West Ham accounts reveal loss of £37m

The very best posts from KUMB over the years ...

Moderator: Gnome

Re: West Ham accounts reveal loss of £37m

Postby QuintonNimoy on Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:12 am

SammyLeeWasOffside wrote:I like the Eastern philosophy part, we could all get out chakras cleansed at half time.

When you've got nothing, footballing Zen is all that's left. We are debt junkies gone cold turkey and we need something to believe in.
QuintonNimoy
 
Posts: 7901
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 9:24 am

Re: West Ham accounts reveal loss of £37m

Postby ashbanki on Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:20 am

SBB ~ So why were you not warning us all when the takeover money was quoted as coming from the original cash resources of BG and EM? and that the £24m spent on players was being converted into equity in the club?
Also why did you not come forward and tell us all not to be so naive when Duxbury and co were claiming that the club was ring fenced from the debts of it's holding company?
ashbanki
 
Posts: 1579
Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 9:34 am

Re: West Ham accounts reveal loss of £37m

Postby FDiMcA on Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:26 am

Chekov wrote:
in moratorium, all creditors processes are stayed so there can be no asset stripping of the club to appease them as things stand.

Evidently, there are ways for profits and assets to be siphoned off up the tree but if the club was only viewed only in this light and the need for cash was urgent then surely we would already have been liquidated with all assets sold off to the highest bidder. Given that the plan seems to be to keep the club as a going concern because, as many have pointed out, its worth in such a state is greater than the sum of its parts, I think it is fair to conclude that the board at West Ham may be trying to do exactly what they told us and balance OUR books.

.


:thup: my hunch is that having got permissions from the banks (after breaching covenants) and even the sponsors to do stuff, the club couldnt send money up the tree untill meeting commitments to its banks.

If there was a spare £5m in from a player sale the moment it went out to CB the banks would have called in the loans, West Ham would have gone bankrupt, the first charges of £55m or so would have gone toi the banks, and players would have had the union fighting for their rights. CB would have been left with pennies if anything from a recievership.

So CB not only technically probably cant pull money out, if they did, it would be the last money they saw. So it would need to be a huge amount like £50M cash (which is never going to be in our current account) to make it worthwhile. They would then need to get it out of the country, and last week the Icelandic government who are an ultimate creditor of CB's owners agreed to repay banking debt to the UK.

The BS about CB pulling cash out from player sales is BS.
That SD now has the Collins money in a box marked "transfer kitty" is unlikley. Its not going to CB but cash flow means it will likley be used between now and Jan, and that in Jan SD will try to find a simmilar amount from other spots.

So the money SD has raised by cutting costs and selling players is all directly or indirectly going to a) reduce the clubs debt to banks (not out to the owners) - which will leave us with more money to buy players in future; and b) going to be spent on players who can maintain a solid mid-table position so we can keep getting the Sky monney.

Ignoring the big 8 (Arsenal, Chelsea, City, Everton, Liverpool, Man U, Spurs, Villa)

Inside the Prem we probably have the highest turnover, the leanest squad, the best average attendance and TV audiences.
Our debt is creeping downwards and is too large but no longer ridiculous as a percentage of turnover.

A huge weight is lifted summer 2010 (various commitments on wages expire)
A huge weight lifts summer 2011 (the Sheffield Utd commitment goes towards a modest amount)

As many have posted here and elsewhere, if Zola keeps us up this season - we will have got away with it.

It should be clear by December how we are doing in the league, and in Jan we should get Ashton avaialabel or retired and bring in some additions.

IMHO if we are 13th or higher at Xmas - we have got out of jail and should hold a large party
User avatar
FDiMcA
teh
 
Posts: 4999
Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2002 3:54 pm
Location: Locked in a cellar, not sure where but I can smell hotdogs

Re: West Ham accounts reveal loss of £37m

Postby FDiMcA on Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:29 am

Oh yes and we should all bare in mind that the banks do not want us to pay off our debt, they just want it to get to a managebale level, its their business model to keep us in debt, so we are probably not so far off the target for our banks (hoepfully the target for us is no debt)
User avatar
FDiMcA
teh
 
Posts: 4999
Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2002 3:54 pm
Location: Locked in a cellar, not sure where but I can smell hotdogs

Re: West Ham accounts reveal loss of £37m

Postby SBB on Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:31 am

[quote="QuintonNimoy
The simple answer is that you do that when the return from the investment in the club produces more money than the option you outline. This would require the investor to not expect a return until they sold the club at some point in the future, having allowed it to accrue the benefits of reinvesting anything it made internally. Obviously seeing as the club will agree to whatever loan terms BG decides as he controls both bank and club the likelihood of this being an option isn't very high.

