[Archived] Nicko's Thread

[philipl]

It states in the accounts thats it's £3m per year,

And add the movement in parent company loans of £3m (which are non-interest bearing and have no repayment terms).

3 + 3 = 6

The Walker Trust money comes in under two headings. The loans periodically get forgiven in the form of increased share capial.

The reason for the two lots of £3m appearing in different places is:

1) Jack set a capital sum to oneside within the Trust to provide a guarranteed annuity to the Rovers. This is the £3m donation from the Jack Walker Settlement.

(This is the reason why I suspect any purchaser of Rovers will need to make a binding capital donation which pays £7m a year income guarranteed to Rovers every year. Then there can be no possible argument the sale can have exposed the Rovers to being in a worse position than in the ownership of the Trust. BUT buying the annuity "only" puts the buyer on equal generosity with the Trust, then he has to show how he will invest to improve the Rovers on a sustainable basis, and only at that stage comes the question of a buying price from the Trust- this is why the Dan Williams purchase price stuff was all a load of nonsense in my opinion).

2) Jack of course actually put more than £3m into the Rovers each year. If you do the sums, it looks like the Trust worked out that Jack put an average of around £5m per year into the club IN TOTAL (that is player AND stadium AND Brockhall expenditure) during his years of ownership of the Rovers. So the Trust tops up the £3m annuity legacy to the same amount Jack put in on an inflation adjusted basis by giving the club in addition an interest-free, non-repayment term loan of £3m cash each year.

Because the loans put in by Jack and the Trust were getting so top-heavy in the club's balance sheet effectively potentially putting the club into a non-credit worthy position, the Trust rolled the loans into new shares which is why the share capital has increased to around £140m.

[Exiled in Toronto]

One of the more ridiculous assertions by our Maltese accountant is that the trust has put in far more per year than did Jack. What nonsense. Firstly, the recent massive upsurge in the share capital came from the conversion of large loans made during Jack's day, rather than new money. Secondly, it doesn't make any sense anyway. Ewood cost 30 million, Brockhall I'm guessing another 10, and that's before the Dalglish/Harford/Woy/ 'Kiddo'/ Souness net spending on transfers and wages.

Hughes' net spending in three years has yet to break 10 million

[Sandiway Blue]

We were indeed. But which division were we in, and where were the Dingles and North End? If it wasnt for Jack the gap would have well and truly closed long since.

The average per head cost of a match ticket LAST season was around £13. Taking a literal 25% off that for this season's reductions doesnt make pretty reading....

I went way over the top in average pricing of tickets to put into perspective the gulf between income and expenditure.

This was before Philipl kindly shed a bit more light into the financial running of the club which hopefully should convince doubters on here just how well this club is being run.

[EwoodGlory]

And add the movement in parent company loans of £3m (which are non-interest bearing and have no repayment terms).

Was that not just a one-off in 2005 though?

I can pick up a few things in the accounts, but most of it is just numbers to me.

Do you know what the £14,000,000 Share capital issued in 2006 means?

Also am i right in thinking that the value of the shares in the club now stand at around £55,000,000, which would be the pricetag on the club?

[Sandiway Blue]

One of the more ridiculous assertions by our Maltese accountant is that the trust has put in far more per year than did Jack. What nonsense. Firstly, the recent massive upsurge in the share capital came from the conversion of large loans made during Jack's day, rather than new money. Secondly, it doesn't make any sense anyway. Ewood cost 30 million, Brockhall I'm guessing another 10, and that's before the Dalglish/Harford/Woy/ 'Kiddo'/ Souness net spending on transfers and wages.

Hughes' net spending in three years has yet to break 10 million

I seem to remember Brockhall costing at the time somewhere in the region of £1m ?

I am sure somebody asked Dalglish once what was the best miillion pounds he had spent at the club,to which came the reply `Brockhall training complex`.

[unleaded]

Latest on the 2 trialsts is that 1 is still here (Dino) after impressing Hughes whilst the other one Davids is due to return if Big Sam does not snap him first............................Davids is quoted as saying that he played right-back in the trials..............watch out Emerton.................

“Things went very well at Blackburn and Mark Hughes has already asked me to return for a few days,” he says.

“I will now be at Newcastle for a few days and hopefully I can make a good impression here as well. I feel that at this stage of my career I would like to move to a bigger club and Djurgardens know this.

