Zwingli'sSausages
Well-Known Member
Some on here say we are loaded & will have 10m+ to spend on players
Others say we are skint and will have to sell before we buy
Myself we are somewere in between
Username checks out.
Some on here say we are loaded & will have 10m+ to spend on players
Others say we are skint and will have to sell before we buy
Myself we are somewere in between
Interesting, he's read a balance sheet that currently doesn't exist. That's impressive.
Brilliant mateWe posted a profit of £12.4m in 2005, primarily due to the NTL write-off of £15m.
We had a profit of £7.6m in 2008, mainly due to the sale of Alan Hutton.
Biggest loss was £35m in 2002!
He’s an expert in all the financial going ons even the stuff that hasn’t been released yet.
You’ve been told, multiple times now, about potential ‘one-off’ outgoings in the last year - including settling with the Fat C*nt (we know it happened but not the cost), potentially clearing the interest-bearing £5m+ loan (we don’t know) and any other loans, and setting aside funds for any potential fine for price-fixing (we don’t know). Plus, no doubt, substantial bonuses to players and staff for the run to Sevilla.With all due respect, if we are only hopeful of breaking even after what will be a record breaking year of received income from player sales, commercial, Europa final run, then we’re in a hell of a lot of trouble because we won’t have that EL run income every season.
Only hoping to break even after all of the above goes completely against what Robertson stated at the AGM last year. He said we should be close to break even and that was without the EL final run income, Patterson fee, Itten fee, Bacuna fee, Wilson fee etc.
Well remembered. Turnover was £64.5mBrilliant mate
Thanks for posting this
Was our record turnover in 08?
I'm sure it was around £65 million
Cheers mate ,thanks for postingWell remembered. Turnover was £64.5m
That’s speculation though with all due respect.You’ve been told, multiple times now, about potential ‘one-off’ outgoings in the last year - including settling with the Fat C*nt (we know it happened but not the cost), potentially clearing the interest-bearing £5m+ loan (we don’t know) and any other loans, and setting aside funds for any potential fine for price-fixing (we don’t know). Plus, no doubt, substantial bonuses to players and staff for the run to Sevilla.
Of course, they may choose not to clear any loans. Personally I’d like to see them cleared but that’s, perhaps, just me. They may choose to not set aside funds for a potential price-fixing fine. Again, we don’t know.
Yes, we will have record income. You are correct. We will, though, probably have record outgoings as well.
Ask him what money Killie have
Bowie took their only money making facility off them when he cleared their debt and took the hotel
The first we knew if the interest-bearing loan being taken out was when it appeared in the Annual Report. A loan taken out to help pay off the previous interest-bearing loan to Dave King most of us knew little about either. I’m speculating, you are correct, that we will choose to clear that loan. Mainly because it’s what I would do. I would clear every and any loan. We have to move on from that in at least the short to medium term.That’s speculation though with all due respect.
If it turns out the loans are cleared early and the SD case is dealt with, fair enough. But the fans should be told IMO in order to tamper transfer window expectations.
In the past when the loans have been given, the club have announced it fairly sharpish. So if they’ve been paid off, tell us so.
The SD settlement will be an interesting one though. I sincerely hope it’s not a significant sum above £2m-£3m otherwise I think the board will have serious questions to answer given the multiple millions wasted in legal fees and the multiple losses in court cases in recent years.
As for any price fixing fine. I’ve stated previously if it turns out someone high up sanctioned this then they should be sacked or resign if us the fans/club income will have to be directed to paying off a fine for quite frankly, any shoddy behaviour.
Exactly this, plus we would never have sold NP for £4m, the same price as Calvin Ramsey.We haven't had an annual report since he was sold, so (as you knew) file under bullsh!t.
It will only be for sure if we don't get through the champions league qualifiers coming upDon't think we necessarily need to sell to spend but not winning the league last season has hit us that's for sure.
Your boss is a prick.Aye true ha!
He’s also able to tel me who’s on the last year of contract and that we won’t get much for them because of it and will be lucky to get anymore than x amount for them.
You should tell him that he could save us a fortune in audit and accounting fees were he to pass this balance sheet on to Rangers. There's no point in us repeating the good work he's already doneHe’s an expert in all the financial going ons even the stuff that hasn’t been released yet.
