12 million loss but club seem relaxed about things.

2010/2011 Accounts.

http://www.cardiffcityfc.co.uk/page/Fin ... 27,00.html


Really need an expert accountant to explain the accounts...all too complicated for me.

Unusual the club announce them like this? Maybe nothing to hide?
I'm with you corky, need someone else to explain.

Nobody seems to be openly concerned about this,well nobody in power anyway, but to a layman or fan it seems quite worrying looking at a loss of £12 million but there are obviously factors that need to be taken into consideration and that is where a clearer statement or explanation is probably needed.

It is good that the club put out the accounts in an open and honest way on the official site for all to see( I know we could have checked them out anyway at companies house or at the AGM) I think that is a good sign.

Hopefully during Tomorrow the brighter fans amongst us who have a grasp of accountancy can put more meat on the bones and explain the accounts to the rest of us...but like I said at the start the directors seem quite relaxed about this and are talking about the future and investment...so fingers crossed things have improved and the next accounts will show that in 12 months time.

Fans will be concerned but that doesn't make them negative or anti club...just curious and rightly apprehensive that we are not in real trouble financially...we had a great cup run this season and great crowds plus financial restraint from the owners so I am guessing things will improve.

My guess would be that there is nothing to worry about at all.

Seems very transparent all this.

Ain't THAT a shock to the system

direct link http://www.cardiffcityfc.co.uk/staticFi ... 890,00.pdf

would this mean they have nothing to hide?

and feel we're in a better place than we were?

Is it fair to say these figures will have reflection of the DJ & PR era, and next years accounts will look alot healthier?

Corky these accounts are only up to May 2011 , I am sure the next set of accounts will be a lot better

Couple of things that interested me was the statement regarding the reschuled PMG debt and that the club is in default against that agreement and that the equity swap agreed last summer hadn't happened. Hmmm

Also that operating costs for the season were, if I'm reading it correctly was approx £20m, If the Malaysians are putting £1.2 m a month into the club then operating costs for this season are likely to be £35m. To be honest I cannot believe that as income will be roughly the same bearing in mind attendances are only slughtly down but we have had a good Carling Cup run.

No one should be surprised that directors loaned £13m to the club last season bearing in mind Ridsdale spent ALL of the then record ST sales. For me that is the clearest indication of the commitment VT & TG have shown the club because believe me they have bank rolled the club last season.

Lots of interesting information about Langstone which basically says what we all know, and that is the club beleve the loan note agree in 2006 between Langstone, The club and Cardiff City Council is the note that is in play, subject of course to being tested in court. Until such time it is tested through the courts any talk of the debt being £35m is just conjecture.

Given the meeting last summer where a shed load of new shares were agreed to be issued, some of which were converted against debt and given there is still £20m worth of shares available for further conversion of debt all in all for me these results and the future looks so much better than the summer of 2010.

But whats happening with PMG?

http://www.cardiffcityfc.co.uk/page/FinancialInfo/0,,10335~2630227,00.html


Really need an expert accountant to explain the accounts...all too complicated for me.

For some reason I cant get them to open.


But three questions to you Corky, if some one else had lost £12mill in one season, a lot of of people would be in uproar saying they don't know how to run the club properly and thats not good business,so does it not matter that we lost £12 mill ?

Where does anyone say they are not worried by the losses ?

These accounts are a year old, so imagine if we have lost money again, will that not matter either ?

Can someone copy and paste them on here please.

Couple of things that interested me was the statement regarding the reschuled PMG debt and that the club is in default against that agreement and that the equity swap agreed last summer hadn't happened. Hmmm

All that happened with PMG is that interset was not paid hence the default, but after those end of may 2011 accounts debt was exchanged for shares

http://www.cardiffcityfc.co.uk/page/FinancialInfo/0,,10335~2630227,00.html


Really need an expert accountant to explain the accounts...all too complicated for me.

For some reason I cant get them to open.


But two questions to you Corky, if some one else had lost £12mill in one season, a lot of of people would be in uproar saying they don't know how to run the club properly and thats not good business,so does it not matter that we lost £12 mill ?

These accounts are a year old, so imagine if we have lost money again, will that not matter either ?

Can someone copy and paste them on here please.

Can't copy and paste Annis, its about 25 pages bloody long!!!

http://www.cardiffcityfc.co.uk/page/FinancialInfo/0,,10335~2630227,00.html


Really need an expert accountant to explain the accounts...all too complicated for me.

