17 replies to this topic

[ramblur]

I've seen discussion elsewhere as to whether our revolving loan is an overdraft.In the 07/08 DCFC accounts,page 25 and note 27 "Analysis of changes in net debt" you will see that overdrafts appear as the second line,below cash.In actual fact,in this analysis and the cash flow statement,an overdraft is effectively treated as 'negative' cash.

07/08 shows that the overdraft fell from £6.107m to £894k,a drop of £5.213m.However,if you look at the same debt analysis in the 09/10 accounts you'll notice that the 'overdraft' line doesn't exist,which proves that the revolving loan isn't an overdraft.It actually appears below,lumped together with the £1.7m GSE loan.

The facility to borrow against S/Ts has existed since 1998 and there are 4 charge documents relating to it,the last one being Nov 08 under the current regime.I can only assume (though I don't know) that they represent loan segments,each giving authority to borrow up to a certain amount.

The 07/08 cash flow statement gives a figure of £1.509m in respect of repayment of secured loans.This means that,even assuming this debt repayment related to this class,that the most that could have been borrowed in this category in 06/07 is £1.509m (and it could have been nothing).

If you're scratching your head thinking how can the repayment of debt be this small amount,when I've earlier said that the overdraft reduced by £5m+,the answer is that any movement in overdraft doesn't appear in the main body of the cash flow statement.The final figure "increase/decrease in cash" actually means cash net of overdraft,i.e (cash less overdraft) at end of year less (cash less overdraft) at start of year.

Going back to 09/10,Glick's assertion that £4.1m of debt was repaid in early July 10 is interesting,and looks to me to be impression creating.The net debt at the end of the year was £19.1m (the actual debt was £20m+,due to £1m+ of cash),so the impression created is that debt is down to £15m.In actual fact the long term debt is c£15.5m -there's a c£500k worth that appears to be reduced by a very small amount each year.

Apart from this and a tiny amount of HP,the only other debt is the £3m revolving loan and the £1.7m GSE loan.Therefore,if £4.1m was repaid this implies a part repayment of the GSE loan to the tune of £1.1m,which appears a little odd and rather coincidental.Still,the accounts will tell all.

[Boycie]

Have you set any potatoes yet Ramblur?

[uttoxram75]

Sowed a few seeds maybe.....................

[ramblur]

Boycie, on 19 February 2012 - 07:47 PM, said:

Have you set any potatoes yet Ramblur?

Gardening days over I'm afraid,Boycie.Can still do a little digging though

[Donny Ram]

We'll have to wait another month to find out Ramblur. It will be interesting to see how they plan to finance the new cafe and coffee bar development....loans anybody..! I guess the flip side is that it will increase revenue and give us a little bit more scope under FFP rules when they take the vote on full implementation in a couple if weeks (according to Mr Glick on the radio, prior to the Saints match).

[Donny Ram]

We appear to have £4.75m of short term finance showing Ramblur, I'm not sure how this fits in to the equation above in the return to 30th June 2010, we are also showing £773k of interest payments although I'm assuming this is on the £15.959m of nett debt plus interest on the short term finance?

[ramblur]

Donny Ram, on 19 February 2012 - 09:02 PM, said:

We appear to have £4.75m of short term finance showing Ramblur, I'm not sure how this fits in to the equation above in the return to 30th June 2010, we are also showing £773k of interest payments although I'm assuming this is on the £15.959m of nett debt plus interest on the short term finance?

See first line of my last paragraph,Donny-I cut to one decimal point.Yep,interest will be on the long term debt,the revolving loan and the GSE loan.Just because the GSE interest was accrued and unpaid at the year end,some seem to have assumed that it was a 'Doughty type' situation.In actual fact,if say the loan had been scheduled for repayment on July 10,along with interest,then it was bound to be shown as accrued because the interest quite simply wouldn't have been due by 30 June.

