Takeover

Would any takeover include the transfer surplus we have made recently?

 

If it's identified as cash on the balance sheet then it's an intrinsic part of the valuation of the company.

 

Odd question to ask on here - what makes you think anyone can give a definitive answer? Even if there was someone here on the inside he (or she) is hardly likely to answer questions like that.

This constant speculation is getting a bit pointless now - all we can do is wait and see. We will never know the full story - why should we?

 

I'm wondering if it'll include Barrys "Hobnob" mouse mat and "Dunking daddy" mug.

Could be that's what the hold up is.

 

True.

Why bother discussing owt? The only thing we can control as supporters is whether or not we choose to go to matches.

Site admin - please close the board.

 

It would depend on the value of any loan notes outstanding

 

Due t time its tekken a Doubt ther tekkovver'll ivver appen ..

 

The company Barnsley Football Club (2002) Ltd owns the league share, and therefore the right to play under the name Barnsley Football Club in Football League and Football Association competitions. It is not clear what is for sale. Is it the company that owns the share, or is it the share itself. If it is the company, then all trading, whether that be through transfer fees or gate receipts/centrally funded income will be included in the financial accounts of the company. It matters little whether Patrick Cryne has taken a repayment of any part of his loan. It is merely debiting his loan and crediting the bank balance. There is no overall effect on the company's Balance Sheet and its value remains the same. It is likely that it is the company that is being sold because it is the company that will own the players' contracts and things could get very messy if the new owner did not honour their contract obligations.

 

Yes it will. That would be on the balance sheet as an asset (likely as cash in the bank account, or receivables for any payments that are in installments which are still to come in). The takeover would also likely include the new owners paying off PC's debt, which would currently sit on the balance sheet as a liability.

 

The bloke supposed to be the deal maker Alexander Jarvis has just posted on twitter he's tired of a takeover deal taking a long time (that's got to be BFCs deal) to complete and he's "refocusing his efforts on future deals not sure what that means but it don't sound good.

 

Its up to Patrick and Mr Lee to conclude, Mr Jarvis will have to wait for his fee as long as it takes.

 

He's not the only one!

 

Say I bought a business, I would expect to take on their customer base and order book, staff, vehicles and premises.

I wouldn't be expecting them to leave me any money in the bank account.

 

Seller’s remorse kicking in ?

 

The bank account belongs to the business”. If the seller emptied it prior to sale then that devalues the whole deal. And they’d be liable for a 20 or 40% tax grab on what they’d taken.

There is a ‘debt free cash free’ scenario but that idea loses traction the bigger the deal value and complexity of the target business.

 

Yup, something to be agreed between buyer and seller. All tax liabilities worked out to suit both parties.

If I was selling my business I would be moving the funds and closing the account. The buyer would be making a fresh start financially and I would be selling on the basis of that.

 

If you are buying a company, you buy the shares from the current share holder. The assets and liabilities of the company are reflected in the value of the shares, which are never sold at their nominal value. A company's bank balance is part of that valuation. If the cash was taken out, the value of the business would reduce by the same amount. However, there are assets that are not on the balance sheet. These are usually referred to as goodwill and they reflect the earning potential of the company built up by the previous administration, but in the case of a football club, there are other things. For example, when a player is bought from another club, his transfer fee is capitalised. In other words, it becomes an asset. However, the transfer fee is written off against profits over the term of the player's contract, so that his value falls to zero when his contract expires. Clubs are not allowed to capitalise the increase in a players value due to their work on the training ground or his success on the field. This only becomes part of the Profit and Loss Account when he is sold. Therefore, is could be argued that the accounts of a football club always undervalue its actual worth.

 

This is exactly what I'm saying. It's as broad as it's long.

The deal might include "the transfer surplus" as mentioned in the original post, or it might not. Either way the Cryne family won't be out of pocket.

 

Of the football club, yes. I think the sticking point is the real estate of the land and ground.