Annual report 2012/13 released (merged)

[OB1]

Be very careful.

It is in "Borrowings" and the maturity of debt schedule, and creditors.

? so it is, strange. maybe something to do with the agreement.

OB1 may well tell me off for this but look at it as though we borrowed the money to buy the stadium, a bit like a mortgage. I know we haven't actually borrowed the money but it's treated as though we have.

Actually, that is not a bad analogy.

We have capitalised the stadium in fixed assets. Technically it is not the asset itself but the rights in the asset that are capitalised but the economic substance is similar to purchasing the stadium. Therefore, if you have done that and not paid for it, you have a bloody big debt - like a mortgage.<br /><br />-- Thu Jan 30, 2014 3:05 pm --<br /><br />

? so it is, strange. maybe something to do with the agreement.

OB1 may well tell me off for this but look at it as though we borrowed the money to buy the stadium, a bit like a mortgage. I know we haven't actually borrowed the money but it's treated as though we have.

So what external debt did we actually paid off then?

Loans of £31m. IIRC, that was all that debt securitised on the season ticket sales.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

? so it is, strange. maybe something to do with the agreement.

OB1 may well tell me off for this but look at it as though we borrowed the money to buy the stadium, a bit like a mortgage. I know we haven't actually borrowed the money but it's treated as though we have.

So what external debt did we actually paid off then?

We paid off the securitised bonds we took out when we moved to the new stadium. These were done in two tranches, one for £30m, which I think was due for repayment in 2015 anyway and the other for £15m which was due in 2025 I think.

 

[without a dream]

OB1 may well tell me off for this but look at it as though we borrowed the money to buy the stadium, a bit like a mortgage. I know we haven't actually borrowed the money but it's treated as though we have.

So what external debt did we actually paid off then?

We paid off the securitised bonds we took out when we moved to the new stadium. These were done in two tranches, one for £30m, which I think was due for repayment in 2015 anyway and the other for £15m which was due in 2025 I think.

We were really royally fucked if we hadn't got new owners weren't we. It would have been nigh on impossible for us to raise that cash given the complete absence of assets.

 

[fbloke]

OB1 may well tell me off for this but look at it as though we borrowed the money to buy the stadium, a bit like a mortgage. I know we haven't actually borrowed the money but it's treated as though we have.

So what external debt did we actually paid off then?

We paid off the securitised bonds we took out when we moved to the new stadium. These were done in two tranches, one for £30m, which I think was due for repayment in 2015 anyway and the other for £15m which was due in 2025 I think.

Cheers fellas.

I am sure that move was seriously advantageous for it to have been done.

 

[OB1]

So what external debt did we actually paid off then?

We paid off the securitised bonds we took out when we moved to the new stadium. These were done in two tranches, one for £30m, which I think was due for repayment in 2015 anyway and the other for £15m which was due in 2025 I think.

Cheers fellas.

I am sure that move was seriously advantageous for it to have been done.

Commercially, the only reason to do it would have been if the capital was due for repayment of to save money. By save money, any penalities for early repayment would be offset by savings in future interest payments.

 

[jrb]

Another question.

This zero debt.

I read rightly or wrongly, think it was on here, that City paid £58mill off to clear the remaining debt.(could be mistaken)

If this is true, why didn't they put that money towards the FFPR break even figure, and run with the debt until the next financial year, and then pay it off instead?

 

[OB1]

Another question.

This zero debt.

I read rightly or wrongly, think it was on here, that City paid £58mill off to clear the remaining debt.(could be mistaken)

If this is true, why didn't they put that money towards the FFPR break even figure, and run with the debt until the next financial year, and then pay it off instead?

From the "Interest payable and similar charges" note to the accounts:

Included within other loans is a charge of £1,849,000 (2012: £nil) which relates to the repayment of the outstanding loan notes in full.

Loan repayments per the cash flow was £32,428k.

 

[BlueDejong]

intense scrutiny from Uefa

James Ducker ‏@DuckerTheTimes 42m
#MCFC are expected to face intense scrutiny from Uefa after raising almost £50m thru one-off sale of IP assets <a class="postlink" href="http://thetim.es/1fmCJzK" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://thetim.es/1fmCJzK</a>

What...?

 

[moomba]

I think thats fair enough. It's a related party transaction so they'll be looking at fair value.

Intense scrutiny is a tad overdramatic though.

 

[The Pink Panther]

Re: intense scrutiny from Uefa

James Ducker ‏@DuckerTheTimes 42m
#MCFC are expected to face intense scrutiny from Uefa after raising almost £50m thru one-off sale of IP assets <a class="postlink" href="http://thetim.es/1fmCJzK" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://thetim.es/1fmCJzK</a>

What...?

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

I think thats fair enough. It's a related party transaction so they'll be looking at fair value.

