• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Financial Results

Finney Is Back said:
The £31m isn't just those events. It is also matchday catering, pre season tournaments and stadium tour/skywalk events.
Click to expand...
Sure sure, but those pre season tournaments would have been done in the previous financial year as well, along with the stadium tour and skywalks I think? Although probably under Covid restrictions.

Was just trying to rationalize the £31m increase compared to July 2020 - June 2021 accts ? The difference would be these non footballing events I think?
 
Last edited:
braineclipse said:
The way you see it are we likely to see this grow even further next year (and in coming years)? These financial results go back to when covid, the consequences of covid including the restrictions probably still limited this to some extent?
Click to expand...
I think these results are for the period July 1st 2021-June 30th 2022.
And for the life of me can't remember the calender of COVID...all seems such a blur.
 
Seems we had £226m in cash but owed £237m that had to be paid within a year (guessing transfer debt).
 
Transfer debt:

£115m due within a year (though obviously this was as at June)
£136m due > 1 year
£23m owed from player sales

so net as of June 30th last year we owed £228m for transfer fees
 
AdamB said:
Transfer debt:

£115m due within a year (though obviously this was as at June)
£136m due > 1 year
£23m owed from player sales

so net as of June 30th last year we owed £228m for transfer fees
Click to expand...

In the pub so can't check but has our overall debt gone down or up?
 
Business seems in rude health though.

EBITDA was just over £130m, capex for each of the last couple years was c.£33m and £22m cash interest costs, leaving pre-tax cashflow of about £75m. This year should also be substantially better given the CL revenue. (Not sure what we're spending £30m odd capex on each, though a £1bn asset will require a certain amount of spend on upkeep)

I'd expect the above should increase too with events etc back more this year. Suggests though that the expectation of being able to buy a couple decent players for the squad each year is about right, based purely on a Europa league year. CL revenues are gravy
 
One further thought about the question above about debt: the club could/should arguably view the committed transfer fees as debt too given they're not really trading related and we do have to pay them (and probably over the next 2-3 years)

Transfer debt at Jun-22 was £228m up from £150m last year (which was £169m owed by us less £19m due to us). Financial net debt was £626m down from £706m

Means that net debt, including amounts owed for transfers, went from £856m at Jun-21 to £854m as at Jun-22

So as good as flat. You could argue that in theory the additional commitments on transfers should drive greater success on the pitch and therefore increased revenue, profits, cash...but can understand why its galling to Levy (and coming out in the narrative from him about the results) about the amount which we've wasted on transfers. Can also understand therefore why, particularly after seeing the Ndombele debacle, why he's be hesitant about blowing more huge wads on individual players
 
Still find it weird that we still haven't sorted out a stadium sponsor.

£20m p.a. would be pure profit. Almost 4 years now since the stadium opened - so £80m shortfall.

Levy really holding out for a bumper deal. Not sure I get it
 
AdamB said:
One further thought about the question above about debt: the club could/should arguably view the committed transfer fees as debt too given they're not really trading related and we do have to pay them (and probably over the next 2-3 years)

Transfer debt at Jun-22 was £228m up from £150m last year (which was £169m owed by us less £19m due to us). Financial net debt was £626m down from £706m

Means that net debt, including amounts owed for transfers, went from £856m at Jun-21 to £854m as at Jun-22

So as good as flat. You could argue that in theory the additional commitments on transfers should drive greater success on the pitch and therefore increased revenue, profits, cash...but can understand why its galling to Levy (and coming out in the narrative from him about the results) about the amount which we've wasted on transfers. Can also understand therefore why, particularly after seeing the Ndombele debacle, why he's be hesitant about blowing more huge wads on individual players
Click to expand...

The accountants on here might correct me but i think that transfers aren't really considered debt as you are swapping cash for an asset. The asset will then depreciate over the term of the contract (amortization). If you counted it as debt then it would be double counting it.
 
