rugbyunion
Latest News:
Come On You Warriors!

This message board is for all things Warriors' and Rugby.
When posting please be aware that posts may be read by youngsters and respect other posters.
Click Here for the Message Board Rules


FlipFlop
Latest WRFC financials
FlipFlop (IP Logged)
05 April, 2018 09:33
WRFC Trading to 30/6/17

Turnover £10.8 million up from £9.8 million in previous

Loss (£8 million), increase of £1 million from previous year after removal of the exceptional write off of Loans which gave us a £13 million profit.

Perhaps adds a little more info as to the deliberation of current owners and prospective owners.

PS

I know numbers can be manipulated and these are only the standard headline numbers. I haven't looked at the full set at Companies House to see the more intricate details or commentary in the Reporting.

 
MESSAGES->author
Re: Latest WRFC financials
Faithful_City (IP Logged)
05 April, 2018 09:42
We increase turnover by £1million yet losses increase by £1million they really indicates we spent £2million more than the previous season, why - on what?

 
MESSAGES->author
Re: Latest WRFC financials
Faithful_City (IP Logged)
05 April, 2018 09:46
At the meeting with the CEO he indicated Friday nights would cost us £500k in revenue which means we could have increased turnover by £1.5million.

JP

 
neiljk
Re: Latest WRFC financials
neiljk (IP Logged)
05 April, 2018 10:47
You need to see a fuller set of accounts to decide. Profit and loss won’t reflect cash in and out especially with large exceptional items. It may also be that loss is carried in trading for tax purposes. This is really like looking at the quality of the art through the letter box at the Louvre...

 
A38
Re: Latest WRFC financials
A38 (IP Logged)
05 April, 2018 11:06
That's a very good analogy - and of course when you're looking through that letter box, you are looking at pictures which were there months previously.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/04/2018 11:09 by A38.

 
FlipFlop
Re: Latest WRFC financials
FlipFlop (IP Logged)
05 April, 2018 11:07
£1 million of Interest payments in the year.

 
neiljk
Re: Latest WRFC financials
neiljk (IP Logged)
05 April, 2018 11:08
Interest paid to who though?

 
MESSAGES->author
Re: Latest WRFC financials
Faithful_City (IP Logged)
05 April, 2018 12:20
Just another bit of info - attendances

04-05.  89k
05-06.  106k
06-07.  106k
07-08.  106k
08-09.  114k
09-10.  116k(7th)  relegated
11-12.  112k
12-13.  102k
13-14.  89k.  Relegated
15-16.  99k
16-17.  97
17-18.  95(projected)

JP

 
MESSAGES->author
Re: Latest WRFC financials
Faithful_City (IP Logged)
05 April, 2018 12:27
So from crowd losses probably a reduction of £1million. 21k reductn9n attendance from our best season.

JP

 
neiljk
Re: Latest WRFC financials
neiljk (IP Logged)
05 April, 2018 12:30
More like half that at the most, £1m is nearly 50 quid a ticket. This is before you factor in promtions, discounts and pricing.

 
FlipFlop
Re: Latest WRFC financials
FlipFlop (IP Logged)
05 April, 2018 12:44
Snippets from the Full Group Accounts

"Loss increased by £2m from the £6m loss in previous year"

" Income increased by £1m....£400k additional central funding, £300k in partnerships/sponsorships and £300 conferencing"

"Club continues to be reliant on Shareholder support.."

"Assets under construction written off £409k"

"Other loan interest payable £1054k" Not bank loans by the description IMO. "Other loans due in more than 1 year £25.7 million (£18.8 million in 2016) Interest applied at LIBOR rate +4%" probably explains the Interest payments better now. Certainly not debt free.



"Combined value of Freehold land and Long Leasehold property (after Depreciation) £18.5 million"

 
MESSAGES->author
Re: Latest WRFC financials
Monkey1 (IP Logged)
05 April, 2018 12:50
You are wasting your time trying to make anything from published accounts for a large rugby club. The figures are pretty much meaningless. For example, take two clubs of similar size, both of which require their backers to pump in £4m every year. One club backer likes to funnel that income into the club as sponsorship from the company that he owns & that has made him a fortune. The other club backer bungs his £4m in as a loan, knowing he will never get it back, but in it goes. The first club therefore appears to have a turnover £4m higher than the other and may even appear to make a profit, but the reality is that in practical terms, they both lose the same amount each year, which is made up by somebody pouring money into the black hole.

