Donald Mouse? Is that an erroneous mixture of the duck and Mickey? 

Cheers
Alec

On 14/09/2012, at 8:57 AM, "Richard Naef" <[email protected]> 
wrote:

> fascinating reading, sees that the business is in good health, BUT cash flow
> is a problem and the audit seems to be a bit dodgy, also a interesting
> reason why the due diligence might be taking a bit longer, basically the
> ridiculously large list of companies with a finger in our pie;
> 
> 
> 
> Leeds United - Financial Analysis 2012
> 
> Further to comments from Ken Bates that the club “will continue to be run
> along proper lines,” we have undertaken a review of the financial situation
> at Leeds United. Following on from the latest cash analysis last week, the
> report below is based upon the views of independent football expert Rob
> Wilson and our own finance experts. The subjects covered are by no means
> exhaustive, but help to highlight the overall state of the financial
> situation at the club.
> 
> 2011 Audited Accounts
> 
> Further to our discovery of errors in the audited accounts Rob Wilson
> commented that, “I found your findings concerning,” and, “Your claims expose
> some, to be frank, poor attention to detail on behalf of the auditors and do
> not fill me with confidence in the firm.” Both ourselves and Rob welcomed
> the news that the accounts are to be revised by the auditors and
> resubmitted, and look forward to seeing the restated accounts once the
> errors have been investigated.
> 
> Nevertheless Rob Wilson stood by his original comments upon first reading
> these accounts, which was that they indicated “good news from a business
> point of view.”
> 
> While he believes the club was running well financially he made it clear
> that investment in playing staff is vital if Leeds are to progress in the
> coming years. He commented that, “There is a degree of balance that is
> needed and while it is good that the financial position is good I do believe
> that there is flexibility now to be more aggressive in the transfer market.”
> He expressed disappointment at the lack of any significant activity in the
> transfer market as he believes Leeds United have the resources to achieve
> this. Echoing our own Vision Statement he stated that, “I would expect the
> breakdown of expenditure to be more heavily focused on the football and
> first team squad side of the business as opposed to other things,” adding
> further that, “Leeds is one of the most well and actively supported clubs in
> English football and while a degree of concentration on mainstream
> opportunities, e.g. real estate etc, is helpful to diversify a portfolio
> your core business activity must be that of football and achieving on the
> field of play.” Both Rob and ourselves feel that the concentration should be
> on football as our main business activity, the core of the club.
> 
> Wages and Wage Ratios
> 
> Getting into the detail, Rob Wilson commented that the club’s wages to
> turnover ratio of 51% is outstanding and the club have an enviable position
> throughout the league system with very few clubs in a better position than
> this. The positivity of the ratio is not something that we disagree with,
> but for it to truly be envied as a business performance measure, success on
> the field must be coupled with it.
> 
> Unfortunately this great financial achievement meant that we only finished
> 14th last season, so it is unlikely that Reading and Southampton, while only
> managing to attain ratios of 90% & 100%, looked down on us from their
> promotion spots with much envy; nor would Norwich the season before with an
> 80% ratio. We do not advocate spending beyond our means to achieve the goal
> of promotion like these clubs have done; we are not in the fortunate
> position of having owners such as they do that have kept them afloat with
> cash injections.
> 
> However, what we have that no other club in the Championship has, is a huge
> and loyal supporter base, which means we are among the top (if not the top)
> income generators in the division. Unlike the majority of clubs, we could
> compete with the top six spenders on wages without having to jeopardise good
> business practices and while maintaining wages ratios that would continue to
> be the envy of all around us. Rob Wilson agreed with our analysis that a 60%
> ratio is sustainable.
> 
> On our current turnover, this would allow the club to spend up to £20m on
> wages (we spent £16m in 2011), which would put us firmly in the top six for
> this division. The importance of this statistic is that Deloitte’s analysis
> of the Championship (as part of their widely regarded annual football
> review) has demonstrated that to be in with the best chance of promotion
> from the Championship to the Premier League, a team has to be among the top
> wage six spenders in the league. Of course there are other factors involved,
> as the spending has to be on the right players, but in Neil Warnock we have
> a tried and trusted campaigner with years of experience, so if he were given
> a top six budget we are sure our odds for promotion would be even better
> than Deloitte’s suggest.
> 
> Profits
> 
> Rob Wilson suggested to us that the 3% profit before tax margin shown in the
> last set of accounts fairs really well in the context of the league. He
> stated that, “I am certain that Leeds supporters will be one of the few to
> see their club make a positive return.” We agree with this view, however, we
> also feel that it masks the reality of our situation.
> 
> Obviously the above return was made as a result of the very prudent staff
