DS Forums

 
 

The Saturdays have their own company (and will probably never be "dropped")....


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 21-01-2012, 13:29
Shadow2009
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 10,447

Some poster on Popjustice...

These girls (or their management at least) are quite smart. They apparently have their own company with all five serving as company directors. It holds all the rights to The Saturdays name, not Universal Music. They probably retain most of the money from every endorsement they do etc and if they ever want to leave Universal (which currently seems very unlikely), they could do so quite easily. Who knew The Saturdays had such business minds. This was all set up after they left Maximum
I was talking to someone who works at Universal about it but here's the proof: http://secure.duedil.com/b/Day-And-N...s-Ltd/07353282

Most of the profits from their merchandise or anything else with their name on it goes to them. It also means if they were ever dropped, they could, in theory, set up their own label and continue as they were. And everyone thought they were music industry puppets. Rochelle runs this motha!
Plus this link...

http://companycheck.co.uk/company/07353282

Quite interesting reading. I don't really understand it all but according to other posters their company have turned over 400K from The Saturdays brand since August 2010 (i'm assuming it's sponsorship deals and merchandising). They also apparently own the title 'The Saturdays' (just like the original Sugababes).

Probably explains why they're still under contract after the Wordshaker and On Your Radar flops, they've got their own buisness and are making tons of money regardless of their music sales anyway!
Shadow2009 is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 21-01-2012, 13:50
tomi-08
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 24,120
And that 400k will most likely be without all the tour and merchandising they'll have raked in from the arena tour back in December, right? Then you've got the nail polish range they put out at the end of 2011 and various other endorsements/deals which may or may not have been integrated into that 400k total!

Clever girls. Very good move!
tomi-08 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-01-2012, 14:18
Dizagaox
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,417
Good for them tbh. Their music is decent, so as long as they can keep releasing stuff, quite happy. Btw the management/label of Sugababes owns the name "Sugababes".
Dizagaox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-01-2012, 14:56
myscrapbook2011
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,260
The are very clever indeed!!!!!
myscrapbook2011 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-01-2012, 16:30
Scratchy7929
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 3,167
The are very clever indeed!!!!!
What! Their net worth is only £7,391 as their Total Current Liabilities are £387,353.They are basically only breaking even.They have £256,386 in the bank at the moment, therefore they are in debt of £130,000 to their creditors (possibly partially their record label) at the moment.They have other assets of £140,000 which they could sell to pay some of these debts off.

Not sure if they are in trouble but at least looking a bit borderline to me.All depends if they had paying work lined up at the time this was filed (just over 1 year ago).

You are not doing the girls a favour by linking this information
Scratchy7929 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-01-2012, 17:43
mushymanrob
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,764
What! Their net worth is only £7,391 as their Total Current Liabilities are £387,353.They are basically only breaking even.They have £256,386 in the bank at the moment, therefore they are in debt of £130,000 to their creditors (possibly partially their record label) at the moment.They have other assets of £140,000 which they could sell to pay some of these debts off.

Not sure if they are in trouble but at least looking a bit borderline to me.All depends if they had paying work lined up at the time this was filed (just over 1 year ago).

You are not doing the girls a favour by linking this information
pmsl... that isnt a good business , many other businesses would fold with those accounts, especially after several years.

that doesnt bode well at all. if they were dropped they couldnt afford to carry on independantly.. so the initial euphoria spouted by fans here is misplaced.

they may retain the name, so what? who hasnt? try starting a group up and calling yourselves 'the beatles' or 'rolling stones'... retaining the rights to your name is as old as music itself.
mushymanrob is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 21-01-2012, 17:53
cnbcwatcher
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: At college, in L.A.'s office
Posts: 54,221
This is interesting, good for them!! Might be a bit off topic but I'm studying Company Law as one of my modules at university this semester.
cnbcwatcher is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 21-01-2012, 21:24
myscrapbook2011
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,260
What! Their net worth is only £7,391 as their Total Current Liabilities are £387,353.They are basically only breaking even.They have £256,386 in the bank at the moment, therefore they are in debt of £130,000 to their creditors (possibly partially their record label) at the moment.They have other assets of £140,000 which they could sell to pay some of these debts off.

