Where is the Money ?

Like quite a few other Leeds fans I am a bit concerned about the lack of transparency with regard to the amounts of money coming in and going out of the club since administration.

We have had one set of accounts published since administration which I downloaded and read. I am not going to pretend I understood most of the info in the report, but I seem to recall it stated something like a 4 million pound profit, although only about 900 k of this was operating profit, the remainder being profit on disposal of players.

I also seem to recall Bates making a statement about needing something along the lines of a 22, 000 average to break even and budgeting to get knocked out of all cup competitions in the first round.

The two main items that concern me are : -

The regularity of the accounts, I was a shareholder when we were a PLC and received a regular interim and annual report (which did not help to warn me of the financial mess we were in), but have not seen published accounts from Bates with the same regularity.

Does anyone know when Bates legally has to publish the next set of accounts ?

The other concern I and I would imagine a lot other Leeds fans have, is the amount of money that seems to have come in to the club since administration (that exceeds Bates stated break even figure), but does not seem to be going out of the club in Transfer fees, ground improvements or the buy back of facilities.

Without any published accounts it is difficult to keep track or know exact amounts, but from memory there seems to be the following items of money coming in since administartion that are above Bates break even gate money figure : -

Transfer/Compensation Fees

Wise compensation from Newcastle
Poyet compensation from Spurs
Reported 4/5 million compensation for Tom Taiwo and Michael Woods from Chelsea
Reported 800k for compensation from George Swan and Louis Hutton from Man City
Reported 600k for compensation for Luke Garbut
Reported 6million Transfer fee for Fabian Delph
Reported sell on clause fee of 1 million for James Milner
Reported sell on clause fee of 400k for Mathew Killgalon

Gates above break even figure

Play off semi finals against Carlisle
Play off final against Doncaster.
Play off semi final against Milwall
League Cup Game against Liverpool
FA Cup game against Man Utd
FA Cup game against Spurs

There are a lot of estimates in the above figures, I have never seen any reported figures for Wise and Poyet, but if I use a conservative figure of 250k apiece, then the transfer money/compensation received since administration seem to be around 14 million pounds.

I would have thought that with capacity crowds and TV money that the above extra games would have raised at least another 2 million.

Which is around 16 million ‘extra’ money coming in to the club that does not appear to be going out or accounted for in any published accounts, if you add this to the 4 million profit reported in the accounts then we should have 20 million pound to spend !

What I would like to know if anyone can be bothered is, what are the dates for all the compensation or transfer fees, am I double counting some of this, i.e. was some of this money included in the last published accounts ?

Have I missed any other major incoming monies from my list ?

Am I being unfair on Bates are the incoming figures inflated and is there a similar list of unexpected outgoing costs or transfer fees that I have not recognised ?

Good post.

Thing is to Bates' credit I like the way he doesn't show his hand. Though a lot of the figures you quoted are media figures not quoted by the club. We'll have to wait until he publishes his next set of accounts which you would expect to be this year for a 12 month period not 18 which showed the club making an operating profit after the administration.

In particular the Delph transfer will undoubtedly be paid in installments. Which is healthy as it acts as revenue stream in itself.

Although Bates doesnt like to be second guessed it's clear to see in my opinion that he is reluctant to spend any unnecessary club money from the bank. This will obviously make the clubs accounts look healthier for a any organisation looking to buy the club.

BUT, the key point of contention is that the club/business would look healthier if they actually owned the real estate (the ground and Thorpe Arch). The big point of argument and debate is all around - who actually owns Leeds United, Thorpe Arch and the Ground.

As you know all of those points are shrouded in off shore mystery as is Bates which in my mind is the breeding ground for many conspiracies. The football league seem to be content with the ownership credentials.

Last published accounts
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9196709/Leeds-United-Accounts-Period-Ended-June-2008

Turnover up to June 2008 (mindful that I think this is an 18 month period)
Gate £10,013,000
Television and Broadcasting £173,000
Merchandising £3,425,000
Other Commercial Revenue £9,638,000
Total £23,249,000

The next accounts will show the financial year from June 2008 - June 2009. Should make interesting reading.