Im sorry quinton but I totoally disagree.

I work in structured finance and specialise on the sporting sector, you assume the loan was to the club - t was not it was to BG! you have fundamentally misunderstood the point. I have suggested that BG borrowed the money NOT the club. Unfortunately when he went under the club was the asset used to pay the bankers off. It has nothing to do with the club accepting terms etc. I am talking about how he personally bankrolled the purchase nothing to do with the club (until he went bust)


This simply isn't true, you allow BG the sophistication to make complex financial judgements when choosing how to put money into the club, but then make a gross simplification about whether it's possible to take money out of the club at a personal profit. The fact is the debt model you describe is one of a number of ways to make money from a football club. There are plenty of others, the club doesn't have to show a profit on the balance sheet for someone to make money from it.[/quote]

Perhaps you would like to enlighten us of how to make money out of a football club other than a return from resale. I'm confident there will be many chairmen interested in your response
SBB
 
Posts: 229
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 11:29 am

Re: West Ham accounts reveal loss of £37m

Postby Kent Bubble Blower on Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:32 am

FDiMcA wrote:IMHO if we are 13th or higher at Xmas - we have got out of jail and should hold a large party

:thup:
User avatar
Kent Bubble Blower
 
Posts: 4268
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 11:06 am

Re: West Ham accounts reveal loss of £37m

Postby sendô on Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:37 am

FDiMcA wrote:IMHO if we are 13th or higher at Xmas - we have got out of jail and should hold a large party


Well, I'm pretty sure Hull were in the top 13 at christmas last season and look what happened to them second half of the season, but yes you are correct.

Oh and aside from teh 'top 8' (who of course aren't really the top 8 are they?) I'd say the mackems are in a far better position than us.
User avatar
sendô
 
Posts: 16090
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2005 1:41 pm
Location: in the pessimistically optimistic camp.

Re: West Ham accounts reveal loss of £37m

Postby West Ham Matt on Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:40 am

We will finish 16th imo.

Just have enough to stay up.

Then asset stripped and relegated in 2010/2011
User avatar
West Ham Matt
Karl Pilkington
 
Posts: 16996
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2003 4:51 pm
Location: Sam Out!

Re: West Ham accounts reveal loss of £37m

Postby FDiMcA on Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:46 am

sendô wrote:Well, I'm pretty sure Hull were in the top 13 at christmas last season and look what happened to them second half of the season, but yes you are correct.

Oh and aside from teh 'top 8' (who of course aren't really the top 8 are they?)


I'd say the mackems are in a far better position than us.


Agreed re Hull, we are both estimating our experience on and off teh pitch will prevent a copy of Hulls first season nose bleed.

the big 8, maybe now and then one of them will finish outside the top 8, but they are the big 8.

I agree that in Newcastles absence (shame) Sunderland are most likley all things being equal to challenge for 9th (whilst we are in our weakened state)

I am lifted by the relative colapse of Bolton, Pompey, and Wigan (certainly in terms of management track record) who have recently been nailed on mid-table sides.

I feel the standard outside the big 8 is lower this season than for many a year, and that helps us.
User avatar
FDiMcA
teh
 
Posts: 4999
Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2002 3:54 pm
Location: Locked in a cellar, not sure where but I can smell hotdogs

Re: West Ham accounts reveal loss of £37m

Postby Turns to Stone on Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:47 am

I know i have to stop being so damned upbeat all the time, but does anyone else think that we may have had a stroke of luck with BG going bust? Clearly he was taking us down a path to destruction without the financial stability of Abramovich or the chap at Man City! I know that we hardly living the high life right now. But compared to a side like Pompey who have just sold ANYTHING of any value at the club and are now left with a side made up of every unwanted Premiership player going (they'd have definitely had Quashie had his contract been up this year instead of next, we've managed to keep a half-decent spine and not flog our promising youngsters.

I know it's been annoying to see the likes of Hull and Stoke spending more than us, but again, given the choice, I'd still take our squad over theirs and the bookies have even got Fulham and Sunderland in the 10 Premiership clubs ahead of us ready to go down.