Not sure if they are in trouble but at least looking a bit borderline to me.All depends if they had paying work lined up at the time this was filed (just over 1 year ago).

You are not doing the girls a favour by linking this information
This was filed a year ago..... Can I point out it's extremely hard for a company to break even, let alone make a profit in the first year.....

pmsl... that isnt a good business , many other businesses would fold with those accounts, especially after several years.

that doesnt bode well at all. if they were dropped they couldnt afford to carry on independantly.. so the initial euphoria spouted by fans here is misplaced.

they may retain the name, so what? who hasnt? try starting a group up and calling yourselves 'the beatles' or 'rolling stones'... retaining the rights to your name is as old as music itself.
This business was only set up 18 months ago!!!!! Give it a chance to break even!!!!!
myscrapbook2011 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-01-2012, 21:25
myscrapbook2011
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,260
This is interesting, good for them!! Might be a bit off topic but I'm studying Company Law as one of my modules at university this semester.
I wonder how long it took them to break even. I'm shocked at how it says their capital was only £100.....
myscrapbook2011 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-01-2012, 22:09
amo1980
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 799
the link doesnt give enough info to really analyse the company... but assuming no fixed asset / long term liabilities... the £7391 is net assets... so theyre solvent... the current liabilities position could be anything, may even be unpaid directors salaries... we dont have enough info to say

also... the £100 capital mention by a poster... i assume this refers to share capital, which would therefore give no indication of the success of the company
amo1980 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-01-2012, 00:55
cnbcwatcher
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: At college, in L.A.'s office
Posts: 54,221
the link doesnt give enough info to really analyse the company... but assuming no fixed asset / long term liabilities... the £7391 is net assets... so theyre solvent... the current liabilities position could be anything, may even be unpaid directors salaries... we dont have enough info to say

also... the £100 capital mention by a poster... i assume this refers to share capital, which would therefore give no indication of the success of the company
I think so. Apologies for the brief Company Law lecture (with a bit of Accounting thrown in!) but it might be useful... The share capital is what is required when someone starts a company and the initial share capital is listed on the official registration documents. There's authorised and issued share capital and the website doesn't mention which type of share capital it is. I think there's a limit on the amount of share capital a private limited company can have but Irish law (Companies Act 1963 IIRC - don't know what the UK equivalent is) states that a private limited company can have between 2 and 20 shareholders. I think directors are shareholders as well but I could be wrong on that. I'll have to check my books again.

As for the current liabilities, without seeing the income statements and balance sheets of the company and then analysing the accounts using stuff like the debt-equity and liquidity ratios (these are used to analyse financial accounts) then it's hard to know. Working out the break even point is also useful.

I knew my Accouning and Company Law knowledge came in useful I actually passed Accounting in first year and over half the year failed it! It has one of the highest failure rates in my university.
cnbcwatcher is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 22-01-2012, 01:08
amo1980
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 799
I think so. Apologies for the brief Company Law lecture (with a bit of Accounting thrown in!) but it might be useful... The share capital is what is required when someone starts a company and the initial share capital is listed on the official registration documents. There's authorised and issued share capital and the website doesn't mention which type of share capital it is. I think there's a limit on the amount of share capital a private limited company can have but Irish law (Companies Act 1963 IIRC - don't know what the UK equivalent is) states that a private limited company can have between 2 and 20 shareholders. I think directors are shareholders as well but I could be wrong on that. I'll have to check my books again.

As for the current liabilities, without seeing the income statements and balance sheets of the company and then analysing the accounts using stuff like the debt-equity and liquidity ratios (these are used to analyse financial accounts) then it's hard to know. Working out the break even point is also useful.

