With the discussion on current attendances, who owns what, etc the financial 
analysis update on the 
club from LUST they have just done makes particularly interesting reading:


Leeds United - Financial Analysis Update 
Back in September 2012, we undertook a detailed review of the finances at Leeds 
United and 
made a number of comments and predictions. We can now revisit these in light of 
the latest 
accounts (to June 2012) that have been submitted, somewhat earlier than in 
previous years 
possibly due to greater efficiencies or perhaps because it means that further 
financial details 
regarding the takeover will not need to be disclosed until next year...
Headlines
- Group turnover decreased by 4% from £32.6m to £31.1m
- Gate receipts decreased by 10.6% from £12.7m to £11.3m
- Wages to turnover ratio increased from 51% to 57%
- Overall admin costs increased from £8.6m to £9.8m
- "Unknown" admin costs increased from £4.5m to £5.2m
- Shaun Harvey was paid £259k including pension payments and benefits
- Since administration, the club has spent £17.7m in cash on building works
- Yorkshire Radio, LU Pavilion, LU Media and Leeds City Holdings lost a 
combined £781k in 
2011/12
- The combined losses of these companies now total £4.94m
- Yorkshire Radio and the Pavilion owe LUFC £3.7m; LUFC owes LCH and LU Media 
£600k
- Profits from player sales - £2.5m - were required to keep the club afloat
- Preference shares issued to Lutonville Holdings - apparently controlled by 
Ken Bates - 
incurred admin costs of £107k
- £4m was payable to Lutonville upon "change of control," which occurred a year 
to the day 
after the £3.2m share issue
- Future income from two years of season tickets and five years of catering 
profits has been 
mortgaged
- Net debt increased by 297% - £3.89m - in 2011/12
- The new owners look set to inherit £19.4m worth of debt.
These accounts show the situation at Leeds United as at the end of June 2012 - 
the end of 
2011/12 season, and the early days of takeover negotiations. The six months 
between this 
accounting period and GFH Capital´s takeover showed no alteration in the way 
the club was 
run under Ken Bates and Shaun Harvey, meaning that we can assume the trends 
shown in these 
accounts have continued in that time. It is clear by just looking around Elland 
Road on 
matchdays that gate receipts so far in 2012/13 must be even worse than for the 
same period in 
2011/12, itself a 10% drop from the previous season.
Despite Ken Bates´s constant assurances that the club was being run "along 
proper business 
lines," the accounts show that as the club made almost no effort to arrest the 
slide in 
attendances and consequent decreasing turnover, the only way the club could 
stay afloat was 
through player sales, loans, and eventually outside investment. The club now 
has potentially 
£19.4m of debt. The much heralded building works and off field improvements 
have so far cost 
the club nearly £18m, and yielded nothing by way of profit.
Despite this, Shaun Harvey still states in the directors´ report that "The 
growth on [sic] 
non-matchday revenue remains critical to our plans so the dependency of success 
on the field is 
reduced over a period of time."
Given that the football side, by virtue of player transfers, has been required 
to keep the club 
afloat while the losses of the non-matchday side grow ever greater; and that 
non-matchday 
activities will need to earn around £20m to pay for the building works and the 
interest on loans 
associated with it before it can show a profit; that lack of investment on the 
pitch has brought 
us to a position where less than 20,000 people can be found to watch football 
at Elland Road; 
and that as a result gate receipts and turnover have taken a serious downturn; 
we remain totally 
convinced that Ken Bates and Shaun Harvey have had the wrong strategy for 
success at Leeds 
United.
Summary of Numbers
(Excluding Player Trading)