For some reason I cant get them to open.


But two questions to you Corky, if some one else had lost £12mill in one season, a lot of of people would be in uproar saying they don't know how to run the club properly and thats not good business,so does it not matter that we lost £12 mill ?

These accounts are a year old, so imagine if we have lost money again, will that not matter either ?

Can someone copy and paste them on here please.

Can't copy and paste Annis, its about 25 pages bloody long!!!

Craig,


Well I cant bloody open it.

Here's a direct link, try this.

http://www.cardiffcityfc.co.uk/staticFi ... 890,00.pdf

It doesn't make for good reading, although that was to be expected after Riddler rinsed us , but there are some interesting points written in there. I really cant wait for next years results as they will be a true indication of what the malays plans are.

Particularly about the Malaysians can convert their debt into shares/equity at any thime they want.

Last edited by CraigCCFC on Fri Mar 02, 2012 9:04 am, edited 1 time in total.

Finally
Opened it, its called patience, which I have not got, but off now, will read tonight.

Here's a direct link, try this.

http://www.cardiffcityfc.co.uk/staticFi ... 890,00.pdf

It doesn't make for good reading, but there are some interesting points written in there.

Particlularly about the Malaysians can convert their debt into shares/equity at any thime they want.

When they do Craig, I will finally keep quite about them.

I'm no accountant, but what hit me was the operating lossess which were pretty comparible from both years -

2010 - £10,393,000
2011 - £10,436,000

The only reason 2010 looked good was the profit on disposable assets - £11,423,000 - whereas 2011 was £460,000.

Was this from land / player sales?

I'm no accountant, but what hit me was the operating lossess which were pretty comparible from both years -

2010 - £10,393,000
2011 - £10,436,000

The only reason 2010 looked good was the profit on disposable assets - £11,423,000 - whereas 2011 was £460,000.

Was this from land / player sales?

players are disposable assets.

I'm waiting for the accountants over yonder to de-construct.

I'm no accountant, but what hit me was the operating lossess which were pretty comparible from both years -

2010 - £10,393,000
2011 - £10,436,000

The only reason 2010 looked good was the profit on disposable assets - £11,423,000 - whereas 2011 was £460,000.

Was this from land / player sales?

players are disposable assets.

I'm waiting for the accountants over yonder to de-construct.

just players though? Who did we sell?

Seems quite a large amount just for that......

I will look forward to reading the accounts over the weekend.

One thing that really sticks out in these accounts is the Directors renumeration when you compare 2010 to 2011.

In 2010 Director renumeration was £542k with a further £172k compensation for loss of office. That has to be Ridsdale but 2011 no Director has received any payment.

In short TG is taking nothing out of the club for all the work he is doing so from me I say a big thank you for all the unpaid hours of work you have done on our behalf.

Maybe those who think TG & VT are only it in for themselves will now shut up.

I'm not suggesting that the situation looks rosy but, our wage bill is likely to be MUCH lower now the big earners (including DJ) have gone. Also a fair proportion of the debt was converted into shares.

As has been pointed out, the accounts are for last season effectively and we all know things looked out of control then. VT and TG appear to be rectifying that and I don't think the accounts are able to tell this tale.

I'm no accountant, but what hit me was the operating lossess which were pretty comparible from both years -

2010 - £10,393,000
2011 - £10,436,000

The only reason 2010 looked good was the profit on disposable assets - £11,423,000 - whereas 2011 was £460,000.

Was this from land / player sales?

players are disposable assets.

I'm waiting for the accountants over yonder to de-construct.

just players though? Who did we sell?

Seems quite a large amount just for that......

The accounts for 2010 stated that sales of disposal assets covered two areas, the first being the sale of land with Ninian Park bringing in £7.4m, PMG buying the hotel site for £1.8m and Steve Borley buying the house of sport site £450k.

The player sales were Roger Johnson and Paul Parry for a total of £4.9m.

Obviously that is more than the stated cost of £11.4m but there had to be costs associated with all the sales so that is a net figure rather than the gross figure.

I'm no accountant, but what hit me was the operating lossess which were pretty comparible from both years -

2010 - £10,393,000
2011 - £10,436,000

The only reason 2010 looked good was the profit on disposable assets - £11,423,000 - whereas 2011 was £460,000.

