Sale of Tolka

[kdjaC]

Also, I do find it ironic that Pat's fans are criticising Shels' overspending given that they're racking up losses of a million a year at this stage, and don't seem to have any qualms about being top of the league.

How can we "lose" money if its invested by our owner?


And how do you actually make money in the EL?

kdjac

[pineapple stu]

Why would the council be interested? They don't own the freehold there, do they?

Who else would?

How can we "lose" money if its invested by our owner?

Ask Drogheda or Rovers.

And how do you actually make money in the EL?

kdjac

There's a middle ground between losing a million and making money. It's called breaking even. Some clubs do manage to not lose a million a year.

[Student Mullet]

How can we "lose" money if its invested by our owner?

By spending more than you earn. It's what the word 'loss' means in this context.

[kdjaC]

Pats didnt lose a million the previous board spent money on buying land and shares from people with a view to selling the club. So in the "loss profit" making world our old board made money back on the investments they put into the club. ie they got paid when special K bought them out.

They made money on an investment and well done they kept the club going over the years.

By spending more than you earn. It's what the word 'loss' means in this context.

No longer anyone but Gareth Kelleher who owns a lot of stuff and has plans to do things.

So we can criticise shels

kdjac

[pineapple stu]

Pats didnt lose a million the previous board spent money on buying land and shares from people with a view to selling the club. So in the "loss profit" making world our old board made money back on the investments they put into the club. ie they got paid when special K bought them out.

That makes no sense.

The club can't lose a million so the board can make money to reinvest in the club. This is for the same reason I can't spend a million on investments and have you make the money.

[kdjaC]

That makes no sense.

The club can't lose a million so the board can make money to reinvest in the club. This is for the same reason I can't spend a million on investments and have you make the money.

How? The old board couldnt sell the club unless they bought freeholds of the ground and shares from certain "fans"*. To obtain these they had to spend money about .5 million for 3 years coupled with the debt from previous regimes over about 5 years they lost 3ish million off their own money in order to gain full control of the ground and club and wipe out debts. Then they sold it for more than 3 million.

So investment and then cashing out. How does that not make sense?


* my arse they were.

kdjac

[pineapple stu]

I'm confused.

Are you now claiming the E1m loss was effectively the club buying the freehold on the ground?

That's a capital item and doesn't affect profit/loss. So my point still stands.

And my point on the investment also stands. If the club bought it, it must have sold it. If the board sold it, they must have bought it. You can't mix the two.

[kdjaC]

I'm confused.

Are you now claiming the E1m loss was effectively the club buying the freehold on the ground?

That's a capital item and doesn't affect profit/loss. So my point still stands.

And my point on the investment also stands. If the club bought it, it must have sold it. If the board sold it, they must have bought it. You can't mix the two.

Its a captial item that still needs to be bought And those figures are in the CRO as a loss. It makes perfect sense to me. Having all of our last regimes finances on record makes it handy to find out too. Shame the one before that wasnt as easily available.

The 3 board members used their own money via Newton Heath to buy freehold, to buy out shares, to pay players to basically run the club. Granted originally the plan a was to sell the ground and make money off that but Kelleher came along and bought a club which had the freehold to its own ground.

So how does losing a million to gain 2 not make sense? The % of profit would be about 100% or so which isnt bad.

kdjac

[pineapple stu]

Its a captial item that still needs to be bought.

Irrelevant. It wouldn't be appearing in the P&L as a loss; something else must have caused you to lose a million last year.

So how does losing a million to gain 2 not make sense? The % of profit would be about 100% or so which isnt bad.

kdjac

Where's the gain of 2m come from? Can't see where any money's going to come from unless you sell Richmond. The only transaction you previously mentioned was the directors spending about E3m to make more than E3m (you don't say how much more), and even then, that's the directors, and nothing to do with the club. Even if they put the money into the club to buy the ground, that still doesn't explain a million pound loss, as it's a capital item.

If they want to put that money into the club, fine, but it doesn't explain the Shels-size losses.

[kdjaC]

Irrelevant. It wouldn't be appearing in the P&L as a loss; something else must have caused you to lose a million last year.

Playing budget was 300k , tax bill was 200k, outstanding debts and freeholds were 500kish.

Can't see where any money's going to come from unless you sell Richmond. Even if they put the money into the club to buy the ground, that still doesn't explain a million pound loss, as it's a capital item.

The original plan was sell ground move out and be rich like Louis.

If they want to put that money into the club, fine, but it doesn't explain the Shels-size losses.

They did and got well paid for it when they sold it to Kelleher. To the tune of 100% profit on all monies invested.


kdjac

[Raheny Red]

Anyone Shels fans know anything about the apparent stipulation with the Council that they can't sell Tolka unless they buy (not rent) a new ground? I've heard that a couple of times, which would rule out a move to Tallaght.

At the last meeting between the BoM and the fans, it was said that DCC don't want another Rovers situation and they won't let us move out until we go to them with a lease which they deem suitable.

