Accounts

[Michael Walker]

Exeter are perhaps a more relevant comparator for the Cobblers. Their results came out at the same time as ours..

They also increased their income substantially - and recorded a profit of £182k before tax..aha you might think they're a template for the Cobblers..

But before income from transfer revenues they made an operating loss of a stonking £2,947,134!!!

They are saved by the revenue from player sales of £3.1m but it's a bloody perilous existence..

They've got future revenue of £5m lined up for the future but I wouldn't ever fancy being their finance director..

And as some of you know, there is a kind of 'financial fair play' restriction in place in league 1 called the 'Salary Cost Management Protocol', which is set at 60% for L1.

Exeter's SCMP was only 49% last year but they made that £3m loss before the sale of players, so even the SCMP doesn't stop you making substantial losses.

In my view a great Academy set-up is essential, it keeps Exeter afloat, but clubs need as many different income streams as possible to reduce their core dependency on club performance.

Over the last 3 years, Exeter's cash position has reduced from £3.3m to just £318,000. I wonder what working capital a L1 club needs without an overdraft?

[Michael Walker]

Their external debt poses a significantly bigger risk than ours. In fact it has led to some very worrying times for them in the past. As for them being a more attractive proposition than us. Well, that depends on one thing. Whether or not any potential future owner of NTFC could negotiate the purchase of the stadium for a negligible amount. If that could be achieved, London Road would be very much the lesser proposition.

How would the freehold help the club significantly?

[Manwork04]

How would the freehold help the club significantly?

Because whatever infrastructure improvements made would be owned by the club, it would be an asset on the balance sheet and not a debt.

[Another Pedj]

It can still go on the Balance Sheet as an asset, leasehold improvements. Double entry however requires a credit entry.

[singcobb]

Because whatever infrastructure improvements made would be owned by the club, it would be an asset on the balance sheet and not a debt.

Yes, but the monies needed for said improvements would be a debt.

[Fabbiadini]

In my view a great Academy set-up is essential, it keeps Exeter afloat, but clubs need as many different income streams as possible to reduce their core dependency on club performance.

There's a lot of emotion tied up in local academies, but always feel you're financially better off to instead use that money to pick up one or two discarded graduates from higher divisions and hope they come good in their early 20s.

[Michael Walker]

Because whatever infrastructure improvements made would be owned by the club, it would be an asset on the balance sheet and not a debt.

Capital improvements can go on the balance sheet for any leasehold property and would be treated as any other asset as long as its life didn't exceed the length of the lease.

My understanding is that the club still has a c 130 year lease so I'm sure anything we do on the site can be written off before then.

A question I'd like to know the answer to is the value of Sixfields in the accounts. It was only in the 2014 accounts that approximately £2m of infrastructure assets appeared - was this the start of the East Stand? I think it probably was..

Now the tricky question: could the club choose to re-value the entire Sixfields Stadium and put it on the balance sheet?

I believe it probably can and should. Otherwise, we might end up with the situation that the East Stand is on the balance sheet only, say at £6m, and the rest of the stadium isn't.

It isn't logical and it doesn't reflect the reality on the ground - we have a 4 sided ground!

I'm at the edge of my comfort zone here - IAS 16 is a tricky statement.  I can't think of any reason not to revalue Sixfields at a fair value and it would make our balance sheet look a lot better.

[ I think the transactions would be debit the  asset account for the amount of the increase.

Credit the revaluation surplus account (an equity account) - for the amount of the increase.]

If there are any proper accountants on here (or even James in a non de plume!!!), I'd like to hear the arguments for and against this.

[CobblerForever]

The club would need to approach a professional valuer and that concern would probably point at the club's on-going losses position as a reason not to revalue.

The element the club has spent it's own hard earned money on will be protected by clauses in the agreement between the club and the council (which owns the freehold).