Thanks for the response, I have posted the same question on Waccoe if anyone wants to follow it on there. It has not descended into a slanging match just yet, but I am sure it will soon.

I double posted on here in the hope that the Trust board contains people with far more knowledge on financial matters than your average Waccoe poster, in the hope that someone could tell me legally when Bates has to publish the next set of accounts, point out any incomings I may have missed, or over/under estimated, and if possible make a case for Bates.

I have not posted these figures as an anti Bates rant, I am just concerned that this money seems to be disappearing into a black hole. If any member of the trust wants to outline Bates possible expenditures during the same period, or make a case out for his handling of this windfall, I for one would not consider this ‘joining the enemy’.

I appreciate that it is beneficial for the trust has to have a working relationship with the chairmen, but I don’t believe this means we should remain silent on where this windfall of cash is going.

Bates will only need to publish the accounts once a year.

We need to list the costs to the club as well as the income to get a better picture,
Agents fees, new screen at ER etc
although without the actual figures we could still be wide of the mark

And we need to be mindful that it's not good business to simply spend everything that comes in.
I would have thought our recent history would make us more cautious as a group of fans.
If we are going to buy ER and TA back, we will need to put some £ in the bank

I'm also wondering if Grayson is thinking there will be a good chance of one or two fire sales this summer with more Prem and Chumps clubs in financial bother

soupdragon wrote:Bates will only need to publish the accounts once a year.

We need to list the costs to the club as well as the income to get a better picture,
Agents fees, new screen at ER etc
although without the actual figures we could still be wide of the mark

And we need to be mindful that it's not good business to simply spend everything that comes in.
I would have thought our recent history would make us more cautious as a group of fans.
If we are going to buy ER and TA back, we will need to put some £ in the bank
I'm also wondering if Grayson is thinking there will be a good chance of one or two fire sales this summer with more Prem and Chumps clubs in financial bother

AGREE 100%

I just hope that all those pro Bates fans who continually repeat, when discussing this subject, the mantra that we dont receive all the money for transfers as a single payment, remember that if we BUY somebody that same argument will apply to us as well - we would not necessarily have to pay all of the fee at the onset.

Jailhouse John wrote:I just hope that all those pro Bates fans who continually repeat, when discussing this subject, the mantra that we dont receive all the money for transfers as a single payment, remember that if we BUY somebody that same argument will apply to us as well - we would not necessarily have to pay all of the fee at the onset.

why canr we ask for the money upfront though, especially with the delph situation, the villa owner has billions???

It's not a case of being pro or anti Bates

Why do I have to be for him or against him? He's part of our club right now where I like it or not

I do however refuse to stoke up bad feeling on rumours and conjecture

I look at where we are now following some pretty bleak years and I look at where other clubs are, Man U included and I wouldn't swap places with them right now

There will always be things we feel can be done better and I hope the trust will give us the chance to influence some of those changes

soupdragon wrote:It's not a case of being pro or anti Bates

Why do I have to be for him or against him? He's part of our club right now where I like it or not

I do however refuse to stoke up bad feeling on rumours and conjecture

I look at where we are now following some pretty bleak years and I look at where other clubs are, Man U included and I wouldn't swap places with them right now

There will always be things we feel can be done better and I hope the trust will give us the chance to influence some of those changes

yuor right , but at times im either or, there are times when i really really hate him, and theres times, especially recently, when i thank god hes not risdale

LUFC DAVE wrote:

soupdragon wrote:It's not a case of being pro or anti Bates

Why do I have to be for him or against him? He's part of our club right now where I like it or not

I do however refuse to stoke up bad feeling on rumours and conjecture

I look at where we are now following some pretty bleak years and I look at where other clubs are, Man U included and I wouldn't swap places with them right now

There will always be things we feel can be done better and I hope the trust will give us the chance to influence some of those changes

yuor right , but at times im either or, there are times when i really really hate him, and theres times, especially recently, when i thank god hes not risdale

I still don't understand how 'he who shall not be named' is a fit and proper person to run another club...even when we were being punished for his mismanagement!?

bartmart wrote:Thanks for the response, I have posted the same question on Waccoe if anyone wants to follow it on there. It has not descended into a slanging match just yet, but I am sure it will soon.