“I have their full backing although they would like to keep me for at least another season,” he adds.

Davids has been playing at right-back for Djurgardens of late and played in this position at Blackburn as well.

“At Newcastle they want to have a look at me at right-back and at right-midfield,” he says.

Davids has come on in leaps and bounds in his new position and his versatility could be a major asset to Bafana coach Carlos Alberto Parreira at the African Nations Cup in Ghana next month.

The holding midfielder Was only supposed to be here for a couple of days so he must be doing something right.....................Another Trialist not reported but who was here as well was Sofiane Feghouli................A French under 19 international who has some big clubs chasing him................

[Mozzer]

if we pick up a couple of good trialists for cheap i will be happy with that...

the one from metz, what position is he by the way???

[rebelmswar]

.....................Another Trialist not reported but who was here as well was Sofiane Feghouli................A French under 19 international who has some big clubs chasing him................

http://www.frenchleague.com/joueur/index.a...o_joueur=109484

A Midfielder hmm. I see a lot of articles calling him a Superkid.

Dont you get the feeling that MH is building for the future with a lot of his buys, as opposed to flash panic buys? I think this can only be good for the team.

And here is the Skysports story in all its glory.

Skysports

[philipl]

2-0 The end of the new manager lift and normal service is resumed.

Two clubs, two new managers, two new sugar daddies at t'Turf tonight.

And therein lies the risk to anyone sticking money into a Championship club- about half the clubs have new owners and new capital and the season is becoming a 46 game lottery.

[rebelmswar]

For any of you of this persuation

Click

[philipl]

One of the more ridiculous assertions by our Maltese accountant is that the trust has put in far more per year than did Jack. What nonsense. Firstly, the recent massive upsurge in the share capital came from the conversion of large loans made during Jack's day, rather than new money. Secondly, it doesn't make any sense anyway. Ewood cost 30 million, Brockhall I'm guessing another 10, and that's before the Dalglish/Harford/Woy/ 'Kiddo'/ Souness net spending on transfers and wages.

Hughes' net spending in three years has yet to break 10 million

EiT - you forget that Jack put the chequebook away for two seasons after we won the League and when Woy went mad, we were also selling like mad (£15m for Shearer, £5m each for Berg and LeSaux etc, even Kidd got £10m for Sutty and £4m for Henchoz)

It is about 18 months since I did the sums and I have been known to make simple arithmetic mistakes but in cash terms, the Trust is putting more into the club per year over its seven year stewardship than Jack did per year during his nearly nine years.

[artemorethanlabore]

Very interesting, effort appreciated!

[nicko]

Coventry takeover deal should be done on Thursday...I think Ranson has sorted out a long-term repayment plan. I don't have any other details.

So I think they avoid administration.

[Nate]

Does anybody else here get aroused when philipl talks accounts?

[thenodrog]

So to the future........

It is dominated by the new TV deal and the very real prospect that in 2006/7 Rovers will become a £50m+ turnover business. Putting that into a world context, Rovers would rank somewhere round about 25th in the Deloittes rich list of clubs and if we had a run to the FA Cup Final as well as a top 6 finish (and assuming crowds have not dropped below 20,000 in the meantime), Rovers could make it into the 20 highest earning clubs in the world without qualifying for the Champs League. This is mind boggling for us older supporters and would have Bill Fox speechless in amazement.

If Rovers keep wages at current levels, they will become profitable on a sustained basis for virtually the first time in their history and have the odd five millions available for net transfers each year. Wages hold the key which is why the Icelandic egghead's buy of Lucash is such bad news. But if we were in an equally perilous position as the WHammers, wouldn't we demand Rovers board do the same? And therein lies the rub.

I think that we can count that as an improbability at best and an almost certain impossibility. Prem wages are like a bonfire.... the more you chuck at it the faster it burns.

Personally I admire the Bolton business model as was under the Gartside / Sam partnership. It has worked well and helped them to maintain top half finishes and pay high levels of player remuneration without paying huge transfer fees. Bosmans and out of contract situations have served their purpose nicely. Since Bosman / freedom of contract I have said frequently that I simply do not understand clubs paying transfer fees any more. More validated when one sees the likes of RSC, Bentley, Benny Mac and Jason Roberts combined arriving for about the same outlay as one of either Barry 'scammer' Ferguson or Ciccio Grabbi

[RevidgeBlue]

And add the movement in parent company loans of £3m (which are non-interest bearing and have no repayment terms).