Clearly, all the Premiership clubs (with the obvious exception of Man City and possibly Sunderland) have taken a very different approach to spending this year, and I don't think that that's a bad thing.

Let's take Sunderland for example. They've spent millions and millions this Summer, they've let a few players go but I would imagine the wage bill has increased, they'll have had to pay two managers off last year and pay compensation to Wigan for Bruce and for what. The possibility of going up the league two places? It's very unlikely that they are going to break the top 8 - the big 4, plus Man City, Everton, Spuds and Villa. They may have a decent cup run, but again, the top 4 usually monopolise those anyway. They're fan base is already as big as it's going to get, so the money that they spend is all having to come from above. This time 2 years ago, Portsmouth looked in easily as good a position as Sunderland (minus the stadium, but the fans were promised that was on the way). 'Arry carried on spending as is his wont, the fans were delirious, they got a trip to Wembley, but where will those fans be come next September when they're away at Doncaster?

I know things seem tough at the minute folks, but I do think that we dodged a bit of a bullet when the Crunch exposed BG for what he was before he took us a little too far down a road that a lot of Premiership clubs currently find themselves on.

That said, we still need an investor/buyer....and soon!

:crest:
User avatar
Turns to Stone
 
Posts: 5352
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2008 10:21 am
Location: Tony Almeida

Re: West Ham accounts reveal loss of £37m

Postby ashbanki on Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:47 am

I think we are being shown a cocktail of figures here to a) Show the worse possible scenario and then subsequently soften them with the truer picture and b)confuse the issue of what we actually owe to justify the so-called book balancing.
The bottom line is that Straumur would not have picked up the chalice of a damaged WHU if it thought it would not get them a full return on the money BG owed them and even turn a nice profit.Unfortunately for us is the fact that the gamble of hurriedly reducing the debt and weakening the team is felt worth the risk by Straumur.This has also included being forced to pay Sheff Utd monies we should not have had to do.
My argument is not whether Duxbury is doing a good job under the circumstances but that is it in the long term interests of the club.
It maybe that the course of action is in the best interests of both owners and club, but I'm not convinced.If details had been leaked back in March BG/Straumur would not have had other creditor support in keeping hold of the club and accepted an offer.Straumur's best estimate of a return for their creditors is approx 50%.That would have meant selling the club for £40-£50m which was carrying debts of £40-£50m.As it is the club are paying the £40-£50m so Straumur can take £100m to clear the debt and anything over that figure for profit.
Last edited by ashbanki on Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
ashbanki
 
Posts: 1579
Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 9:34 am

Re: West Ham accounts reveal loss of £37m

Postby Paolo Futre on Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:50 am

I was expecting this to be honest... Duxbury pretty much said it during his interview.

Come next year (when this years accounts are published), we'll be able to see where we are really at.

Don't get too emotional yet fellas...mostly just the media creating the hype because it's West Ham.
User avatar
Paolo Futre
Warsaw's Peter Stringfellow
 
Posts: 3469
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2004 3:26 pm
Location: Far East

Re: West Ham accounts reveal loss of £37m

Postby FDiMcA on Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:55 am

ashbanki wrote:I think we are being shown a cocktail of figures here ............... and b)confuse the issue of what we actually owe to justify the so-called book balancing.

The bottom line is that Straumur would not have picked up the chalice of a damaged WHU if it thought it would not get them a full return on the money BG owed them and even turn a nice profit.

Straumur's best estimate of a return for their creditors is approx 50%.That would have meant selling the club for £40-£50m which was carrying debts of £40-£50m.As it is the club are paying the £40-£50m so Straumur can take £100m to clear the debt and £100m+ for profit.


it is confusing what we actually owe.
There is the debt to banks (the loans) and there is the future money due to Sheffield United, players on contracts, clubs we have bought players from (the commitments). I would love to know the total picture, but I think its not in the interests of the club for that to be known in public. Bordeaux dont need to negotiate with us by knowing our position is better than we suggested.

Did Straumer have a choice in with the other CB partners getting us, was there any alternative. Having got us, unless someone made a fair offer they would have no choice but to hold on to us.

I dont understand your setting out of the debt and what the clubs worth to Straumer.
:oops:
User avatar
FDiMcA
teh
 
Posts: 4999
Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2002 3:54 pm
Location: Locked in a cellar, not sure where but I can smell hotdogs

Re: West Ham accounts reveal loss of £37m

Postby Turns to Stone on Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:59 am

Again, hoping not to embarrass myself, Ashbanki.