Just ignore the figures or they will cause you needless misery. Turn up at Sixways, enjoy some beers, shout your lungs out & go home again. You really don't want to think about how the finances work, that way lies madness.

 
A38
Re: Latest WRFC financials
A38 (IP Logged)
05 April, 2018 13:05
I think Monkey 1 is quite right. Accounts are the start of the analysis process; they cannot in themselves tell the full story.

But having said that the crucial part of these accounts is not the numbers but these significant words: "Club continues to be reliant on Shareholder support.."

We need understand nothing else.

 
neiljk
Re: Latest WRFC financials
neiljk (IP Logged)
05 April, 2018 13:08
Which is written by tbe shareholders.....take nothing at face value

 
Sutton Warrior
Re: Latest WRFC financials
Sutton Warrior (IP Logged)
05 April, 2018 13:12
Well said, Monkey 1. Almost all Prem clubs are the playthings of the rich - without their support ( provided either directly or toherwise) they have no financial future. The professional game cannot support the cost base it has -the RFU is the only one with any money other than the TV companies.

 
FlipFlop
Re: Latest WRFC financials
FlipFlop (IP Logged)
05 April, 2018 19:59
Ringfenced or not, clubs propped up, are clearly not sustainable once the owners lose interest or become aware of the real costs, just as with Sarries this week.

My only interest is in Warriors and we’ve been propped up since pretty much since CD decided to sink his personal money into the club. I only quote our numbers v our numbers as a point of interest, rather than debating the rules or dark arts of number crunching to tell a story.

The figures do provide some backdrop to the issues current and new owners face in attempting to finance our ‘pastime’ for us, and throws up major questions regarding the breakeven point alleged in Sale documents issued by the business consultants to possible owners.

 
Touchliner
Re: Latest WRFC financials
Touchliner (IP Logged)
05 April, 2018 20:02
Quote:
FlipFlop
"Assets under construction written off £409k"

As no-one has questioned this item have I missed something?

Close enough to half a million quid of assets suddenly identified as valueless?

What on earth was it?

 
TVM Rides Again....Again
Re: Latest WRFC financials
TVM Rides Again (IP Logged)
06 April, 2018 08:02
Cancelled or devalued WIP maybe?

 
Touchliner
Re: Latest WRFC financials
Touchliner (IP Logged)
06 April, 2018 10:37
Quote:
TVM Rides Again
Cancelled or devalued WIP maybe?

Rather a large item of WIP to cancel £409k into the project without anyone knowing what it was.

Or to regard as impaired in value by such a massive amount.

Perhaps I should look for myself instead of expecting someone to read them for me.

Are the accounts accessible without a charge on the internet? The only site I found offering the report wanted to charge me £2 and I'm a tight so and so compared to our owners.........

 
FlipFlop
Re: Latest WRFC financials
FlipFlop (IP Logged)
06 April, 2018 11:07
Touchliner, you can go to Companies House website, select Find Company information, Start Now and then type in WRFC Trading, select the company from those listed, and then select filing history and you get a pdf option to view the Group accounts for nothing as its a Government site. No password or sign on required as far as i can see.

That said, the detailed notes to the accounts do not specifically explain what the asset was. The notes do allude to impairment in value of some sort. The only known asset under construction that springs to mind in recent note was the 4G pitch. Maybe previous accounts were a bit aggressive over the pitch value, and this has been adjusted in this manner to reflect a more reasonable valuation on the reporting? But there may have been other work taking place that was ongoing to help with the outside pitches, drainage in and around the site, car parks or whatever which non of us are aware of.

 
Abmatt
Re: Latest WRFC financials
Abmatt (IP Logged)
06 April, 2018 11:28
WRFC club house that was built across the road as part of the split between the two clubs possibly?

 
FlipFlop
Re: Latest WRFC financials
FlipFlop (IP Logged)
06 April, 2018 13:33
Could be.

Could also be the reduction of value in floodlights due to their poor luminicity(Sm159)

 
MESSAGES->author
Re: Latest WRFC financials
TeflonTed (IP Logged)
06 April, 2018 16:42
Quote:
Abmatt
WRFC club house that was built across the road as part of the split between the two clubs possibly?

That’s just what I thought.

