• The first stage of the forum upgrades has now been completed but they remain in a degraded state and are still being worked on.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

The 2018/19 accounts - the Grumpy take

Status
Not open for further replies.
Grumpy Old Man said:
Yes, but because the sub-group doesn't publish consolidated accounts anymore, you have a to do a kind of manual consolidation. So SAFC Ltd £26m retained loss less Sunderland Ltd's £2m profit, less a £1m profit in the ladies (group loan adjustments here), gives a group loss of £23m. This is why I'm getting stroppy about the change in filing.
Click to expand...
thank you. you mentioend a company called sjd leisure? thats a new one? presumably its stewrat j donald leisure? but what relartionship dsoes that have to the group-ie madrox ons safc..does sjd own stewarts stake in madorx?
 

worcestermakem said:
Probably already received, the accounts are a snapshot in time.
Click to expand...

But what would it be for? Why would another of the companies need £10m from SAFC almost as soon as the takeover is completed? And pay it back within a year? Would have thought most loans of that size would be paid back over more than 12 months! Just be interesting to know why so much was taken out of the club and what it was used for, regardless of whether it's now been repaid (and we have no way of knowing if it has)
 
Guinness Guzzler said:
But what would it be for? Why would another of the companies need £10m from SAFC almost as soon as the takeover is completed? And pay it back within a year? Would have thought most loans of that size would be paid back over more than 12 months! Just be interesting to know why so much was taken out of the club and what it was used for, regardless of whether it's now been repaid (and we have no way of knowing if it has)
Click to expand...
ot wasnt nescesaarily taken out of hthe club..it went to another company within the club..though your questions are otherwise valid//
 
Grumpy Old Man said:
This, hopefully, is the nadir, the final emptying of the cesspit of declining finances. We live in hope.

What can we say from the numbers, and what does it really mean going forward?

First, this year's figures

Income
Obviously, way down on 2016/17. TV income halved as expected. Gate receipts went down by £2.4m, a drop of just under 25%. That's the cost of PL fanboys and stayaways. Sponsorship fell off a cliff, down 80%, while commercial and retail were down about 35%. Depressing, but pretty much what you might expect. Looking at 2018/19 gates, everything but TV income will probably have bottomed out. However, we're looking at another £15m or so drop in TV income in the 2018/19 accounts. That's why the new owners needed, and still need, tocut costs.

Expenses
Staff costs dropped by £35m (around 42%), lower than the fall in income. so staff costs were 73.4% of turnover (2017 - 67.5%). Bain got a £1m payoff (looking at his total pay, that's probably a contractual one year notice). On staff numbers, it looks as though redundancies affected 1 in 6 admin staff. It appeared that we still managed to spend around £2om on other operating costs. This is where Donald is really going to have to wield the axe to get the books balanced.

Other points to note from the P&L: a further £12m was written off player contract values, we made an £8m profit on the sale of the Charlie Hurley centre, and the lawyers and merchant bankers trousered £6.5m for the share issue.

Turning to the balance sheet, transfer debtors were £16.2m (£4.4m receivable next season), while transfer creditors were £19.6m (£3.5m payable next season). Other debtors include £9.6m due from another group company (not Sunderland Ltd). It's unclear who owes this, or why the debt is there. As expected, there arer no external debts, and there was a positive cash balance of £11.1m at the year end.

Looking forward, there are grounds for optimism, although we may continue to make smaller losses while the position the owners inherited unwinds. Clearly, there is much more work to be done on the cost base, particularly player wages, but it's a far brighter picture than when I was writing this time last year.
Click to expand...

How do they get the operating costs down even further without cutting the power off and making everyone else redundant?
Is there a baseline overhead amount irrespective of the division the club must pay?.....e.g the cost of opening the stadium for a match?
Surely these can't change?
 
Guinness Guzzler said:
But what would it be for? Why would another of the companies need £10m from SAFC almost as soon as the takeover is completed? And pay it back within a year? Would have thought most loans of that size would be paid back over more than 12 months! Just be interesting to know why so much was taken out of the club and what it was used for, regardless of whether it's now been repaid (and we have no way of knowing if it has)
Click to expand...
im genuinely baffled as to what it could be..the only other thing i can think of is was drumaville ltd-ellis shorts company..a group company during the period and the money went to him to pay debts? @Grumpy Old Man ?
 
Howard the Duck said:
Equally, if you do things right, then you don’t need the biggest budget to get promoted. Look at the two teams that went up this season. I dare say that our budget would exceed Sheffield Utd’s and Norwich are a couple of years into a massive playing budget cutting exercise.
Click to expand...
It's a bloody huge 'if' for me, so frustrating the next few seasons as you can feel we will always be one or two short. Unless I'm just a miserable old bugger! Just the feeling I get around the club at the minute
 
TAFKAHM said:
I think in the second series of STID, there is a meeting of staff with Charlie and Stewart and it goes into detail about the finances and just how bad it was, we could of been worse than Bolton...

Big thanks to Stewart and Charlie for turning it around,and I think Stewart was quoted in saying we are in better shape this year than he thought we would be...
Click to expand...

Worse off than Bolton? People will never buy that, mate. Project Fear.
 
Stevos said:
Worse off than Bolton? People will never buy that, mate. Project Fear.
Click to expand...
the ony difference was which owner came in..
the previous bolton owner wrote off huge debt..as ours did,,
but the bolton owner sold to a wrong un..we got someone who isnt a worng un..thats the difference,,,
 
kildaremackem said:
thank you. you mentioend a company called sjd leisure? thats a new one? presumably its stewrat j donald leisure? but what relartionship dsoes that have to the group-ie madrox ons safc..does sjd own stewarts stake in madorx?
Click to expand...

yes

kildaremackem said:
im genuinely baffled as to what it could be..the only other thing i can think of is was drumaville ltd-ellis shorts company..a group company during the period and the money went to him to pay debts? @Grumpy Old Man ?
Click to expand...

Drumaville held the shares in Sunderland Limited. It ceased to be a group company on 22 May 2018.
 
Last edited:
Grumpy Old Man said:
No, the charges were security for instalments owed to Short. All I can think of is a short-term upwards loan to smooth cash flow somewhere. In the absence of accounts for Madrox or SJD it's impossible to tell.
Click to expand...
I cannot think of a plausible reason but I am sure it will come out. If I was their Banker and they owed me money I would certainly want to know!
You going to Southend on Saturday?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top