Nottingham Forest 2011-12 Financial Review – Closing the Books on Nigel Doughty’s Ownership

It is difficult to imagine a more traumatic season for Nottingham Forest than 2011/12. Following the sacking of Billy Davies former England boss Steve McLaren was appointed only for his tenure to quickly turn sour. McLaren resigned and the fallout led also to the resignation as Chairman of the club’s owner Nigel Doughty. As Steve Cotterill battled to keep the team away from relegation the club was rocked further by the shock death of Doughty and although Cotterill succeeded the season closed in disarray.

Since then things have moved on considerably with Doughty’s estate selling the club to the Kuwaiti Al-Hasawi family and, following a flurry of appointments and sackings, Billy Davies returning to the manager’s role which he left only a year and a half before. It has been another rollercoaster season for the club this time around but financial statements have now been released for the year ending 31 May 2012 which help us to understand Doughty’s final year in charge and also the nature of the takeover last summer.

In my last article on Forest’s finances I covered the whole of the Doughty era up to May 2011 (read it here). I now intend to continue looking at the club’s financial performance on an annual basis, although the nature of statutory reporting means that there is a delay before the public has access to this information. I also intend to expand my coverage to local rivals Derby County and Leicester City to understand how the clubs compare and contrast in their financial strategy and management. For now though I will focus solely on Forest and what has happened since the last set of accounts. To do that I will look at two things, firstly the financial performance of the club during the year to 31 May 2012 and then the mechanics of the takeover which took place last summer.

The Year to 31 May 2012

The headline news from this latest set of accounts was that cash losses in the year to 31 May 2012  fell to £7.5M (2011: £10.1M). The reasons for this reduction being a lower spend on fixed assets in the year, £0.1M verses £1.7M in the prior year, and a £1.5M net profit on transfer fees compared to a £2.0M loss in the previous year. These favourable movements more than offset the negative impact of reducing income and increasing running costs – however, the net profit on transfer activity cannot be guaranteed in future years whereas increasing the cost base does have a  potential impact on the future.

All revenue sources saw a year on year reduction, likely to be largely due to the struggle of the team on the pitch, meaning that turnover fell from £15.2M in 2010/11 to £14.7M in 2011/12. Staff costs increased from £16.3M to £17.4M an increase of almost 7% whilst there was a significant 20% increase in other costs, which are not provided in detail in the accounts, from £5.0M to £6.0M. The addition of high profile signings by Steve McLaren in the form of Andy Reid, Jonathan Greening, Ishmael Miller and Matt Derbyshire make the staff costs movement understandable but the increase in other costs could be a reason for concern.

As a result operating losses (before capital investment and player transfers are taken into account) rose from £6.4M to £8.9M in the year.

Operating Activities

From a financing perspective Nigel Doughty had either paid off or consolidated all external debt into a single loan facility provided by himself. At 31 May 2011 this loan facility stood at £75.6M and the club had cash balances at the bank of £0.7M.

Doughty (and his estate) injected a further £7.7M of cash into the club during 2011/12 to cover the cash loss of £7.5M and increase balances at the bank to £0.9M. In addition to the cash injection a further £2.0M of interest was accrued on the loan account, meaning that the total debt to the Doughty estate as at 31 May 2012 stood at £85.3M – made up of £71.9M cash invested and £13.4M of accrued interest).

Financing

This is the position that has essentially been handed to the Al-Hasawi family as the new owners. With Financial Fair Play (FFP) on the horizon they will need to consider both how to increase revenues and also manage costs with wages clearly running well in excess of income.

With the Doughty era now fully drawn to a close it is difficult to argue that it was a success in so much as he spent  a lot of money on the club he clearly loved but got very little glory in return, essentially delivering it back to where it was at the start via an embarrassing three years in League One. It makes one ponder a comment he made towards the end of his tenure about “killing the club with kindness”.

In this context it is easy to understand why there has been a wholesale change of management since the new owners took over as the impression is given that the club had tended to simply rely on Doughty’s generosity rather than driving itself forward in any innovative way. Whilst some of the actions the Al-Hasawi family have taken have been unsettling and the way they have conducted themselves publicly has on occasion been concerning it is clear that change is needed at the City Ground one way or another.

The club has neither achieved on the pitch nor been well managed financially off it. If the club had managed one of these two key areas of concern then the lack of the other could be to some extent forgiven but to achieve neither reeks of poor management. As the Al-Hasawis settle into their ownership of the club, which seems to be taking shape since the appointment of Billy Davies and a subsequent overhaul of both the football and administrative functions, they will hopefully be able to address both the way the club is run and the way it competes on the field of play.

The Takeover

Due to the level of change that has taken place since the date of these financial statements further notes have been applied to the Director’s Report to explain some of what happened in the takeover of the club. The debt to the Doughty estate of £85.3M has been split into two with £20M becoming a long term loan and the remainder being capitalised.

What cash transaction took place between the Al-Hasawi family and the Doughty estate is not shown, however, one assumes that cash was paid over for the immediate purchase of the club and that the remaining £20M debt to the Doughty estate will be repayable should the club be promoted to the Premier League.

Outside of the normal debtors and creditors that any business works with this means that the sole debt the club carries at the point of transfer of ownership is that £20M to the Doughty estate. As such, although there are undoubtedly issues that need to be addressed with regard to the day to day running of the club it’s overall financial position is fairly good.

Promotion to the Premier League would see substantial increases in revenue that would manage the loan repayment, although a single payment on promotion (rather than a staged payment over a number of years) might reduce the immediate ability of the club to invest in the playing squad, and the Al-Hasawis have a couple of season to structure the finances more satisfactorily before FFP begins to bite.