 
SK 88
Re: Latest WRFC financials
SK 88 (IP Logged)
08 April, 2018 19:26
Can anyone explain to me why there are two companies that report different figures relating to Worcester Warriors?

WRFC Players reported a £2m profit on a £12m turnover, whilst WRFC Trading (the parent company) reported an £8m loss on a £10m turnover.

 
FlipFlop
Re: Latest WRFC financials
FlipFlop (IP Logged)
08 April, 2018 20:19
They’re different parts of the same business. Trading provides the infrastructure Players are needed to provide the sport. I also noted that we have separate companies to run the Bars and the Catering within the same trading environment.

 
Abmatt
Re: Latest WRFC financials
Abmatt (IP Logged)
08 April, 2018 20:46
All seems a bit complicated to me. Or is it just smoke and mirrors to disguise the real picture? By that I mean one company releases decent figures to distract from another company’s poorer ones.

 
usa warrior
Re: Latest WRFC financials
usa warrior (IP Logged)
08 April, 2018 21:49
So in real terms we’ve lost 8 mil? Is that correct?

How the hell are we losing so much compared to other teams who don’t have anywhere near the assets we do? We’re told we aren’t spending to cap for instance.

 
FlipFlop
Re: Latest WRFC financials
FlipFlop (IP Logged)
08 April, 2018 22:17
£1 million interest payments on £25 million of loans from Board / Owners, £400k write off of assets, only £10 mill through spectators and conference facility users v Players and support staff costs of £12 mill.

Maybe question for the ask McKay night in future.

 
Patgadd
Re: Latest WRFC financials
Patgadd (IP Logged)
08 April, 2018 22:20
Quote:
FlipFlop

Maybe question for the ask McKay night in future.

Are you perhaps referring to the Ask Beth night?

 
A38
Re: Latest WRFC financials
A38 (IP Logged)
08 April, 2018 22:22
USA: thank you for the compliment a few posts ago but I'm very nervous about saying anything about the figures not only because I'm now so out of touch but also because published accounts have to be read with a great deal of care. They are after all only the headlines. It will be the unpublished detail where the interest lies.

I'm sure that the present directors will have looked at that detail very carefully. They will have their own management accounts, peer group comparative analysis and will have come to their own conclusions. After all, at least one of their number will be financing the apparent losses and has implied that he will continue to do so for the time being.

That is the key to the accounts, the continued financial support of the proprietors.

And as far as I am aware there is no sign that that is abating in any way. Recruitment for next season seems to be well on track and the only sign of any hesitation to spend money of which I'm aware relates to the floodlighting.

Anyway, if new owners come in, these accounts could well be of historic interest only.

 
usa warrior
Re: Latest WRFC financials
usa warrior (IP Logged)
08 April, 2018 22:46
There don’t seem to be any panic buttons being pressed, right on that point. Could pinpoint some trimming of excess coaches and back room staff, however, which may well be justified!

 
SK 88
Re: Latest WRFC financials
SK 88 (IP Logged)
09 April, 2018 11:31
Quote:
FlipFlop
They’re different parts of the same business. Trading provides the infrastructure Players are needed to provide the sport. I also noted that we have separate companies to run the Bars and the Catering within the same trading environment.

Yes but where does the money go, what is double counted and what isn't?

For instance WRFC Players posted a turnover of £12.8m, but WRFC Trading posted a turnover of £10.8m. That's an 18% difference, and materially different.

WRFC Players paid out £6m in dividends. Who to? WRFC Trading? A.N.Other? I can't readily see it in Trading's accounts.

Trading had costs of £17.5m, Players had costs of £11.1m.

Players had a wage bill of £7.6m, Trading had a wage bill of £9.9m which seemingly included the 102 employees of Players (as it had the same breakdown of players, academy, coches, physios etc).

The WRFC Bars is a new company also regitered at 6ways but WRFC Canteen is registered to an address in Taunton, so think that is a different company with a similar name (like WRFC Services which is Windsor RFC!).

Just to be clear I'm not really accusing Worcester of anything, I just find the set up extremely confusing particularly the income/turnover being lower for the group accounts than the child accounts.

 
just got into rugby
Re: Latest WRFC financials
Big Bird Warrior (IP Logged)
09 April, 2018 11:39
From my recollection of the dim and distant past, inter co transactions are excluded in group accounts!

