Jump to content
IGNORED

Company accounts filed at Companies House


View from the Dolman

Recommended Posts

Looking just at the holding company, here are some highlights:

- Turnover doubled when compared to the 2015 period increasing from £7.7m to £14.2m.

- Employee costs have increased significantly, rising from £11.0m to £17.4m.

- The profit from player sales was only £81k when compared to £1.4m the year before. However, as the results are only until May 2016 this will not include the likes of Kodjia, Bolasie, Ayling and Agard's transfer fees.

- This resulted in an overall loss of £14.8m vs £10.1m in 2015.

- Oh and we spent around £27m on the stadium during that period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Coppello said:

Looking just at the holding company, here are some highlights:

- Turnover doubled when compared to the 2015 period increasing from £7.7m to £14.2m.

- Employee costs have increased significantly, rising from £11.0m to £17.4m.

- The profit from player sales was only £81k when compared to £1.4m the year before. However, as the results are only until May 2016 this will not include the likes of Kodjia, Bolasie, Ayling and Agard's transfer fees.

- This resulted in an overall loss of £14.8m vs £10.1m in 2015.

- Oh and we spent around £27m on the stadium during that period.

It's ok though

SL has stuck it on a credit card 

One of those offers , Zero % interest for 12 months ....blah blah blah 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, am I being stupid, but this looks like a positive picture? 

We lost £25.9m over two years, but spent £27m on the stadium which won't be an expenditure now, other than running costs and increased staffing. 

Therefore, if income stays the same, we could turn a profit or break even as the £27m expenditure is gone and income will rise due to higher gates and more use of the ground throughout the week.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Dastardly and Muttley said:

So, am I being stupid, but this looks like a positive picture? 

We lost £25.9m over two years, but spent £27m on the stadium which won't be an expenditure now, other than running costs and increased staffing. 

Therefore, if income stays the same, we could turn a profit or break even as the £27m expenditure is gone and income will rise due to higher gates and more use of the ground throughout the week.

 

if you run a company you don't want to make a profit it costs you tax , how ever you don't want to make a huge lose , unless you really know what you are doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Dastardly and Muttley said:

So, am I being stupid, but this looks like a positive picture? 

We lost £25.9m over two years, but spent £27m on the stadium which won't be an expenditure now, other than running costs and increased staffing. 

Therefore, if income stays the same, we could turn a profit or break even as the £27m expenditure is gone and income will rise due to higher gates and more use of the ground throughout the week.

 

Isn't the stadium cost on top of the £25.9m losses ?

otherwise, in essence the new stadium only cost Steve £1.1m !

:thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, reddoh said:

if you run a company you don't want to make a profit it costs you tax , how ever you don't want to make a huge lose , unless you really know what you are doing.

I think you DO want to make a profit. Isn't that a basic of being 'in business?'

Then you work out how to AVOID paying tax!

#StarbucksAmazonAppleFacebook

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

I think you DO want to make a profit. Isn't that a basic of being 'in business?'

Then you work out how to AVOID paying tax!

#StarbucksAmazonAppleFacebook

The best way to avoid tax is by filing the worst possible (legally) set of accounts you can. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Bar BS3 said:

The best way to avoid tax is by filing the worst possible (legally) set of accounts you can. 

Not really, the starting point for calculating taxes is profits per the account but then you add back to that all non-tax allowable expenditure, so profit per the accounts and profit for tax purposes are two different things. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dastardly and Muttley said:

So, am I being stupid, but this looks like a positive picture? 

We lost £25.9m over two years, but spent £27m on the stadium which won't be an expenditure now, other than running costs and increased staffing. 

Therefore, if income stays the same, we could turn a profit or break even as the £27m expenditure is gone and income will rise due to higher gates and more use of the ground throughout the week.

 

Not exactly. The construction of the stadium does not contribute to the losses during the period as it is a capital purchase. This means that it stays clear of the profit calculation while the asset is being constructed and therefore the £25.9m is not inclusive of the construction costs. 

Going forward the loss will actually be increased as a result of the depreciation charged on the stadium (but that's a different story for a different day). However, the benefits of having the new stadium such as increased revenue should far outstrip the additional depreciation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...