Here begins a new era for Nottingham Forest, may it be a long and fruitful one.

Owners

About these ads

16 responses on “Nottingham Forest 2011-12 Financial Review – Closing the Books on Nigel Doughty’s Ownership

  1. Thanks. Excellent blog and one that will certainly be of more interest going forward into the new season and the impact various commercial activities that may take place ( Kuwait sponsorship I guess )

    For for the less versed / educated in finance (me)…do you happen to know what “shareholders’ funds showed a deficit of £79.7m which has now reduced dramatically to £14.4m” this is in reference to ? Is it a loan to or from the club ?

  2. Questions have been raised about the term “shareholder’s deficit” used is some reports and what this means. This is a Balance Sheet question. At the 31 May 2012 when the accounts were drawn up to there was a Shareholder’s Deficit of £79.7M. This arises because the club has more debts than it has assets in its Balance Sheet due to annual losses being rolled up into a loan facility provided by Nigel Doughty.

    The top half of the club’s Balance Sheet looks like this:
    Fixed Assets 6,824
    Current Assets 2,350
    Current Liabilities (88,841)
    Balancing to: (79,667)

    This is balanced by the bottom half which looks like this:
    Called Up Share Capital 2,940
    Capital Redemption Reserve 13,965
    Share Premium Account 11,357
    Profit and Loss Account (107,929)
    Balancing to: (79,667)

    As this shows the ongoing annual losses make a negative rather than a positive balance sheet position for the club, reflecting a deficit between the funds invested by shareholders and the financial position of the company.

    In the Director’s Report we are told that after the Balance Sheet date a substantial part of the debt owed to the Doughty estate was capitalised which would then reduce the Current Liabilities in the top half of the Balance Sheet and increase the Reserves in the bottom half.

    In total the debt was reduced by £65.3M which means that Net Liabilities are reduced to £(14.4)M and Shareholders funds are increased to £(14.4)M. Included in those Net Liabilities is a figure of £(20)M which is still owed to the Doughty estate in the future.

    Essentially the £65.3M part of the loan has become an investment rather than a loan increasing the shareholder’s input of funds in the bottom half. Presumably the estate received a cash payment of some size (I do not know how much as that is the affair of the two parties in the purchase – it may not have been the full £65.3M as the estate might have written some of it off) in return for this.

    I hope that makes sense and clarifies the Balance Sheet position. If there are any further questions let me know though.

    • Thanks again. I guess the only question I have will relate to next years ( or this seasons ) structuring of this deficits.. or is this amount going to remain static until such time the Doughtys are paid in full or will it grow to cover their investments ?

      • The £65.3M is no longer owed to the estate. The £20M is still owed – probably payable on promotion at a guess – but we don’t know whether it will accrue further interest or not in the meantime.

        The next set of accounts will give us greater detail as all of this happened after the audited date of these statements and is only explained in the unaudited Director’s Report.

  3. Thanks. I think the criticism of the off-field management is unfair when the single biggest cost to the business is staff costs (~90% playing staff presumably). This dwarfs any other costs and in fact is greater than the entire turnover of the club (118%). Nothing that any other part of the business could do would even make a dent in that gap.

    Other costs is probably largely the academy and seymour pierce?

    • Nick, I do want to be clear that I am not wanting to have a go at any individuals on this, I’m sorry if that is how it seems and looking back I think I agree that it maybe is a little unfair in some wording.

      I want to explain to fans, who might not otherwise know, what the financial situation at the club is. I have said before that I do not entirely agree with the approach taken by the club in the past but that is my opinion only, I prefer sustainability over paying such huge wages relative to income. That is what I was driving at I suppose, we gambled on an unsustainable model and lost – in that Nigel Doughty lost a lot of money. The positive for fans is that he was also a fan who looked out for us too and was prepared to take the hit himself.

      I hope that is a fairer reflection of what I am trying to say.

  4. Sorry one last questions. Based on the figures above “other costs” is 6 million. Does that count in FPP calculations and what do you think these costs could be ? Academy ? Ground Maintenance ?

    “Only a club’s outgoings in transfers and employee benefits (including wages) will be counted over income from gate receipts, TV revenue, advertising, merchandising, sales of players and prize money is included in the assessment”

    This is perhaps a simplistic view but I gather broadly accurate.

    • I’m not totally sure what goes in and out of FFP returns. I believe that youth development costs and fixed asset investment are removed at least so just taking reported losses and compare to allowable FFP losses – as I’ve seen some reports do – is I believe incorrect.

  5. A club with £20 million in debt and only a handful of players on the books. Do you really think it was worth a cash transaction. The accounts use the term “ownership was passed to the Al Hasawis”. Does this mean anything?

  6. The word I don’t understand is “capitalised” What does that mean? The loan amount was turned into… shares in the club?

  7. Pingback: Derby County 2009-12 Financial Review – Dreaming an Impossible Dream? | Mist Rolling in from the Trent·

  8. Pingback: Five things we like this month — February - Seat Pitch·

  9. Fascinating article, the understanding of which should be essential to anyone before they are allowed to write about Forest on internet blogs! It made be look back at the previous article on ND’s custodianship. The words about BD’s tendency to spend big and risk the financial stability of the club may well come back to haunt us, however much he is a great manager in other ways.

  10. Pingback: Leicester City 2010-2012 Financial Review – The Power of Kings? | Mist Rolling in from the Trent·

  11. Pingback: You might have missed: Derby’s debts, Reidy’s reason and lady luck - Forest Blogs - Lost That Loving Feeling·

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s