| Asset strip away, strip away....Left with a SWAN CARCASS 18:36 - Aug 2 with 29759 views | castlejack |
13 players out, 3 players signed
Just heard Mawson deal now confirmed, and club seem content with £8m for Clueless.
This is so depressing,
Having worked in the City for many years, I knew these bustard yanks would asset strip us for years which started even before their first season as owners had started....
But this is bordering on ridiculous. The rate of pillage is speeding up and the vultures have now successfully left us with a SWAN CARCASS.
The parachute payments are only ever one click away as they disappear electronically across the Atlantic.
In the words of Gordon Gekko in Wall Street, when asked Why have you wrecked our company/club....
BECAUSE ITS WRECK-ABLE |  |
| |  |
| Asset strip away, strip away....Left with a SWAN CARCASS on 15:54 - Aug 6 with 2037 views | Badlands |
| Asset strip away, strip away....Left with a SWAN CARCASS on 15:18 - Aug 6 by castlejack |
On reviewing the swans latest a/cs to 31 July 2017, can see the asset strip in the yanks first full season as owners, using smoke and mirrors but accepted as accounting standards @ companies house.
Profit for the year £13 million
Note 3 to the accounts includes “Player Registration amortisation costs” £24 million
This is basically taking the value of our players on the books and writing down their value over circa 4 years when it would value them at zero (with no players in or out over 4 years)
Technically for their first year of ownership they made close to
£37 MILLION
This is without the sales of £60 MILLION that occurred after year end in August 2017 of Gylfi and Llorente which will not show up until published in July 2019.
Minimum asset strip to date £97 MILLION (the6 just haven’t taken it out yet)
They will no doubt take off another £20-30 million from the actual profit made in season 2017-18 for player amortisation costs, even though we continue to offload the majority of players at more than we paid for them.
Wakey wakey trust members, your not keeping your eyes on the ball (the artificial lowering of profit by offsetting a quarter of all players values against profit each year). Yes it’s a legitimate accounting adjustment , but will hide the true profit of the club for the nextfew years transition. |
So where has hat money gone?
I am not seeing that identified anywhere.
I would be dumbstruck if there is £91 million waiting to be spirited out of the club.
But, weren't we looking at a minimum of £30 million overspend when they came in and they have spent £100 million+ since taking over.
2016 -17
Sold £31 million Bought £38 million
2017 - to date
Sold £74 million Bought / rented £69 Million.
We have one of the lowest earned incomes of any PL club and probably most of the Championship.
I found Swiss Ramble on Twitter to be comprehensive. |  |
| |
| Asset strip away, strip away....Left with a SWAN CARCASS on 16:57 - Aug 6 with 1977 views | awayjack |
| Asset strip away, strip away....Left with a SWAN CARCASS on 15:54 - Aug 6 by Badlands |
So where has hat money gone?
I am not seeing that identified anywhere.
I would be dumbstruck if there is £91 million waiting to be spirited out of the club.
But, weren't we looking at a minimum of £30 million overspend when they came in and they have spent £100 million+ since taking over.
2016 -17
Sold £31 million Bought £38 million
2017 - to date
Sold £74 million Bought / rented £69 Million.
We have one of the lowest earned incomes of any PL club and probably most of the Championship.
I found Swiss Ramble on Twitter to be comprehensive. |
It's a little sad that Swiss Ramble shares more insightful info than Club/Trust on the financial state. |  | | |
| Asset strip away, strip away....Left with a SWAN CARCASS on 17:05 - Aug 6 with 1972 views | jasper_T |
| Asset strip away, strip away....Left with a SWAN CARCASS on 16:57 - Aug 6 by awayjack |
It's a little sad that Swiss Ramble shares more insightful info than Club/Trust on the financial state. |
Don't they just break down the published accounts? | | | |
| Asset strip away, strip away....Left with a SWAN CARCASS on 17:48 - Aug 6 with 1917 views | castlejack |
Swiss Ramble do break down the Swans published accounts showing a profit on player sales in. 2016-17 season of £37 million.