 
FlipFlop
Re: Latest WRFC financials
FlipFlop (IP Logged)
09 April, 2018 12:00
As BBW says, in a set of Group Accounts, sales from one part of the group get matched against the costs in the buying part of the business, and effectively net down to Nil in the overall picture, to avoid double count issues.

 
Patgadd
Re: Latest WRFC financials
Patgadd (IP Logged)
09 April, 2018 12:23
Quote:
SK 88
Quote:
FlipFlop
They’re different parts of the same business. Trading provides the infrastructure Players are needed to provide the sport. I also noted that we have separate companies to run the Bars and the Catering within the same trading environment.

Yes but where does the money go, what is double counted and what isn't?

For instance WRFC Players posted a turnover of £12.8m, but WRFC Trading posted a turnover of £10.8m. That's an 18% difference, and materially different.

WRFC Players paid out £6m in dividends. Who to? WRFC Trading? A.N.Other? I can't readily see it in Trading's accounts.

Trading had costs of £17.5m, Players had costs of £11.1m.

Players had a wage bill of £7.6m, Trading had a wage bill of £9.9m which seemingly included the 102 employees of Players (as it had the same breakdown of players, academy, coches, physios etc).

The WRFC Bars is a new company also registered at 6ways but WRFC Canteen is registered to an address in Taunton, so think that is a different company with a similar name (like WRFC Services which is Windsor RFC!).

My head hurts

 
SK 88
Re: Latest WRFC financials
SK 88 (IP Logged)
09 April, 2018 12:37
Quote:
FlipFlop
As BBW says, in a set of Group Accounts, sales from one part of the group get matched against the costs in the buying part of the business, and effectively net down to Nil in the overall picture, to avoid double count issues.

Okay, so WRFC Players receives c. £2m of income from WRFC Trading (or another related company)?

I can understand that a bit, but does leave the question of why have this subsidiary company at all, what is the benefit? It just seems to muddy the waters.

And where did the £6m dividend go?

 
A38
Re: Latest WRFC financials
A38 (IP Logged)
09 April, 2018 12:42
Quote:
Patgadd
Quote:
SK 88
Quote:
FlipFlop
They’re different parts of the same business. Trading provides the infrastructure Players are needed to provide the sport. I also noted that we have separate companies to run the Bars and the Catering within the same trading environment.

Yes but where does the money go, what is double counted and what isn't?

For instance WRFC Players posted a turnover of £12.8m, but WRFC Trading posted a turnover of £10.8m. That's an 18% difference, and materially different.

WRFC Players paid out £6m in dividends. Who to? WRFC Trading? A.N.Other? I can't readily see it in Trading's accounts.

Trading had costs of £17.5m, Players had costs of £11.1m.

Players had a wage bill of £7.6m, Trading had a wage bill of £9.9m which seemingly included the 102 employees of Players (as it had the same breakdown of players, academy, coches, physios etc).

The WRFC Bars is a new company also registered at 6ways but WRFC Canteen is registered to an address in Taunton, so think that is a different company with a similar name (like WRFC Services which is Windsor RFC!).

My head hurts

I'm keeping away from even glancing at the numbers. Migraine lies that way. It will all change anyway if a new owner comes in.

 
MESSAGES->author
Re: Latest WRFC financials
TeflonTed (IP Logged)
09 April, 2018 14:23
I’ve just decided I really don’t care.

As long as I get a seat and some rugby to watch on the posted dates that’s my financial deal with Wuss done.

 
Tiger93
Re: Latest WRFC financials
Tiger93 (IP Logged)
09 April, 2018 16:43
Quote:
SK 88
Can anyone explain to me why there are two companies that report different figures relating to Worcester Warriors?
WRFC Players reported a £2m profit on a £12m turnover, whilst WRFC Trading (the parent company) reported an £8m loss on a £10m turnover.

Indeed this is strange. Points to an overall 22m turnover which is on par with Tigers? Surely not?

 
SK 88
Re: Latest WRFC financials
SK 88 (IP Logged)
09 April, 2018 17:46
That's explained further up.

I'm still not sure where the £6m dividend from WRFC Players has gone though. Has it been passed up to the top layer of company Sixways Holdings Limited (in Jersey) or passed out to the owners???

 
Brummagem Bertie
Re: Latest WRFC financials
Brummagem Bertie (IP Logged)
09 April, 2018 18:35
Quote:
SK 88
The WRFC Bars is a new company also regitered at 6ways

Not quite correct. It is a new company but is registered on Offerton Lane, not at Sixways. That and the date of registration (7 November 2016) lead me to believe it is a company set up by WRFC, not Warriors, to manage and run their new clubhouse, in order to maximise the commercial income raised for the amateur club.