I double posted on here in the hope that the Trust board contains people with far more knowledge on financial matters than your average Waccoe poster, in the hope that someone could tell me legally when Bates has to publish the next set of accounts, point out any incomings I may have missed, or over/under estimated, and if possible make a case for Bates.

i am sure your figures are reasonable mate, as a limited company the club must publish its accounts annually.

I have not posted these figures as an anti Bates rant, I am just concerned that this money seems to be disappearing into a black hole. If any member of the trust wants to outline Bates possible expenditures during the same period, or make a case out for his handling of this windfall, I for one would not consider this ‘joining the enemy’.

I appreciate that it is beneficial for the trust has to have a working relationship with the chairmen, but I don’t believe this means we should remain silent on where this windfall of cash is going

all fair comment and i am sure at some point financial matters will hit the agenda set by the members mate.

soupdragon wrote:It's not a case of being pro or anti Bates

Why do I have to be for him or against him? He's part of our club right now where I like it or not

I do however refuse to stoke up bad feeling on rumours and conjecture

I look at where we are now following some pretty bleak years and I look at where other clubs are, Man U included and I wouldn't swap places with them right now

There will always be things we feel can be done better and I hope the trust will give us the chance to influence some of those changes

Look it is not a case of for and against at all. I admire the prudent way the club is being run yet at the same time I really hate the idea that he refuses to 'grow' the business, that we support, by investing in his core product on the pitch. There is a balance but it is one he refuses to undertake. Additionally he and his CEO have over the years plainly lied to the supporters regarding his future plans for the club.

It has been said elsewhere that there have been so many 'lines in the sand' that ER looks like Filey beach!!!

Jailhouse John wrote:

soupdragon wrote:It's not a case of being pro or anti Bates

Why do I have to be for him or against him? He's part of our club right now where I like it or not

I do however refuse to stoke up bad feeling on rumours and conjecture

I look at where we are now following some pretty bleak years and I look at where other clubs are, Man U included and I wouldn't swap places with them right now

There will always be things we feel can be done better and I hope the trust will give us the chance to influence some of those changes

Look it is not a case of for and against at all. I admire the prudent way the club is being run yet at the same time I really hate the idea that he refuses to 'grow' the business, that we support, by investing in his core product on the pitch. There is a balance but it is one he refuses to undertake. Additionally he and his CEO have over the years plainly lied to the supporters regarding his future plans for the club.

It has been said elsewhere that there have been so many 'lines in the sand' that ER looks like Filey beach!!!

I agree there are things that need clarification and I'm hoping the Trust may give us the leverage to obtain a clearer picture on the finances and future intensions.
However I don't agree with some coments made about our current squad. We clearly have one of the best squads in L1 and a squad that would hold it's own in the Championship. I know we have been lucky in a number of games this season but that is always the case, just ask Leicester supporters if they strolled through every game last season, it hardly ever happens. And I'm happy for Grayson to loan players, he's very good at it and like Gradel we get to try before we buy. And if I were in his shoes I would be keeping half an eye out for fire sales this summer with more clubs than ever in a financial mire. It's just my opinion but that's how I see it.

soupdragon wrote:

Jailhouse John wrote:

soupdragon wrote:It's not a case of being pro or anti Bates

Why do I have to be for him or against him? He's part of our club right now where I like it or not

I do however refuse to stoke up bad feeling on rumours and conjecture

I look at where we are now following some pretty bleak years and I look at where other clubs are, Man U included and I wouldn't swap places with them right now

There will always be things we feel can be done better and I hope the trust will give us the chance to influence some of those changes

Look it is not a case of for and against at all. I admire the prudent way the club is being run yet at the same time I really hate the idea that he refuses to 'grow' the business, that we support, by investing in his core product on the pitch. There is a balance but it is one he refuses to undertake. Additionally he and his CEO have over the years plainly lied to the supporters regarding his future plans for the club.

It has been said elsewhere that there have been so many 'lines in the sand' that ER looks like Filey beach!!!

