|
|
Post by hhsussex on Feb 26, 2015 15:28:39 GMT
Either you accept accounting standards or you don't. Well a lot of counties don't , in that case, because a considerable number of them do not follow this practice. As for falsely inflating share values in the casino economy, most county clubs are constituted as friendly societies, so hardly an applicable analogy? Those counties who do not - Somerset is an example - find that their accounts are qualified by their auditors. That may have implications for their future borrowing, and might deter investors from entering joint partnership developments with them, because of the conflict over declaring the status of the enterprise. That applies whether the company is an I and P , as Sussex is, or a limited company, partnership or any other sort of enterprise. A good reform for Graves and his team to consider when rebranding the toxic ECB would be to insist on proper accounting standards being used by beneficiaries of loans and grants, on pain of not receiving them. That might rattle a few skeletons. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2015 15:43:14 GMT
I still don't see anything wrong with announcing an EBITDA figure, as Someset, Glamorgan, Kent and others do. And it doesn't seem to stop them borrowing ...and borrowing... borrowing some more ...then being granted an easement when they can't honour their debts!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2015 16:12:54 GMT
Another unreliably notional aspect of depreciation and which leaves it wide open to manipulation is that the write-down period over which fixed assets are depreciated can be arbitrary.
Why does Colin Graves's Yorkshire, for example, depreciate the Carnegie Pavilion over a 125 years period but other buildings at Headingley are depreciated over 50 years? Yorkshire have created a quite different bottom line to their 2014 accounts simply by saying, "we won't replace the pavilion in 2064, we'll leave it until 2139."
No wonder they call accountancy the black art... a case of ask an accountant what the bottom line is and he will reply, 'what do you want it to be?'
(I also looked up Yorks debt to Graves while I was looking at the above and the figures are eye-watering: £4.5 million personal loan and another £5.6 million from the Graves Family Trust.)
|
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Feb 26, 2015 17:31:35 GMT
Another unreliably notional aspect of depreciation and which leaves it wide open to manipulation is that the write-down period over which fixed assets are depreciated can be arbitrary. Why does Colin Graves's Yorkshire, for example, depreciate the Carnegie Pavilion over a 125 years period but other buildings at Headingley are depreciated over 50 years? Yorkshire have created a quite different bottom line to their 2014 accounts simply by saying, "we won't replace the pavilion in 2064, we'll leave it until 2139." No wonder they call accountancy the black art... a case of ask an accountant what the bottom line is and he will reply, 'what do you want it to be?' (I also looked up Yorks debt to Graves while I was looking at the above and the figures are eye-watering: £4.5 million personal loan and another £5.6 million from the Graves Family Trust.) Really, BM - I don't think you should be using an old joke to justify your continuing rejection of the principle involved here! I see that you find Yorkshire's depreciation policy weird - so do I, by the way. However, by having to disclose the depreciation policy in the accounts, it enables all of us to apply our own judgement on those accounts. BTW, did the auditors qualify the accounts re the 125 year depreciation period? |
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Feb 26, 2015 17:31:44 GMT
www.sussexcricket.co.uk/news-1/accounts-sussex-announce-operating-surplusSo pleased the Club are emphasising their EBITDA surplus of £122k with an operating income up 4% to £5.7m (2013; £5.4m). So much better than seeing a headline of £418,000 LOSS. This augurs well for 2015 given the Club believe £100k was lost to a terrible fixture list as the Ashes knock-on affect should benefit all the 18 counties.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2015 10:38:16 GMT
Here's what I'd suggest if I was a marketing consulatant to Sussex.
Make all tkts £1 and free for under-16s at the last 50 overs cup game v Essex on August 19.
Market it heavily, put on additional youth-oriented entertainment and pack as many kids on school holidays into the ground as possible.
Launch the 2016 membership offer on that day and give every spectator an application form, offering free membership to under-16s when accompanied by an application for a full-price adult season ticket.
The £15 Sharks membership offer would remain for kids whose parents did not purchase an accompanying adult membership.
