I've just been reading the latest accounts which were published today. The accounts were audited by a small local accountants rather than an international firm of accountants. Turnover fell from ã51m to ã47.5m A profit before tax of ã2m last year became a loss of ã7m this year Staff costs rose from ã33.5m to ã38m Employees engaged in "manufacturing" - I assume this means football related -fell from an average of 76 to 52. The net book value of players was reduced from ã19m to ã13.5m which was due to the following: Additions ã9m Amortisation -ã9m Disposals (at net book value) -ã5.5m Debtors (roughly the same as last year): Trade debtors ã3m Amounts owed by group undertakings ã3m Superstadium ã2m Other debtors ã1m Prepayments ã0.5m Total (any differences subject to rounding) ã10m Creditors: Bank loan and overdrafts ã13m (2009: ã15m) Other unsecured loan - Russell Bartlett ã4m (ã.5m) Trade creditors ã14m (ã15m) Tax - (VAT, PAYE & NIC predominantly I assume) ã5.5m (ã4.5m) Other creditors ã1.5m (ã.25m) Accruals and deferred income ã5.5m (ã6.5m) Total (any differences subject to rounding) ã43m (ã42m) The bank loan was secured against Premier League distributions, a floating charge and Russell Bartlett's personal guarantee. Next year should be more interesting. Pity the accounts are nearly a season in arrears.
A couple of observations! Interesting that amortisation = additions? Is the amortisation value equal to the players (from Brown's era) value(?) being written of as a depreciation value by the Club? Also why has Bartlett's unsecured loan gone up from ã500k to ã4 million, and, has become a debt to him from the Club, when it should be the other way round?
I suppose they have become largely irrelevant now due to the Allam takeover. If that had not of occurred the situation would have been very dangerous, the quick sale of Turner on 31/8/09 (within this tax year) shows how alarming the cash-flow was because we had no money ot pay September 09's wages hence the Turner sale. Things seem to be tidy these days, consolidation year this year and promotion next - happy days! My optimism must be due to the sun being out!!
“Interesting that amortisation = additions? Is the amortisation value equal to the players (from Brown's era) value(?) being written of as a depreciation value by the Club?” I think it’s just coincidence. They would show a write off separately. “Also why has Bartlett's unsecured loan gone up from ã500k to ã4 million, and, has become a debt to him from the Club, when it should be the other way round?” Bartlett eventually started pumping money into the club to keep it afloat. It’s the right way round. “I suppose they have become largely irrelevant now due to the Allam takeover. If that had not of occurred the situation would have been very dangerous, the quick sale of Turner on 31/8/09 (within this tax year) shows how alarming the cash-flow was because we had no money ot pay September 09's wages hence the Turner sale.” This is always the situation with football club accounts. The FA should insist that the accounts are submitted within three months. Selling Turner was footballing suicide. If Bartlett had found the money for the wages and kept Turner then we most likely would have avoided relegation. Maybe Bartlett wondered what would happen when October’s wages were due!
Yes, Peter, but the use of amortisation to reduce/increase write-off's of intangible assets, such as player values, is a common practice in football (see Arsenal's accounts for example). Considering Bartlett never actually put his hands in his pockets (apart for to put money from the Club into them) at any time he owned the club, I still can't see how the Club owed him money? Also what has happened to the interest free loans (with no time schedule to pay back in),to the value of ã4.5 - ã5 million, that Bartlett had, gone too????
It's not true that he didn't put any money in, he had to pay the purchase price of the club, the ã4m of club funds he used to make the final payment to Pearson/Wilkinson was against FA rules, so he to personally get ã4m and loan it to the club. We obviously don't owe him anything now, the Allam's have settled the debts, but as with most company accounts, they're nearly a year out of date by the time we get to see them.
So he used the Club's money to buy itself, and, when found out, borrowed (interest free!) the money from the Club to pay itself the money he used from the Club to buy itself in the first place? So where is the money he borrowed???? Plus the ã4 - ã5 million he took in wages from the 3 companies running Club and stadium. Not a bad little earner for the Essex boy!!!!
