I'll see your Olympic Stadium and raise you the Boleyn.
Interesting to read that we may not move to the OS after all. Believe that and you will lose your house, wife and the keys to the motor if you ever sit down to a game of poker.
Sullivan and Gold bought the club because of the OS. It is their key to a killing. It's why they have increased their ownership and it's why the banks haven't called in the loans. It's also why the Fernandes approach was knocked back. Why share a bonanza if you don't have to?
How much is the Boleyn worth? A lot more as flats than as a football stadium. And a hell of lot more than the £40m that some have been claiming given the £73m figure showing in the published accounts (including the training facilities).
So what are the Davids up to? Trying to put the wind up the OLC of course. How stupid are they going to look if they can't find tenants for the stadium in the year of the Olympics themselves? Sullivan & Gold are suddenly in a buyer's market. Tottenham don't want the stadium so who else is there? Leyton Orient? Yeah right!
Retractable seating will now be a deal breaker - or so the David's will suggest. We won't spend a penny despite taking the piss out of the Legacy Committee. Sullivan & Gold have the them over a barrel and will drive the Claret and Blue dildo as deep as they can. Thank you Tottenham, you may have saved West Ham United an absolute fortune!
Do hope your right, would be nice for something to actually pan out positively for west ham
ReplyDeleteqpr rule
ReplyDeletePam's on bbc1 now!
ReplyDeleteSounds like you need a good accountant HF. Looking at your threads today including "Write down of the Boleyn" you certainly seem to have come to the conclusion that 2+2 = 22. By the way, have you done your tax return yet?
ReplyDeleteYes, the club do have to file accounts on an annual basis, just like any other company. This is a legal requirement and not a voluntary option.
Your review of these accounts is also staggering. The questions you raise in your thread are all dealt with in the accounts.
Note 13 explains the property was last valued in 2009 at about £86m.
In accordance with required accounting practice depreciation is charged against this asset (as a measure of its use to the business each year). The charge against the property was however, about £1m. The other £2m relates to plant etc which has a much shorter life. None of this should be termed as a write down in the terms you try to portray.
Total assets are about £98m but loans and creditors are about £101m. In simple terms if the property was sold for its book value the money would go to repay the debts and there would be nothing left to hand out to the shareholders. The big money would only come if the club was established in the Premier League and playing at the OS with mega sponsership deals.
Turnover was about £80m which included TV rights of about £45m. Nearly £56m was paid out in salaries. Obviously the parachute payment will help in 2012. There will be another very large shortfall to deal with if promotion can not be achieved this year. The only solution would be further shareholder funding or a substantial cut in player costs.
The accounts indicate a trading profit of £5m but after taking into account player registration costs there is loss of about £18m.
Quite remarkable then that you should choose to focus on the relatively minor depreciation charge, unless it is of course to try and add more weight to your conspiracy theories.
Bearing in mind the figures it is understandable why KB said today that BS was appointed to grind out results. It may not be pretty but is a financial necessity.
Turning to your poker article above I fancy that SG will play their cards better than you. With no other likely takers they may think they can sit on the fence. After the taxpayer has effectively been forced to fund the project for a few years they will probably be able to get the stadium on much better terms that deal with the running track etc.
Delaying the move may also give them a better hand to play with the supporters and to get a team together worthy of playing in the new stadium.
Perhaps you are spending too much time dealing with QPR? Mark Hughes willsort them out. The doom and gloom you predict for them is more than likely going to be another false alarm.
Oh well, at least your blog pictures are worth looking at.
They are aren't they?
ReplyDeleteI must admit that I get an accountant to do my books but my properties do not depreciate, they appreciate in value most years. The London property market is showing growth. Yes furniture etcetera depreciate but the overall asset value is higher at the end of each tax year due to the main asset being the properties themselves.
Tom writes
ReplyDeletehahaha was that your reply too the excellent piece written by 00.09?? brilliant!! 6 lines of dribble where i think you try too compare your house too a football club?? ahhh bless you hf...why don't you write a blog about qpr you haven't done that in a while
HF (07:12)
ReplyDeleteYour Company would hold investment properties then? When the asset is held to generate rental income it is generally included at valuation. Not so where the asset is used for the purposes of the trade (eg a factory, office or football ground). Here there is a requirement to write down the asset over its expected useful life. The property can again be revalued but this can be a problem as future years depreciation charges are increased.
Investment property companies are at a disadvantage for tax purposes. When a trading property is sold there are a number of reliefs which enable the gain to be deferred for tax purposes. These do not apply to investment properties. Normally a tax charge will arise on the gain when the property is sold. There can then be a potential double tax charge when the proceeds are paid to the shareholders. That should cheer you up.
Going back to football, I am sure you know DG has a twitter account where he seems to spend some time replying to fans comments (both good and bad). On the OS issue he he is quite clear this is the preferred option but will not happen unless there is a lease for at least 99 years and the running track problem is solved. The point is he does not have to give us this insight into the Board's thoughts. As fans we have more information into their thinking now then ever before. If his comments subsequently prove to be bogus then he his setting himself up for a fall.
DG is also writing his autobiography which is available for free on his web site. I have only had a chance to read the opening chapter but it is certainly a moving rag to riches story. He explains the extreme poverty and anti-semitism problems endured in the East End during the London Blitz . Certainly it makes us wonder what we have to complain about today in the UK. No doubt the lessons he learned subsequently inspired him to make his money in any way he could and I have no doubt his upbringing would made him a totally ruthless businessman.
As a local West Ham boy the club was his passion from an early age. He played for the youth teams. It is, therefore, difficult to argue that the claret and blue blood does not flow through his veins.
DG has made his money and could no doubt have an extremely comfortable retirement if he so chose. Whilst more money is always nice I suspect he has "gone home" and would rather leave his mark as someone who helped take the club to the next level. I might be wrong but my feeling is that the club will be in safe hands under his watch, starting with promotion this year. One step at a time but if this happens the Board will have some difficult decisions to make in the Summer regarding funding of new players to compete in the Premier League.