number of Saints Directors on the Sunday Times Rich List = 1

number of Warrington Directors on the Sunday Times Rich List = 0

I'm not on about revenue as such.
Christmas parties etc is not going to be anything like the revenue level during the season months - anyone who suggests that revenue stays the same after the season ends is nuts.

Turnover for the 10 months (League Express got it wrong in stating it was for the year ending 31/10/09!!) was £10.48M which is obviously £1.048M per month. However, this includes the 9 months season. So for the last two months, an educated guess would be turnover of around half the monthly average i.e. £1.048M for Nov & Dec combined. Turnover for the full year on a like for like basis would be £11.52M (+£1.05M) an impressive 10% up on 2008.

However, lets look at costs as these should be at least equal for each month throughout the calandar year. Staff costs and other external charges were £9.83M for 10 months, so pro-rata for the full calandar year they would have been £11.80M (+£1.96M).
The maths is simple the net loss for the period is estimated to be £0.91M which would have given rise to an loss before exceptionals of £189K instead of the reported profit of £721K.
Obviously, I have had to use some guesswork to arrive at these figures in estimating turnover but it surely has to be accepted as a given that sales in the last two months will not be as high by a long way as say August and Sept.
Other strange anomalies in the accounts are a mysterious £674K "other interest recieved" vs £332K paid in 2008, when there doesn't seem to be any loans given to anyone or deposits large to generate that sort of interest?

Overall, the Leeds balance sheet is quite good and certainly a lot better than ours, although I would question the value in the accounts of the Headingly ground - which is not even owned - of £13M. Saints is valued at £8M and thats with the freehold and only because its value is pre-arranged as sale price at the end of this season.

The land & buildings are owned by Leeds and have been since 1890. There is a pretty good argument to say the property is undervalued - it's been retained in the accounts at a 1997 valuation which was £7m. Knock out the cricket ground (which apparently wasn't a huge part of that £7m valuation) and subsequent depreciation and the figure of £13m is reached by additions since, largely the Carnegie Stand (~£6m). Hence, that aside, the rest of the ground is in the books at a depreciated 1997 valuation which is likely to be a significant underestimate - although, as a highly specialist property, I'd be intrigued to see the valuation basis if they repeated the excercise.

Not quite true. They do not own the freehold; The accounts state " YCC have bought out the option which gave the company (Rhino's) the right to repurchase the freehold of the ground" "This gave rise to a significant capital gain together with the interest recieved". Note 13 in theit accounts states that out of the £13M, just £182,500 is freehold.

The missing word there, in what is even by Leeds standards a particularly poorly done directors report, is "cricket" - Leeds sold the cricket ground to YCCC a couple of years ago but not the RL ground and most of the corporate facilities, including the pavilion. Leeds then had an option to repurchase the cricket ground for £7m unless YCCC handed over another £3m before 2020. The cricket club have done just that in the year and hence the repurchase option has now gone (see note 28, Contingent Asset, in last year's accounts).

The verbals at the end of note 13 are just a standard bit to distinguish between land (which is not depreciated) and buildings on that land (which are) rather than in this instance to distinguish between leasehold and freehold. The note should as you suggest properly state that all the property is freehold - as implied by the accounting policy on p9. Since it doesn't you'll just have to take my word for it

So........

Are Leeds making money or not?

Do you want to do my end of year accounts ?

Hmmm. In fact are you saying that note 13 is incorrect?
Are you also saying that on £182K of freehold land £13M of freehold propery is sited?
Did you get to the bottom of the large amount (£674K) of other interest recieved when there aren't enough assets to produce that level of interest?

Yes, although I've seen worse disclosure errors



Yes but the L&B figures are relatively meaningless if you're looking to a guide as to 'value' as Leeds' policy is to retain the valuation of the complex at depreciated replacement cost (£7m dating from 1997) and just add to that the subsequent cost of additions (principally, £400k South Stand refurb in '99 and the Carnegie Stand in 05/06 ~£7m). On that basis the remaining land element is the old historic cost of £325k as stated prior to 2005 less the proportion of that figure representing the historic cost of the land which was sold to Yorkshire.

As pointed out on [url=http://viewtopic.php?f=17&t=467088this thread[/url it is tied into Yorkshire buying out their option.

You will find little to no information regarding Simon Moran, be it personally or professionally as he is an intensely private person.

The amount of millionaires on your board is inconsequencial compared to people who are willing to invest money in the club usually by debentures.

For all the money in the world unless the director be it millionaire or not is willing to put their hand in their pocket the debts will keep rising against the club.

Of course with millionaires come other beneficial factors, their access to larger sponsors, contract work for mainenance or building and general contacts etc.....

So..... Are Leeds making a load of dosh or is it sleight of accountant's hand? From the notes above I still can't come to a conclusion.

Very few club's are making a load of dosh, too much of the initial Sky money was totally wasted on increasing players salaries without any long term strategy, average players were getting £50,000 in super league which was stupid, it was at this time grounds should have been improved. The development of the game should have been fully backed now we are hearing screams for the kicking out of Crusaders,Catalan and Quins, no way must Castleford or Wakefield be brought into question, the same people did not scream for Widnes, while their new owner then remained dignified and worked hard to ensure the club had the best potential for the new licence application.

People have laughed at me for years, but the Sky money is not going to be here for ever if expansion and the development clubs are kicked out, then what "dosh" will clubs have, perhaps many will be glad to go back to part time again and how will these new stadiums then be financed?

Just to show that I'm reasonably fair, I'm led to believe that Wigan lost over £500K last year, but can't be sure if that's 100% true, however the source is very reliable (unless he has read the accounts wrong

)

How can that be, bearing in mind how awesome we're always told the lease is at Wigan



I wonder if that BrettKenny chap on cherryandwhite will stop banging on about the salary cap if that's true, bearing in mind appear to be overspending.

Someone has just pointed out on the Wigan site that Gleesons transfer fee would be included in those accounts.

So paying more wages than you can afford AND buying players you can't afford too? Tut tut

Good job the salary cap was brought in to keep Wigan competitive

But does it include Gleeson's bar tab? Surely a much more significant liability.

Such an intelligent contribution, I thank you.

but I believe IL cleared the debt as he owns the club now