Membership of county cricket clubs is ageing and dying and as we fade away, we are not being replaced. Sussex membership was down 10 per cent last season to 2,700. Unless the club comes up with a series of attractive initiatives - of which the above might be just one example - I will bet my shirt that by next season the figure will have dipped below 2,500.
|
|
|
|
Post by lovelyboy on Feb 27, 2015 15:59:59 GMT
Is there really only 2700 members? Wow that is worrying
|
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Feb 27, 2015 16:11:52 GMT
Is there really only 2700 members? Wow that is worrying In the 2014 Annual Report and Statement of Accounts, Note12: As at 31st October 2014 , 2756 Ordinary Shares of 5p each ("Each member of the club is allotted one Ordinary Share of 5p each..") |
|
|
|
Post by lovelyboy on Feb 27, 2015 16:24:52 GMT
Is there really only 2700 members? Wow that is worrying In the 2014 Annual Report and Statement of Accounts, Note12: As at 31st October 2014 , 2756 Ordinary Shares of 5p each ("Each member of the club is allotted one Ordinary Share of 5p each..") Thanks HH, do you know if that includes all members (juniors, t20 members etc) or is it just premier members? |
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Feb 27, 2015 16:27:15 GMT
In the 2014 Annual Report and Statement of Accounts, Note12: As at 31st October 2014 , 2756 Ordinary Shares of 5p each ("Each member of the club is allotted one Ordinary Share of 5p each..") Thanks HH, do you know if that includes all members (juniors, t20 members etc) or is it just premier members? I'd have to check the Rules, but I think that voting members are those from Standard upwards, not Junior members. On Edit: "Every Member of whatever category (other than “Martlet” and Junior Members and any other Members under the age of eighteen) shall hold one share and no more in the capital of the Club. No person who is not a Member shall be issued with a share." |
|
|
|
Post by rickyxx on Feb 27, 2015 16:33:40 GMT
For the past few years several of us have bought executive membership which have to be bought in pairs, don't know if these are counted as a single share or as 2,4 or 6 members etc? Perhaps Jim can let us know if this may account for the reduction in members shares.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2015 19:02:07 GMT
Here's what I'd suggest if I was a marketing consulatant to Sussex. Make all tkts £1 and free for under-16s at the last 50 overs cup game v Essex on August 19. Market it heavily, put on additional youth-oriented entertainment and pack as many kids on school holidays into the ground as possible. Launch the 2016 membership offer on that day and give every spectator an application form, offering free membership to under-16s when accompanied by an application for a full-price adult season ticket. The £15 Sharks membership offer would remain for kids whose parents did not purchase an accompanying adult membership. Membership of county cricket clubs is ageing and dying and as we fade away, we are not being replaced. Sussex membership was down 10 per cent last season to 2,700. Unless the club comes up with a series of attractive initiatives - of which the above might be just one example - I will bet my shirt that by next season the figure will have dipped below 2,500. I should add that this is not my own thinking, but is totally modelled on the strategy of Charlton Athletic, who have reduced all ticket prices to a fiver for tomorrow's game at the Valley v Chris Powell's Huddersfield and thus sold 26,000 tkts instead of the usual 15,000 with a quite brilliant marketing campaign (which included e-mailing the entirety of the Kent CCC data base). Most of the 11,000 non-regulars who have bought tkts for tomorrow are families taking advantage of the cut-price deal and Charlton are using the occasion to launch their 2015-16 season ticket offer, which includes a targetted campaign of free season tickets for all kids if one adult in the family purchases a full price season ticket. |
|
|
|
Post by southwestcorner on Feb 27, 2015 22:18:44 GMT
Are there any other brilliant marketing campaigns that you could recommend from Charlton Athletic?  |
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Feb 28, 2015 12:00:42 GMT
Having followed hhs eloquent explanation of 'depreciation' I am still a little baffled as to why some counties are allowed to offer
their EBITDA as the accepted and headline accounts summary, while others flagellate themselves and put on a hair shirt to gain
the wrath of their Members and the ridicule of the media by using depreciation as their headline.