I agree there are things that need clarification and I'm hoping the Trust may give us the leverage to obtain a clearer picture on the finances and future intensions.
However I don't agree with some coments made about our current squad. We clearly have one of the best squads in L1 and a squad that would hold it's own in the Championship. I know we have been lucky in a number of games this season but that is always the case, just ask Leicester supporters if they strolled through every game last season, it hardly ever happens. And I'm happy for Grayson to loan players, he's very good at it and like Gradel we get to try before we buy. And if I were in his shoes I would be keeping half an eye out for fire sales this summer with more clubs than ever in a financial mire. It's just my opinion but that's how I see it.

Should add that I think the Trust should ask members to list their biggest concerns/causes of dissatisfaction and go to the club with the approach that they (the club), will be aware of some issues that fans aren't happy with and it would be in the clubs best interests to help the trust answer those concerns by giving answers to the biggest issues.
It would then hopefully be seen as a positive approach by the Trust rather than a series of complaints.
Maybe we can submit a list of the best and worst.
So the club can see what they are getting right as well as what we think they are doing wrong.
ie If the Trust is going to have a fruitfull relationship we need to be seen as a positive influence on where the club is heading.
I know Bates is pig headed but I'm sure he can see the value in getting/keeping the fans on board.

http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/f57d1aaebd8bbcb86438521679293ac4/compdetails

LEEDS UNITED FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED
Company No. 06233875
Status: Active
Date of Incorporation: 01/05/2007
Company Type: Private Limited Company
Nature of Business (SIC(03)):
9261 - Operate sports arenas & stadiums
9262 - Other sporting activities

Accounting Reference Date: 30/06
Last Accounts Made Up To: 30/06/2008 (FULL)
Next Accounts Due: 31/03/2010
Last Return Made Up To: 01/05/2009
Next Return Due: 29/05/2010

Last Members List: 01/05/2008

Previous Names:
Date of changePrevious Name
06/06/2008LEEDS UNITED 2007 LIMITED

soupdragon wrote:

soupdragon wrote:

Jailhouse John wrote:

soupdragon wrote:It's not a case of being pro or anti Bates

Why do I have to be for him or against him? He's part of our club right now where I like it or not

I do however refuse to stoke up bad feeling on rumours and conjecture

I look at where we are now following some pretty bleak years and I look at where other clubs are, Man U included and I wouldn't swap places with them right now

There will always be things we feel can be done better and I hope the trust will give us the chance to influence some of those changes

Look it is not a case of for and against at all. I admire the prudent way the club is being run yet at the same time I really hate the idea that he refuses to 'grow' the business, that we support, by investing in his core product on the pitch. There is a balance but it is one he refuses to undertake. Additionally he and his CEO have over the years plainly lied to the supporters regarding his future plans for the club.

It has been said elsewhere that there have been so many 'lines in the sand' that ER looks like Filey beach!!!

I agree there are things that need clarification and I'm hoping the Trust may give us the leverage to obtain a clearer picture on the finances and future intensions.
However I don't agree with some coments made about our current squad. We clearly have one of the best squads in L1 and a squad that would hold it's own in the Championship. I know we have been lucky in a number of games this season but that is always the case, just ask Leicester supporters if they strolled through every game last season, it hardly ever happens. And I'm happy for Grayson to loan players, he's very good at it and like Gradel we get to try before we buy. And if I were in his shoes I would be keeping half an eye out for fire sales this summer with more clubs than ever in a financial mire. It's just my opinion but that's how I see it.

Should add that I think the Trust should ask members to list their biggest concerns/causes of dissatisfaction and go to the club with the approach that they (the club), will be aware of some issues that fans aren't happy with and it would be in the clubs best interests to help the trust answer those concerns by giving answers to the biggest issues.
It would then hopefully be seen as a positive approach by the Trust rather than a series of complaints.
Maybe we can submit a list of the best and worst.
So the club can see what they are getting right as well as what we think they are doing wrong.
ie If the Trust is going to have a fruitfull relationship we need to be seen as a positive influence on where the club is heading.
I know Bates is pig headed but I'm sure he can see the value in getting/keeping the fans on board.

