" CARDIFF CITY INTERESTING ACCOUNT FIGURES ETC "

" CARDIFF CITY INTERESTING ACCOUNT FIGURES ETC "

Some have already read this.

Interesting for others

" CARDIFF CITY "

Accounts for the year to 31 May 2014


Cardiff City graphic
Ownership Club states that Vincent Tan is the 87.5% owner

Turnover 20th highest, £83m (up from £17m in 2013)

Gate receipts & matchday £8m

Premier League including TV £64m

Sponsorship & commercial £11m

Wage bill 18th highest, £53m (up from £33m in 2013)

Wages as proportion of turnover 64%

Loss before tax £12m (down from £30m loss in 2013)

Net debt not stated; £130m loans from overseas shareholders

Interest payable £1.6m

Highest-paid director Not stated

State they’re in

A single Premier League season remembered for owner Vincent Tan insistently wearing the club shirt he changed to red, Malky Mackay’s sacking in December 2013 and Ole Gunnar Solskjaer’s forlorn fading smile as the Bluebirds fell to relegation.

Figures illustrate the Premier League’s breakaway land of plenty – City received almost £60m more TV money than the £5m made in the Championship in 2012-13. That reduced the dramatic loss incurred to win promotion but Tan still increased his loans by £64.5m to £130m. Relegation, despite lucrative parachute payments, will have hurt.

" CARDIFF CITY INTERESTING ACCOUNT FIGURES ETC "

Some have already read this.

Interesting for others

" CARDIFF CITY "

Accounts for the year to 31 May 2014


Cardiff City graphic
Ownership Club states that Vincent Tan is the 87.5% owner

Turnover 20th highest, £83m (up from £17m in 2013)

Gate receipts & matchday £8m

Premier League including TV £64m

Sponsorship & commercial £11m

Wage bill 18th highest, £53m (up from £33m in 2013)

Wages as proportion of turnover 64%

Loss before tax £12m (down from £30m loss in 2013)

Net debt not stated; £130m loans from overseas shareholders

Interest payable £1.6m

Highest-paid director Not stated

State they’re in

A single Premier League season remembered for owner Vincent Tan insistently wearing the club shirt he changed to red, Malky Mackay’s sacking in December 2013 and Ole Gunnar Solskjaer’s forlorn fading smile as the Bluebirds fell to relegation.

Figures illustrate the Premier League’s breakaway land of plenty – City received almost £60m more TV money than the £5m made in the Championship in 2012-13. That reduced the dramatic loss incurred to win promotion but Tan still increased his loans by £64.5m to £130m. Relegation, despite lucrative parachute payments, will have hurt.

Just to fill in a couple of gaps Annis , and correct one figure.

The net debt is stated in the accounts - it was £66m.(2013 £56m)

The figure of £1.6m wasn`t interest payable , it was an interest credit (2013 also a credit - £5.3m)

The highest paid director ( only one was paid - Simon Lim) earned £90k .

Keith

"Net Debt" HALF of what we thought??

I'd consider that a relative 'result' as a supporter of the "cut your future cloth accordingly" Brigade!

With the players sales and drastic wage reductions of this season we should see a big fall in the net debt, this year's accounts should be much better

With the players sales and drastic wage reductions of this season we should see a big fall in the net debt, this year's accounts should be much better

Let's hope so, wez

These are the same set of accounts that they released in February.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/foot ... se-8727278

"Net Debt" HALF of what we thought??

I'd consider that a relative 'result' as a supporter of the "cut your future cloth accordingly" Brigade!

Why do you say the net debt is half of what we thought?

Net debt, which is total liabilities less total assets, is exactly what we thought as the figures in this thread are the same ones published in Feb which were extensively commented on at the time.

With the players sales and drastic wage reductions of this season we should see a big fall in the net debt, this year's accounts should be much better

Not sure that will be the case Wez as the income for this season will have reduced by over £40m due to the reduction in Sky money and so costs will have to be reduced by £52m (£40m plus overturn the loss of £12m) just to break even

"Net Debt" HALF of what we thought??

I'd consider that a relative 'result' as a supporter of the "cut your future cloth accordingly" Brigade!

Why do you say the net debt is half of what we thought?

Net debt, which is total liabilities less total assets, is exactly what we thought as the figures in this thread are the same ones published in Feb which were extensively commented on at the time.