Lilbaz said:
The accountants on here might correct me but i think that transfers aren't really considered debt as you are swapping cash for an asset. The asset will then depreciate over the term of the contract (amortization). If you counted it as debt then it would be double counting it.
Click to expand...

I am an accountant (albeit qualified a few years ago!)

If there was an external analyst covering the company (eg if we were a listed company), then I'm sure they'd be looking at committed transfer fees in an adjusted net debt figure. Similar to how for airlines, retailers etc analysts will often include leases, or similar to how people often look at deferred consideration from acquisitions

On your above point, we buy the player so cash goes down for the up front payment, liability is created for deferred payments and we include an asset for the player registration

Then each year:
- the registration is amortised (credit in the balance sheet) with that amount reducing shareholders' equity (offsetting debit in the BS)
- when we settle the deferred payments, cash goes down (credit in the balance sheet) and amounts outstanding for fees goes down (debit in BS)
 
AdamB said:
Still find it weird that we still haven't sorted out a stadium sponsor.

£20m p.a. would be pure profit. Almost 4 years now since the stadium opened - so £80m shortfall.

Levy really holding out for a bumper deal. Not sure I get it
Click to expand...
You have to take into account the economic background. Couple years of covid and now a major slowdown in tech.
Companies weren't going to get into a big sponsorship deal during covid with so much uncertainty. Big tech companies, that would be one of the main sponsors that Levy is probably looking at, are laying off staff. Optics wouldn't be great if you lay off staff and then turn around and hand out 20m in a sponsorship deal. I'm sure there have been offers, but it's getting the right fit.
 
DubSpur said:
You have to take into account the economic background. Couple years of covid and now a major slowdown in tech.
Companies weren't going to get into a big sponsorship deal during covid with so much uncertainty. Big tech companies, that would be one of the main sponsors that Levy is probably looking at, are laying off staff. Optics wouldn't be great if you lay off staff and then turn around and hand out 20m in a sponsorship deal. I'm sure there have been offers, but it's getting the right fit.
Click to expand...

Stadium opened a year prior to covid...and every year that you wait for a better deal, it almost creates a need for the deal to be that much better

re lay-offs: its less relevant in tech. These aren't unionised, blue collar people who are being laid off and with all the main stadiums in the US having sponsors, it would be considered normal

Am sure Levy knows what he's doing, but it's surprising to me at least!
 
AdamB said:
Stadium opened a year prior to covid...and every year that you wait for a better deal, it almost creates a need for the deal to be that much better

re lay-offs: its less relevant in tech. These aren't unionised, blue collar people who are being laid off and with all the main stadiums in the US having sponsors, it would be considered normal

Am sure Levy knows what he's doing, but it's surprising to me at least!
Click to expand...
Nothing to do with unions. Say Amazon lay off 10k staff and the next day they announce a sponsorship deal, the media will have a field day.

It does seem more of a struggle than I thought it would be, they even hired someone to look after it and still nothing.
 
Rumours are that we are looking to sell the club. When the qatari meetings were leaked at least one report said lewis preferred a full sale. Holding off on naming rights might be to do with that or even the esl.
 
AdamB said:
Stadium opened a year prior to covid...and every year that you wait for a better deal, it almost creates a need for the deal to be that much better

re lay-offs: its less relevant in tech. These aren't unionised, blue collar people who are being laid off and with all the main stadiums in the US having sponsors, it would be considered normal

Am sure Levy knows what he's doing, but it's surprising to me at least!
Click to expand...

We will never know what the offers were when we opened the stadium, but they will have to be a hell of a lot more now for Levy to make a profit.

I like that he is upset about the costly transfers not making us better.

I got the feeling at the time he was tinkled off about Bentley and Bent not kicking us on. Would like to see us go back down the young player route, look at the championship.
 
Lilbaz said:
Rumours are that we are looking to sell the club. When the qatari meetings were leaked at least one report said lewis preferred a full sale. Holding off on naming rights might be to do with that or even the esl.
Click to expand...
Never heard a rumour that we are looking to sell the club before...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back