I'd rather we make a loss and build the value of the company than be like Crystal Palace, Blackpool, Burnley and Derby and just take the cash and go back down. The Allam's deserve the interest payments.
The tax losses were carried forward but Allam Marine has a year end of 31 December so they could have taken them after 31/07/13.
The tax losses were carried forward but Allam Marine has a year end of 31 December so they could have taken them after 31/07/13.
How is amortisation lower this year than last year? Who was purchased in 2011-12 that was so expensive? Or is it a change in the length of contracts offered in 2012-13 (ie. 3 or 4 year deals instead of 2)? I'm pretty sure Assem said that this year's figures did not show a true reflection because they included bonuses for promotion (which to some extent should have some deferred income offset against them). The more interesting aspect of this is going forwards, saying that we are going to have a shortfall of £11m+ this season. If we paid £30m in transfer fees on 3 year contracts then we would amortise £10m of that cost per year (ignoring any profit on disposal assuming the players increased in value). I guess that the cost of these should level out assuming we stay up a few years because you would replace like with like rather than players of a step up (e.g. if Huddlestone was signed for £5.25m then his book value would be £5.25m - unless agents fees are capitalised - if he were sold in January for £10m then that would be seen in next year's p&l as a £4.75m profit on disposal - if he were sold in August for £10m then that would be seen in 2015's accounts as a £3m profit on disposal). We'd need to replace him with a like-for-like player though.
Losses have to be financed from somewhere, either the banks (Bartlett) or the owner (Assem Allam). If Allamhouse and Allam Marine are borrowing from the banks to lend to Hull City then we are in a similar position to that under Bartlett but one step removed. If Allam Marine want cash they'll have to take it out of the club. The accounts that really matter will be those published for Allamhouse and Allam Marine. We'll then have some idea if we are building on rock or sand. I would say that a far better example to follow would be the club you left off, Reading.
Isn't it players who we couldn't get rid of such as Bullard (left in August 2011), Ghilas, Kilbane, etc.?
Wouldn't they come out of the "profits on disposal of players" line? Been a while but isn't it: Credit: Cost at acquisition (B/S) Debit: Depreciation/Amortisation (B/S) Debit/Credit: P&L difference ? I would have thought that amortisation would only be from assets being amortised (ie. still recognised on the B/S)?
Your double entry is perfect! Maybe with Bullard but not with any player who's contract lasted for all of 2011-2012. Bullard may have agreed a deal whereas we paid him so much of his contract after he left and if that was partly for 2011-2012 then it may be included in amortisation.
Most probably, but its difficult to tell. With plenty of spaces in the KC we could have had some matches were the income was greater than the attendance. For example, 1,000 season ticket holders miss the match yet 500 tickets were sold. I presume the income from Sky is included in the £11 million, so we'd have to take into account the net difference between the TV monies over the two seasons as well.
The Sky money in the accounts would be for the Championship - ie. very little. The Arsenal stewards were saying that season ticket holders who don't turn up were included in their attendance figures. I don't think that's logical - attendances should refer to attendees not payers (there must be some mistake there!).
Not as far as I know. Even if it was it must be illogical. What does an attendance represent?: The number of people in the ground or the number of tickets sold?
It used to be that all season ticket holders were assumed to be in the ground, whether they attended or not, but I thought they'd changed this and with the new bar-code tickets they were now supposed to give actual attendance figures?
It varies from club to club. Some include them, some don't. Pretty sure we're one of the ones that don't. Huddersfield definitely are as they had a season a few years back where their average attendance was lower than the number of season ticket holders they had. (At £100 for the season or £20 a game even I got one and ended up going to 8 games when we had TV fixtures on the Sunday I'm not sure the publicised attendance matters as long as the relevent people know the actual numbers.
Agreed but it's a bit weird if they have H&S/actual attendances and paid attendances floating around. Presumably the only difference is season ticket holders who didn't turn up and a few who bought tickets and didn't turn up.
TV money for each Championship club last season was £2.3m which will be included in the £11m turnover. My guess for gate & matchday receipts would be around £5m? which would mean the remaining £2.5m+ income was from sponsorship, advertising and merchandising.
The top clubs will not wish to admit to thousands of empty seats at a time when affordability is an issue. I watched the Arsenal/Everton game on TV yesterday - dozens of empty seats still.....