You can't use club money to fund the personal ownership of the shares, so he had to go out and find ã4m to put into the clubs coffers, he certainly didn't get it from the club, nor will he have got it interest free. All in all, I suspect Bartlett made no money at all from his ownership of Hull City, in fact, it probably cost him a fair old wedge in the end.
“Yes, Peter, but the use of amortisation to reduce/increase write-off's of intangible assets, such as player values, is a common practice in football (see Arsenal's accounts for example).” That would be in contravention of FRS10. Amortisation should be carried out on a straight line time method unless a “unit of production” method is appropriate – which it isn’t in this case. Any revaluations or write-offs would have to be disclosed separately. Can you let me have a copy of Arsenal’s accounts, please? “Considering Bartlett never actually put his hands in his pockets (apart for to put money from the Club into them) at any time he owned the club, I still can't see how the Club owed him money?” Bartlett may not have used MUCH money to buy the club but he did lend money to the club when the financial position deteriorated. “Also what has happened to the interest free loans (with no time schedule to pay back in),to the value of ã4.5 - ã5 million, that Bartlett had, gone too????” I don’t think Bartlett personally had borrowed any money although companies controlled by him were lent money which was part of the moving around of money when the club was bought. I think you are thinking of the following debtors that I included in my post: Amounts owed by group undertakings ã3m Superstadium ã2m These companies then lent the money on to other Bartlett controlled companies.
Our problem is the more succesful you get, the greater the rewards and income... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12818832 Oh, hang on. Manchester United's parent company made a loss of ã108.9m in 2009-10, according to newly released financial results. Red Football Joint Venture is the Glazer family parent company that owns the Old Trafford club. Its loss, for the year to July 2010, includes one-off costs from setting up a ã526m bond scheme last January to replace outstanding debts of ã509m.
As OLM said, Bartlett paid some money towards the purchase price of the club. I think my calculation was about one third – or was it two thirds!? – but the calculations were only done based on year end company accounts.
If you go onto the arsenal web-site you will find their accounts, yearly, and, half-yearly, available for all to see!
“(k) Player costs The costs associated with acquiring players’ registrations or extending their contracts, including agents’ fees, are capitalised and amortised, in equal instalments, over the period of the respective players’ contracts. Where a contract life is renegotiated the unamortised costs, together with the new costs relating to the contract extension, are amortised over the term of the new contract. Where the acquisition of a player registration involves a non-cash consideration, such as an exchange for another player registration, the transaction is accounted for using an estimate of the market value for the non-cash consideration. Provision is made for any impairment and player registrations are written down for impairment when the carrying amount exceeds the amount recoverable through use or sale. Under the conditions of certain transfer agreements or contract renegotiations, further fees will be payable in the event of the players concerned making a certain number of First Team appearances or on the occurrence of certain other specified future events. Liabilities in respect of these additional fees are accounted for, as provisions, when it becomes probable that the number of appearances will be achieved or the specified future events will occur. Profits or losses on the sale of players represent the transfer fee receivable, net of any transaction costs, less the unamortised cost of the player’s registration. Remuneration of players is charged in accordance with the terms of the applicable contractual arrangements and any discretionary bonuses when there is a legal or constructive obligation.” This is normal and, although Hull City's accounting policy is nowhere as detailed, it seems no different to ours. “The directors consider the net realisable value of intangible fixed assets to be significantly greater than their book value.” This indicates that Arsenal don't revalue the intangible assets regarding player registrations. There's no evidence that Arsenal account for their players any different to Hull City.
I did A-Level Accounting thinking I'd be able to explain these accounts to you mere mortals turns out they're easy to interprete, qualification or no qualification
well a very simple interpretation from a mere layman - we were in the **** till Mr Allam cleared a few creditors. and we wont be in this kind of **** again till he wants his money back!!!!!
I did a lot of economics in my A-Level Business, studying accounts and what not, and I also came to the same conclusion. (That conclusion being that Duffen and Bartlett are money wasting pricks)