However, they do not pick up on the £24 million write down in player values (amortisation) thereby lowering the reported profit to £13 million. True profit £37 million
Example. If you buy a player for £40 million, you write off £10 million per annum of their value and are worth zero in 4 years. However, they do still have a value if yo7 sell before their contract ends,unless in the case of KI it expires and you don’t receive a transfer. This does not happen very often | |
| |
| Asset strip away, strip away....Left with a SWAN CARCASS on 18:13 - Aug 6 with 1876 views | awayjack |
| Asset strip away, strip away....Left with a SWAN CARCASS on 17:05 - Aug 6 by jasper_T |
Don't they just break down the published accounts? |
From what I've seen published accounts P&L just shows total revenue, total costs and profit, with a little detail on Directors Rem. Not very helpful. Swiss Ramble estimate more detail breakdown by type of revenue, detailed cost breakdown and add comparisons to other clubs. I haven't seen most breakdown but previous two years don't show us in good way, with lowest commercial revenues outside TV/PL money and one of highest staff costs / revenue ratios. | | | |
| Asset strip away, strip away....Left with a SWAN CARCASS on 18:17 - Aug 6 with 1864 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Asset strip away, strip away....Left with a SWAN CARCASS on 15:18 - Aug 6 by castlejack |
On reviewing the swans latest a/cs to 31 July 2017, can see the asset strip in the yanks first full season as owners, using smoke and mirrors but accepted as accounting standards @ companies house.
Profit for the year £13 million
Note 3 to the accounts includes “Player Registration amortisation costs” £24 million
This is basically taking the value of our players on the books and writing down their value over circa 4 years when it would value them at zero (with no players in or out over 4 years)
Technically for their first year of ownership they made close to
£37 MILLION
This is without the sales of £60 MILLION that occurred after year end in August 2017 of Gylfi and Llorente which will not show up until published in July 2019.
Minimum asset strip to date £97 MILLION (the6 just haven’t taken it out yet)
They will no doubt take off another £20-30 million from the actual profit made in season 2017-18 for player amortisation costs, even though we continue to offload the majority of players at more than we paid for them.
Wakey wakey trust members, your not keeping your eyes on the ball (the artificial lowering of profit by offsetting a quarter of all players values against profit each year). Yes it’s a legitimate accounting adjustment , but will hide the true profit of the club for the nextfew years transition. |
We are awake, and we also know how to read accounts. | | | |
| Asset strip away, strip away....Left with a SWAN CARCASS on 18:18 - Aug 6 with 1853 views | jasper_T |
| Asset strip away, strip away....Left with a SWAN CARCASS on 18:13 - Aug 6 by awayjack |
From what I've seen published accounts P&L just shows total revenue, total costs and profit, with a little detail on Directors Rem. Not very helpful. Swiss Ramble estimate more detail breakdown by type of revenue, detailed cost breakdown and add comparisons to other clubs. I haven't seen most breakdown but previous two years don't show us in good way, with lowest commercial revenues outside TV/PL money and one of highest staff costs / revenue ratios. |
I'm no accountant but the ones on the Companies House website seem pretty in-depth to me. Swiss Ramble don't have access to any more data than that, even if they're explaining it well. | | | |
| Asset strip away, strip away....Left with a SWAN CARCASS on 18:18 - Aug 6 with 1853 views | awayjack |
| Asset strip away, strip away....Left with a SWAN CARCASS on 17:48 - Aug 6 by castlejack |
Swiss Ramble do break down the Swans published accounts showing a profit on player sales in. 2016-17 season of £37 million.
However, they do not pick up on the £24 million write down in player values (amortisation) thereby lowering the reported profit to £13 million. True profit £37 million
Example. If you buy a player for £40 million, you write off £10 million per annum of their value and are worth zero in 4 years. However, they do still have a value if yo7 sell before their contract ends,unless in the case of KI it expires and you don’t receive a transfer. This does not happen very often |
https://mobile.twitter.com/SwissRamble/status/976026250551660544/photo/1
Here you go. Example of 2017. Does seem to include player amortisation in analysis. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Asset strip away, strip away....Left with a SWAN CARCASS on 18:22 - Aug 6 with 1834 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Asset strip away, strip away....Left with a SWAN CARCASS on 18:18 - Aug 6 by jasper_T |
I'm no accountant but the ones on the Companies House website seem pretty in-depth to me. Swiss Ramble don't have access to any more data than that, even if they're explaining it well. |
Swiss Ramble only uses the information in our accounts as you say.
Nothing else. | | | |
| Asset strip away, strip away....Left with a SWAN CARCASS on 18:31 - Aug 6 with 1802 views | awayjack |
| Asset strip away, strip away....Left with a SWAN CARCASS on 18:22 - Aug 6 by londonlisa2001 |
Swiss Ramble only uses the information in our accounts as you say.
