The upgrades to the KC will be in the SMC's accounts. They would pay for them from profits, if any, by increasing the rent to Hull City Tigers Limited, if possible, or by more loans from Allamhouse.
I am wondering if there is some accounting magic within these figures to make the Hull Tigers theme become a needs must in order for the Allems to push it through? I find it hard to believe that turnover is £11m. In fact that cannot be the case Season Ticket Revenue Match Ticket Revenue Match day food and beverage revenue inc corporate revenue Club Shop revenue Parachute payments TV revenue Sponsorship Income Misc. revenue (anything I've missed in the above) Have no idea as to the accuracy of the link, but most clubs had a turnover in excess of £11m 3-4 years ago http://www.thescratchingshed.com/2012/04/championship-clubs-financial-results-2010-11/
Turnover stated isn't including parachute payments and player sales, actual income looks to be £17,427,815.00
I think the figure is reasonable if you ignore the parachute payments which are not included. We can only increase our revenue significantly in the Premier League with the TV and by changing our name to Hull Tigers - sorry, sick joke!
I don't think these accounts are as bad as they may at first seem. Allam has taken a gamble of getting in to the Premier League by investing in the playing squad and its paid off. There are a few unanswered questions, what does the cost of sales figure of £35 consist of? I didn't think that the wage bill for last year was that high, so what else is included? Also player purchases includes players bought for this season, and don't really relate to this season. This year the turnover will have leapt by atleast £60m, even accounting for increased wages and further player investment this should make for better reading in next years accounts. Should we end up being relegated, I would hope we would have leant from our previous experience by including relegation clauses in the player contracts, several players will still carry plenty of resale value, and the parachute payments have increased significantly, isn't it a further £60m over 4 years? The only issue is Allams debt, but if he wants this repaying the best way to do that is by having us being successful in the premier league. Meanwhile he earns a healthy £2.5m a year in interest on it, better than any bank I'd say!
They include some of the new player signings, but not all, Huddlestone for instance is not included in these accounts. According to AA, even with all the Premier League money for this season, our debts will increase by another £11m by next years accounts as we're still spending more than we are generating.
This season according to Assem Allam we will be spending £11 million more than our income, including the £66 million for being in the Premier League. Any transfers in January will oncrease that deficit further. Depending on what figures were used to calculate that, the final figure may come down. However it is likely that the debt to Allamhouse will increase further. The real question is whether Allamhouse/Allam Marine can keep putting £20 million a year plus into Hull City. Unless he has hundreds of millions of pounds in cash that source will eventually dry up and when it does we'll be over £100 million in debt.
Wernt all the parachute payments already spoken for? Didn't we take loans out against every penny we were to recieve?
I find it difficult to believe that a Premier league club with £70m+ turnover cannot make a profit. We've multplied our turnover 7 fold, I've read our current wage bill is around £39m, where is the rest being spent? I see nothing in these accounts to suggest we'd be spending a further £40m elsewhere.
Allam can't quit City unless he receives a bid of in excess of the value of the club. In order to make the club an interesting proposition, it has to be in a comfortable PL position & sustainable for the following season/s. So the purchase/loan of a striker is essential
Are you saying that Assem Allam is not telling the truth? He has consistently said we are £11 million over budget. On top of the wage bill you have to add the employer's NI contribution and the full cost of transfers. Yes we could off the payment by agreeing a repayment schedule over a number of years just like Bartlett, but he may have paid cash. With agent's fees Huddlestone would have cost us more than the £6 million estimate. I don't know whether we paid a fee for Livermore which would have to be added. Finally we have £14 million trade creditors which have to be paid within this financial year. All in all £80 million doesn't go very far in the Premier League.
Does he say £11m over budget or an £11m loss or the debt will increase by £11m? They are 3 different things. The budget would be set by himself, an estimate of how the accounts will look for the year, so going over that means nothing really. An £11m loss would only include profit and loss items, player transfers are actually a balance sheet transaction and would not be included in the profit/loss, as would payments to trade creditors. An increase in debt would suggest an increase in working capital, presumably to fund the player transfers.
£40m wages £25m transfers and agents fees £5m interest, tax, NI £5m admin and other costs There's £75m spent...
He claimed at the meeting, that there would be an £11m shortfall between our income and spending this season and that'd he'd have to fund that shortfall increasing our debt to Allamhouse by another £11m. It's obviously an estimate, it depends on how much we spend in January and where we finish in the league, if we finished mid table it would wipe out that shortfall completely.
Despite the massive increase in income for the current season, 5% of our total income will now go straight to Allamhouse in interest payments.
I assume there's the cost of sales for the merchandising and hospitality, salaries for other employees which are not classed in the admin salaries, depreciation and SMC charges.
We've not spent anything like £25m on transfers this year have we? Most of this seasons transfers fell in to the current published accounts. The only one that didn't was Huddlestone. I just don't think it adds up, I guess we won't find out for sure till this time next year!
The player amortisation is spread over the contracts but money may be paid out for transfers a lot quicker.
In a nutshell accounts (figures rounded) Income Turnover £11m Parachute £ 6m total revenue therefore £17m Exps Wages £37m (including transfer fees maybe Prossy, defo Boyd, Brady and Meyler) Admin £ 3m Interest £ 3m total outgoings £ 43m Income less outgoings LOSS of £26m ish What we don't know is how much of the 'wages' figure above includes expenditure for THIS season (eg transfer fees for Davies, McGregor, Figueroa, Sagbo, Graham loan fee etc). If some or all are included then the loss isn't as great for last season and certainly Allam will be able to recoup some losses via corporation tax (depending on the Allamhouse financial situation).
