Dick_Turpin Posted July 12, 2019 Share Posted July 12, 2019 1 minute ago, smhouston said: No, according to Chansiri he wanted to get us back to the Premiership within 3 seasons (which obviously didn't succeed in). However, he has been the closest chairman to achieve that ever since our relegation from the PL, not once but twice, in an ever increasing competitive division financially wise with the PL payments having to compete against He also said at a forum that he’d spent the money to keep us up. Yes he’s chucked money at it. Sometimes it needs more than that. We’ve been run terribly and had to sell Hillsborough to avert disaster. I happen to think that’s pretty poor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billyblack Posted July 12, 2019 Share Posted July 12, 2019 5 minutes ago, smhouston said: No, according to Chansiri he wanted to get us back to the Premiership within 3 seasons (which obviously didn't succeed in). However, he has been the closest chairman to achieve that ever since our relegation from the PL, not once but twice, in an ever increasing competitive division financially wise with the PL payments having to compete against Nearly and close mean nothing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billyblack Posted July 12, 2019 Share Posted July 12, 2019 1 minute ago, rickygoo said: He also said at a forum that he’d spent the money to keep us up. Yes he’s chucked money at it. Sometimes it needs more than that. We’ve been run terribly and had to sell Hillsborough to avert disaster. I happen to think that’s pretty poor. Totally agree. More to the point he didnt have to do any of it if he would have taken the appropriate action when it presented itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigdan2003 Posted July 12, 2019 Share Posted July 12, 2019 (edited) 29 minutes ago, rickygoo said: I didn’t say he wasn’t ambitious. My bit was in response to Chansiri being called the best and most ambitious chairman in the last 50 years. He’s neither in my opinion. Fair enough. 6 hours ago, rickygoo said: I never said he was good. But he was more ambitious than Chansiri. ...but wouldn't say Richards was more ambitious than Chansiri....unless it came to running the PL. Edited July 12, 2019 by bigdan2003 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wmb Posted July 12, 2019 Share Posted July 12, 2019 2 hours ago, mkowl said: The auditor would absolutely have to assess the validity of the stadium valuation provided. There is an entire section in the Auditing Standards on this and that an auditor must assess the position with a very open mind. I got criticised by my reviewer for relying on a Barclays end of year portfolio valuation It would also make sense for the auditor to wait for EFL acceptance, not on the valuation per se, but in their assessment of going concern. A very hot topic in the world of audit and if they felt a points deduction was probable and could impact going concern they would refer to it. They haven't Thanks for the clarification mate, much appreciated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick_Turpin Posted July 12, 2019 Share Posted July 12, 2019 51 minutes ago, bigdan2003 said: Fair enough. ...but wouldn't say Richards was more ambitious than Chansiri....unless it came to running the PL. I think wanting to win the PL and signing current England internationals was pretty ambitious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarrowbyOwl Posted July 12, 2019 Share Posted July 12, 2019 (edited) 10 hours ago, SWFC Colesy said: Section 22 - Events after the reporting date confirms confirms the share issue of 21m shares to Chansiri on 1st September 2018. It also confirms that the club is now a wholely owned subsidiary of Sheffield Wednesday Holdings Ltd that is registered in Hong Kong as of 14th June 2019. Probably who the ground has been sold to??? Yet still not showing in the HK Company Register. Maybe takes a while for the register to be updated? Edited July 12, 2019 by HarrowbyOwl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanharper Posted July 12, 2019 Share Posted July 12, 2019 (edited) Correct me if I'm wrong (it wouldn't be the first time!) but.. surely we're going to be in FFP bother again next summer? If we made a loss of around £35m in 17/18 not counting the ground sale, which was mostly due to the ridiculous wage bill, then won't we be heading for a similar loss in the next accounts but without being able to sell the ground to offset it? To stay on the right side of FFP we're not allowed to lose more than the amount which would make the 3 year rolling total more than -£39m and to achieve that we'd have to have made significant reductions in costs from the previous year which I just can't see. The accounts for 18/19 will still have the stupid wages for Abdi, Jones, Boyd, Hooper etc. included. The only reductions in the wage bill that I can think of was selling Hunt for around £1.5m and loaning out Rhodes for the season so we'd have probably got a similar loan fee plus the saving on his wages, and the only other highish wages that we got off the payroll were Wallace and Loovens and whatever we were paying Venancio and Butterfield. But on the other hand we had Winnall returning from loan so his wages are back on the books and then we added the wages and possible loan fees for