Nothing else. |
Take a look Lisa it's much more detailed than our published accounts. It caveats that some sources they use are from data from Sky / PL, a 3rd parties and player / agent contacts.
Any reason we can't use our extensive financial skills on Trust to analyis the accounts with more insights in a way most fans that aren't accountants can understand?
Maybe that may help explain why despite already selling / reducing number of high playing earners by 13 players this season, we still can't sign new players until even more are sold? | | | |
| Asset strip away, strip away....Left with a SWAN CARCASS on 18:32 - Aug 6 with 1794 views | jasper_T |
| Asset strip away, strip away....Left with a SWAN CARCASS on 18:31 - Aug 6 by awayjack |
Take a look Lisa it's much more detailed than our published accounts. It caveats that some sources they use are from data from Sky / PL, a 3rd parties and player / agent contacts.
Any reason we can't use our extensive financial skills on Trust to analyis the accounts with more insights in a way most fans that aren't accountants can understand?
Maybe that may help explain why despite already selling / reducing number of high playing earners by 13 players this season, we still can't sign new players until even more are sold? |
Have you read the published accounts? They're 31 pages. | | | |
| Asset strip away, strip away....Left with a SWAN CARCASS on 18:33 - Aug 6 with 1792 views | jasper_T |
| Asset strip away, strip away....Left with a SWAN CARCASS on 18:31 - Aug 6 by awayjack |
Take a look Lisa it's much more detailed than our published accounts. It caveats that some sources they use are from data from Sky / PL, a 3rd parties and player / agent contacts.
Any reason we can't use our extensive financial skills on Trust to analyis the accounts with more insights in a way most fans that aren't accountants can understand?
Maybe that may help explain why despite already selling / reducing number of high playing earners by 13 players this season, we still can't sign new players until even more are sold? |
Double post. [Post edited 6 Aug 2018 18:33]
| | | |
| Asset strip away, strip away....Left with a SWAN CARCASS on 18:40 - Aug 6 with 1769 views | castlejack |
| Asset strip away, strip away....Left with a SWAN CARCASS on 18:17 - Aug 6 by londonlisa2001 |
We are awake, and we also know how to read accounts. |
As a trust member, do you agree with my assessment that the profits have been artificially lowered (albeit in compliance with GAAP) ? and
that the Net Book Value as at 31.7.17 is massively understated, bearing in mind we sold just two players, Gylfi and Llorente for circa 60% of the value of our entire squads Net book value as stated on the financial accounts?
We therefore have lower stated profits for 16.17 and definitely for 17.18 whilst we write down player asset values to below what we are selling them for (naturally there are a few exceptions)
This is the asset strip I am talking about that the fan base cannot see taking financial statements at face value | |
| |
| Asset strip away, strip away....Left with a SWAN CARCASS on 18:46 - Aug 6 with 1755 views | jasper_T |
Amortisation isn't something that can just be ignored. Playing assets lose value over the course of their contracts (eventually leaving for £0.00 as with Ki) and unless the club spends more money to gets them to sign new deals (or signs new players in their place) the value of the playing squad decreases. | | | |
| Asset strip away, strip away....Left with a SWAN CARCASS on 18:58 - Aug 6 with 1733 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Asset strip away, strip away....Left with a SWAN CARCASS on 18:31 - Aug 6 by awayjack |
Take a look Lisa it's much more detailed than our published accounts. It caveats that some sources they use are from data from Sky / PL, a 3rd parties and player / agent contacts.
Any reason we can't use our extensive financial skills on Trust to analyis the accounts with more insights in a way most fans that aren't accountants can understand?
Maybe that may help explain why despite already selling / reducing number of high playing earners by 13 players this season, we still can't sign new players until even more are sold? |
I do look. I always read him. I think he’s quite good, although a little simplistic.
With regard to your last question, I can explain a bit without giving away confidential info.
This year, our parachute means we will receive about £50m ish in total from the premier league (maybe up to £60m ish with other income streams) compared with £110m ish in previous years. Our last year wage bill took a big % of that income.
So we need to plug that gap. Some of the gap is plugged by relegation clauses in player contracts (most players have them, not all) reducing the wage bill. Some is plugged by selling players for a transfer fee, giving us lump sums. Some is plugged by reducing the wage bill through selling players on higher weekly wages, or by loaning them out so someone else pays their wages.
