• The forum upgrades are now largely complete.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

How much is the clubs debt?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Grumpy Old Man said:
None whatseoever. I'm just going to post some real numbers for about the third time this week. These are got at by adding together all the numbers in the accounts for the last ten years.

Turnover: £766..5m
Staff costs: £577.2m
Other operating costs: £192.1m
Interest: £34.9m
Cash outflow on players bought £309.m
Cash inflow from players sold: £125.8m

Debt on 1 August 2006 £35m
Debt at 31 July 2017 £137m
Debt converted to shares during that time £101m

The one thing that hasn't happened is Short getting anything back. It's all gone, pretty much to players, their agents, and other football clubs.
Click to expand...

Best summary of Shorts tenure I've seen yet. Speaks volumes. 100 million worse off with a worse squad than we had when he came.
 
Grumpy Old Man said:
The investment is a bond that SBC required to have lodged with them as part of the loan deal. The face value is £20m, but at 2016 dollar values it comes out to the higher number. The cash number is down to the timing of PL money. They released a tranche a month earlier than usual; the more realistic 2015 figure was £2.6m. The bond can and probably will be offset against the loan. If that and transfer income can be used to get the SBC debt down to around £25m, it should be possible to refinance the remainder



March/April 2019
Click to expand...

G O M you seem to have a bit of a clue like, still doesn’t mean I won’t check me change if you gan to the bar for us on Satda marra ;)
 
Grumpy Old Man said:
but it's wrong - the UEFa numbers are garbage as they include amounts owing on transfer fees. In accounting terms, these are not debts.
Click to expand...
With our record of losing significant sums on transfers, even if the outstanding money owed on transfers is not included as debt, I think we can safely look at it as though it is.
 
if a booze addled tramp had took over the club instead of short I think we may actually be in a better position now
 
Grumpy Old Man said:
None whatseoever. I'm just going to post some real numbers for about the third time this week. These are got at by adding together all the numbers in the accounts for the last ten years.

Turnover: £766..5m
Staff costs: £577.2m
Other operating costs: £192.1m
Click to expand...

No wonder we are fucked like, can't even cover wages and operating costs man. The games f***ing stupid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BNM
Grumpy Old Man said:
At 31 July 2016 (the year end for the last published accounts), there were the following debts: Security Benefits Corporation £67.9m, Parent company (Drumaville Ltd) £69.4m. Total £137.3m

Against this can be offset: Investments £23.4m and cash £26.9m.

Source: Sunderland Limited financial statements for the year ended 31 July 2016.

There are no later figures in the public domain.
Click to expand...

£27m cash? Where's the Fookin problem? Live for now, lashed up, hookers and blow.......
 
Grumpy Old Man said:
Wise move. Everyone knows accountants can't add up unless they have a calculator or spreadsheet handy :)
Click to expand...

My own says similar, except he tells it as his staff do the sums & he gets to go out on the piss with clients:) :) :)

parm said:
if a booze addled tramp had took over the club instead of short I think we may actually be in a better position now
Click to expand...

I’ll stay quiet as my first response might be libellous;)
 
Grumpy Old Man said:
At 31 July 2016 (the year end for the last published accounts), there were the following debts: Security Benefits Corporation £67.9m, Parent company (Drumaville Ltd) £69.4m. Total £137.3m

Against this can be offset: Investments £23.4m and cash £26.9m.

Source: Sunderland Limited financial statements for the year ended 31 July 2016.

There are no later figures in the public domain.
Click to expand...
So you reckon 137.7m less 60.3m so is the overall debt of @77m
 
Grumpy Old Man said:
None whatseoever. I'm just going to post some real numbers for about the third time this week. These are got at by adding together all the numbers in the accounts for the last ten years.

Turnover: £766..5m
Staff costs: £577.2m
Other operating costs: £192.1m
Interest: £34.9m
Cash outflow on players bought £309.m
Cash inflow from players sold: £125.8m

Debt on 1 August 2006 £35m
Debt at 31 July 2017 £137m
Debt converted to shares during that time £101m

The one thing that hasn't happened is Short getting anything back. It's all gone, pretty much to players, their agents, and other football clubs.
Click to expand...
Whilst I can follow these figures with my non-accountancy eye, where is the injection of money by Short? If he has simply covered the shortfall then he is a creditor rather than a benefactor.
 
Rickybilly said:
Whilst I can follow these figures with my non-accountancy eye, where is the injection of money by Short? If he has simply covered the shortfall then he is a creditor rather than a benefactor.
Click to expand...

£101m of loans turned into share capital. And while the loan money is owed to his company, it is nevertheless money he has put into the club.
 
parm said:
if a booze addled tramp had took over the club instead of short I think we may actually be in a better position now
Click to expand...

At least we wouldn't have spyenked £11M on Stephen Fletcher.

Even that shambles wouldn't have been daft / drunk enough to sign himself
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top