could have paid that to Ensco and then to Alycidon which are both his companies, of course, but, that income has now been separated from the club purely to benefit Ensco/Alycidon/Eales.

The club is left with debt including that wonderful £4 million bought for a quid. (I don't understand that at all)

So either way he could have paid it straight to ensco! The way I see it he’s selling the business for say £7m. Instead of paying that up front we’re paying it in staged payments but it’s still the same price. And from what I’ve heard no different to the deal agreed in principle with sartori. Darryl would have still got future payments from players he had brought. I’m sure charlie can confirm