Losses
20/21 -£24.153m
19/20 -£17.462m
18/19 -£11.277m
17/18 -£14.341m
16/17 -£6.663m
Clearing those loans with inflation so high doesnt make much sense.You’ve been told, multiple times now, about potential ‘one-off’ outgoings in the last year - including settling with the Fat C*nt (we know it happened but not the cost), potentially clearing the interest-bearing £5m+ loan (we don’t know) and any other loans, and setting aside funds for any potential fine for price-fixing (we don’t know). Plus, no doubt, substantial bonuses to players and staff for the run to Sevilla.
Of course, they may choose not to clear any loans. Personally I’d like to see them cleared but that’s, perhaps, just me. They may choose to not set aside funds for a potential price-fixing fine. Again, we don’t know.
Yes, we will have record income. You are correct. We will, though, probably have record outgoings as well.
Correct. Plus if you go to the Balance Sheet, you will see negative Retained Earnings of £85.6M
This represents the TOTAL CUMULATIVE losses that the club has incurred since 2012. The last two years have contributed almost 50% that amount but it's still a staggering amount and it's probably why the club probably has issues with getting preferable lending agreements with that on the Balance Sheet. Most banks/lenders want to at least have positive retained earnings before lending money.
We also have £78M in liabilities on the books and Cash at £3.2M with Trade Receivables at £20.3M
CURRENT LIABILITIES
Other loans (5.7M)
Trade and other payables (27.4M)
Lease liabilities (.57M)
Deferred income (25.0M) *Season Ticket Money already collected for next season
Provisions (2.75M)
(61.47M)
NON-CURRENT LIABILITIES
Other loans (6.4M)
Trade and other payables (2.2M)
Lease liabilities (1.17M)
Deferred income (0.1M)
Deferred tax liability (7.1M)
(17.1M)
Yes, this season has been great with high turnover/revenue but our balance sheet isn't great and I am sure that the Board is doing whatever they can to strengthen this. We seem very cash poor based on these number especially when the cash balance reflects receipt of the next season's season ticket money in advance.
Did the current liabilities not also show the King loan that was about to be cleared and was being covered by the Bennet, Johnson & Wolfhardt loan.Correct. Plus if you go to the Balance Sheet, you will see negative Retained Earnings of £85.6M
This represents the TOTAL CUMULATIVE losses that the club has incurred since 2012. The last two years have contributed almost 50% that amount but it's still a staggering amount and it's probably why the club probably has issues with getting preferable lending agreements with that on the Balance Sheet. Most banks/lenders want to at least have positive retained earnings before lending money.
We also have £78M in liabilities on the books and Cash at £3.2M with Trade Receivables at £20.3M
CURRENT LIABILITIES
Other loans (5.7M)
Trade and other payables (27.4M)
Lease liabilities (.57M)
Deferred income (25.0M) *Season Ticket Money already collected for next season
Provisions (2.75M)
(61.47M)
NON-CURRENT LIABILITIES
Other loans (6.4M)
Trade and other payables (2.2M)
Lease liabilities (1.17M)
Deferred income (0.1M)
Deferred tax liability (7.1M)
(17.1M)
Yes, this season has been great with high turnover/revenue but our balance sheet isn't great and I am sure that the Board is doing whatever they can to strengthen this. We seem very cash poor based on these number especially when the cash balance reflects receipt of the next season's season ticket money in advance.
Cant argue with that. I always look at the worst case scenario when looking at the prospects of any business and of course would hope for better. It is always easy to see income for Rangers but much more difficult to see expenses. Years of losses have been covered by Directors and loans and that can not continue.With all due respect, if we are only hopeful of breaking even after what will be a record breaking year of received income from player sales, commercial, Europa final run, then we’re in a hell of a lot of trouble because we won’t have that EL run income every season.
Only hoping to break even after all of the above goes completely against what Robertson stated at the AGM last year. He said we should be close to break even and that was without the EL final run income, Patterson fee, Itten fee, Bacuna fee, Wilson fee etc.
David "I never took a penny out of Rangers " Murray?
Average related party transactions of £3m+ per annum told a different story
Per the NotesDid the current liabilities not also show the King loan that was about to be cleared and was being covered by the Bennet, Johnson & Wolfhardt loan.