I could be wrong but it does not look to be anything to do with Warriors (where's Drutz when you need him?).

There are 4 companies associated with Warriors: WRFC Players Limited; WRFC Trading Limited; Sixways Holdings Limited; and Hockley Investments Limited.

WRFC Players Limited is a wholly owned subsidiary of WRFC Trading Limited, and its principal activity is the provision of players and coaching staff for WRFC Trading Limited. I believe a number of clubs make use of such a structure, I presume to make it easier to demonstrate compliance with the salary cap.

WRFC Players Limited made a £2.1m profit on turnover of £12.8m. The turnover was generated by a recharge to WRFC Trading Limited for the provision of coaches and players. This included the Academy. Wages were stated to be £7.7m. The company also paid out a divi of £6.5m, which will have gone to the shareholders.

WRFC Trading Limited operates and runs the rugby club that is Worcester Warriors and the Sixways site. It made an £8.1m loss on turnover of £10.8m. The turnover comes from operating the rugby club, so will be a mix of PRL/RFU funding, ticket and other matchday sales, commercial and sponsorship income. Administrative expenses were £16.35m, which included employee costs of £11.1m (that's a £1.6m increase on 2015). There appear to be significant loans (£25.7m?) owed to the majority shareholder, Sixways Holdings Limited, which would appear to be where the loan interest is being paid.

Sixways Holdings Limited is registered in Jersey, as I recall. You can get their accounts online but you have to pay Jersey Companies House for access. From what I remember, however, it is a wholly owned subsidiary of Hockley Investments Ltd, a company registered in Malta, which is the investment vehicle for the Allen family trust.

This ownership and company structure does confuse matters concerning the Warriors but there's a fair chance the whole caboodle has been designed and set up to wring out whatever tax advantages they can for the owners.



Whatever you do, do it safely!

 
MESSAGES->author
Re: Latest WRFC financials
Abberley (IP Logged)
09 April, 2018 18:38
Quote:
SK 88
Can anyone explain to me why there are two companies that report different figures relating to Worcester Warriors?

My understanding, at the time, was that 'WRFC Players Ltd' was created by Cecil at the start of the professional era to protect the assets of the traditional club (Worcester RFC) should the pro game go t1ts up.

The structure may well serve a similar purpose today?

Incidentally, should the various subsidiaries now be renamed 'Warriors RFC Players' etc. to avoid confusion?

 
Brummagem Bertie
Re: Latest WRFC financials
Brummagem Bertie (IP Logged)
09 April, 2018 18:41
Quote:
Tiger93
Quote:
SK 88
Can anyone explain to me why there are two companies that report different figures relating to Worcester Warriors?
WRFC Players reported a £2m profit on a £12m turnover, whilst WRFC Trading (the parent company) reported an £8m loss on a £10m turnover.

Indeed this is strange. Points to an overall 22m turnover which is on par with Tigers? Surely not?

No, not quite. WRFC Players Limited's turnover (income) comes almost exclusively from WRFC Trading Limited, which forms part of the £16m+ admin expenses of Trading, which accounts in large part for their loss.

Trading's turnover (income) is the money that the Warriors actually generate, from PRL/RFU, supporters, sponsors, and conferencing.



Whatever you do, do it safely!

 
MESSAGES->author
Re: Latest WRFC financials
Drutz (IP Logged)
10 April, 2018 12:07
Quote:
SK 88
Quote:
FlipFlop
They’re different parts of the same business. Trading provides the infrastructure Players are needed to provide the sport. I also noted that we have separate companies to run the Bars and the Catering within the same trading environment.

The WRFC Bars is a new company also regitered at 6ways but WRFC Canteen is registered to an address in Taunton, so think that is a different company with a similar name (like WRFC Services which is Windsor RFC!).

WRFC Bars Ltd is nothing to do with the Warriors that is attached to WRFC as the company address is Offerton Lane not Sixways.



Pulling the boots on for one more year

 
MESSAGES->author
Re: Latest WRFC financials
Drutz (IP Logged)
10 April, 2018 12:10
Quote:
Brummagem Bertie
Quote:
SK 88
The WRFC Bars is a new company also regitered at 6ways


I could be wrong but it does not look to be anything to do with Warriors (where's Drutz when you need him?).