Hector and Onomah and then later in the season the Newcastle lads and bought Iorfa (probably with the gate receipts from Chelsea). And also, the average attendance was down by 1.5k per game so that's another chunk of income gone. How can we possibly avoid breaking FFP limits next year? . Edited July 12, 2019 by alanharper typo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigdan2003 Posted July 12, 2019 Share Posted July 12, 2019 1 hour ago, rickygoo said: I think wanting to win the PL and signing current England internationals was pretty ambitious. Different era. Money, wages, transfer fees, general costs of running a football club etc are all way more than they were back then....it's not a fair comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teddybeararmy Posted July 12, 2019 Share Posted July 12, 2019 15 minutes ago, alanharper said: Correct me if I'm wrong (it wouldn't be the first time!) but.. surely we're going to be in FFP bother again next summer? If we made a loss of around £35m in 17/18 not counting the ground sale, which was mostly due to the ridiculous wage bill, then won't we be heading for a similar loss in the next accounts but without being able to sell the ground to offset it? To stay on the right side of FFP we're not allowed to lose more than the amount which would make the 3 year rolling total more than -£39m and to achieve that we'd have to have made significant reductions in costs from the previous year which I just can't see. The accounts for 18/19 will still have the stupid wages for Abdi, Jones, Boyd, Hooper etc. included. The only reductions in the wage bill that I can think of was selling Hunt for around £1.5m and loaning out Rhodes for the season so we'd have probably got a similar loan fee plus the saving on his wages, and the only other highish wages that we got off the payroll were Wallace and Loovens and whatever we were paying Venancio and Butterfield. But on the other hand we had Winnall returning from loan so his wages are back on the books and then we added the wages and possible loan fees for Hector and Onomah and then later in the season the Newcastle lads and bought Iorfa (probably with the gate receipts from Chelsea). And also, the average attendance was down by 1.5k per game so that's another chunk of income gone. How can we possibly avoid breaking FFP limits next year? . The hunt and Rhodes deals were done in July 18 so may have been included in the 17-18 accounts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pahowl Posted July 12, 2019 Share Posted July 12, 2019 1 hour ago, HarrowbyOwl said: Yet still not showing in the HK Company Register. Maybe takes a while for the register to be updated? Its actually called SWFC Holdings Limited (despite it saying "Sheffield Wednesday Holdings Limited" in the accounts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarrowbyOwl Posted July 12, 2019 Share Posted July 12, 2019 7 minutes ago, pahowl said: Its actually called SWFC Holdings Limited (despite it saying "Sheffield Wednesday Holdings Limited" in the accounts. That explains it then. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mkowl Posted July 12, 2019 Share Posted July 12, 2019 Interesting the date of incorporation was 21 Nov 2016 Well I guess not that interesting but that it has been around for a couple of years already Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick_Turpin Posted July 12, 2019 Share Posted July 12, 2019 1 hour ago, bigdan2003 said: Different era. Money, wages, transfer fees, general costs of running a football club etc are all way more than they were back then....it's not a fair comparison. So signing Chris Woods, Des Walker. Chris Waddle and Andy Sinton wasn’t a sign of huge ambition? More than signing Abdi, Fletcher and Boyd? Eras are different but Richards showed a huge amount of ambition. Overreached himself and showed similar incompetence to Chansiri admittedly but fizz me he was ambitious for a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
room0035 Posted July 12, 2019 Share Posted July 12, 2019 From what I have read else where the accounts filed by Villa and Derby show the title of the property has been passed to a new entity and the date this happened agrees to the land registry and both club show funds being paid into the club to pay for the asset sale. Our accounts show the sale of the asset to a new company that is not registered in the Uk called Sheffield Wednesday Holdings Ltd, also there is no funds that have been paid to the club, there is a Debtor balance of £52.5m but this is not physical money coming in or it would be in Cash and Bank not Debtors as you would expect with a transfer of an asset. As per yesterday the Legal Ownership of the club was still Sheffield Wednesday Football Club as per the Land Registry not Sheffield Wednesday Holdings based in Hong Kong So comparing what Villa and Derby did and what we did is not the same they have filed all the correct documents and someone or business has physically paid for the asset - we have simply said we have sold the club to DC but then not filed any documents I would not be surprised if we are under an EFL investigation with this, I am also very surprised that the auditors would sign off on this if all of the correct documentation has not been filed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChinaOwl Posted July 12, 2019 Share Posted July 12, 2019 The usual suspects are going to jump all over this telling me he knows what he is doing but, if I was to risk assess global locations for registering a business and holding assets, Hong Kong would currently be one of my no go zones. It used to be the perfect location but everyone with a whiff of business acumen would realise HK is presently a political tinderbox. Even the most ardent Hong Kongers are nervous about the future. Unknown third party organisations registered in Hong Kong, in my honest opinion, should not be the route forward! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aingarth Posted July 12, 2019 Share Posted July 12, 2019 It seems slightly unusual that the ground, estimated to be worth around £22m in the 2017 accounts was sold for £38m. Also, the sale is included in the accounts for the period ending 31/7/2018 which means the sale was concluded 1 year ago. A disposal of £23.9m is recorded against the £38m income. I can’t find any real comment on this in the notes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minton Posted July 12, 2019 Share Posted July 12, 2019 57 minutes ago, Andrew Robinson said: It seems slightly unusual that the ground, estimated to be worth around £22m in the 2017 accounts was sold for £38m. Also, the sale is included in the accounts for the period ending 31/7/2018 which means the sale was concluded 1 year ago. A disposal of £23.9m is recorded against the £38m income. I can’t find any real comment on this in the notes. As @mkowl pointed out already, it was sold for £60m, not £38m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mkowl Posted July 12, 2019 Share Posted July 12, 2019 1 hour ago, Andrew Robinson said: It seems slightly unusual that the ground, estimated to be worth around £22m in the 2017 accounts was sold for £38m. Also, the sale is included in the accounts for the period ending 31/7/2018 which means the sale was concluded 1 year ago. A disposal of £23.9m is recorded against the £38m income. I can’t find any real comment on this in the notes. there is a disposal of some leasehold property as well - original cost £1m. Not sure what that relates to and it would appear to have been sold for the same cost shown in the accounts So disregard that bit the carrying valuation in the accounts was £22m - which is shown as a disposal The deemed sales value = £60m Profit = sales value £60m less historical value in accounts £22m = £38m profit It is feasible for a transaction to be "in the accounts" but not yet legally completed at Land registry. Ok fairly unusual but if there is a contract in place but maybe as a condition attached - accounting convention would be to include the transaction if that condition was 99% certain say to be fulfilled. the legal completion would not necessarily arise though until the condition had been met. It could be a daft condition like legal completion does not happen until the toilet door in trap 1 on the Kop is re-painted. If it was "not until Wednesday get into the Premier League" then you might question whether to record the transaction, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 12, 2019 Share Posted July 12, 2019 4 hours ago, alanharper said: Correct me if I'm wrong (it wouldn't be the first time!) but.. surely we're going to be in FFP bother again next summer? If we made a loss of around £35m in 17/18 not counting the ground sale, which was mostly due to the ridiculous wage bill, then won't we be heading for a similar loss in the next accounts but without being able to sell the ground to offset it? To stay on the right side of FFP we're not allowed to lose more than the amount which would make the 3 year rolling total more than -£39m and to achieve that we'd have to have made significant reductions in costs from the previous year which I just can't see. The accounts for 18/19 will still have the stupid wages for Abdi, Jones, Boyd, Hooper etc. included. The only reductions in the wage bill that I can think of was selling Hunt for around £1.5m and loaning out Rhodes for the season so we'd have probably got a similar loan fee plus the saving on his wages, and the only other highish wages that we got off the payroll were Wallace and Loovens and whatever we were paying Venancio and Butterfield. But on the other hand we had Winnall returning from loan so his wages are back on the books and then we added the wages and possible loan fees for Hector and Onomah and then later in the season the Newcastle lads and bought Iorfa (probably with the gate receipts from Chelsea). And also, the average attendance was down by 1.5k per game so that's another chunk of income gone. How can we possibly avoid breaking FFP limits next year? . It will be tough again. We need to get losses down to around £20m (). As you say it looks like without the ground sale the 17-18 accounts would be £35M loss. We might have saved some money on some of the wages and on at least a good % of Rhodes £30K+ weekly wage not being on our bill. Also, last years accounts covered 14 months, the wage bill was around £40M so you could estimate a saving of around £6.7M on that. Aside from that, the next accounts run until the end of July 2019 - we still have time to sell a player or two........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now