• 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.

OzzyMac said:
I thought GOM said it was unclear who owed the club the money or am i missing something?
Click to expand...

It's clear that the money was owed by a group company. That means a member of the group of companies whose ultimate holding company is SJD Leisure Holdings Ltd.

Ashley In!! said:
So does that mean on the balance of probabilities it hasn't been? Fair play to GOM mind, I've no idea how he does this. :lol:
Click to expand...

It's shown as being due for payment within one year. The balance of probabilities is that been repaid at any point between 1 September 2018 and today.
 
Last edited:
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...

Why does SAFC Limited pay £2m a year rent for the SOL to Sunderland Limited?
 
Jasper said:
Why does SAFC Limited pay £2m a year rent for the SOL to Sunderland Limited?
Click to expand...

As far as I can tell, this is a longstanding internal charge. It wasn't noticeable before because I usually reviewed the group accounts - as income for Sunderland, but a cost for SAFC, both companies in the same group, it disappears when the sets of accounts are combined (consolidation). It's pretty standard in groups, and is usually there to keep the tax man happy under what's known as transfer pricing, where companies in a group are supposed to deal with each other on the same terms as wouls apply if they were trading with third parties.
 
Grumpy Old Man said:
As far as I can tell, this is a longstanding internal charge. It wasn't noticeable before because I usually reviewed the group accounts - as income for Sunderland, but a cost for SAFC, both companies in the same group, it disappears when the sets of accounts are combined (consolidation). It's pretty standard in groups, and is usually there to keep the tax man happy under what's known as transfer pricing, where companies in a group are supposed to deal with each other on the same terms as wouls apply if they were trading with third parties.
Click to expand...

Cheers
 
Jasper said:
To pay for the club by taking money out of it?

Why wouldn’t bills be paid from SAFC?
Click to expand...
well they are due to repay the loan by 1 september-maybe they ook £10, to pay ellis...then put the £10m (and likely much more) back in later
the other bills i meant were the coxts of the share issue..which is in the accounts for millions..
 
Could the money be in relation to the short-term cashflow issue that Donald mentioned last summer? Maybe they secured a loan in case a lot of the possible debts became payable.
 
I've been through this entire thread and understand almost none of it :lol::lol:
However I am comforted that @Grumpy Old Man knows what he's talking about, and is able to see things that he would like to query regarding our club's monies.
Also, I think we are probably a billion times better off than we were 12 months ago imo - even though I don't understand how.
 
RTG’s Grumpy Old Man is back with his take on the latest set of accounts published by Sunderland AFC - explained in a digestible manner so that Lads fans like me who know nowt about facts and figures can understand them... This, hopefully, is the nadir - the final emptying of the cesspit of declining finances. We live in hope. What can we say from...

You must be logged on to see external links
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top