Keith, the OP states that "Net Debt not stated; £130m loans from overseas shareholders"

That's the figure I was looking at, but you later corrected it. To me, that (lower) figure is a relatively positive result, as there are some on here who consistently harp on about the debt being the former figure and more!

I'm always happy to stand corrected when wrong, but I am pleased with the figures you quote under the circumstances

Thanks (as usual) for your contribution

"Net Debt" HALF of what we thought??

I'd consider that a relative 'result' as a supporter of the "cut your future cloth accordingly" Brigade!

Why do you say the net debt is half of what we thought?

Net debt, which is total liabilities less total assets, is exactly what we thought as the figures in this thread are the same ones published in Feb which were extensively commented on at the time.

Keith, the OP states that "Net Debt not stated; £130m loans from overseas shareholders"

That's the figure I was looking at, but you later corrected it. To me, that (lower) figure is a relatively positive result, as there are some on here who consistently harp on about the debt being the former figure and more!

I'm always happy to stand corrected when wrong, but I am pleased with the figures you quote under the circumstances

Thanks (as usual) for your contribution

Sven

The debt hasn`t reduced (in fact it has probably gone up a bit since the May 14 figures). The gross debt owed out was the £130m owed to Vincent Tan/Mehmet Dalman. That is the amount the club has to pay back in the future unless and until VT honours his promise to convert his debt into shares and is rightly the figure people are focusing on.

The net debt is after deductiing the total value of assets (stadium , playing squad etc). The club can`t sell the stadium to get cash to pay back the debt and no sensible lender will give a mortgage over it either to raise cash for this purpose.It was in the books at 31 May 2014 at £53.4m even after writing off half of the Ninian Stand extension costs .

"Net Debt" HALF of what we thought??

I'd consider that a relative 'result' as a supporter of the "cut your future cloth accordingly" Brigade!

Why do you say the net debt is half of what we thought?

Net debt, which is total liabilities less total assets, is exactly what we thought as the figures in this thread are the same ones published in Feb which were extensively commented on at the time.

Keith, the OP states that "Net Debt not stated; £130m loans from overseas shareholders"

That's the figure I was looking at, but you later corrected it. To me, that (lower) figure is a relatively positive result, as there are some on here who consistently harp on about the debt being the former figure and more!

I'm always happy to stand corrected when wrong, but I am pleased with the figures you quote under the circumstances

Thanks (as usual) for your contribution

Sven

The debt hasn`t reduced (in fact it has probably gone up a bit since the May 14 figures). The gross debt owed out was the £130m owed to Vincent Tan/Mehmet Dalman. That is the amount the club has to pay back in the future unless and until VT honours his promise to convert his debt into shares and is rightly the figure people are focusing on.

The net debt is after deductiing the total value of assets (stadium , playing squad etc). The club can`t sell the stadium to get cash to pay back the debt and no sensible lender will give a mortgage over it either to raise cash for this purpose.It was in the books at 31 May 2014 at £53.4m even after writing off half of the Ninian Stand extension costs .

Thanks for that, Keith. I stand corrected!

"Net Debt" HALF of what we thought??

I'd consider that a relative 'result' as a supporter of the "cut your future cloth accordingly" Brigade!

Why do you say the net debt is half of what we thought?

Net debt, which is total liabilities less total assets, is exactly what we thought as the figures in this thread are the same ones published in Feb which were extensively commented on at the time.

Keith, the OP states that "Net Debt not stated; £130m loans from overseas shareholders"

That's the figure I was looking at, but you later corrected it. To me, that (lower) figure is a relatively positive result, as there are some on here who consistently harp on about the debt being the former figure and more!

I'm always happy to stand corrected when wrong, but I am pleased with the figures you quote under the circumstances

Thanks (as usual) for your contribution

Sven

The debt hasn`t reduced (in fact it has probably gone up a bit since the May 14 figures). The gross debt owed out was the £130m owed to Vincent Tan/Mehmet Dalman. That is the amount the club has to pay back in the future unless and until VT honours his promise to convert his debt into shares and is rightly the figure people are focusing on.

The net debt is after deductiing the total value of assets (stadium , playing squad etc). The club can`t sell the stadium to get cash to pay back the debt and no sensible lender will give a mortgage over it either to raise cash for this purpose.It was in the books at 31 May 2014 at £53.4m even after writing off half of the Ninian Stand extension costs .

so realisticly are we only 130 million in debt or 174 ?