Was this from land / player sales?

correct

turnover
if you exclude one offs such as play off finals and cup runs, our turnover for 2011 was up 10.9% compared to 2010. This is evidenced by the increase in seaosn ticket sales and rise in average attendaces. By exlcuding one off items allows better year on year comparison and indicates overall income growth and an increase in fan base. The club also saw an increase in non match day events which is an indication that the club are beginning to see a greater return on the stadium asset. The accounts state several times that the club is looking to increase its renveues from other sources which can only be a good thing.

costs
great emhpasis is placed within the accounts of much better cost management. total costs for 2011 were £26.4m whereas for 2010 they were £27.9m. Significant progress was made in back office costs with a decrease of £2.8m whereas direct costs (player costs) increased by £1.8m. Given our loan player strategy and the wages we were paying this is no surprise. Assuming more work is being done on managing back office costs and that direct (player) costs are being managed much better this season, this is is an area that should see overall improvement in 2012.


loss
for a football club match day income less operating costs is an indication of its operational performance and in this respect the club has remained fairly stable at an operating loss of £10.4m per annum. There is an argument here that dueing a period of transition it is expected for businesses to experience a downturn before seeing an improvement, so in some resepcts such a loss was to be expected.

football clubs are faily unique in that operating profit is not the only measure of performance because there is a fair amount of player trading involved which brings in much needed revenue and profits. Unlike previous years, 2011 saw no significant players sales to offset the operating loss. It must also be noted that one off profits in 2010 included the additonal profit of £7.2m brought in by the sale of NP.

This would indicate that the club is no longer a selling club and this added with statements elsewhere bode well for the time being. The management and investors of the club are happy with progress and are certainly looking to build for the future.

assets
the most notable decrease for me is not the stadium (its a book charge only) but more to do with intangible assets which will mainly be player registrations. We have seen the value decrease by £1.8m and this would indicate the value of players we have on our books compared to previous years. This is another measure of performance. If we can manage a league position with player assets that cost less to purchase and less in wages then we are achieving the same result for less. From an investors point of view this is a very good measure. This point was not so obvious however it would indicate that despite not being 'football men', our investors had clearly done their homework in appointing MM as someone who is going to nurture (cheaper) younger players that will provide the same return. It was a gamble that thus far has paid off.

current liabilities
This has increased by £12.7m of which £14.8m relates to loans from overseas - VT, TG et al. This would indicate their committment to the club and given there was a debt for equity swap post May 2011 then this figure can be expected to decrease somewhat. There are no further mortgage charges or other forms of security against the group since October 2010 and this goes against earlier loans which were secured. This would indicate confidence by the investors that the club is good for the loans or that they intend to convert more debt to equity at some future point.

trade creditors have come down significantly which shows that the club is now meeting its day to day obligations at a sooner rate. This can be only a good thing as the club interacts with the local business community.

Directors loans have increased albeit only £0.5m but this would also indicate a certain level of confidence from the management team.

other borrowings have increased by £4.2m during the year. it would appear the the majority of the increase relates to the loan from PMG becoming due in November 2009. There was an option to convert an element into equity if certain repayments were made but this did not happen. The club is currently renegotiating the loan repayment with PMG. it is worth noting that the total debt to PMG in respect of this loan has decreased from £8.6m to £7.7m during the year.

long term debt
the notes make it clear the langstone debt is £15m with a further £3.2m interest on top of that. no interest is payable until 2016. There is a further £9m naming rights however it is unlikely that will ever crystallise, so whilst it is shown on the books, in reality it is worthless. If we reach the premier league before the £15m principle is repaid a further £5m becomes payable. It is not clear whether this means the £15m in its entirety or whether the principle is less than £15m.

Other long term borrowings are down from £8.0m to £2.7m.

equity
in June 2011 £8.8m of debt was converted into equity, with a further option of £23.3m as circumstances dictate being provided for. This improves the financial stability of the club and indicates a longer term committment from the debt holders.

strategic outlook
the directors report places signifciant emphasis on the club chaging direction with respect to recruitment policy (adoption of younger players with a view to longer term increase in asset worth), development of a sustainable business plan which will make better use of the existing asset base (the stadium and other assets) as well as having a clear stragegy for managing legacy debt (by paying to agreed terms or through renegotiation) and an emphasis on new equity (most probably conversion of the working capital loans into equity). One significant statement is that the Malaysian investors will continue to make funding available should we adhere to the outlined plan. Reading between the lines, they will support MM with his plans as long as we are there or thereabouts.

summary
the accounts indicate that the business is performing to plan and that the investors have committed further cash to the business and will contiue to support the business. The caveat is that if plans do not come to fruition - what then? however, as it stands, the club is on a better financial footing, the majority oif short term debt can be readily converted to equity as per the June 2011 AGM and the longer term debt is being renegotiated with realistically only £15m being repayable before 2016 and £18.3m thereafter. Trade creditors are being paid on time and other credtiors such as HMRC are also being settled as when the clubs obligations become due.