If you were able to revalue and wanted to you would post the debit to Fixed Assets - Revaluation of Leasehold property and the credit to Revaluation Reserves. A Balance Sheet movement. You would then amortise the revaluation over the remaining life of the lease.

[Michael Walker]

The club would need to approach a professional valuer and that concern would probably point at the club's on-going losses position as a reason not to revalue.

The element the club has spent it's own hard earned money on will be protected by clauses in the agreement between the club and the council (which owns the freehold).

If you were able to revalue and wanted to you would post the debit to Fixed Assets - Revaluation of Leasehold property and the credit to Revaluation Reserves. A Balance Sheet movement. You would then amortise the revaluation over the remaining life of the lease.

I can see the valuation issue but as the debt is to the shareholders would this be OK?

Do you think that there's a fair value argument to why revaluation should take place?

It might seem a Gordon Gecko type manoeuvre but I can see it would actually get the balance sheet to reflect more accurately the assets of the club?

If you were the FD for the Cobblers would you revalue Sixfields and put the value on the balance sheet? Of course the value is open to question - I would say it's arguably quite substantial?

[Terryfenwickatemyhamster]

Capital improvements can go on the balance sheet for any leasehold property and would be treated as any other asset as long as its life didn't exceed the length of the lease.

My understanding is that the club still has a c 130 year lease so I'm sure anything we do on the site can be written off before then.

A question I'd like to know the answer to is the value of Sixfields in the accounts. It was only in the 2014 accounts that approximately £2m of infrastructure assets appeared - was this the start of the East Stand? I think it probably was..

Now the tricky question: could the club choose to re-value the entire Sixfields Stadium and put it on the balance sheet?

I believe it probably can and should. Otherwise, we might end up with the situation that the East Stand is on the balance sheet only, say at £6m, and the rest of the stadium isn't.

It isn't logical and it doesn't reflect the reality on the ground - we have a 4 sided ground!

I'm at the edge of my comfort zone here - IAS 16 is a tricky statement.  I can't think of any reason not to revalue Sixfields at a fair value and it would make our balance sheet look a lot better.

[ I think the transactions would be debit the  asset account for the amount of the increase.

Credit the revaluation surplus account (an equity account) - for the amount of the increase.]

If there are any proper accountants on here (or even James in a non de plume!!!), I'd like to hear the arguments for and against this.

I'm sure the club is all ears when it comes to fantasy football accountancy and advice.

The fact that you cited Exeter as a comparison, smacks of the naivety you and a few others throw out, purported as fact. Exeter had significant player sales in the not to distant past, into the millions. On top of this, they were helped out by the University of Exeter in terms of some of their infrastructure projects. Factor this in with the hundreds of matchday volunteers, generated by a "functioning Trust" and you see how they are a country mile away from a comparison to us. They are the poster boy for all of the Trusts, but are not in anyway like them. They are an absolute beacon of how a relationship between a supporters Trust and their members should be. I can tell you, they are a million miles away from the basket case we have.

[Gustavo Palcrice]

I'm sure the club is all ears when it comes to fantasy football accountancy and advice.

The fact that you cited Exeter as a comparison, smacks of the naivety you and a few others throw out, purported as fact. Exeter had significant player sales in the not to distant past, into the millions. On top of this, they were helped out by the University of Exeter in terms of some of their infrastructure projects. Factor this in with the hundreds of matchday volunteers, generated by a "functioning Trust" and you see how they are a country mile away from a comparison to us. They are the poster boy for all of the Trusts, but are not in anyway like them. They are an absolute beacon of how a relationship between a supporters Trust and their members should be. I can tell you, they are a million miles away from the basket case we have.

Anybody got any onions, milk and water to go with this?

[Manwork04]

Capital improvements can go on the balance sheet for any leasehold property and would be treated as any other asset as long as its life didn't exceed the length of the lease.

My understanding is that the club still has a c 130 year lease so I'm sure anything we do on the site can be written off before then.

