Jump to content

All things Dundee FC


Recommended Posts

So youve not got debt?

It depends what you mean by debt. We're not financed by debt in the sense of loans from banks or directors or whoever. That's what's usually meant by debt.

We do have creditors of £887k. Current assets (ie cash & debtors) = £673k. So net current liabilities = £214k.

There's no point quoting the £887k as debt. Even St Johnstone had creditors of £695k in their last accounts, but that's meaningless without considering the other side of the equation. In Saints case that is dwarfed by a stonking £1.256m cash and £572k owed to them. So Saints have net current assets of £1.167m, which is admirably prudent.

Dundee's net current liabilities of £214k isn't a great position, but it seems it's being managed. Certainly the current owners have put in more investment than was lost so the balance sheet has been strengthened (or isn't as weak). I'd prefer it to be much stronger. I'd certainly want us to have positive net current assets and to be breaking even, sooner rather than later, but the situation is far better than the Courier and BBC reported. We'll see where we are when the new regime has had a full year doing it their way with their budgets.

Edited by rambling syd rumpo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alright gents anywhere decent to go to that's open late on a Monday? I ken it's a long shot.

To drink? Or to eat? If you want to eat, head to project pie; they are open until 11. To drink, you could try the South Tay Superstore for something a bit different, it's where the old social used to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Food's a thing of the past for me just now. Is the social the place beside the rep, south tay St I think?

Yup. South Tay Superstore is where the social used to be; haven't been inside to drink there but apparently it's quite good, and it has some decent music playing from what I've heard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting that the statement has a go at the media for poor interpretation, but then doesn't state explicitly what the correct interpretation should be.

Does it need to provide a beginners guide?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does it need to provide a beginners guide?

Steady on, chief. It just seems like it would be a prudent (and obvious) move to state the correct interpretation in such a statement. Right now it rants at the media for getting it wrong (fair enough), then goes on to not explain exactly what they got wrong, nor clarify anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steady on, chief. It just seems like it would be a prudent (and obvious) move to state the correct interpretation in such a statement. Right now it rants at the media for getting it wrong (fair enough), then goes on to not explain exactly what they got wrong, nor clarify anything.

A non-denial denial? Surely not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...