Operationall the club is making great strides on cost management and this current financial year will also see some improvement in the direct (player) costs whilst at the same time exploring how they can maximise revenue from the assets that they hold. there is plenty of work to be done but the club is definitely moving in the right direction.

Damian (Feedback),

I still haven't read the report so far, but have glanced at yours thanks.
So are you happy how things are going on the financial side and with our loses ?
Are you optimistic and do you feel next years accounts will show an improvement, seen as all the success we have had and our large crowds we now get, compared to a few years ago.
Is £12 mill a lot to lose in one year ?
As your an accountant, does everything look rosy ?



I have also read this else where.
According to the directors' report the Malaysians' "funding is not guaranteed", their future support being conditional on the understanding that "the business develops as planned". The Malaysians are in it provided it meets their criteria, not necessarily for the long haul. Yes, they will "provide additional finance" in order that the club can "settle its liabilities" - at an annual rate of 7pc, a sum significantly above the published bank base rate. There are clearly no guarantees and onerous interest rates to meet!

Hey Mr Ridsdale take note -this is what you call being OPEN AND TRANSPARENT - nothing to hide what a change that there are proper businessmen in control and not wide boys

Hey Mr Ridsdale take note -this is what you call being OPEN AND TRANSPARENT - nothing to hide what a change that there are proper businessmen in control and not wide boys

On the financial side, I would rather have the Malaysians any day than the Riddler.

Castle - the only addition I'd make to your note in relation to Langston, is although the Debt is £15m plus interest, thats interest continures to accrue.

If we did get to a play-oof final or into one of the play-off places, it would be interesting to see if our directors would "gamble" and pay langstone off and try and save themselves £5m

I'm no accountant, but what hit me was the operating lossess which were pretty comparible from both years -

2010 - £10,393,000
2011 - £10,436,000

The only reason 2010 looked good was the profit on disposable assets - £11,423,000 - whereas 2011 was £460,000.

Was this from land / player sales?

correct

turnover
if you exclude one offs such as play off finals and cup runs, our turnover for 2011 was up 10.9% compared to 2010. This is evidenced by the increase in seaosn ticket sales and rise in average attendaces. By exlcuding one off items allows better year on year comparison and indicates overall income growth and an increase in fan base. The club also saw an increase in non match day events which is an indication that the club are beginning to see a greater return on the stadium asset. The accounts state several times that the club is looking to increase its renveues from other sources which can only be a good thing.

costs
great emhpasis is placed within the accounts of much better cost management. total costs for 2011 were £26.4m whereas for 2010 they were £27.9m. Significant progress was made in back office costs with a decrease of £2.8m whereas direct costs (player costs) increased by £1.8m. Given our loan player strategy and the wages we were paying this is no surprise. Assuming more work is being done on managing back office costs and that direct (player) costs are being managed much better this season, this is is an area that should see overall improvement in 2012.


loss
for a football club match day income less operating costs is an indication of its operational performance and in this respect the club has remained fairly stable at an operating loss of £10.4m per annum. There is an argument here that dueing a period of transition it is expected for businesses to experience a downturn before seeing an improvement, so in some resepcts such a loss was to be expected.

football clubs are faily unique in that operating profit is not the only measure of performance because there is a fair amount of player trading involved which brings in much needed revenue and profits. Unlike previous years, 2011 saw no significant players sales to offset the operating loss. It must also be noted that one off profits in 2010 included the additonal profit of £7.2m brought in by the sale of NP.