A question I'd like to know the answer to is the value of Sixfields in the accounts. It was only in the 2014 accounts that approximately £2m of infrastructure assets appeared - was this the start of the East Stand? I think it probably was..

Now the tricky question: could the club choose to re-value the entire Sixfields Stadium and put it on the balance sheet?

I believe it probably can and should. Otherwise, we might end up with the situation that the East Stand is on the balance sheet only, say at £6m, and the rest of the stadium isn't.

It isn't logical and it doesn't reflect the reality on the ground - we have a 4 sided ground!

I'm at the edge of my comfort zone here - IAS 16 is a tricky statement.  I can't think of any reason not to revalue Sixfields at a fair value and it would make our balance sheet look a lot better.

[ I think the transactions would be debit the  asset account for the amount of the increase.

Credit the revaluation surplus account (an equity account) - for the amount of the increase.]

If there are any proper accountants on here (or even James in a non de plume!!!), I'd like to hear the arguments for and against this.

You seem to have the same accountant as Rachel from accounts, the reason the rest of the stadium can’t be put on the balance sheet is because the council built the rest of it with tax payers money.

[BedsCobb]

Are we talking about teams that actually went bust? or teams that just got relegated from the league for being sh1t. Teams obviously go into administration and can get a points penalty but looking at clubs who actually got wound up, the ones that spring to mind are Bury, Darlington, Hereford, Halifax, Macclesfield, Maidstone, Scarborough and Chester.

Diddy little clubs that were over achieving but now found their natural homes.

[BedsCobb]

So you would be happy if we ended up non league, as long as the owners had 'flown to close to the sun' and build the stadium you have mentioned once or twice?

If we were guaranteed say developing a 12000 seater stadium, spending 3 seasons in the championship followed by...2 quick relegations followed by a 3 season recovery...Yes, I would very much prefer that to spending another 20 years with Cardoza/Thomas like,  land aquiring owners forcing us to tread water in a non league standard ground without any future ambition, just making up the numbers bouncing from L1 to  the basement division forever more.
Totally bored with the current Cobblers set up...
Several boxes and 100 seats for am astronomical £5.8m...
Enjoy...

[Michael Walker]

I'm sure the club is all ears when it comes to fantasy football accountancy and advice.

The fact that you cited Exeter as a comparison, smacks of the naivety you and a few others throw out, purported as fact. Exeter had significant player sales in the not to distant past, into the millions. On top of this, they were helped out by the University of Exeter in terms of some of their infrastructure projects. Factor this in with the hundreds of matchday volunteers, generated by a "functioning Trust" and you see how they are a country mile away from a comparison to us. They are the poster boy for all of the Trusts, but are not in anyway like them. They are an absolute beacon of how a relationship between a supporters Trust and their members should be. I can tell you, they are a million miles away from the basket case we have.

I agree with everything you say about Exeter - they are a beacon of a club.

I'm not sure how you can draw the inference you have about any naivety. I think that's about 180 degrees from the intention of my post.

Exeter are one of the very few clubs that publish enough data for someone to use to look at the Cobblers in better detail.

And my point was that despite all of the advantages that Exeter have, that they still lost c£3m before player trading and their cash position has changed substantially over the last 3 years.

My post wasn't saying 'look the Cobblers could be like Exeter if it wasn't for the owners'. It said the opposite.

It was saying that even an extremely well run club is having difficulties maintaining its financial self sustainability in these unprecedentedly difficult financial times.

It does appear that any post by a Trust director makes dialogue very difficult because you get accused of naivety etc when you make some any kind of comment.

How you can possibly read into my post the points you make, let alone call me naive is genuinely beyond me. 'Fantasy football accountancy' - where does this rudeness come from?

[The point about the stadium revaluation is arguably esoteric as it doesn't change the balance sheet but it does arguably make the balance sheet more representative of the reality on the ground].

And what adds to the hilarity is that this same post generated an email that was furious in its criticism for me apparently knocking Exeters success.