> costs and we agree that very few clubs make a profit. Therefore, the
> immediate thought is that increasing the staff costs will result in losses.
> However, when we look into the detail once more what we see is a club that
> manages its staff costs very tightly, but allows other areas of cost to
> spiral out of control. Back in April this year Shaun Harvey admitted under
> oath at Leeds County Court that, “we are spending a fortune on legal fees”;
> our own analysis confirmed that R M Taylor alone received in the region of
> £1.5m for legal fees over a three year period between 2007-2010, and we can
> only imagine how much more has been paid to other legal firms. We believe
> that these costs were unnecessary and would have allowed the club to
> increase its staff cost budgets if they did not exist.
> 
> When looking at profits the other major influence is revenue. Based on the
> drop in average attendances and what we are being told by our 8,000 members,
> we conservatively estimate that the club is losing around £2.5m in lost
> ticket and merchandise sales due to supporters staying away or refusing to
> spend money on club products until they know that this money will be spent
> on the team. At a 60% turnover ratio, this would equate to a further £1.5m
> available in the staff cost budget.
> 
> Building / Investment in Non Core Activities
> 
> As a recurring theme throughout both Rob Wilson’s and our own analysis we
> can see that investment in building work has taken priority over the
> football team. We both agree that, while investment in assets is important,
> it should not happen to the detriment of the first team squad. Our analysis
> showed that from the exit of Administration up to the date of the last
> audited accounts (30 June 2011) the club has committed to spending £16.1m on
> building and improvements to facilities, while spending £7m on acquiring
> players, having received £13m on the sale of players. So, it would appear
> that the profits from player sales are being reinvested in building work
> with the argument being that we are building future revenue streams. We have
> had no indication of when these streams will start to benefit the first
> team, but we do know that the club has had to take out a loan of £5m to be
> paid off over the next two seasons, and to sell preference shares for £3.2m
> in order to pay for these future streams. From this we can conclude that it
> is unlikely that any benefit will be seen for at least two more seasons.
> While trying to regain our top flight status, this decision seems a little
> premature at best.
> 
> Cash
> 
> Cash is king in any business, as businesses that do fail or get into trouble
> often do so as a result of lack of cash; this is why we felt it was
> important to produce the special cash report first.
> 
> Having shared our report with Rob Wilson before publication he admitted
> after reading the results that, “The cash analysis that you've done concerns
> me.” Commenting that, “the assumptions seem sound,” he further agreed with
> our own conclusions that Leeds United would either have to sell players,
> obtain further loans or find outside investment if the club were to continue
> as a going concern. Wilson added that, “based on business principles, to
> survive a business needs to ensure that a) the selling price is higher than
> the cost and b) it can pay its debts as they fall due.” He stated that, “The
> club needs to sell more tickets and attract better sponsorship. To do this
> you need some more team investment and, in my opinion, a better more
> associated relationship with the fans.” Wilson heeded the warning of
> Southampton as an example, where Rupert Lowe fell out of favour for similar
> reasons to those that exist at Leeds United and the fans started to turn.
> “The new board has done things differently, won the favour of the fans and
> they are now in the EPL.”
> 
> As a final comment Wilson warned, “I'm not a fan of borrowing against future
> season ticket sales. The method has been proven to fail in the wrong hands -
> look at Rangers. Let's hope that the arrangements at Leeds are more
> supportive and do not destabilise the financial position.”
> 
> We did not ask Wilson to comment on this, but the reported cash from the
> Snodgrass transfer being paid to Close Leasing Limited would further support
> the concern that we raised about where our money is going in the cash
> analysis. According to our contacts, the club sold part of the Snodgrass fee
> to Close Leasing in return for immediately available funds. This would
> suggest that no funds were immediately available (as there is obviously a
> cost associated with this transaction, it would not make business sense to
> assign the debt if it was) and that this cash was required in order to
> fulfil the transfer activities that have taken place over the summer. As we
> mentioned the club is likely to have received nearly half their usual annual
> budget by the end of August, therefore having to sell off future transfer
> income on top of this is very concerning.
> 
> To further support the cash concerns we have also learnt that Neil Warnock
> has been refused permission to sign two top loan targets that he had lined
> up; our understanding is that he was told there is insufficient cash
> available for him to get the players he wanted.
> 
> With all the loans and share sales we are hearing about, it is even more
> concerning to discover that our sister companies have all received financial
> assistance from the club that we believe are still outstanding at this time.