Your boss is a prick.
We had 3 chances of attaining CL money, Malmo, winning the League last season or the EL Final. Even taking one of those chances would have helped our financial situation enormously. In saying that, we are not far away from where we want to be. Folk worrying should calm down. We have a great squad of players for this season and should be challenging on all fronts.
So we might have used Gerrard comp and part of Patterson upfront monies to cover the funding gap.
The Gerrard and part of Patterson upfront fee would have covered the funding gap.Correct. We set targets for players to sell in order to pay the debts and operating expenses.
That is why there wasn't much else left for transfers at the end of the day.
To be fair, I doesn't look that way when you look at the balance sheet though.There should still be plenty left for transfers.
Amortization and Deprecation are the same beasts. They both involve recording something as an Asset on the Balance Sheet and allocating a portion each year to the Income Statement (and reducing the Asset) over the useful life of the asset.GS mentioned that part of our losses in the previous years is the amortisation of the players transfer values (its a kind of double impact with the amortisation and deferred transfer payment) and whilst that still happens Goldsons is either complete or we show him as a increase somewhere due to not having to pay transfer to replace.
We have two loans (Three directors and covid loan) to fund.To be fair, I doesn't look that way when you look at the balance sheet though.
Goldson being retained has a value now though which needs to be written off over the balance of his contract. Thats where I was coming from in that regard, if we have to write down his value over the period of the contract then we would need to credit the asset base with his retention somewhere.Amortization and Deprecation are the same beasts. They both involve recording something as an Asset on the Balance Sheet and allocating a portion each year to the Income Statement (and reducing the Asset) over the useful life of the asset.
It all comes out in the wash such that whatever you pay in transfer (and any associated costs) will be the value that hits the income statement at some point. You don't get hit twice or anything like that. You may have to allocate a larger piece at some point but at the end, you allocate the value that you spent when (1) the contract runs out (2) the player is sold ...which is offset on the Income Statement against any Transfer Fee Revenue earned.
Technically, Goldson's Amortized value should have been close to 0 when he signed his renewal since it was based on his contract and probably amortized monthly.Goldson being retained has a value now though which needs to be written off over the balance of his contract. Thats where I was coming from in that regard, if we have to write down his value over the period of the contract then we would need to credit the asset base with his retention somewhere.
Not all of the loans are share conversion the board made a thing about Kings loan charging interest but forgot some other investors do the same.Hilarious.
To echo the actual question, the way that we declare losses every year seems to be an accumulated process but I always thought any loans were going towards equity and therefore weren't actually debts.
Anyone with the ability to explain it would be appreciated here too.
But he now has a residual value again?Technically, Goldson's Amortized value should have been close to 0 when he signed his renewal since it was based on his contract and probably amortized monthly.
If there were any signing on fees, I think that would be the base for any amortisation.But he now has a residual value again?
We would either need to show him as zero for rest of his contract or credit him to asset base to write down over period of his contract again?
But the player squad is classed as an asset though?If there were any signing on fees, I think that would be the base for any amortisation.
The advanced season ticket accounting is done correctly. It's called the "Matching Principle" and has to be done that way to be compliant as far as Revenue Recognition goes. I have no issues with that. It's just that I expect us to have a much higher case value but that could also be offset by the Trade Receivables as folks are on payment plans to pay for their season books. Regardless, when you add in the Cash and Trade Receivables together (which is why I included that amount), the total is still almost half of the liabilities on the books and that is not a very healthy look.We have two loans (Three directors and covid loan) to fund.
Im not sure what else we have to service.
Our advanced season ticket accounting has been done for a long while and wont change.
Why do you think the balance sheet tells us we wont have money to spend on transfers with those two loans to service as the only debt and by projections contained with the accounts on target for breakeven before the additional performance.
Two loans in the Annual Report (the three investors loan was in order to pay off the King/Laird loan). However, there was an indication that further funding (circa £7m I think) needed to go in post the reporting period. I think it was confirmed at the AGM that the investors would provide that. Maybe that subsequently came mostly from the Gerrard money, which might have covered some of it, or a combination of the Gerrard money and extra income from EL/Patterson money. Either way, it needs to be factored in somewhere.We have two loans (Three directors and covid loan) to fund.