Which is better? Tell the media and Members that Sussex have made £122k surplus with an operating income up 4% to £5.7m
(2013; £5.4m). Or a dark headline stating that Sussex made a £418,000 LOSS. I apologise to the Club for stating last November
that I believed these 2014 accounts would be "ugly", because I was basing my assumptions on previous accounts and not taking
into account 'depreciation'. In fact, my assumption on face value is correct and that is how a majority of people will view it too.
In fact, I had my 95 year-old father on the phone this week, a Life Member since the mid 1950s, upset after reading the Members
accounts, asking why had Sussex made such a big loss - again - and was the club going to the wall?
Therefore, why should Somerset gain all the plaudits from their supporters and local media for headlining their EBITDA and
not Sussex? Sorry, but this still makes little sense and why, surely, the ECB must force a standardised accounting practice for all
the 18 counties, particularly when the majority are using the £1m each to improve their ground.
|
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Feb 28, 2015 12:41:59 GMT
Having followed hhs eloquent explanation of 'depreciation' I am still a little baffled as to why some counties are allowed to offer their EBITDA as the accepted and headline accounts summary, while others flagellate themselves and put on a hair shirt to gain the wrath of their Members and the ridicule of the media by using depreciation as their headline. Which is better? Tell the media and Members that Sussex have made £122k surplus with an operating income up 4% to £5.7m (2013; £5.4m). Or a dark headline stating that Sussex made a £418,000 LOSS. I apologise to the Club for stating last November that I believed these 2014 accounts would be "ugly", because I was basing my assumptions on previous accounts and not taking into account 'depreciation'. In fact, my assumption on face value is correct and that is how a majority of people will view it too. Therefore, why should Somerset gain all the plaudits from their supporters and local media for headlining their EBITDA and not Sussex? Sorry, but this still makes little sense and why, surely, the ECB must force standardised accounts for all the 18 counties, particularly when the majority are using the £1m each to improve their ground. Compliance with accepted depreciation methods is in fact 'standardised' There are Accounting Standards, which, if breached (Somerset for example) result in the auditors qualifying their report on the grounds that the accounts do not show a 'true and fair view'. Non-accountants are often not aware of the qualification; they are fed the EBITDA figure by the club, are assured that the club made a cash profit, and that one shouldn't get too worried about accountants' techspeak.  It is common for CEOs to announce the highest line in the profit and loss account that they can get away with. That isn't misleading in itself, provided that it's clear that it's an EBITDA (or whatever other line is being quoted) and provided that the public understands what's going on. I don't like EBITDA - why should you not deduct interest and taxes in arriving at the profit - or loss! Sussex made a loss last year - they didn't generate enough operating profit to cover the depreciation charge. One year on its own isn't fatal, but if this pattern continued over the years, then the club wouldn't have the funds to carry out ground refurbishments - unless they borrow the money or another fairy godfather comes along. BTW, it isn't just the depreciation of the ground that's relevant here. The depreciation charge on 'fixtures and equipment' was 115,000 last year, and that just about wipes out the EBITDA of 122,000. Fixtures and equipment (especially IT stuff) has to be updated fairly regularly these days. It is not unusual for companies to prey on the public's lack of accounting knowledge when making profit announcements. For example, when the income for the year includes a one off or non recurring item, companies are tempted not to highlight this point in their announcements, although the accounts will normally reveal this quite clearly. On the other hand, where there has been exceptional expenditure which has deflated the profit, then bet your life that profit announcements will encourage us to focus on the profit before deducting this item. So we have to be careful about comparing one county's results with another. We could read all their accounts and make a reasoned comparison, but even those with the necessary skills have probably got better things to do! If the ECB ( new non toxic version) wanted to standardise all counties' profit announcements, the counties may well convince their 'masters' that it's too complicated, and that each county can anyway be judged by a study of its accounts. |
|