I have mentioned to Gary that I would be interested in heading up what would essentially be a 'membership/ticketing/any other supporters concerns/liason' working group. I talk about this kind of thing to the point of tedium on WACCOE, but it's something I genuinely believe in and would like the opportunity of making all that waffle worthwhile, or at least to try.

Of course I have the reputation as a 'pro-Bates' poster but those who know me realise that most of the time it's the sheer idiocy of how some of the anti-Bates stuff comes across that induces me to play Devil's advocate.

I can run with this if it's something that would have support - not sure how it would be actually created etc, but I certainly wouldn't want it to be a solo effort. In fact when dealing with the club I think it's important that there are two people in any discussions. After all thats what Ken Bates does .

Simon at the next board meeting (february) i will be asking the directors to support the creation of this group and formally tasking you with responsibility for it following on from our conversation at the AGM but in the meantime please feel free to begin the process of establishing the issues and putting your group together

nice to see you on saturday btw, sorry we couldnt hang around longer to chat but the tube maintenance thing meant getting back to our hotel was a nightmare.

Cheers Gary.

It's OK - you weren't the only one that snubbed me. Graham Taylor walked past as well without acknowledging us

Great stuff

I think we should make sure we tell them what they get right as well as what pi88es us off

I've always said, and been slagged off for it (by some), that if you don't recognise the achievements of someone you have issues with it dilutes your arguments in relation to the things you're really bothered about.

Sometimes you even have to swallow your pride and overlook minor irritations and areas of controversy if it helps you enter into constructive dialogue. One thing's for sure. If we go in there all guns blazing it will be the first and last meeting. We might feel better for getting a few things off our chest for a while, but in the long term it will achieve nothing.

IMO

In terms of the money coming in, Quite a chunk will have been used to pay off the football creditors (and perhaps others).

The Southampton programme notes December 19th, said that the football creditors had finally been paid off, and also implied (by reference to Portsmouth) that this meant that the central sponsorship money (from the FL) would now be available to the club. Nobody seems to have mentioned this situation in relation to Thorp Arch and the councils proposals.

I think the truth is that even for the most transparent business a lot of this stuff is hard to fathom without having a lot of documentation, a great deal of time and some inside knowledge of how all the payments etc work.

One thing no-one can say about Leeds United 2007 (or whatever it's called) is that it's opaque. At best

Previous Name
LEEDS UNITED 2007 LIMITED
Date of change
06/06/2008 to
LEEDS UNITED FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED

Super Cell wrote:I think the truth is that even for the most transparent business a lot of this stuff is hard to fathom without having a lot of documentation, a great deal of time and some inside knowledge of how all the payments etc work.

Agreed, but whilst the "ownership" and certain other matters are opaque, some of the other stuff is just accounting convention.

Most businesses have start-up costs (e.g. building a factory, buying a fleet of lorries etc) which are not all written off against initial income before the business is said to be making a profit.
For example, if 5% of the start-up costs are charged in the accounts in the first year (and for 19 subsequent years), then if the business revenue exceeds this 5% plus the costs incurred in the actual running of the business in that first year, then an operating profit will be shown even though 95% of the start up costs will be allocated against/charged to subsequent years' trading.

In our case all the costs of buying the club from the administrators are start-up costs and somebody somewhere has had to put up the cash or provide the finance for 100% of it (not just the 2% of it (I think) as charged in the accounts in the profit calculation).
So if you are talking about source and application of funds (or about cashflow and where it has gone) you can see that a great deal more cash will have been spent than is shown by the operating profit calculation.

The football creditors have to be paid in full even though only 2% of the total paid to them has been charged against the first years operations. That means that 100% of what was owed to football creditors had to be found from somewhere even if only 2% of it is deducted before calculating operating profit. All of that money (i.e. 100% of it and not just 2% of it) had to be found from the cashflow of the business (or from loans or investment into the business) and paid to the football creditors either when it was due or earlier (or by some other voluntary agreement). The last accounts showed a considerable figure due to crditors within 12 months so all of that will have had to be paid (or renegotiated).
We were told that the football creditors had been paid off in December 2009 so whatever sum of money was owed to football creditors has been paid out 100% by the "new" club since the administration.