Once we’ve closed that gap as far as possible, we can see what’s left. What wages are left to cover, and if any further cash is needed to make sure we can get through the season.
It’s a juggling act, with a few moving parts.
So let’s say (this is simply an example) that we have a player with us on £50k, a player that we want that we think will cost £5m to buy (plus fees) and that player will be on £25k. Our gap closes by £25k per week on wages. And the gap also closes if we sell our player for an amount in excess of the £5m plus fees that we need to pay out. If we can’t get a fee, we still may choose to loan them just to get the £25k per week saving. Particularly if we think the value to the team is not worth the difference in money.
Think about our transfer business starting at minus £45m or £50m or so, and every time we buy someone, that figure gets bigger by the transfer, fees and wages, and every time we sell or loan someone out that figure gets smaller by the money received and wages saved and the figure also gets smaller with relegation clauses in contracts.
We won’t be at £nil yet. | | | |
| Asset strip away, strip away....Left with a SWAN CARCASS on 19:01 - Aug 6 with 1726 views | awayjack |
| Asset strip away, strip away....Left with a SWAN CARCASS on 18:32 - Aug 6 by jasper_T |
Have you read the published accounts? They're 31 pages. |
Yes 31 pages mostly the minimum reporting requirements but IMO short on relevant anaylisis and insightful comparisons. That why so many prefer something to read Swiss Ramble that far more impartial, and looks at performance verus similar analysis of peer groups.
If you honestly look at various SR reports, commentary and anaylisis and still think our published accounts are more informative then good luck.
My main point is why can't the Club / Trust share more information and insights in a way fans - that may not be accountants - can easily understand? More transparency would break down some of the trust issues between fans and Board and indeed fans and the Trust. | | | |
| Asset strip away, strip away....Left with a SWAN CARCASS on 19:03 - Aug 6 with 1719 views | awayjack |
| Asset strip away, strip away....Left with a SWAN CARCASS on 18:58 - Aug 6 by londonlisa2001 |
I do look. I always read him. I think he’s quite good, although a little simplistic.
With regard to your last question, I can explain a bit without giving away confidential info.
This year, our parachute means we will receive about £50m ish in total from the premier league (maybe up to £60m ish with other income streams) compared with £110m ish in previous years. Our last year wage bill took a big % of that income.
So we need to plug that gap. Some of the gap is plugged by relegation clauses in player contracts (most players have them, not all) reducing the wage bill. Some is plugged by selling players for a transfer fee, giving us lump sums. Some is plugged by reducing the wage bill through selling players on higher weekly wages, or by loaning them out so someone else pays their wages.
Once we’ve closed that gap as far as possible, we can see what’s left. What wages are left to cover, and if any further cash is needed to make sure we can get through the season.
It’s a juggling act, with a few moving parts.
So let’s say (this is simply an example) that we have a player with us on £50k, a player that we want that we think will cost £5m to buy (plus fees) and that player will be on £25k. Our gap closes by £25k per week on wages. And the gap also closes if we sell our player for an amount in excess of the £5m plus fees that we need to pay out. If we can’t get a fee, we still may choose to loan them just to get the £25k per week saving. Particularly if we think the value to the team is not worth the difference in money.
Think about our transfer business starting at minus £45m or £50m or so, and every time we buy someone, that figure gets bigger by the transfer, fees and wages, and every time we sell or loan someone out that figure gets smaller by the money received and wages saved and the figure also gets smaller with relegation clauses in contracts.
We won’t be at £nil yet. |
Thanks Lisa. Appreciate the explanation and you're restricted around confidentiality. | | | |
| Asset strip away, strip away....Left with a SWAN CARCASS on 19:14 - Aug 6 with 1701 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Asset strip away, strip away....Left with a SWAN CARCASS on 18:40 - Aug 6 by castlejack |
As a trust member, do you agree with my assessment that the profits have been artificially lowered (albeit in compliance with GAAP) ? and
that the Net Book Value as at 31.7.17 is massively understated, bearing in mind we sold just two players, Gylfi and Llorente for circa 60% of the value of our entire squads Net book value as stated on the financial accounts?
We therefore have lower stated profits for 16.17 and definitely for 17.18 whilst we write down player asset values to below what we are selling them for (naturally there are a few exceptions)
This is the asset strip I am talking about that the fan base cannot see taking financial statements at face value |
No.