Intense scrutiny is a tad overdramatic though.

Nothing new about the media over-dramatising City & FFP. What we've done does sound to have an air of desperation about it, akin to selling the club shop back in 2006.

 

[BoyBlue_1985]

A question for the big brained on here that know there stuff. How much revenue will City be looking at raising over the next financial year. Is it possible we follow the rags route and have an official washing powder supplier and such like. From the looks of it we raised £50 million through IP sales so in theory we have to raise £100 million in revenue over 12 months not taking into account the deals we signed after April

 

[The Pink Panther]

A question for the big brained on here that know there stuff. How much revenue will City be looking at raising over the next financial year. Is it possible we follow the rags route and have an official washing powder supplier and such like. From the looks of it we raised £50 million through IP sales so in theory we have to raise £100 million in revenue over 12 months not taking into account the deals we signed after April

The new BT Premier league deal kicks in, which is worth up to an extra £80m alone

 

[BoyBlue_1985]

A question for the big brained on here that know there stuff. How much revenue will City be looking at raising over the next financial year. Is it possible we follow the rags route and have an official washing powder supplier and such like. From the looks of it we raised £50 million through IP sales so in theory we have to raise £100 million in revenue over 12 months not taking into account the deals we signed after April

The new BT Premier league deal kicks in, which is worth up to an extra £80m alone

BT premier league deal, do you mean the new television rights deal?
Good news anyway job done

 

[flb]

I presume there will be news coming soon on the much talked about collar site development, this in my opinion will propel us to being in a different stratosphere, training ground sponsorship no doubt will also add to the turnover from when it opens.

This sell back of IP does sound a tad desperate as PB has stated, its all about buying us time though.

 

[BoyBlue_1985]

I presume there will be news coming soon on the much talked about collar site development, this in my opinion will propel us to being in a different stratosphere, training ground sponsorship no doubt will also add to the turnover from when it opens.

This sell back of IP does sound a tad desperate as PB has stated, its all about buying us time though.

I thought we were already getting the money off Etihad for the sponsorship of all that

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

A question for the big brained on here that know there stuff. How much revenue will City be looking at raising over the next financial year. Is it possible we follow the rags route and have an official washing powder supplier and such like. From the looks of it we raised £50 million through IP sales so in theory we have to raise £100 million in revenue over 12 months not taking into account the deals we signed after April

I suspect we will be looking to follow the rags' route in that respect, with training kit sponsors etc. But this season there is the BT Sport TV deal which should bring in about £40m, we've gone further in the CL which will bring in more money and we've already signed some decent deals already, with the likes of Hays.

On the cost side, the wages figure appears to include a large payoff for Mancini and his staff and player amortisation might start going down finally. Also match day revenue will probably increase as there was a steep rise in ticket prices this season.

I'd expect us to at least break even on that basis. But we do need to start balancing the books on player trading and get the wage bill down to a more reasonable level now most of the Hughes buys are gone or coming to the end of their contracts.

 

[flb]

I presume there will be news coming soon on the much talked about collar site development, this in my opinion will propel us to being in a different stratosphere, training ground sponsorship no doubt will also add to the turnover from when it opens.

This sell back of IP does sound a tad desperate as PB has stated, its all about buying us time though.

I thought we were already getting the money off Etihad for the sponsorship of all that

There surely are avenues for further sponsorship deals related to the new training ground, training kit sponsors for one, same as the Trafford twats with there DHL deal for example.

 

[BoyBlue_1985]

A question for the big brained on here that know there stuff. How much revenue will City be looking at raising over the next financial year. Is it possible we follow the rags route and have an official washing powder supplier and such like. From the looks of it we raised £50 million through IP sales so in theory we have to raise £100 million in revenue over 12 months not taking into account the deals we signed after April

I suspect we will be looking to follow the rags' route in that respect, with training kit sponsors etc. But this season there is the BT Sport TV deal which should bring in about £40m, we've gone further in the CL which will bring in more money and we've already signed some decent deals already, with the likes of Hays.

On the cost side, the wages figure appears to include a large payoff for Mancini and his staff and player amortisation might start going down finally. Also match day revenue will probably increase as there was a steep rise in ticket prices this season.

I'd expect us to at least break even on that basis. But we do need to start balancing the books on player trading and get the wage bill down to a more reasonable level now most of the Hughes buys are gone or coming to the end of their contracts.

Cheers PB, I know the club would be ready for it and have obviously done some things to ease this seasons pressure knowing they could balance it the next season. Do you think the IP rights might be heavily questioned by UEFA?
I thought the wages sounded astronomical, of course they are but even for City higher than I thought with the new contracts we hand players these days so makes sense when Mancini and staff are loaded on with the payoff

 

[jrb]

What's the sell back of the IP's?

And why is it (seen as a) desperate measure?

Thanks.