I knew my Accouning and Company Law knowledge came in useful I actually passed Accounting in first year and over half the year failed it! It has one of the highest failure rates in my university.
The directors are not necessarily shareholders... but it is not uncommon, especially with small companies... as a small company i would only expect abbreviated accounts (minimum disclosure) to be on public record, and as i say, they dont give enough detail to fully analyse (certainly not enough to suggest that the business is failing! lol)... as for shareholders, that info would be available on Companies House on the annual return if anyones that interested! LOL

PS. good luck with the Company Law studies... wasn't one of my favourite subjects!!!
amo1980 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-01-2012, 01:11
kutox
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Watford
Posts: 15,815
Well if that's true then it probably explains why they've never made any truly brilliant pop songs since their first album - they haven't had much incentive to.
kutox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-01-2012, 01:20
cnbcwatcher
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: At college, in L.A.'s office
Posts: 54,221
The directors are not necessarily shareholders... but it is not uncommon, especially with small companies... as a small company i would only expect abbreviated accounts (minimum disclosure) to be on public record, and as i say, they dont give enough detail to fully analyse (certainly not enough to suggest that the business is failing! lol)... as for shareholders, that info would be available on Companies House on the annual return if anyones that interested! LOL

PS. good luck with the Company Law studies... wasn't one of my favourite subjects!!!
Yeah I think one of the differences between private and public companies is that limited companies don't have to make their accounts public and public companies do (or maybe that's their shares I'm thinking of), but I could be wrong. If the info is on Companies House though that means they have to submit an annual report to them. What's the main UK act covering companies? I only know the Irish one (Companies Act 1963 and the 1990 Amendment, although according to my lecturer the 1963 one is considered the principal act for Irish company law).

I actually like the subject, but there are a lot of cases to learn
cnbcwatcher is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 22-01-2012, 01:27
amo1980
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 799
Yeah I think one of the differences between private and public companies is that limited companies don't have to make their accounts public and public companies do (or maybe that's their shares I'm thinking of), but I could be wrong. If the info is on Companies House though that means they have to submit an annual report to them. What's the main UK act covering companies? I only know the Irish one (Companies Act 1963 and the 1990 Amendment, although the 1963 one is the principal act for Irish company law).

I actually like the subject, but there are a lot of cases to learn
UK now has Companies Act 2006 (plus all the additional regulations for medium / large / group companies, amendments and other statutory instruments) The 2006 Act supposedly simplified a few things... but Company Law in general is such a huge area, i dont envy anyone studying it!!!
amo1980 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-01-2012, 01:42
iseloid
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 9,202
UK now has Companies Act 2006 (plus all the additional regulations for medium / large / group companies, amendments and other statutory instruments) The 2006 Act supposedly simplified a few things... but Company Law in general is such a huge area, i dont envy anyone studying it!!!
contract law is massive too...uh...I hate it. and european law is just...hell
iseloid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-01-2012, 01:44
iseloid
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 9,202
This was filed a year ago..... Can I point out it's extremely hard for a company to break even, let alone make a profit in the first year.....



This business was only set up 18 months ago!!!!! Give it a chance to break even!!!!!
exactly. in fact its doing very well considering the economic climate. it takes forever for a business to make large amounts of profit.
iseloid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-01-2012, 01:48
amo1980
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 799
contract law is massive too...uh...I hate it. and european law is just...hell
awww... i sometimes wish i was younger, back at uni... but then i remember all the studying!!! bein 30 odd aint all bad
amo1980 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-01-2012, 09:07
mushymanrob
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,764
This business was only set up 18 months ago!!!!! Give it a chance to break even!!!!!
..but they had a head start, theyve been going since 08?... they had time to build their brand before they started a company so in reality they should have taken more.

it seems to be second rate, like their material, never quite getting there...
mushymanrob is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 22-01-2012, 10:20
Star_Bright
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 10,758
I guess that's why they're not bothered about making good music, then. They are busy doing other things and trying to make £ in every other area.
Star_Bright is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-01-2012, 10:25
amo1980
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 799
..but they had a head start, theyve been going since 08?... they had time to build their brand before they started a company so in reality they should have taken more.