Profit on sale is calculated by comparing sale price with book value, so if you add back amortisation in an attempt to get to cash profit you can’t then also add in profit on sale as that’s double counting.
Say we buy at £10m over 3 year contract.
Sell for £12m end of year one. Amortisation is £3.33m, book value at time of sale is £6.67m.
We’d show profit on sale of £5.33m (£12m less £6.67m). But our net profit would be reduced by the amortisation charge in the account to that year of £3.33m, which gives you the net £2m in the accounts (which is the actual difference between buying price and selling price).
By adding in the amortisation charge to the profit, you’re showing a total profit of £5.33m. You’ve double counted the £3.33m amortisation. | | | |
| Asset strip away, strip away....Left with a SWAN CARCASS on 19:21 - Aug 6 with 1666 views | TheResurrection |
| Asset strip away, strip away....Left with a SWAN CARCASS on 15:18 - Aug 6 by castlejack |
On reviewing the swans latest a/cs to 31 July 2017, can see the asset strip in the yanks first full season as owners, using smoke and mirrors but accepted as accounting standards @ companies house.
Profit for the year £13 million
Note 3 to the accounts includes “Player Registration amortisation costs” £24 million
This is basically taking the value of our players on the books and writing down their value over circa 4 years when it would value them at zero (with no players in or out over 4 years)
Technically for their first year of ownership they made close to
£37 MILLION
This is without the sales of £60 MILLION that occurred after year end in August 2017 of Gylfi and Llorente which will not show up until published in July 2019.
Minimum asset strip to date £97 MILLION (the6 just haven’t taken it out yet)
They will no doubt take off another £20-30 million from the actual profit made in season 2017-18 for player amortisation costs, even though we continue to offload the majority of players at more than we paid for them.
Wakey wakey trust members, your not keeping your eyes on the ball (the artificial lowering of profit by offsetting a quarter of all players values against profit each year). Yes it’s a legitimate accounting adjustment , but will hide the true profit of the club for the nextfew years transition. |
Wow, you're a special kind of thick.
Got some balls though posting that load of bollocks after, what. 1st or 2nd lesson at some college of knowledge on the Principles of Accounts??
😂😂😂 |  |
| |
| Asset strip away, strip away....Left with a SWAN CARCASS on 20:06 - Aug 6 with 1610 views | castlejack |
| Asset strip away, strip away....Left with a SWAN CARCASS on 19:14 - Aug 6 by londonlisa2001 |
No.
Profit on sale is calculated by comparing sale price with book value, so if you add back amortisation in an attempt to get to cash profit you can’t then also add in profit on sale as that’s double counting.
Say we buy at £10m over 3 year contract.
Sell for £12m end of year one. Amortisation is £3.33m, book value at time of sale is £6.67m.
We’d show profit on sale of £5.33m (£12m less £6.67m). But our net profit would be reduced by the amortisation charge in the account to that year of £3.33m, which gives you the net £2m in the accounts (which is the actual difference between buying price and selling price).
By adding in the amortisation charge to the profit, you’re showing a total profit of £5.33m. You’ve double counted the £3.33m amortisation. |
I’m talking effectively about the EBITDA Earnings before interest, Tax , Depreciation and Amortisation.
Where you would strip out the Amortisation of player values in determining the underlying profit (in the case of the club, trading profit or loss +/- profit or loss on player transfers) | |
| |
| Asset strip away, strip away....Left with a SWAN CARCASS on 20:18 - Aug 6 with 1574 views | castlejack |
| Asset strip away, strip away....Left with a SWAN CARCASS on 19:21 - Aug 6 by TheResurrection |
Wow, you're a special kind of thick.
Got some balls though posting that load of bollocks after, what. 1st or 2nd lesson at some college of knowledge on the Principles of Accounts??
😂😂😂 |
It appears your main contribution here is to insult people and p**ss them off
If you are a serious fan you need to wake up to the fact that the underlying profit of this club has been considerably higher than reported, and the owners are also using the year end (31st July each year) timing to mask further the profits on transfers by delaying the big profit transfers out (Gylfi and Llorente) and bumping them into next year.