I turn up when least expected. But as in my post above yes you are correct it is tied in with WRFC not the Warriors.



Pulling the boots on for one more year

 
A38
Re: Latest WRFC financials
A38 (IP Logged)
10 April, 2018 13:14
[www.worcesternews.co.uk]

Bolsover's comments on financial position.

 
FlipFlop
Re: Latest WRFC financials
FlipFlop (IP Logged)
10 April, 2018 13:28
I'm being a bit lazy, but who was costing us so much in the period covered by the latest numbers where spending was " not sustainable", and commercial improvements are likely to have arisen in the current period to mean the shareholders contribution would "reduce by 50%".

It's good, but not sure where the commercial angle has improved as someone looking from the outside. Power to Mr McKay and his team if he has brought about these commercial improvements.

 
WorcesterSauce
Re: Latest WRFC financials
WorcesterSauce (IP Logged)
10 April, 2018 13:39
Quote:
FlipFlop
I'm being a bit lazy, but who was costing us so much in the period covered by the latest numbers where spending was " not sustainable", and commercial improvements are likely to have arisen in the current period to mean the shareholders contribution would "reduce by 50%".
It's good, but not sure where the commercial angle has improved as someone looking from the outside. Power to Mr McKay and his team if he has brought about these commercial improvements.
Agree, although it raises questions as to what exactly was going on before McKay.

 
SK 88
Re: Latest WRFC financials
SK 88 (IP Logged)
10 April, 2018 14:07
Quote:
Brummagem Bertie
Quote:
SK 88
The WRFC Bars is a new company also regitered at 6ways

Not quite correct. It is a new company but is registered on Offerton Lane, not at Sixways. That and the date of registration (7 November 2016) lead me to believe it is a company set up by WRFC, not Warriors, to manage and run their new clubhouse, in order to maximise the commercial income raised for the amateur club.

I could be wrong but it does not look to be anything to do with Warriors (where's Drutz when you need him?).

Thank you for the clarification, it is very confusing to the outsider!
Quote:
Brummagem Bertie

There are 4 companies associated with Warriors: WRFC Players Limited; WRFC Trading Limited; Sixways Holdings Limited; and Hockley Investments Limited.

WRFC Players Limited is a wholly owned subsidiary of WRFC Trading Limited, and its principal activity is the provision of players and coaching staff for WRFC Trading Limited. I believe a number of clubs make use of such a structure, I presume to make it easier to demonstrate compliance with the salary cap.

WRFC Players Limited made a £2.1m profit on turnover of £12.8m. The turnover was generated by a recharge to WRFC Trading Limited for the provision of coaches and players. This included the Academy. Wages were stated to be £7.7m. The company also paid out a divi of £6.5m, which will have gone to the shareholders.

WRFC Trading Limited operates and runs the rugby club that is Worcester Warriors and the Sixways site. It made an £8.1m loss on turnover of £10.8m. The turnover comes from operating the rugby club, so will be a mix of PRL/RFU funding, ticket and other matchday sales, commercial and sponsorship income. Administrative expenses were £16.35m, which included employee costs of £11.1m (that's a £1.6m increase on 2015). There appear to be significant loans (£25.7m?) owed to the majority shareholder, Sixways Holdings Limited, which would appear to be where the loan interest is being paid.

Sixways Holdings Limited is registered in Jersey, as I recall. You can get their accounts online but you have to pay Jersey Companies House for access. From what I remember, however, it is a wholly owned subsidiary of Hockley Investments Ltd, a company registered in Malta, which is the investment vehicle for the Allen family trust.

This ownership and company structure does confuse matters concerning the Warriors but there's a fair chance the whole caboodle has been designed and set up to wring out whatever tax advantages they can for the owners.

Once again, thank you for the information. Regarding the separate "Players" company I have not seen that with another club, the origin with Duckworth and the amateur arm makes a lot of sense. Now I understand the structure it does also aid in analysis of the accounts.

Effectively the playing side of the club costs c.£10m to finance and the ground, marketing, ticketing, everything and all the rest costs c.£8m. The club generates around £10m in revenue, so if the costs of everything else didn't exist you'd be fine! (Of course they always will exist though!)

