Rage Online

I see the club have announced profits of £403,000 which is on the face of it excellent news. However, I am confused. Back in July Kelvin stated that we would make a profit for that year without the Whitehead money. It was widely reported at the time that the Deano money was £600k.

Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but you don’t need a degree in Maths to work out that without the Deano money we’d have actually lost around £200k in 2010, despite this being a successful season with good crowds and a trip to Wembley. Now I know Kelvin has also said that we didn’t get as much as we expected from Wembley but £200k less – this seems unlikely.

I don’t think a loss of £200k is all that bad considering some of the losses we have seen previously but with a average season (i.e. out of the play offs) and no trip to Wembley and a sell out play off semi final our losses would be likely to be around the half million mark – this would have been worrying.

Am still concerned about our medium term goals and what will happen with the stadium purchase, I still think there is pressure to be put on Kassam by pointing out that he got a load of cheap land and development opportunities in one of the most wealthy areas of the country off the back of OUFC and taking a hit on the stadium to reflect this wouldn’t be unreasonable. After all the leisure complex profits were supposed to help out OUFC, clearly this never happened and never will so why should we pay full price for the stadium?

“For 2010, even without the Dean Whitehead money, we will still show a profit.

&quotty cobb&quot wrote:I still think there is pressure to be put on Kassam by pointing out that he got a load of cheap land and development opportunities in one of the most wealthy areas of the country off the back of OUFC and taking a hit on the stadium to reflect this wouldn’t be unreasonable. After all the leisure complex profits were supposed to help out OUFC, clearly this never happened and never will so why should we pay full price for the stadium?/

Do you think he cares?

He'll sell when it suits him, and no quoting of some sort of cosmic fairness rule will influence him.

As for the results, well they're in line with the on-field activities (going in the right direction) and are to be welcomed.

The article suggests that ther was an operating loss of £91K.

So some of the money may have been spent on players as the profit on players was presumably just under £500K. Either that or the Whitehead money was less than £600K.

So the 'missing money' as you put it could be £100K?

&quotPaul Cooper&quot wrote:The article suggests that ther was an operating loss of £91K.

So some of the money may have been spent on players as the profit on players was presumably just under £500K. Either that or the Whitehead money was less than £600K.

So the 'missing money' as you put it could be £100K?

At the 15 July 2010 fans forum the pre Whitehead profit was £9k. To turn that into a £91K loss is exactly £100K, which smells to me of an accrued win /promotion bonus pool. Just guessing of course.

&quotty cobb&quot wrote:I see the club have announced profits of £403,000 which is on the face of it excellent news. However, I am confused. Back in July Kelvin stated that we would make a profit for that year without the Whitehead money. It was widely reported at the time that the Deano money was £600k.

I think you've answered your own question there, haven't you...? Who is the press (or the messageboards) to know what the sum from the Whitehead transfer actually was.

The club grossed a ridiculously small amount of money from the Wembley final.

Something like £150k found its way to United via the Conference Head Office after Wembley's operating expenses and various other overheads were deducted and as Slappy points out, there were then bonus payments kicking in for promotion etc.

&quotslappy&quot wrote:

&quotPaul Cooper&quot wrote:The article suggests that ther was an operating loss of £91K.

So some of the money may have been spent on players as the profit on players was presumably just under £500K. Either that or the Whitehead money was less than £600K.

So the 'missing money' as you put it could be £100K?

At the 15 July 2010 fans forum the pre Whitehead profit was £9k. To turn that into a £91K loss is exactly £100K, which smells to me of an accrued win /promotion bonus pool. Just guessing of course.

But that doesn't make sense.

The figures are for the year up to June. The fans forum was in July, either the bonus for promotion had been paid and therefore known about, or the money had not been paid and would not have been in the figures for June. When Kelvin spoke at the forum the figures were in, any players brought in would have been known about and included in his bold assertion that even without the Deano money we were in profit.

Fact is we weren't, I would be interested to know why not. Just because we're going well on the pitch doesn't mean we can ignore what is happening off it, we're heavily in debt, still spending beyond our means, and with no real prospect of owning the ground we play in and therefore being able to push on.

Even making £150k from Wembley is money the club wouldn't have budgeted for. Play off semi brought in another £150k odd so that's £300k we've had as a bonus for this year. Ok the bonus paid for going up would maybe be £100k but we've had £200k, with the Deano money of £600k gives us a £800k uplift from the budget. Yet our profit is £400k.

This doesn't take account of the increase of home gates given the fact it was a successful season.