[pineapple stu]

Playing budget was 300k , tax bill was 200k, outstanding debts and freeholds were 500kish.

Outstanding debts - not a loss item.
Freeholds - not a loss item.
Tax bill - assuming it was old, not a loss item
Playing budget - should be covered by turnover.

You're confusing capital items and paying debts with making a loss. Let's give an example here -

(i) I have E3m in the bank. I buy a football ground for E3m. Am I now worth (a) E3m or (b) nothing? Answer - (a) obviously. I don't have the cash, but I have an asset of equal value. Therefore, I've made no loss.
(ii) I have no cash. I am given E3m by someone to buy a ground, which I do. I am still worth nothing, as I have an asset (the ground) and a liability (the person who gave me the money).
(iii) I have E700k in cash and owe the taxman E200, and have a mortgage of E500k. I use the cash to pay off both my debts. I am still worth nothing - I now have no cash and no liabilities.
(iv) I run a football club. Gate receipts, sponsorship, etc come to E1m. Players' wages, game expenses, etc come to E2m. I started the year with E1m in cash and no other assets or liabilities; I ended it with nothing. I am now E1m poorer, which means I have made E1m of a loss.

Buying a ground, paying off old debts, etc - none of that explains why you made a loss of E1m last year.

At the last meeting between the BoM and the fans, it was said that DCC don't want another Rovers situation and they won't let us move out until we go to them with a lease which they deem suitable.

Nearly missed that. Interesting. Maybe they've changed tack in the meantime. Makes things much easier (though far from easy) for Shels.

[blackholesun]

Rovers never owned Milltown, it was on a long term lease for a nominal rent as the jesuits considered it to be of benefit to the community. Louis got them to sell it by claiming he wanted to develop the ground but couldnt get grants etc unless the club owned the ground. He paid them about 20 years rent but they only ended up getting all their money years late after he sold it on for a huge profit.

btw I cant see how Shels have any other option at this stage than to go to talla.

bhs

[kdjaC]

Outstanding debts - not a loss item.
Freeholds - not a loss item.
Tax bill - assuming it was old, not a loss item
Playing budget - should be covered by turnover.

You're confusing capital items and paying debts with making a loss. Let's give an example here -

How? If you pay out its via the controlling company it shows as a loss even if it was for glass hammers. Newton heath spent money on obtaining things that were needed to ensure a 100% sale. So as the CRO shows its 1 million loss. CRO only shows what went in and out not on it was for.

So the 1 million loss which is shown by the CRO is basically the obtaining of "stuff". Everything went via Newton Heath bar one thing* so everything on the CRO would add up to what was spent by the board on running the club and gaining full control.


* the pub as it was bought via a different company.


kdjac

[kdjaC]

btw I cant see how Shels have any other option at this stage than to go to talla.

bhs

Richmond, we may not need them but if Kelleher feels this way

“We look forward to working with the Football Association. It is important they create the environment that will allow serious people with genuine ambition advance the domestic game in Ireland. Clubs cannot achieve great things on their own but with the right conditions more clubs will secure strong financial backing and the league in Ireland will prosper. “

If they did move in i wouldnt be surprised. As its the DCC and Pats need DCC to approve the plans for Richmond ie 10k stadium. Would make sense to have 2 clubs it ala genesis. May not happen but makes sense.

kdjac

[pete]

Moderator: Can we keeping this on topic as per thread title?

[pineapple stu]

How? If you pay out its via the controlling company it shows as a loss even if it was for glass hammers. Newton heath spent money on obtaining things that were needed to ensure a 100% sale. So as the CRO shows its 1 million loss. CRO only shows what went in and out not on it was for.

So the 1 million loss which is shown by the CRO is basically the obtaining of "stuff". Everything went via Newton Heath bar one thing* so everything on the CRO would add up to what was spent by the board on running the club and gaining full control.


* the pub as it was bought via a different company.


kdjac

Without trying to be condescending here, you're talking to a qualified accountant. Buying freehold does not go into the P&L account. Paying off old debts does not go into the P&L account. Directors paying money to acquire a company does not go into the P&L account. Nothing you have mentioned (bar E300k running costs) goes into the P&L account, and therefore doesn't affect the fact that Pat's have run up a million pound loss last season. I've explained all this in my previous post with the four examples.

There's not much point debating this further until we can get that point straight.

Pete, you're some form of supermod, aren't you? Can you split the thread?

[Dodge]

Also, I do find it ironic that Pat's fans are criticising Shels' overspending given that they're racking up losses of a million a year at this stage

I've constantly had a go at our previous board for spending money they don't have.

[pineapple stu]

What about the current one?

[Dodge]

What about the current one?

They have the money. Been told today more of the details, and its far more promising than I thought. Not a bottomless pit but certainly an injection of cash has been made, and the promise of more to come.


Read our MB and see how many people have criticised the reports linking us with paynig €4k a week. Most are against it (bar the odd kid). I've foud out that the figure is totally false BTW