Rob Wilson´s Comments of 2011 accounts
In his independent assessment of the 2011 accounts, sports finance expert Rob 
Wilson 
commented that he would: "Expect to see investment in playing staff." The 2012 
accounts 
show that in reality LUFC made a net profit of £2.5m from player trading during 
2011/12 and 
in cash terms received £3m from the transactions during the period.
Rob also advised that the club need to sell more tickets to attract better 
sponsorship, which 
could be achieved by investment in the team and improved relations with the 
fans. Perhaps the 
drop in gate receipts and commercial income in 2011/12, leading to an overall 
4% drop in 
turnover, reflect the fact that none of this advice was taken by the management 
of the club 
during this period.
Turnover
Back in September 2012 we predicted a decrease of £2.5m in turnover from the 
2011 numbers: 
this decrease was a prediction for the current season (to June 2013) rather 
than the 2012 
accounting period covered here. We actually felt that the 2012 figure would be 
down by 
roughly £0.6m, so the larger £1.6m shortfall revealed in the 2012 accounts 
means that if 
anything our prediction for 2013 could be optimistic as crowds have fallen even 
further this 
season. Therefore, unless there is a dramatic turn-around in attendances during 
the remainder 
of this season, we still expect further bad news on the turnover for 2013 - 
although we now 
hold out some hope that the turn-around will happen under the new owners, with 
the offer of 
half season tickets a good start.
Wages to Turnover
This ratio has increased from 51% (in 2011) to 57% (in 2012), which is 
partially due to the 
£1.6m decrease in turnover, and partially due to the £1.3m increase in wages. 
In spite of this it 
will still remain one of the lowest ratios in the league.
The highest paid director - believed to be Shaun Harvey - was paid £226k, 
increased from 
£212k in 2011, with pension payments and benefits taking his remuneration up to 
£259k. As 
ever, "K W Bates did not receive any emoluments or benefits during the year," 
meaning the 
remaining £86k of the total directors´ emoluments of £312k was split between 
Yvonne Allen 
and Peter Lorimer. As additional directors´ emoluments over and above Harvey´s 
only 
appeared on the accounts after Allen joined the board, we assume the majority 
of this was paid 
to her.
Other Costs
We commented in September that a 60% wages to turnover ratio was sustainable, 
which 
appears to contradict the current predicament as a 57% ratio has resulted in an 
operating loss 
(excluding player trading) of £2.2m. However, as we explained at the time, 
wages management 
was only part of the equation here and we can see that it appears that other 
costs have been 
allowed to get even more out of control by the previous management team.
Excluding wages, the other administrative costs of the business increased by 
14% (£1.2m) from 
2011 and now stand at £9.8m (£8.6m in 2011), on the reduced Turnover of £31.1m. 
We were 
of the belief that £8.6m was too high for administrative costs in 2011 and 
therefore still believe 
that, with better financial controls to keep administrative costs down, we 
could have posted a 
positive return for 2011/12 without resorting to player sales to cover these 
costs.
We cannot comment in too much detail on where we would make these cost savings 
as most of 
the exact costs are not disclosed to the public. An amount of £5.2m is 
"unknown" in the 
administrative costs for 2012 (up by £668k from £4.6m in 2011) - however, this 
figure will 
include any legal charges incurred by the club which, we are sure Shaun Harvey 
would agree, 
could be a significant area in which to find savings.
We can see that in profit terms the upgrading of facilities has impacted the 
bottom line by a 
further £325k (depreciation now stands at £1.2m in total for 2012) over the 
previous year, plus 
an additional £250k was paid for a 4 year option to purchase more land from 
Leeds City 
Council to further develop the East Stand. These areas could have provided 
further savings.
On top of that the cost of selling Preference Shares to Lutonville Holdings (a 
company that 
according to the accounts appears to be controlled by Ken Bates) was £107k, and 
additional 
accounting charges over and above the £53k last year of £59k were incurred in 
2012 (taking 
the total paid to £112k in 2012 - £44k of this was directly related to 
Preference share 
monitoring).
Building Update
These latest accounts show that since administration the club has spent £17.7m 
in cash on 
"building future income that will benefit the club for years to come" (or 
buildings to you and I).
While we still await with great anticipation the cash delivery of this building 
strategy 
championed so often by Ken Bates, we can see that the club have received £8.4m 
in cash via 
net player trading (or selling the talent) to partially fund these buildings, 
with the remainder 
coming from the well publicised borrowing facilities (courtesy of Lutonville, 
Ticketus 2 LLP, 
Enterprise and whatever was left of the future Season Ticket sales cash).
We note in the Directors report that Shaun Harvey believes in Ken Bates´s 
investment strategy 
regarding the East Stand development, as he states that it "will deliver 
financial benefit to the 
club on both matchdays and non matchdays for years to come." We would like Mr 
Harvey to 
expand on this statement and explain when he believes the investment will pay 
back the £17.7m 
already spent, plus the interest on the various loans, and the £800k premium 
and £151k 
expenses on the Preference Shares, all of which have been paid additionally in 
order to finance 
the building works. We are struggling to understand how or when the corporate 
facilities will 
generate the c£20m of additional income required to break-even.
Furthermore, we note that this strategy has seemingly been devised "so the 
dependency of 
success on the field is reduced over time," which leaves us concerned that Ken 
Bates and 
Shaun Harvey did not share the fans´ desire to see us win every game and get 
back into the 
Premier League and Europe. It also leaves us wondering if football is in fact 
in the right 
business altogether for their aspirations?
We note that capital commitments have reduced from £6.5m in 2011 to just £132k, 
meaning 
that if no commitments have been made since this accounting period, GFH Capital 
are in a 
position to stop further development on the East Stand if they wish.
Cash
As we stated back in September, our belief was that the club needed to sell 
players, obtain 
further loans or seek outside investment (or a combination of all three) in 
order to continue as a 
going concern. The latest accounts support this statement in full as we can see 
that sale of 
players netted the club £3m in cash during the year, a further loan was taken 
out via Enterprise 
insurance for £1.5m and new investment has been found via GFH Capital!
Whether our cash problems are now solved remains to be seen but, based upon 
these accounts, 
we can see that GFHC have not inherited an easy situation and will need to 
invest cash of their 
own or the existing downwards trends will continue, in the short term at least.
The Group loans situation remains a cash drain on Leeds United, as the club is 
still owed a net 
amount of £3.1m from its sister companies, broken down as follows:
- Leeds United Centenary Pavilion Limited - £2.6m
- Yorkshire Radio Limited - £1.14m
- With Leeds United owing:
- Leeds City Holdings Limited - (£0.26m)
- Leeds United Media Limited - (£0.38m)