This would indicate that the club is no longer a selling club and this added with statements elsewhere bode well for the time being. The management and investors of the club are happy with progress and are certainly looking to build for the future.

assets
the most notable decrease for me is not the stadium (its a book charge only) but more to do with intangible assets which will mainly be player registrations. We have seen the value decrease by £1.8m and this would indicate the value of players we have on our books compared to previous years. This is another measure of performance. If we can manage a league position with player assets that cost less to purchase and less in wages then we are achieving the same result for less. From an investors point of view this is a very good measure. This point was not so obvious however it would indicate that despite not being 'football men', our investors had clearly done their homework in appointing MM as someone who is going to nurture (cheaper) younger players that will provide the same return. It was a gamble that thus far has paid off.

current liabilities
This has increased by £12.7m of which £14.8m relates to loans from overseas - VT, TG et al. This would indicate their committment to the club and given there was a debt for equity swap post May 2011 then this figure can be expected to decrease somewhat. There are no further mortgage charges or other forms of security against the group since October 2010 and this goes against earlier loans which were secured. This would indicate confidence by the investors that the club is good for the loans or that they intend to convert more debt to equity at some future point.

trade creditors have come down significantly which shows that the club is now meeting its day to day obligations at a sooner rate. This can be only a good thing as the club interacts with the local business community.

Directors loans have increased albeit only £0.5m but this would also indicate a certain level of confidence from the management team.

other borrowings have increased by £4.2m during the year. it would appear the the majority of the increase relates to the loan from PMG becoming due in November 2009. There was an option to convert an element into equity if certain repayments were made but this did not happen. The club is currently renegotiating the loan repayment with PMG. it is worth noting that the total debt to PMG in respect of this loan has decreased from £8.6m to £7.7m during the year.

long term debt
the notes make it clear the langstone debt is £15m with a further £3.2m interest on top of that. no interest is payable until 2016. There is a further £9m naming rights however it is unlikely that will ever crystallise, so whilst it is shown on the books, in reality it is worthless. If we reach the premier league before the £15m principle is repaid a further £5m becomes payable. It is not clear whether this means the £15m in its entirety or whether the principle is less than £15m.

Other long term borrowings are down from £8.0m to £2.7m.

equity
in June 2011 £8.8m of debt was converted into equity, with a further option of £23.3m as circumstances dictate being provided for. This improves the financial stability of the club and indicates a longer term committment from the debt holders.

strategic outlook
the directors report places signifciant emphasis on the club chaging direction with respect to recruitment policy (adoption of younger players with a view to longer term increase in asset worth), development of a sustainable business plan which will make better use of the existing asset base (the stadium and other assets) as well as having a clear stragegy for managing legacy debt (by paying to agreed terms or through renegotiation) and an emphasis on new equity (most probably conversion of the working capital loans into equity). One significant statement is that the Malaysian investors will continue to make funding available should we adhere to the outlined plan. Reading between the lines, they will support MM with his plans as long as we are there or thereabouts.

summary
the accounts indicate that the business is performing to plan and that the investors have committed further cash to the business and will contiue to support the business. The caveat is that if plans do not come to fruition - what then? however, as it stands, the club is on a better financial footing, the majority oif short term debt can be readily converted to equity as per the June 2011 AGM and the longer term debt is being renegotiated with realistically only £15m being repayable before 2016 and £18.3m thereafter. Trade creditors are being paid on time and other credtiors such as HMRC are also being settled as when the clubs obligations become due.

Operationall the club is making great strides on cost management and this current financial year will also see some improvement in the direct (player) costs whilst at the same time exploring how they can maximise revenue from the assets that they hold. there is plenty of work to be done but the club is definitely moving in the right direction.

Great analysis thanks.

I still haven't read the report so far, but have glanced at yours thanks.
So are you happy how things are going on the financial side and with our loses ?

they are as to be expected given where we knew we were this time last year. The main theme in the statement is that the club has changed its strategy focussing on youth and longer term development, rather than short termism. The loss is disappointing as with any business, but the stand out element is that we did not have to sell any players to maintain the operating loss.

Are you optimistic and do you feel next years accounts will show an improvement, seen as all the success we have had and our large crowds we now get, compared to a few years ago.
{/quote]
Yes I am more optimistic. The club is making great efforts at cost management and has shown improvement on the adminitratrive cost side. We cna hope that the new strategy of more reliance on younger players on longer term contracts will also come throw in lower player costs and direct costs.

it is intersting to note that directors remuneration is nil. The directors are working very hard without taking any salary.

Is £12 mill a lot to lose in one year ?

of course it is. however, whenever you reorganise any business you have to expect certain periods of disruption. Remember that the club has a lot of legacy issues that the directors are focussing on. Once these issues are resolved then more time can be spent on developing the commercial (income generating) side. the key for me is that no new debentures have been secured since October 2010 and that this is despite the £15m invested by VT, TG et al in the financial year. A significant element of this was converted to equity in June 2011.