Kassam will sell when we make him a reasonable offer - Stadco makes a loss every year, why would he want to hold on? I don't think we've made a reasonable offer but have agreed that £13 million is a reasonable price - well I don't think it is and I think it's time we starting negotiating hard so we can take advantage of the better performance on the pitch and start exploiting owning the stadium.

As far as the Whitehead transfer fee is concerned, I understood at the time that the money was being paid in stages, certaily a good portion was after several first team appearances. The fact is that not many clubs have the cash available for players in the premier league, many transfers are covered over two or three years. It was reported that Chelsea are paying for Carroll over five years. We can only hope that Deano's money will also be showing up in the current years figures. In either way it is a good profit.

Hang on, the accounts are still not in the public domain!

http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/7130b ... order?ft=1

&quotty cobb&quot wrote:

&quotslappy&quot wrote:

&quotPaul Cooper&quot wrote:The article suggests that ther was an operating loss of £91K.

So some of the money may have been spent on players as the profit on players was presumably just under £500K. Either that or the Whitehead money was less than £600K.

So the 'missing money' as you put it could be £100K?

At the 15 July 2010 fans forum the pre Whitehead profit was £9k. To turn that into a £91K loss is exactly £100K, which smells to me of an accrued win /promotion bonus pool. Just guessing of course.

But that doesn't make sense.

The figures are for the year up to June. The fans forum was in July, either the bonus for promotion had been paid and therefore known about, or the money had not been paid and would not have been in the figures for June. When Kelvin spoke at the forum the figures were in, any players brought in would have been known about and included in his bold assertion that even without the Deano money we were in profit.

Fact is we weren't, I would be interested to know why not. Just because we're going well on the pitch doesn't mean we can ignore what is happening off it, we're heavily in debt, still spending beyond our means, and with no real prospect of owning the ground we play in and therefore being able to push on.

Even making £150k from Wembley is money the club wouldn't have budgeted for. Play off semi brought in another £150k odd so that's £300k we've had as a bonus for this year. Ok the bonus paid for going up would maybe be £100k but we've had £200k, with the Deano money of £600k gives us a £800k uplift from the budget. Yet our profit is £400k.

This doesn't take account of the increase of home gates given the fact it was a successful season.

Kassam will sell when we make him a reasonable offer - Stadco makes a loss every year, why would he want to hold on? I don't think we've made a reasonable offer but have agreed that £13 million is a reasonable price - well I don't think it is and I think it's time we starting negotiating hard so we can take advantage of the better performance on the pitch and start exploiting owning the stadium.

I don't know if the 'adjustment' to the numbers was for a bonus, but that is an accepted accounting practice (if a decision was made to pay a bonus before the year-end, but the final figure was only decided later).

As for Stadco, it made a profit last set of accounts it filed.

&quotwitney dave&quot wrote: It was reported that Chelsea are paying for Carroll over five years.

Ill-informed nonsense!

just wonderering when i will get my pack for the agm

Accounts are now out.

£90k loss but £531k from player sales.

KT now on £80k (worth every penny).

Full document here (if the link works)

https://acrobat.com/#d=Rxs45ORGmbZOuRox4fcckw

&quotSnake&quot wrote:Accounts are now out.

£90k loss but £531k from player sales.

KT now on £80k (worth every penny).

Full document here (if the link works)

https://acrobat.com/#d=Rxs45ORGmbZOuRox4fcckw

The accounts make slightly better reading than previous years.

I imagine that the £90k loss before player adjustments coupled with the amortisation for that year more or less represent the deficiency in anticipated funding from Wembley.

For OUFC that was one of the best financial years for a long time, but let's not pretend that we will get a Whitehead transfer fee every year, or a Wembley final every year. So the club's accurate budgeting is critical for the continued long haul from debt.

IT's a shame that Wilder couldn't have got an extra 10% out of the team, as we might have had a chance at a bonus again this year.

No doubt everyone will begin talking about the Stadium purchase again. Well I'm going to anyway!! We've been at the stadium 10 years now. That's 10 years out of a 25 year lease, which will become subject to negotiation. I wouldn't want the club leaving it more than another 5 years before negotiating the purchase, or the club could find themselves clobbered for a higher asking price or big hike in rent when the lease runs out. Kassam plays the long game oh so well. The flip side is that the club need to get the stadium whilst Conference income is bottoming out to minimise th easking price. Without wishing to be melodramatic, I honestly think that the next 5 years will be critical to the future prosperity of OUFC.

“No doubt everyone will begin talking about the Stadium purchase again