Debts 
As GFH Capital look to complete their takeover we looked into the debt they 
will inherit from 
Ken Bates; given his pride in leaving us debt free the result was surprising. 
Assuming the new 
owners adopt a strategy that sees use promoted to the Premier League before the 
2017/18 
season the following debts will need to be settled:
- Preference Share payment to Lutonville £4.0m
- Ticketus 2 LLP Loan Repayment £2.3m
- Enterprise Loan repayment £1.7m
- Krato Loan Repayment £0.2m
- Payment to liquidators £4.8m
- Working Capital Shortfall £6.4mTOTAL DEBT £19.4m 
In the five years since administration Ken Bates and Shaun Harvey have managed 
to 
accumulate debts amounting to around the same amount as those that put us into 
administration in the first place. We just hope that the creditors are more 
patient this time (and 
don´t include HMRC).
The preference share at £3.2m incurred £151k of additional administrative 
costs, with £4m 
payable to Lutonville Holdings upon "change of control" of the company. The 
accounts state 
that: "Significant influence is exerted over Lutonville Holdings Limited by 
virtue of its 
connection to Outro Limited which is wholly owned by Mr K W Bates." These 
shares were 
issued to Lutonville exactly a year to the day before the "change of control" 
to GFH Capital 
and £4m is now payable to Lutonville; these accounts show that an injection of 
cash would be 
required to pay this.
The loan from Enterprise was taken at 7% interest in October 2012, with the 
takeover nearing 
completion. It seems strange that a loan could not be obtained from a bank at a 
better rate; or 
that GFH Capital were not willing to put more money in themselves, if they were 
confident of 
completing the takeover, in order to avoid this the large cost of this loan.
Overall net debt increased in 2011/12 by £3.89m, or 297%, from 2010/11. Future 
income from 
two years of season tickets sales, and five years of profits from catering, 
have been mortgaged 
to finance the running of the business.

Group Companies
The finances of the football club´s sister companies continue to be poor with 
losses for the year 
posted by all of them amounting to £781k - making the overall total losses of 
these companies 
£4.94m. This breaks down as follows:
- Yorkshire Radio Limited: £101k - taking their total losses to £1.66m
- Leeds United Centenary Pavilion Limited: £234k - taking their total losses to 
£431k
- Leeds United Media Limited: £23k - taking their total losses to £25k
- Leeds City Holdings Limited: £423k - taking their total losses to £2.83m 
This period covered the second year of operation of the Pavilion, and its 
losses increased from 
£196k in 2011 to £234k in 2012. This does not include staff costs, as the 
accounts state the 
Pavilion has no employees.
As with the East Stand development, we were promised by Ken Bates that these 
businesses 
would add to our income streams and make the club more sustainable, yet in five 
years since 
administration it appears that all they are doing is racking up additional 
costs and taking 
investment away from the field of play. We would be keen to understand when 
these businesses 
will start to repay their past debts and start contributing to the football 
club.
Conclusion
Despite certain questionable management decisions by Ken Bates and Shaun Harvey 
during the 
last five years we still feel that, beneath it all, GFH Capital have inherited 
a club that can be 
turned around into a successful and sustainably profitable one, with investment 
in the team and 
cost cutting in the right areas. There are significant challenges facing the 
new ownership in the 
immediate future and big decisions will need to be made regarding the viability 
of some of these 
historic investment decisions. GFH Capital will also need to be prepared to 
invest cash in the 
short term into areas that have been badly neglected, not least the playing 
squad. The legacy of 
spending £17.7m on building projects that have yet to bring any benefit, and 
have been a drain 
on the club´s playing resources, will not be easy to shake off.
The advice of Rob Wilson after the last accounts still rings true: the club 
need to encourage the 
loyal fan base back to Elland Road by investing in the team and engaging with 
the fans, which 
in turn will help them to sell more tickets, attract better sponsorship, and 
hopefully get us back 
to a place in the Premier League. From there we can all march on together to 
greater and more 
profitable heights!

_______________________________________________
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