I have also read this else where.
According to the directors' report the Malaysians' "funding is not guaranteed", their future support being conditional on the understanding that "the business develops as planned". The Malaysians are in it provided it meets their criteria, not necessarily for the long haul. Yes, they will "provide additional finance" in order that the club can "settle its liabilities" - at an annual rate of 7pc, a sum significantly above the published bank base rate. There are clearly no guarantees and onerous interest rates to meet!

7% is a decent commerical rate, i doubt the club could borrow funds on the open market from financial institutions at that rate. Of course VT and TG are going to charge interest and it is not particularly unreasonable rate. Just like any business the investors are making clear that they will invest in the business and develop it as long as the business meets their targets. That to me is fine. to make any sort of return then the club has to succeed. We have a stadium asset, there is no chance of making a return on that nor on a retail park (as that ship has sailed) so the only way to succeed is to develop a football team capable of delivering premier league football on a long term sustainable basis.

costs are being managed down and efforts are being made to increase income. If this can be achieved then the club can only be put on a sounder financial footing.

you also have to factor in the past few months - VT and TG have taken a more hands on involvement and a certainly enjoying the on the pitch success. I am not naive enough to suggest they will let emotion get in the way of hard business decisions, but you can certainly see them realising that there can be more to come if the business pans out the way they intend.

I still haven't read the report so far, but have glanced at yours thanks.
So are you happy how things are going on the financial side and with our loses ?

they are as to be expected given where we knew we were this time last year. The main theme in the statement is that the club has changed its strategy focussing on youth and longer term development, rather than short termism. The loss is disappointing as with any business, but the stand out element is that we did not have to sell any players to maintain the operating loss.

Are you optimistic and do you feel next years accounts will show an improvement, seen as all the success we have had and our large crowds we now get, compared to a few years ago.
{/quote]
Yes I am more optimistic. The club is making great efforts at cost management and has shown improvement on the adminitratrive cost side. We cna hope that the new strategy of more reliance on younger players on longer term contracts will also come throw in lower player costs and direct costs.

it is intersting to note that directors remuneration is nil. The directors are working very hard without taking any salary.

Is £12 mill a lot to lose in one year ?

of course it is. however, whenever you reorganise any business you have to expect certain periods of disruption. Remember that the club has a lot of legacy issues that the directors are focussing on. Once these issues are resolved then more time can be spent on developing the commercial (income generating) side. the key for me is that no new debentures have been secured since October 2010 and that this is despite the £15m invested by VT, TG et al in the financial year. A significant element of this was converted to equity in June 2011.

I have also read this else where.
According to the directors' report the Malaysians' "funding is not guaranteed", their future support being conditional on the understanding that "the business develops as planned". The Malaysians are in it provided it meets their criteria, not necessarily for the long haul. Yes, they will "provide additional finance" in order that the club can "settle its liabilities" - at an annual rate of 7pc, a sum significantly above the published bank base rate. There are clearly no guarantees and onerous interest rates to meet!

7% is a decent commerical rate, i doubt the club could borrow funds on the open market from financial institutions at that rate. Of course VT and TG are going to charge interest and it is not particularly unreasonable rate. Just like any business the investors are making clear that they will invest in the business and develop it as long as the business meets their targets. That to me is fine. to make any sort of return then the club has to succeed. We have a stadium asset, there is no chance of making a return on that nor on a retail park (as that ship has sailed) so the only way to succeed is to develop a football team capable of delivering premier league football on a long term sustainable basis.

costs are being managed down and efforts are being made to increase income. If this can be achieved then the club can only be put on a sounder financial footing.

you also have to factor in the past few months - VT and TG have taken a more hands on involvement and a certainly enjoying the on the pitch success. I am not naive enough to suggest they will let emotion get in the way of hard business decisions, but you can certainly see them realising that there can be more to come if the business pans out the way they intend.

Cheers Damian,

As you say any loss is worrying, £12 mill is a lot in one season.


Exactly what I was saying about youth when the Riddler and DJ decided to stop investing in them and just sell/sell/sell but not re-invest. I use to get slaughtered for speaking out. I have always been a big fan of the youth as its our future. I am glad we have been trying to get back on track and go back to funding our future.
The Accademy etc is where money should always be invested and it should of never been allowed to have gone backwards in the last few years. I intend to read the whole accounts over the weekend. But being able to read your summary has been helpful, thanks.