As I said, I'm no accountant but I think loan repayments aren't in the P&L so don't affect profitability, only loan interest is. Plus there needs to be a corresponding entry to the reduction in the debt in the BS so the funds must come from somewhere.

I can't believe our accountant in residence isn't around to clarify

Bl00dy hell, Jake, can't a woman have a lie-in on a Sunday morning?



If you look at our balance sheet since 2004, the movements are as follows. I've stripped out player valuations:


Change
Tangible Fixed Assets 333
Stocks 69
Debtors -389
Cash 289
Creditors < 1 Year 1,037
Creditors > 1 Year -276
Net Assets 1,063

Share Capital 21
Share Premium 0
Revaluation Reserve (exc Player valuations) 280
P&L Reserve 762
Shareholders Funds 1,063

So you're right in that essentially the increase in the P&L reserves essentially mirrors the movement on total creditors. We never get a breakdown of the creditors number as the accounts are abbreviated so don't get the visibility on loan movements you would in full accounts.

What does all that mean in layman's terms then?

Mrs. B and Kath are robbing us blind.

It means that by making profit, we've reduced our liabilities. There is nothing in the accounts to show how much of this is due to the directors, but Rule has said the directors' loans have been repaid. I'm not really sure what your point is. The directors loaned the club money. The club has made some money since and it sounds like the directors loans have been repaid.

If only I [uwere[/u chairwoman..

His point was that the profit has paid the directors off? I think. Which is why I said they wouldn't reduce their personal asset with money they are owed anyway as profit. At least it would seem silly to me.

As it stands though the valuation of the business from a strict accounting net worth perspective is next to nothing. Adjusting for the player valutions, the business actually has net liabilities of around £100k (although this is far stronger than in 2004 when the net liabilities were £1.2m). If they wanted to sell, the asking price is determined by the directors as they are the shareholders, but would include things like the future earnings potential of the club, which is obviously entirely subjective, especially given falling attendances which should be a big concern. Kath etc would know, though, that it's most likely that any interested party would pay a premium as they are likely to be a fan. The situation at present with non club fans on the board is pretty unique in SL.

As I said on another thread, Kath values her "goodwill" in the business far too high for anyone to realistically want to invest.

Sounds like that is exactly the case. If she, for whatever reason, wants to stay put (and keep FC in our place, i.e. one less threat to Leeds

) she's in the driving seat (of her vehicle with the Rhinos numberplate

). Seriously, if there were any suitors of FC they are highly likely to be fans as there is no business case really to invest in any RL club. The value of the club must be reducing though with performances and attendances on the slide.

Some would call you a cynic.



What's the alternative? We end up with a fan at the helm overspending and relying on rich fans to underwrite it. Sound familiar?



My god, what a position to be in.

Basically still balance sheet insolvent with reducing income