Agree there is surely something tax related in such a complicated 4 layer structure. Not sure where the £1m in interest goes or where the £6m dividend from Players appears (in Trading or further up the chain in Sixways Holdings?).

I am too tight to pay the £4 for a fishing trip into the Jersey accounts though!

Thanks again for the clarifications I'll try and remember them for next time I look at your accounts and get super confused!!

 
Brummagem Bertie
Re: Latest WRFC financials
Brummagem Bertie (IP Logged)
10 April, 2018 15:04
Quote:
SK 88
Thank you for the clarification, it is very confusing to the outsider!

You're welcome but it's not that much clearer to those of us who support the club! (Sm147)

I think there are both Bank loans and loans from Sixways Holdings Ltd, so the interest could be for one, other or both.

As for the divi, Players is a wholly owned subsidiary of Trading. Trading's shareholders are Sixways Holdings Ltd (majority) and Cecil Duckworth (minority). The divi must have gone to them (or perhaps just Sixways Holdings Ltd, if it was part of the agreement for the loans that were written off).

What I found interesting about Bath's results is that they were either side of break even, on turnover of around £18m. That says to me that a lot of our problems are due to a lack of income. When you look at our attendances and ticket prices that's not a surprise.



Whatever you do, do it safely!

 
Brummagem Bertie
Re: Latest WRFC financials
Brummagem Bertie (IP Logged)
10 April, 2018 15:22
Quote:
A38
http://www.worcesternews.co.uk/sport/wrfc/16148874.Level_of_spending_at_Warriors_was_not_sustainable__says_Bolsover/
Bolsover's comments on financial position.

Quote:
WN report
Warriors have also seen a number of key members of staff leave in recent months with finance director Kirsty Fisher handing in her notice.
General manager Ryan Bezuidenhout has departed while conference and events manager Jen Barry has left for a position at Premier League side Stoke City and head of marketing Charlie Lincoln has moved to Bristol Sport.

Three business development managers have also handed in their notices in the past eight months, with one of them doing it this week.

However, the Worcester News understands their departures were not linked to the club’s financial situation.

So, a number of the people responsible for reducing expenditure and generating more commercial income have or are leaving. Mmmmmmmmmm.

I also wonder if the financial position and the proposed sale of the club are responsible for the number of 1 year contracts and extensions? Or is it so that Rory can run his rule over the players and decide who he likes the look of and who he wants to let go?



Whatever you do, do it safely!

 
Yorkie
Re: Latest WRFC financials
Yorkie (IP Logged)
10 April, 2018 15:35
Actually it is very simple.

"Players" is who employ the playing and coaching staff. That is the only reason the company exists. Whilst it has common Directors with "Trading", none of them get paid anything by "Players". "Players" is 100% owned by "Trading".

It is "Players" who receives your EPS money which is quite correct given this is where your academy and players sit.

"Players" charges "Trading" for the use of its assets (the players and coaches). It is included within the "Admin costs" of the "trading" accounts. The staff costs for "Trading" will always be higher than "Players" as you also have the Directors, Office Staff, Stewards, Catering etc etc to pay to Trade.

The one thing I don't get is why they'd have "Players" making a £2m profit? This means that "Players" are charging "Trading" more than the players and coaches cost them to employ.

The £6.5m dividend paid out by "Players" is from this company's capital/reserves built up in previous years. A dividend can only be paid to a company's shareholders. As "Trading" own 100% of "Players" then the cash must have gone into "Trading". I just can't see where?

You received another big loan of £6.9m from somewhere.

The only other strange thing is that the accounts of both companies state that Sixways Holdings have ultimate control due to their majority shareholding but then there is a document stating that the do not have controlling interest in "Players"?

If you've got the time/inclination, read some of the documents listed for both companies on the companies house website for free.

Highlight's Cecil's generosity!



http://www.jakehowlett.com/tuckshop/wrappers/chocolate/plain/yorkie-nutter.jpg




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/04/2018 15:38 by Yorkie.


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
We record all IP addresses on the Sportnetwork message boards which may be required by the authorities in case of defamatory or abusive comment. We seek to monitor the Message Boards at regular intervals. We do not associate Sportnetwork with any of the comments and do not take responsibility for any statements or opinions expressed on the Message Boards. If you have any cause for concern over any material posted here please let us know as soon as possible by e-mailing abuse@sportnetwork.net
 
 

Who is online?

Total users online:  

Most users online:  

Users on this site:  

Where are they?