> As at the end of the accounting period 30 June 2011, these amounts were
> reported as follows:
> 
> *    £1.6m loaned to Yorkshire Radio Limited
> *    £2.7m Loaned to Leeds United Centenary Pavilion Limited
> *    £255k Loaned to Leeds United Media Limited
> 
> This totals nearly £4.6m, which makes us wonder whether, if it had been
> repaid, we would still have needed to borrow £5m from future season ticket
> sales. We are unsure if further assistance has been provided to any of these
> companies since this date.
> 
> The Takeover?
> 
> As we all know this process has appeared to drag on forever, however when
> you look at a few facts it is not too difficult to understand why it might
> take longer than other clubs to complete.
> 
> Due Diligence
> 
> Due Diligence is a complex process and delays often occur as a result of the
> findings. The situation at Leeds United makes it more complex than at most
> other football clubs due to the sheer volume of entities that need to be
> researched. Below is the list of organisations that would need to be
> investigated and are registered at Companies House as having some form of
> connection to the club. Listed alphabetically:
> 
> *    Adulant Force Limited
> *    Charmed Garden Limited
> *    Donald Masse
> *    Elland Road Limited
> *    Fan Radio Limited
> *    FSF Limited
> *    Halton Sports Limited
> *    Homer Trust
> *    Leeds City Holdings Limited
> *    Leeds City Limited
> *    Leeds First Limited
> *    Leeds United 2007 Limited
> *    Leeds United Association Football Club Limited
> *    Leeds United Centenary Pavilion Limited
> *    Leeds United Financial Services Limited
> *    Leeds United Investment Limited
> *    Leeds United Media Limited
> *    Leeds United Retail Limited
> *    Leeds United Stadium Limited
> *    Lutonville Holdings Limited
> *    Outro Limited
> *    Roman Heavies Limited
> *    Sporting Consulting Group Limited
> *    The Leeds United Foundation
> *    Treliss Designs Limited
> *    Yorkshire First Limited
> *    Yorkshire Radio Limited
> 
> There are 27 firms on this list and it is likely that, given we know a
> number are based offshore, there could be even more. By comparison, the new
> owners of Nottingham Forest would only have had to look into the details of
> 4 entities. The above list might also help to explain why an indemnity is so
> important to any buyer of the club. While assurances on the selling side
> should make the buyer comfortable that no major unknown issues exist and the
> due diligence process should further support this, looking at the volume of
> entities involved above, it would not be difficult to imagine how either
> party could have missed something and would want indemnities to protect
> them.
> 
> Conclusion
> 
> As per our Vision Statement we have always shared Ken Bates’ stated aim that
> the club should be run based upon good business management principles, but
> when looking at whether the club is being run along proper business lines,
> there are many factors that we have to take into account. If Mr Bates
> believes proper lines involves managing staff costs tightly in order to make
> a profit then he will be satisfied with our findings, however our views of
> good business management are more extensive.
> 
> We believe that a properly managed Leeds United would concentrate the
> majority of its investment on the core business - the team; maximise all its
> revenue streams by positively engaging with its greatest revenue source –
> the fans; manage other costs just as tightly as staff related expenses, and
> ensure that any investments did not leave the club short of cash and in need
> of expensive loans. Running a business is not complex when these good
> business management principles are followed.
> 
> From our analysis the current situation at Leeds appears to have faltered in
> terms of these guiding principles and is therefore in need of corrective
> measures. Further loans or player sales might prevent the club from falling
> victim to another catastrophic administration process in the short (or even
> medium) term, but the only long term business solution in our opinion is
> fresh investment and a new focus.
> 
> It’s time for change.
> 
> 
> Supporters can also join more than 7,900 other Leeds fans and have their
> voice heard as members of the Leeds United Supporters’ Trust by filling in
> the form at
> <http://lufctrust.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=961b4c64f7799c1c11c962c4
> 7&id=40b45f03d3&e=ab5abcd707> www.lufctrust.org. Membership is free. Keep
> checking for updates on
> <http://lufctrust.us2.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=961b4c64f7799c1c11c962c
> 47&id=6c7f3113cc&e=ab5abcd707> www.lufctrust.org, and our
> <http://lufctrust.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=961b4c64f7799c1c11c962c4
> 7&id=30d76a66e7&e=ab5abcd707> Facebook and
> <http://lufctrust.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=961b4c64f7799c1c11c962c4
> 7&id=aa78d222d8&e=ab5abcd707> Twitter pages.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leedslist mailing list
> Info and options: http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist
> To unsubscribe, email [email protected]
> 
> PETE CASS (1962 - 2011) Rest In Peace Mate
_______________________________________________
Leedslist mailing list
Info and options: http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist
To unsubscribe, email [email protected]

PETE CASS (1962 - 2011) Rest In Peace Mate

Reply via email to