The interest payable amount in the accounts will almost certainly always contain accrued interest (unless every loan had 30 June as an interest payment date).The accounts don't give details of these,so I see no particular reason for giving the GSE loan special mention (unless just wishing to create an impression,which certainly seems to have worked with some).

[ramblur]

Donny Ram, on 19 February 2012 - 08:54 PM, said:

We'll have to wait another month to find out Ramblur. It will be interesting to see how they plan to finance the new cafe and coffee bar development....loans anybody..! I guess the flip side is that it will increase revenue and give us a little bit more scope under FFP rules when they take the vote on full implementation in a couple if weeks (according to Mr Glick on the radio, prior to the Saints match).

Yes,and some of the revenue streams may go on debt charges,which would be great for the owners but not so great for us.The Plaza needs to be watched carefully

[davenportram]

Is it possible that this revolving loan is to cover the portion of season ticket revenue for the installments.

As duscussed before ST money covers wages and other expsee through the closed season when theirs no other income. If people are paying by installments and effectively taking a loan from the club then surely the club needs the shortfall made up from somewhere.

My direct debit is paid to the club so I assume there us no outside company providing the finance.

Could explain why it is taken against a portion of season ticket sales and taken out in the summer when they know how many have been signed up to

.

[p.shilton]

well, we are lucky to have you guys picking through the bones of the accounts- I have literally no idea what most of the above is about, which explains why I am always skint I suppose

[froggg]

p.shilton, on 19 February 2012 - 11:51 PM, said:

well, we are lucky to have you guys picking through the bones of the accounts- I have literally no idea what most of the above is about, which explains why I am always skint I suppose

Yep it just shows that it takes all sorts in life but then we also have train/plane/bird spotters......there's just no accounting for it all

[CumbrianRam]

There's me thinking this was a thread about Ryan Noble....

[p.shilton]

who says that moderators don't have a sense of humour?Everyone

[ramblur]

davenportram, on 19 February 2012 - 11:35 PM, said:

Is it possible that this revolving loan is to cover the portion of season ticket revenue for the installments.

As duscussed before ST money covers wages and other expsee through the closed season when theirs no other income. If people are paying by installments and effectively taking a loan from the club then surely the club needs the shortfall made up from somewhere.

My direct debit is paid to the club so I assume there us no outside company providing the finance.

Could explain why it is taken against a portion of season ticket sales and taken out in the summer when they know how many have been signed up to

.

Don't really understand your point.The (£3m so far) loan has to be first repaid in June/July out of S/T monies collected, before then being reborrowed against S/Ts for the following (not forthcoming) season.So the reborrowing merely replaces the hole blasted in the S/T revenues.It should be remembered that total S/T revenues aren't that much more than £4m

[Ambitious]

Does this mean we can afford a '20 season a million striker signing goals'

If not, get Clough out and Igor Asanovic in then the americans will have money to spend, surely?

[The Scarlet Pimpernel]

ramblur, on 20 February 2012 - 12:43 PM, said:

Don't really understand your point.The (£3m so far) loan has to be first repaid in June/July out of S/T monies collected, before then being reborrowed against S/Ts for the following (not forthcoming) season.So the reborrowing merely replaces the hole blasted in the S/T revenues.It should be remembered that total S/T revenues aren't that much more than £4m

I don't want to look like a fool................ but what are we trying to establish and why?

[emjlc02]

I thought last season they said they were going to get a 20 goal a season man and sort out the lack of goals issue and then was boasting about Tyson and Maguire in the summer. I guess they chose to get two players and both have so far flopped

[ramblur]

The Scarlet Pimpernel, on 20 February 2012 - 03:12 PM, said:

I don't want to look like a fool................ but what are we trying to establish and why?

If you're talking about the post you quoted,it was an answer to davenport's post.If you're talking about my OP,then it was to establish that the so called 'revolving loan' isn't an overdraft,it's debt and is specified as such in the accounts.Therefore,when we were told on numerous occasions that the debt was down to the £15m PP loan,this wasn't actually correct.