£2.8m annual loss

£38k transfer fee receivable... IB????

Contingent player sale income reduced by £519k ( may relate to sale of Cal Roberts, on sold by Aberdeen to Scunthorpe)???

Ian Burchnall's leaving could be the biggest bank heist for our club, it would be interesting to find out if he did leave us for FGR for £38k. That's far too much for him.

Yikes! More proof, if any was needed, that running the operation we were in the National League was NOT sustainable. It's a good job the owners plugged the gap and kept us in the manner to which we are accustomed, otherwise we'd have had to make big cuts and may well have ended up treading water like so many former League clubs down there. Hopefully the numbers will look a little rosier with the bigger crowds, TV money and other things we get as a League club, but we're a loooong way from being sustainable financially.

The statement isn't very detailed, so we can only speculate about some things, but I'd guess the 38k was the fee received for Ian Burchnall. But it's also possible that some of it is for IB, and the rest is a sell-on fee for Cal Roberts?

If you're interested, it's the latest document at the following link: https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/04789632/filing-history

Is £2.8 million bad for a club of our size? With that kind of loss, it makes you more thankful that our owners keep investing. They are balancing things quite well rather than just trying to break even. Hopefully, we can bring it down.

At the end of the day we have player assets at the club that are pretty valuable at this time.

I hope that we don't have to sell those assets, but that will always be an option if needed.

I believe the brothers have the club's finances well in control anyway.

 

@OoooooTommy Think the bank heist has just increased with LW move to Swansea

@DangerousSausage "But it's also possible that some of it is for IB, and the rest is a sell-on fee for Cal Roberts?" I'm sure Aberdeen took a net loss on Cal Roberts, as sell on fees tend to be structured on the "profit" element of the sell on price. Look at Note #11, "Contingent Asset", a write down of £519,000 which I presume also relates in part (or in whole?) to Cal

Don't forget to file Wrexham AFC accounts @Dry Nelson Ray !!!

Would the lease commitments be on the training ground?

 

8 hours ago, Piethagoram said:

 

We didn't make this loss in League Two, we were in the National League during the reporting period. That is significant because there is little difference in wages, but in League Two the club makes a seven-figure sum from TV money, grants and more.

A lot of the other stuff is little better than guesswork to be honest. Any interest on the loans due to the owners would be academic, as they'll simply try to get as much of that money back from the next owners when they sell the club. The last two owners did the same thing. 

The Reedtz have spoken about how important promotion back to the English Football League was; there's no doubt that they have been creating a steady ship. The amount reported isn't that bad for a club of our size, but it would have become worse in time had we not gained promotion last season. It could have easily led to us being forced to sell players as a means to recoup the losses.

In regard to the financial side, there are not a lot of clubs can do in terms of being self-sufficient.

It could also increase if we gain promotion to League One.

The main thing to take away is being incredibly thankful for our owners, because it's them that is trying to make the biggest difference.

The debts mentioned are simply funds our owners have invested in the club to keep the finances in check. It’s termed as a debt, but I suspect they won’t recoup the money unless Notts are sold to wealthier individuals. That said, it’s a bit off the point I was making. Fans may fret when they see the figures, but it’s not as dire as it seems. I have faith that our owners will keep supporting the club as we aim to ascend the ranks.