Annual Accounts Released | Page 3 | Vital Football

Annual Accounts Released

Realistically though the club is in a difficult position without investment, how can we improve off field income?
 
That figure definitely isn't fees paid. We paid for four(?) in that period - Pett, Freck, Bostwick and Anderson.

Pett had six months left on his deal and the other three has clubs who were happy to let them leave.
 
Luke Imp said:
That figure definitely isn't fees paid. We paid for four(?) in that period - Pett, Freck, Bostwick and Anderson.

Pett had six months left on his deal and the other three has clubs who were happy to let them leave.
Click to expand...

Previous reports suggest Bostwick and Anderson came together for a six figure sum (I've read £150k) Pett was £50k and I think Frecks also attracted a small fee. If signing on fees are say 10 per cent of a transfer fee, and agents fees are another 10 per cent, we're looking at what, £250,000-£300,000? Nowhere near the sum in the accounts.

I'd wager that the Cowleys got substantially improved terms, but even that wouldn't take us near the figure.

Where's the money?!
 
NottyImp said:
Does anybody actually, really, understand accounts? :lol:
Click to expand...

Ultimately mate, has been said many times on here, cash flow is king. Many businesses go bust that are profitable on paper, but if they don’t have cash to pay the bills this month and next they will end up insolvent. Take Leeds, they borrowed against 10 years worth of season ticket money to fund players on the assumtion that they would be top four and guarantee CL money, didn’t make it and ran out of cash the following year.
 
When Clive came on board and promised a six figure investment every year (I'm paraphrasing) - and since then several other investors have appeared - no point in them doing it if we weren't going to spend it. Ergo we were going to make a trading loss, otherwise we're just putting their money in the bank.
On the 'transfer' fees. Does it explicitly say it is for players? Just trying to think of what else could be included
 
Red Wimp said:
When Clive came on board and promised a six figure investment every year (I'm paraphrasing) - and since then several other investors have appeared - no point in them doing it if we weren't going to spend it. Ergo we were going to make a trading loss, otherwise we're just putting their money in the bank.
On the 'transfer' fees. Does it explicitly say it is for players? Just trying to think of what else could be included
Click to expand...

I think the 10% "agents fees" is not quite understanding how agents have changed the model in the modern era. Some agents fees end up pricing their player out. Some ask as high as 50%!!!

There have been lots of transfers (not saying any were Lincoln) that ended up falling through despite player and club agreeing because the agent fee was crazy.

Also players in contract still have agents and often that agent will get more fees when contract extensions are made.
 
graemetheexile said:
...If signing on fees are say 10 per cent of a transfer fee, and agents fees are another 10 per cent, we're looking at what, £250,000-£300,000? Nowhere near the sum in the accounts.

I'd wager that the Cowleys got substantially improved terms, but even that wouldn't take us near the figure.

Where's the money?!
Click to expand...

Players who are at the end of their existing contracts or allowed to find another club can negotiate their own signing on fee. In effect it takes the place of a transfer fee. Players in demand are in a position to auction themselves like this.

And clubs who don't want to bust their own wage structure often use signing on fees as a means of securing a player who would otherwise command a bigger wage from a rival club, for example.
 
anyone know why the new director bought 144k shares in LCFC, as well as 200k in the holding company? i thought one fed directly into the other
 
I feel we must have thrown more costs into transfers than just transfer fees. I'd expect many agent fees and costs relating to contract renewals included.
 
nlondonimp said:
anyone know why the new director bought 144k shares in LCFC, as well as 200k in the holding company? i thought one fed directly into the other
Click to expand...

Russell Clarke made a new investment of £20,000 into Lincoln City Holdings which is 200,000 shares. The 144,900 shares ( £72,450) in LCFC is his existing holding .Shares in LCFC have a nominal value of 50p per share,LCH 10p per share.
 
57harry said:
Russell Clarke made a new investment of £20,000 into Lincoln City Holdings which is 200,000 shares. The 144,900 shares ( £72,450) in LCFC is his existing holding .Shares in LCFC have a nominal value of 50p per share,LCH 10p per share.
Click to expand...

Looking through the companies House records it looks like Russell Clarkes investment was £100,000 and not £20,000. 200,000 shares were purchased,nominal value 10p each but 50p per share was paid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.