If they had made these transfers before 31.7 the profit would have dwarfed most Premier league clubs, and then maybe the likes of you would better understand what is actually going on
Never mind , if you don’t follow the main thread , you don’t follow it. I surrender....I will not be responding to anymore of your posts... Adios Mi Amigo Estupido | |
| |
| Asset strip away, strip away....Left with a SWAN CARCASS on 20:24 - Aug 6 with 1553 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Asset strip away, strip away....Left with a SWAN CARCASS on 20:06 - Aug 6 by castlejack |
I’m talking effectively about the EBITDA Earnings before interest, Tax , Depreciation and Amortisation.
Where you would strip out the Amortisation of player values in determining the underlying profit (in the case of the club, trading profit or loss +/- profit or loss on player transfers) |
I know what you’re trying to do. But adding them together double counts.
You need to add back amortisation to net profit to get EBITDA not add it to player profits (which is what you’ve done), otherwise you’re double counting.
You also by the way, in your original post, didn’t take player acquisitions into consideration. | | | |
| Asset strip away, strip away....Left with a SWAN CARCASS on 20:33 - Aug 6 with 1529 views | TheResurrection |
| Asset strip away, strip away....Left with a SWAN CARCASS on 20:18 - Aug 6 by castlejack |
It appears your main contribution here is to insult people and p**ss them off
If you are a serious fan you need to wake up to the fact that the underlying profit of this club has been considerably higher than reported, and the owners are also using the year end (31st July each year) timing to mask further the profits on transfers by delaying the big profit transfers out (Gylfi and Llorente) and bumping them into next year.
If they had made these transfers before 31.7 the profit would have dwarfed most Premier league clubs, and then maybe the likes of you would better understand what is actually going on
Never mind , if you don’t follow the main thread , you don’t follow it. I surrender....I will not be responding to anymore of your posts... Adios Mi Amigo Estupido |
I don't follow it because you're clearly well off the mark. You're playing at the concept of accounting and making things up to suit your already weak argument.
I don't say this often but I'm genuinely shocked you've actually got the front to pump this bollocks out here in front of some of our posters.
I'm surprised our resident know it all from Denmark hasn't ripped you to shreds yet, I'm guessing he perhaps thinks you've got learning difficulties, although I did see he'd called you an idiot.
This thread is a complete shambles from start to finish. | |
| |
| Asset strip away, strip away....Left with a SWAN CARCASS on 20:36 - Aug 6 with 1524 views | castlejack |
| Asset strip away, strip away....Left with a SWAN CARCASS on 20:24 - Aug 6 by londonlisa2001 |
I know what you’re trying to do. But adding them together double counts.
You need to add back amortisation to net profit to get EBITDA not add it to player profits (which is what you’ve done), otherwise you’re double counting.
You also by the way, in your original post, didn’t take player acquisitions into consideration. |
That’s what I just said, take the profit and add back amortisation
The initial analysis was broad brush and all readers would know that in addition to not mentioning player acquisitions, I also did not cover all player sales.
I guess the main message is over a 14 month period the profit would have been astronomical adding the Gylfi , and Llorente transfers to the last set of accounts, and do question whether it was intentional to delay the transfer of Gylfi so as not to create such a large profit in that financial year (not sure what their Net book values were, or the amortisation for the year? but would contribute significantly in the 1 aug 17 to 31 jul18 accounts)
Only have the clubs welfare in mind, seen too many slippery characters before at the club.
Best wishes | |
| |
| Asset strip away, strip away....Left with a SWAN CARCASS on 20:50 - Aug 6 with 1494 views | TheResurrection |
| Asset strip away, strip away....Left with a SWAN CARCASS on 20:36 - Aug 6 by castlejack |
That’s what I just said, take the profit and add back amortisation
The initial analysis was broad brush and all readers would know that in addition to not mentioning player acquisitions, I also did not cover all player sales.
I guess the main message is over a 14 month period the profit would have been astronomical adding the Gylfi , and Llorente transfers to the last set of accounts, and do question whether it was intentional to delay the transfer of Gylfi so as not to create such a large profit in that financial year (not sure what their Net book values were, or the amortisation for the year? but would contribute significantly in the 1 aug 17 to 31 jul18 accounts)
Only have the clubs welfare in mind, seen too many slippery characters before at the club.
Best wishes |
So where is all this "profit" then? Because no money has been taken out and we're clearly struggling with cashflow. We see the accounts every month so they've obviously been very clever here in making a huge sum of money simply disappear from thin air.
WTF have they done??
Has the Club bought gold bullion and not declared it? Have they had it rinsed in Don Corleone's laundrette? Or have they paid Pearlman £100m last year and lied to the accountant? | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