Im not sure what else we have to service.
Our advanced season ticket accounting has been done for a long while and wont change.
Why do you think the balance sheet tells us we wont have money to spend on transfers with those two loans to service as the only debt and by projections contained with the accounts on target for breakeven before the additional performance.
You've not been here longWe had 3 chances of attaining CL money, Malmo, winning the League last season or the EL Final. Even taking one of those chances would have helped our financial situation enormously. In saying that, we are not far away from where we want to be. Folk worrying should calm down. We have a great squad of players for this season and should be challenging on all fronts.
Tells you in the going concern section it wont be required or reduced based on future performance.Two loans in the Annual Report. However, there was an indication that further funding (circa £7m I think) needed to go in post the reporting period. I think it was confirmed at the AGM that the investors would provide that. Maybe that subsequently came mostly from the Gerrard money, which might have covered some of it, or a combination of the Gerrard money and extra income from EL/Patterson money. Either way, it needs to be fractured in somewhere.
To be fair, the Board converted £26M in Loans into Shares (Equity) in the 2021 financial year.Not all of the loans are share conversion the board made a thing about Kings loan charging interest but forgot some other investors do the same.
The investors are funding the club generally through share conversion so it's not a debt as such but is cleared until shares are converted.
Outwith the transfer fees, compensation for Gerrard and euro performance there is circa another £13m of income from commercial performance to factor in.The advanced season ticket accounting is done correctly. It's called the "Matching Principle" and has to be done that way to be compliant as far as Revenue Recognition goes. I have no issues with that. It's just that I expect us to have a much higher case value but that could also be offset by the Trade Receivables as folks are on payment plans to pay for their season books. Regardless, when you add in the Cash and Trade Receivables together (which is why I included that amount), the total is still almost half of the liabilities on the books and that is not a very healthy look.
Correct on the three loans ...per the books, we had a Loan from the "Premier Division" which I assume is a loan we received from the SPFL/SFA as a way to offset the lack of cash flow caused by COVID. We had "Related Party" loans from Laird Investments (5.0M), Director's Loans (5.250) on our books at the end of the year. Both of those were meant to be paid back.
However we have current liabilities on our books for:
Trade Creditors £11.6M
Soc Security Taxes £7.7M
Other Creditors £ 0 .9M
Accruals of £1.65M (Accrued expenses...typically done at Month/Year Ends before an invoice is received).
Just the first three is almost £20M that was payable in less than a year. With the loans payable as well, that is over £30M payable in less than a year with only £23M in Cash and Trade Receivables. That's not enough. Plus they show long term "lease" payments on the books for CAPEX spending on Stadium WiFi, Stadium lighting rigs, turnstile installations and LED boards amongst other items.
From a cash flow position, we have too many liabilities and not enough Cash/Cash equivalents to pay them which would have required either more debt (loans) from owners or player sales to offset that gap. Plus that doesn't leave much left for contingencies or unplanned expenses as well as misc. player spend costs.
I understand that mate. However, some on here are looking at it as £4m for Gerrard and £9m upfront for Patterson = £13m to spend.Tells you in the going concern section it wont be required or reduced based on future performance.
Patterson fee, Gerrard comp and euro performance should see us not require that
If you did rudimentary calcs it would beI understand that mate. However, some on here are looking at it as £4m for Gerrard and £9m upfront for Patterson = £13m to spend.
Or the £4m could be the first installmentThere must be something somewhere that tells you as I was talking to my Kilmarnock supporting boss yesterday and he told me that the real price we got was £4million for Paterson as that’s what shows up on the balance sheet, the rest of the money will be add ons and selling on etc…
He’s a killie fan so he will know our finances better than anyone
I think the asset is the right to the player’s registration and the value is the amortised value of the transfer fee/ any signing on fees paid.But the player squad is classed as an asset though?
I understand that mate. However, some on here are looking at it as £4m for Gerrard and £9m upfront for Patterson = £13m to spend.
Outwith the transfer fees, compensation for Gerrard and euro performance there is circa another £13m of income from commercial performance to factor in.
Our forecast of only requiring £400k of funding in the future year factors in paying that £20m