it seems to be second rate, like their material, never quite getting there...
The details given (if reliable) suggest that they have broken even... net assets at the end of the first period suggest profits have been made... you just cant tell how much because there is no breakdown of reserves... the fact that net assets are fairly low (at £7k) means nothing... its possible that all potential profit has been taken by way of directors salaries, or reserves have been distributed by way of dividends... we just dont have enough info (also... not sure how reliable the £400k turnover figure stated is... as a small company they would have no obligation to disclose that info on public record, so im not sure of the source there!)
amo1980 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-01-2012, 11:41
cnbcwatcher
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: At college, in L.A.'s office
Posts: 54,221
UK now has Companies Act 2006 (plus all the additional regulations for medium / large / group companies, amendments and other statutory instruments) The 2006 Act supposedly simplified a few things... but Company Law in general is such a huge area, i dont envy anyone studying it!!!
I'll look up that one. It might be useful. There is definitely a lot to Company Law. In fact at my university the subject is split up into Company 1 and Company 2.

contract law is massive too...uh...I hate it. and european law is just...hell
I've been sitting in on some contract lectures as I haven't done it and I need to do it and it's not bad but I'm pleased I'm not doing the exam in it. I did European law last year and it is bad, I was lucky to pass! It is just so complicated Do you have to do tort law? I'm also doing Banking and Insurance law.
cnbcwatcher is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 22-01-2012, 13:13
Neonoptic
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: London
Posts: 568
Very similar to what the Spice Girls did.

Shortly after Wannabe was released each girl set up their own individual companies with each girl as director, whilst as a five -piece they jointly created Spice Girls Ltd where the five served as directors. Consequently for any job the group did each of the girls companies 'hired' out their 'Spice Girl' to Spice Girls Ltd. It was a way to save them a lot of money!
Neonoptic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-01-2012, 15:03
myscrapbook2011
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,260
..but they had a head start, theyve been going since 08?... they had time to build their brand before they started a company so in reality they should have taken more.

it seems to be second rate, like their material, never quite getting there...
So what if they had time..... They have to invest the money, seek premises, seek any accounting advice, seek legal advice, do the necessary paperwork, then start diverting all business through Day And Night Ventures Ltd instead of Maximum Artist Management Ltd..... That takes time.....

When you think about it, when they recieve their £25k for personal appearances, they deposit it into their company account..... Pay off debts with Polydor..... Pay themselves wages for the hours worked..... Pay business rates.....

Plus there are other overheads.....

the link doesnt give enough info to really analyse the company... but assuming no fixed asset / long term liabilities... the £7391 is net assets... so theyre solvent... the current liabilities position could be anything, may even be unpaid directors salaries... we dont have enough info to say

also... the £100 capital mention by a poster... i assume this refers to share capital, which would therefore give no indication of the success of the company
This was startup capital..... It is mentioned in one of the links..... Some people know it as initial share capital.....

exactly. in fact its doing very well considering the economic climate. it takes forever for a business to make large amounts of profit.
Agreed..... Just look at Luminar..... They made profit for a few years then ended up going bust.....

I guess that's why they're not bothered about making good music, then. They are busy doing other things and trying to make £ in every other area.
We shall have to agree to disagree about their music..... I personally think the only singles that shouldn't have seen the light of day are Forever Is Over and Notorious.....

The details given (if reliable) suggest that they have broken even... net assets at the end of the first period suggest profits have been made... you just cant tell how much because there is no breakdown of reserves... the fact that net assets are fairly low (at £7k) means nothing... its possible that all potential profit has been taken by way of directors salaries, or reserves have been distributed by way of dividends... we just dont have enough info (also... not sure how reliable the £400k turnover figure stated is... as a small company they would have no obligation to disclose that info on public record, so im not sure of the source there!)
I'm going to re-read it and work it out for everyone.....
myscrapbook2011 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-01-2012, 19:29
Rose-Addict
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,551
Such a relief. I was worried for them after the sales of On Your Radar but this is brill news. I just hope they keep producing brilliant material. Very underrated imo!
Rose-Addict is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 14:28.