Durham

[stanstheman]

The Durham accs for 2013 declare a profit .

Highlights in brief are an operating profit £1,018,467 (Net 862,472).This was due largely to the Ashes.
Debt has risen to £4,487,804 .After tax this profit was reduced to £746,311 '

Income was higher than in 2012 but lower than historic levels.

The playing staff budget was stated to be ' on target ' at £1.74m

There is also in excess of £5.8m in loans.
Details now on Compant House Website for the cost of £1 under Durham County Cricket Club Holdings Ltd. Company no 05238857

 

[The Omega Man]

Interesting.

I'm assuming that the statement "income was higher than in 2012 but lower than historic levels" means that take out the Ashes money and there would have been "discomfort" at the final figures and that more hedge trimming is in order? The word at the ground is that DCCC has to reduce the wage bill dramatically, one member told me down to as "little" as £1m. Hearsay or fact?

Clearly the cricket club are to going to clear their debt by cricket alone but should I be worried that the debt is £4.5m circa and that on top of that they also owe £5.8m in loans ie £10m owing or am I reading this wrong?

 

[mikemanc]

Hearsay I suspect, I'd be astounded if we'd lost 7 players on £100k per year each which that is equivalent to based on the OP. At a wild guess, Benks, Harmison and Smith will be £250k, maybe £300k tops. Can't think anyone else who's gone that would make a significant dent.

If the debt is £4.5m and they have loans outstanding of £5.8m then they must also have £1.3m of cash or cash equivalents. They don't owe £10m.

And as you said, it looks like we'll struggle without Ashes income, some more belt-tightening to come which we've seen with the loss of the 3 players I've already mentioned.

 

[Twisted]

always confuses me when you can announce a profit whilst also debt going on....[DOUBLEPOST=1393361091][/DOUBLEPOST]

Benks, Harmison and Smith will be £250k, maybe £300k tops. Can't think anyone else who's gone that would make a significant dent.

blackwell & plunkett must've been on a canny wedge, it was only last year they left wasn't it?

 

[mikemanc]

always confuses me when you can announce a profit whilst also debt going on....[DOUBLEPOST=1393361091][/DOUBLEPOST]

blackwell & plunkett must've been on a canny wedge, it was only last year they left wasn't it?

I assumed they were 2013's accounts and they both went before the start of that season so wouldn't be in the £1.7m, could be wrong.

I know the profit/debt going up looks odd but capital expenditure doesn't go through the p&l (apart from as a bit of depreciation) and they may have increased debt in order to fund stuff that's going on this year, all you'd see would be a little of interest.

 

[The Omega Man]

Hearsay I suspect, I'd be astounded if we'd lost 7 players on £100k per year each which that is equivalent to based on the OP. At a wild guess, Benks, Harmison and Smith will be £250k, maybe £300k tops. Can't think anyone else who's gone that would make a significant dent.

If the debt is £4.5m and they have loans outstanding of £5.8m then they must also have £1.3m of cash or cash equivalents. They don't owe £10m.

And as you said, it looks like we'll struggle without Ashes income, some more belt-tightening to come which we've seen with the loss of the 3 players I've already mentioned.

I'll be amazed if they get anyone of any note in for the whole season ie an overseas player. As most of us knew the club simply have no money.[DOUBLEPOST=1393364705][/DOUBLEPOST]

always confuses me when you can announce a profit whilst also debt going on....[DOUBLEPOST=1393361091][/DOUBLEPOST]

blackwell & plunkett must've been on a canny wedge, it was only last year they left wasn't it?

It was also said down at the ground that we were still paying for one or two players eg Davies and Plunkett. Dont know how true this is or how long we are liable to pay for them for.

 

[mikemanc]

I'll be amazed if they get anyone of any note in for the whole season ie an overseas player. As most of us knew the club simply have no money.[DOUBLEPOST=1393364705][/DOUBLEPOST]
It was also said down at the ground that we were still paying for one or two players eg Davies and Plunkett. Dont know how true this is or how long we are liable to pay for them for.

Thought those two would have been out of contract now (so in those accounts) so I guess they could contribute. I'm sceptical as to whether or not we'd be paying them though, sounds like an urban legend. Don't think I've ever heard of cricketers getting these types of payments.

 

[Harry Lime]

Thought those two would have been out of contract now (so in those accounts) so I guess they could contribute. I'm sceptical as to whether or not we'd be paying them though, sounds like an urban legend. Don't think I've ever heard of cricketers getting these types of payments.

It's not uncommon when a player under contract is deemed surplus to requirements.
In most cases a compromise is reached over the remaining wages owed to the player, with the club "buying" out the remainder of the contract. If it's a substantial amount then it makes sense if it's paid monthly over what would have been the players remaining contract.
The player can refuse to leave of course, as long as he turns up for practice and makes himself available for selection then he can pick up the full amount of his wages for the remainder of his contract.

 

[Twisted]

I'm sceptical as to whether or not we'd be paying them though, sounds like an urban legend. Don't think I've ever heard of cricketers getting these types of payments.

davies at least must've been on a fair amount [in cricketing terms] and Kent is in no way in better fiscal shape than us, far from it.

 

[mikemanc]

davies at least must've been on a fair amount [in cricketing terms] and Kent is in no way in better fiscal shape than us, far from it.

Davies should have been on pay as you play with the injury record he had!

Going back to Harry's post I would assume they received a lump sum rather than staged payments, I agree it makes sense from Durham's point of view but the players would want it up front. We won't know unless Durham's accountant gets on here

 

[The Omega Man]

davies at least must've been on a fair amount [in cricketing terms] and Kent is in no way in better fiscal shape than us, far from it.

Davies was rumoured to be on £90k to £100k. Clearly nee idea if this was true or not.