3 + 3 = 6

The Walker Trust money comes in under two headings. The loans periodically get forgiven in the form of increased share capial.

The reason for the two lots of £3m appearing in different places is:

1) Jack set a capital sum to oneside within the Trust to provide a guarranteed annuity to the Rovers. This is the £3m donation from the Jack Walker Settlement.

(This is the reason why I suspect any purchaser of Rovers will need to make a binding capital donation which pays £7m a year income guarranteed to Rovers every year. Then there can be no possible argument the sale can have exposed the Rovers to being in a worse position than in the ownership of the Trust. BUT buying the annuity "only" puts the buyer on equal generosity with the Trust, then he has to show how he will invest to improve the Rovers on a sustainable basis, and only at that stage comes the question of a buying price from the Trust- this is why the Dan Williams purchase price stuff was all a load of nonsense in my opinion).

2) Jack of course actually put more than £3m into the Rovers each year. If you do the sums, it looks like the Trust worked out that Jack put an average of around £5m per year into the club IN TOTAL (that is player AND stadium AND Brockhall expenditure) during his years of ownership of the Rovers. So the Trust tops up the £3m annuity legacy to the same amount Jack put in on an inflation adjusted basis by giving the club in addition an interest-free, non-repayment term loan of £3m cash each year.

Because the loans put in by Jack and the Trust were getting so top-heavy in the club's balance sheet effectively potentially putting the club into a non-credit worthy position, the Trust rolled the loans into new shares which is why the share capital has increased to around £140m.

Sorry, you're just making most of this up as you go along.

As regards point one, the 3m donation from the Trust is not a guaranteed amount. The Directors of the Club have to state their case each year, and the Trustees decide the level to which they contribute. The 3m is not guaranteed, could be more, could be less but that happens to be the amount for the last few seasons.

As regards your second point, the annual contribution from the Trustees has been 3m for the last few years and the way that 3m figure was originally arrived at was by calculating the difference in revenue between having a full stadium of 31000 every week and the gates as they then were. (About an average of 25000.)

That figure has remained constant since even though average attendances subsequently dipped sharply.

[Mozzer]

these long posts about estimated figures and facts isnt for this thread..dont ruin the thread please..thanks..

[philipl]

I believe I am reading the accounts.

Jack put a capital sum in Trust for the Rovers before he died. The £3m is not guarranteed but it is a function of the income generation from the capital invested as I remember how it was set up. The purpose of that capital fund was certainly described as helping Rovers overcome the shortfall on gate monies to the value of about 5,000 people on the average gate.

The process you describe has been mentioned once or twice in the local press as that determines also how much the club borrows commercially and how much the Trust puts in. When Jack died, the club was debt free apart from what became Walker Trust loans. The £20m spent in transfers first season back came from £5m Trust cash and £15m commercial bank loans.

I have been describing the process by which the Trust transfers £6m to the club every year I have reviewed the accounts and this is the first time anyone has said this is not the case.

[Tris]

these long posts about estimated figures and facts isnt for this thread..dont ruin the thread please..thanks..

Heaven help us.

If you learn to read and get a maths GCSE maybe you'd get more out of it.

[thenodrog]

I trust you mean Maths GCE Tris?

[Alan75]

Does anybody else here get aroused when philipl talks accounts?

Well I for one find them more interesting than the names mentioned in the transfer speculation topics.

[S15]

But seriously. Honestly. Really.

Philip, you actually know sod all don't you?

You sit in your chair. In Malta. Reading figures. Making estimates.

Then you preach as if they are fact. The truth is you know sod all about the nitty gritty of Rovers accounts, where the money comes from or where it goes. You make a better go of guessing than most, but for you to suggest all your little sums are correct is laughable.

So why you feel the need to write a book every time you get bored and pull out your little yearly accounts I can only guess.

[Nate]

Well I for one find them more interesting than the names mentioned in the transfer speculation topics.

Wasn't taking the mick... it is quite interesting reading about the clubs finances in an easy to read format. It's greatly appreciated!

[roversmum]

One thing that particularly interests me. Who benefited from the development of Brockhall Village?

[Boz]

One thing that particularly interests me. Who benefited from the development of Brockhall Village? - HITMAN!!!

Philip is more or less spot on, don't shoot the messenger.