The FL/PL withhold centrally generated money (League sponsorships etc) so long as there are any unpaid football creditors following an adminmistration. Whilst this was not a secret it has been publically seen (maybe for the first time in the Press etc) at Portsmouth, though of course it applies to all other clubs as well, including ourselves.

Edited to make it easier to follow - I hope. Some of the costs incurred by the club prior to the return of the golden share are being written off over 50 years in the accounts.

I have had some interesting and complementary reports to this post on both here and waccoe, but the responses do seem to move away from the question I was asking and can at times get too complex.

Having read the last published annual accounts I was under the impressions that our regular expected income would pay for our regular outgoings, i.e. player wages and ground rents. Ken Bates seemed to corroborate this by repeatedly stating that we budget for average gates of 22,000 and getting knocked out of each cup competition in the first round.

Everything so far seems pretty straight forward, but now it starts to get confusing (for me anyway).

For a start one of the responses (thanks Rick) seems to suggest that there will not be another annual report until 31/03/2010 or possibly 29/05/2010, which seems a bit strange as the last annual report was issued on the 11/12 2008.

I did naively imagine that being called ‘annual reports’ there would be a requirement to publish them on the same day every year, but that would appear not to be the case. If as seems probable companies have a certain amount of leeway in issuing the report, i.e. around eighteen months, then I would imagine with Bates liking for secrecy we will only see one on the last possible date every eighteen months.

I only really posted the ‘where is the money’ question because we seem to (for a league one club) have had a massive amount of luck with regard to exceptional one off incomings (estimated 20 million), but none of it appears to have gone out of the club, or to be identified in the ‘cash at bank and in hand’ figure in the last annual reports, (which only seemed to show a figure of 1 million and 90 thousand pounds).

I appreciate that a lot of the incomings will not show on the ‘cash at bank and in hand’ figure on the last published report, because most of the exceptional incomings have been after that date.

I appreciate that my estimated figure of 20 million is probably inflated by double counting the 4 million profit reported in the last annual report, i.e. most of this profit was due to the 4 million 727 thousand ‘profit on disposal of player registrations’ (transfers) mentioned in the report, which is probably the Chelsea money.

I also appreciate that we often get paid for players in instalments and may not see all of the estimated 16 million of exceptional incomings in the ‘cash at bank and in hand’ figure on the next accounts, but I would expect to see a massive jump in this figure when the next accounts are published.

The questions I really would like answering are : -

In peoples opinions have the press or my estimated figures inflated the incoming figures of around 16 million ?

Are there any outgoing figures to offset against these figures ?

Do we have any debt that could swallow up these exceptional one off incomings ?

Because of recent events and some of the responses I have received, I can begin to partly answer some of the questions myself.

We now have another full house and televised cup game (Spurs) to add to the exceptional incomings, so I really cant see it being much less than 16 million, someone (Sheppyleedsboy) has suggested we may have also received money for Danny Rose, Ben Gordon and Danny Ward, but no figure was provided.

With regard to the outgoings the last published accounts did mention a figure of 1 million and 76 thousand for player trading ???, We reportedly paid 250 thousand for Bromby, may have paid around the same for Gradel, and have had one off costs for the new scoreboard, all these outgoings may knock the balance down to around 14 million.

With regard to debt the last annual accounts did mention creditors falling due within 1 year 9 million 568 thousand, and a loan from the parent company of 2 million 5 hundred thousand.

If any accountants answer these questions, I can only ask please be as simple as you can with the response. I am only really trying to get a feel for a ballpark figure of what exceptional amounts we have had come in and have gone out or will have to go out.

The figure of 9 million and 568 thousand falling due to creditors within one year is something I would like explaining, as is the loan from the parent company of 2 and a half million, and the statement in the published accounts that we have current liabilities of £3,833,000 is confusing as this figure does not appear in any of the columns. The fifty year debt mentioned from purchasing the club is also a mystery, but if you start quoting ‘tangible and intangible fixed assets and amortisitation of player registrations, you will probably baffle me and most other posters.