I think people need to read the post and stop fighting battles that I'm neither part of or have any interest in taking part in.

Many football clubs accounts came out on March 31st; they all tell a very similar story. The question is how to keep professional football going for our grandchildren?

I've never questioned anyone's competence on here and I'm not sure how you can question mine either. You can question the assumptions, the hypothesis or the conclusion, but using pejorative adjectives makes me question why you do?

I

[Melbourne Cobbler]

Diddy little clubs that were over achieving but now found their natural homes.

Bit like you with the barge.

[CobblerForever]

Regarding the significant losses being posted by so many football league clubs;

How about reintroducing a maximum wage dependent on the League the club is in (you could add a "bonus" factor for performance). You could limit the amount per player and limit squads to say 24 1st Teamers you can pick on match day.

This would have the effect of;

Evening out the resources effect of sides like Birmingham City and Wrexham.

Actually generate income/profits for the clubs to spend on their stadia and surrounding infrastructure facilities.

Help to enable the development of lads for the future.


The Premier League can do what it wants.


Apologies in advance to Jimmy Hill (RIP) and the PFA. It's good for the game in it's present form.

[Michael Walker]

Regarding the significant losses being posted by so many football league clubs;

How about reintroducing a maximum wage dependent on the League the club is in (you could add a "bonus" factor for performance). You could limit the amount per player and limit squads to say 24 1st Teamers you can pick on match day.

This would have the effect of;

Evening out the resources effect of sides like Birmingham City and Wrexham.

Actually generate income/profits for the clubs to spend on their stadia and surrounding infrastructure facilities.

Help to enable the development of lads for the future.


The Premier League can do what it wants.


Apologies in advance to Jimmy Hill (RIP) and the PFA. It's good for the game in it's present form.

I hear the wailing from here..'games gone communist'..

I think the problem of a maximum wage is that to be effective it would be set quite low (Exeter's SCMP% was only 49%) but they lost £3m before player trading income.

So there would be lots of unspent revenue that could go to the players - I don't want to stop them earning what clubs can afford to pay them, just what they can't afford..

So how about a statutory or mandatory requirement to break-even over 3 years?

Equity can be invested by owners into infrastructure and players provided that it is fully provided up front.

For clubs who fail to comply with the break even requirement Commissioners could be sent into run the club. For the first offence the Commissioners hand the club back. For the second it's sold.

Is this too drastic? Possibly,  but the SCMP has failed to curb the losses so what else can?

I'd be interested to know what you think? There is an argument that almost all clubs bumble along and survive, but I think these losses are of a magnitude that makes it significantly more likely that some won't/can't?

[Tabasco Kid]

I hear the wailing from here..'games gone communist'..

I think the problem of a maximum wage is that to be effective it would be set quite low (Exeter's SCMP% was only 49%) but they lost £3m before player trading income.

So there would be lots of unspent revenue that could go to the players - I don't want to stop them earning what clubs can afford to pay them, just what they can't afford..

So how about a statutory or mandatory requirement to break-even over 3 years?

Equity can be invested by owners into infrastructure and players provided that it is fully provided up front.

For clubs who fail to comply with the break even requirement Commissioners could be sent into run the club. For the first offence the Commissioners hand the club back. For the second it's sold.

Is this too drastic? Possibly,  but the SCMP has failed to curb the losses so what else can?

I'd be interested to know what you think? There is an argument that almost all clubs bumble along and survive, but I think these losses are of a magnitude that makes it significantly more likely that some won't/can't?

Chickenfeed compared to Colchester.

https://x.com/KieranMaguire/status/1908029497649070251

[Michael Walker]

Chickenfeed compared to Colchester.

https://x.com/KieranMaguire/status/1908029497649070251

I'd not seen Colchesters, thanks. I'd like to know what the owners strategy is?

Do you think that clubs will muddle on with new owners willing to fund these losses or are they getting too much?