Jump to content

Official: Accounts published


Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, RUMBELOWS91 said:

To be fair to DR we were turning a  profit in some of our early seasons under him so he didn't need to be putting his 'own money' in (I accept he didn't have any). It was only when the PL came along that a cash injection was required and he sorted it. We just wasted the cash and fell off the gravy train.

 

 

Oh he sorted it all right - he was still around when much of it was wasted, he took off to brown nose his way to the top and never looked back to do anything about what he had left behind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, hirstyboywonder said:

 

 

Oh he sorted it all right - he was still around when much of it was wasted, he took off to brown nose his way to the top and never looked back to do anything about what he had left behind.

 

He’s our FFP/P&S Compliance Consultant tha knows....He’s one of the “friends.”

 

:duntmatter:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours 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 figure in debtor of £52.5m and then one of the notes talks about another payment due of £7.5m add the two together and the total is £60m.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, RichSheffWeds said:

 

The difference is Chansiri has pumped in a minimum of £77m ignoring what he paid for the club.

 

Richards doesn’t have any real money in that league and even if Allen did he wouldn’t commit that sort of cash to this project. 

 

You can say he’s made mistakes but he’s paid a heavy price so far and at least had the balls to commit the cash.

Yeah, but he's useless at running the club, or delegating properly and it was Daddy's cash originally.

 

This is a disaster (£60 million operating loss in 3 years) and he should sell now to all those buyers he promised us were waiting in the wings.

 

Where's Red Bull when you need them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, fred mciver said:

Yeah, but he's useless at running the club, or delegating properly and it was Daddy's cash originally.

 

This is a disaster (£60 million operating loss in 3 years) and he should sell now to all those buyers he promised us were waiting in the wings.

 

Where's Red Bull when you need them.

 

Last thing you need is a red bull!

 

:ghoulguy:

 

Go and have a lie down, chill out a bit and give it a rest. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, mkowl said:

 

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, 

 

 

 

 

mkowl... A question for you...

 

Given the profit made in the deal and the relatively minor profit subsequently overall, does this attract taxation such as CGT? Won't HMRC come a-sniffing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Musn't Grumble said:

 

 

mkowl... A question for you...

 

Given the profit made in the deal and the relatively minor profit subsequently overall, does this attract taxation such as CGT? Won't HMRC come a-sniffing?

 

I had similar thoughts but if there was any CGT due it would have been shown in the accounts. As there isn’t we have to assume none is due.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/07/2019 at 13:40, room0035 said:

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.

This is correct..although you won't find much love for saying it on here lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest mkowl
4 hours ago, Musn't Grumble said:

 

 

mkowl... A question for you...

 

Given the profit made in the deal and the relatively minor profit subsequently overall, does this attract taxation such as CGT? Won't HMRC come a-sniffing?

 

Fairly technical answer on this

 

1) The taxable profit will always be different to the accounting profit shown. Primarily because it will be sales value - original cost (which would be 15m or so) but the cost is uplifted by the effects of inflation over the period of ownership. 

 

2) However probably more relevant is that if the stadium was sold /transferred to a group company then there is a relief. Basically the gain can be ignored for tax purposes. This really depends to whom the stadium has been sold to. It states related party - not necessarily a group company. The suggestion I have heard is TUF but no proof that is the case

 

3) Notwithstanding this tax rules let a company offset trading losses made in the year against capital gains.

 

Anyway I know the tax note reconciles the tax charge to Nil but would have to re-check this for the rationale

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest mkowl

So basically I am not surprised there is no tax but the precise reason I don't have the right information.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest mkowl

Looking at it again the tax note refers to gains not taxable and our accumulated tax losses increased by about the 40m to a eye watering 122m

 

I think we have therefore used a group transaction type relief. Going to be honest complex group tax is way above what I do day to day 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...