Had Straumer not accepted "the poisoned chalice" of West Ham. How would they have got their money back? Was it not a case of us being their only chance of getting any sort of return on the money lent?

Again, apologies if I'm being a nob!
User avatar
Turns to Stone
 
Posts: 5352
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2008 10:21 am
Location: Tony Almeida

Re: West Ham accounts reveal loss of £37m

Postby Jackanakanory on Thu Sep 03, 2009 11:00 am

Go into admin...get relegated and get the whole sorry mess over and done with.

Start anew...

I don't care if we are in bloody league 2 I will still support and we'd be out of this *****!

Fed up with it all now...
User avatar
Jackanakanory
 
Posts: 6165
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2004 2:56 pm
Location: Equidistant between chit-chat and analysis

Re: West Ham accounts reveal loss of £37m

Postby QuintonNimoy on Thu Sep 03, 2009 11:00 am

SBB wrote:I work in structured finance and specialise on the sporting sector, you assume the loan was to the club - t was not it was to BG! you have fundamentally misunderstood the point. I have suggested that BG borrowed the money NOT the club. Unfortunately when he went under the club was the asset used to pay the bankers off. It has nothing to do with the club accepting terms etc. I am talking about how he personally bankrolled the purchase nothing to do with the club (until he went bust)

I see the point you're trying to make now - how heroic of him!
SBB wrote:Perhaps you would like to enlighten us of how to make money out of a football club other than a return from resale. I'm confident there will be many chairmen interested in your response

Ha! Paid directorship? I'm sure you can work out some more from there.
QuintonNimoy
 
Posts: 7901
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 9:24 am

Re: West Ham accounts reveal loss of £37m

Postby neilbob on Thu Sep 03, 2009 11:12 am

I reckon we'll have a relatively short period examining these poor accounts from yesteryear before the new accounts come out showing what a big turn around there has been and what a well run club we are now. Before being flogged on ebay.
User avatar
neilbob
 
Posts: 6636
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 10:13 pm
Location: Barking Rd

Re: West Ham accounts reveal loss of £37m

Postby bspur1 on Thu Sep 03, 2009 11:21 am

BLT319 wrote:wtf are they doing with the money..


Paying Parker, Dyer, Quashie, Boa Morte, Upsons & Neils etc over the average for a mid table club wages plus the increased wages of Green and Ashton to bring them into line with the other highly paid first team members that Eggy signed

Plus Intrest on the loans we took out to purchase these players.

In short we are spending more than were earning if were 80 million in debt at 8% thats 6.4 million a year just to cover the intrest.

Thats why we cant get rid of Boa Morte and Quashie etc because they wont get paid a fraction of what they are on here.

IMO Duxburry,Zola and Clarke are doing an amazing job with what they have to work with
Last edited by bspur1 on Thu Sep 03, 2009 11:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
bspur1
 
Posts: 1301
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 3:16 am

Re: West Ham accounts reveal loss of £37m

Postby Bishy on Thu Sep 03, 2009 11:22 am

Having just read the full 5 pages of this thread from start to finish, I conclude that FIDDY's intelligent and well rounded posts make him the forums greatest asset.

Should it later be revealed that UTJ built KUMB on dodgdy financing supplied by the likes of Ocean Finance and the company that used to have the annoying adverts with the cartoon phone, and Gnome, as many suspected, is Icelandic. Unfortunately Fiddy you will be first out the door to balance our books.

It is also hoped that with your long posts off the forum, significant savings in bandwidth will be seen :wink:
Last edited by Bishy on Thu Sep 03, 2009 11:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Bishy
 
Posts: 4120
Joined: Fri May 15, 2009 10:15 am
Location: In the Snug, being silly

Re: West Ham accounts reveal loss of £37m

Postby BMLGirl on Thu Sep 03, 2009 11:22 am

FDiMcA wrote:
Put that on your CV Curbs. You were David O'Leery and we all paid for it.
Only your swift removal saved us.

How the hell can you blame Curbs. My understanding is that he identified the players he wanted (as is probably the case with Zola as well, although Nani does bring in players Zola doesn't particularly want but that's another thread) but it's down to Duxbury to sort out fees, salaries etc.

Oh, I forgot - everything is Curbs fault according to some on here!
User avatar
BMLGirl
 
Posts: 1318
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 9:52 am

PreviousNext

Return to KUMB Hall of Fame

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests