![Smile :)](./images/smilies/icon_smile.gif)
by Green » 29 Jan 2014 14:52
by Royal Rother » 29 Jan 2014 14:59
MmmMonsterMunch another one for the OP - do we know our carried forward losses then?
I'd say a £2.3m loss is a good effort by the club & it's in pretty good health. Especially given the CAT A investment & the clear spike in player wages.
by Royal Rother » 29 Jan 2014 15:10
Elm ParkMmmMonsterMunch To the OP - do you have the long term liabilities and director's loan numbers on there too? Would be interested to see what those are...
I don't know about Directors Loans but Other Long Term Finance is £40.2m (up from £39.7m)
Also, interestingly Bank Loans are £4,501,194 (up from £26,934) so we are able to use bank loans again after they all had to repaid a few years ago.
And this offset by a similar reduction in short term finance, now £5.1m from £9.1m (Directors short term Loans?)
by Elm Park » 29 Jan 2014 16:14
GreenMmmMonsterMunch another one for the OP - do we know our carried forward losses then?
I'd say a £2.3m loss is a good effort by the club & it's in pretty good health. Especially given the CAT A investment & the clear spike in player wages.
Frustrating OP isn't it - he claims no inside information but on the other hand has offered no indication of source or what other info (if any) was given.
by P!ssed Off » 29 Jan 2014 17:35
MmmMonsterMunchP!ssed OffMmmMonsterMunch 1Behave!! A £4m sign on fee?! No chance. IF he was on £53k pw, that would mean almost an additional year & half's salary. 2 Doubt even the likes of Spurs, Liverpool, Arsenal etc would pay that sort of money out.
Honestly where do people get this sh1t from?
![]()
1Not that unbelievable.
He was a high profile free transfer, contrary to the title they rarely move for 'free'.
2A team like the ones you've mentioned would think absolutely nothing of a £4m signing on fee if they were getting a 1st team regular in with no transfer fee involved.
Sorry to p1ss on your parade but you do realise I mentioned Spurs, Liverpool & Arsenal yes? I.e. not a mid table championship club with a relatively prudent chairman.
by 3points » 29 Jan 2014 20:48
P!ssed Off Behave!! A £4m sign on fee?! No chance. IF he was on £53k pw, that would mean almost an additional year & half's salary.
by 3points » 29 Jan 2014 21:43
by MmmMonsterMunch » 29 Jan 2014 23:36
3points .P!ssed Off Behave!! A £4m sign on fee?! No chance. IF he was on £53k pw, that would mean almost an additional year & half's salary.
Over a 4 year period (the length of his contract), a 4m signing on fee is worth 20k per week. If Pog is on wages of 35k (which many would think is not unrealistic), he then got, effectively, an additional 20k per week, plus his goal bonuses, etc and his flat in London and that is how you can get to the original rumoured 60k per week. You have to remember that other clubs wanted him but no-one would match what Reading offered him. If I had said we paid a 4m transfer fee for him you wouldn't have questioned that. As someone else stated, free transfers are not free. That's why players let their contracts run down if they can as they get big signing on fees.
by MmmMonsterMunch » 29 Jan 2014 23:38
3points A bit more detail if anyone interested
Income
2013 2012
Media & Broadcasting £43.7m £5.1m
Matchday income £9.3m £5.6m
Commercial income £5.2m £3.1m
Rugby commission £0.6m £0.6m
Other £0.4m £0.3m
Total £59.3 £14.7
Therefore, being in the Prem was worth an extra £45m for the season (nearly all TV money). Operating costs went up from £36.9m to £62.4m (player numbers increased from 42 to 53) but this does include the amortisation of player transfer fees. So, in 2012 RFC made a loss of about £22m but only £2m in 2013.
In terms of the club's debt, it hasn't really gone up as the the loss is only a couple of million. It's moved around a bit (more is now owed to TSI than SJM) and the club also has deferred transfer fees of £2.8m still to pay. TSI owed £19.3m, SJM (via RFC Holdings) £9.8m.
We received £3.5m for Mariappa and Kebe
by Jackson Corner » 30 Jan 2014 06:21
by Cypry » 30 Jan 2014 06:54
by melonhead » 30 Jan 2014 10:08
In terms of the club's debt, it hasn't really gone up
as the the loss is only a couple of million.
by Royal Biscuitman » 30 Jan 2014 12:16
melonheadIn terms of the club's debt, it hasn't really gone up
as the the loss is only a couple of million.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
by Green » 30 Jan 2014 12:21
Royal Biscuitman There are examples of companies making huge profits that end up going into administration due to overtrading
by Royal Biscuitman » 30 Jan 2014 12:25
GreenRoyal Biscuitman There are examples of companies making huge profits that end up going into administration due to overtrading
Go on then...
by Green » 30 Jan 2014 12:27
by Royal Biscuitman » 30 Jan 2014 12:30
I'm just saying that making a profit does not mean you are in good shape as you need cash, not profit to pay suppliers.Green Doesn't sound like quite the same thing. That sounds like spending too much on corporate HQ to me.
I'm not doubting you, there must be examples, but I'd be eager to hear what they are and why the administr8rs couldn't just be a bit patient.
by Green » 30 Jan 2014 12:31
by El Diablo » 30 Jan 2014 13:44
by Nameless » 31 Jan 2014 09:15
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 72 guests