[dim view]

h again, on 25 November 2015 - 09:08 PM, said:

I've kept up with thread most of the time, but could you answer me this. Most estimates, at least the gloomier ones, seem to think we're about 2 million down on where we should be over the last couple of years. All I can see that's 'crept out of the woodwork' is a bill for 147K from HMRC, in addition to some loss of expected revenue from the Trust, but both together only amount to peanuts in the scale of the 'losses'.
Are these figures anywhere near correct, and if so where did the rest go? And if I advanced the theory that DA has learned to live with the outstanding debt and is so relaxed about it that he puts a bit more (300K) in when necessary, but bares his fangs now and again to stop people thinking he's a soft touch - how would you react to that?

I asked the Auditor to account for £1.92m, that being the difference between total administrative expenses of £6.5m and costs that are evident in the accounts - the biggest of which is total staff costs of £4.37m.

He read out plenty of six figure cost streams but I'm bugggered if I can remember them all. Hotels, The Academy, a total of £224k out of the woodwork, Electricity, compo for sacked back room staff....... Perhaps others have a better memory.

[Westbars Spireite]

dim view, on 25 November 2015 - 10:47 PM, said:

I asked the Auditor to account for £1.92m, that being the difference between total administrative expenses of £6.5m and costs that are evident in the accounts - the biggest of which is total staff costs of £4.37m.

He read out plenty of six figure cost streams but I'm bugggered if I can remember them all. Hotels, The Academy, a total of £224k out of the woodwork, Electricity, compo for sacked back room staff....... Perhaps others have a better memory.

Electricity? Surely not.

[azul]

dim view, on 25 November 2015 - 10:47 PM, said:

I asked the Auditor to account for £1.92m, that being the difference between total administrative expenses of £6.5m and costs that are evident in the accounts - the biggest of which is total staff costs of £4.37m.

He read out plenty of six figure cost streams but I'm bugggered if I can remember them all. Hotels, The Academy, a total of £224k out of the woodwork, Electricity, compo for sacked back room staff....... Perhaps others have a better memory.

I'm not surprised at the hotel expenses as under Cook even for relatively short trips we stayed in hotels. The best being travelling to evening games and staying hotels so they could go to bed in the afternoon. If they've stopped that no wonder we lost last night

[Spire-ite]

azul, on 25 November 2015 - 11:48 PM, said:

I'm not surprised at the hotel expenses as under Cook even for relatively short trips we stayed in hotels. The best being travelling to evening games and staying hotels so they could go to bed in the afternoon. If they've stopped that no wonder we lost last night

I hope this is a sarcastic post!

[Wooden Spoon]

..............

This post has been edited by a kick in the balls: 26 November 2015 - 05:57 PM

[Guest_freelander2_*]

h again, on 25 November 2015 - 09:08 PM, said:

I've kept up with thread most of the time, but could you answer me this. Most estimates, at least the gloomier ones, seem to think we're about 2 million down on where we should be over the last couple of years. All I can see that's 'crept out of the woodwork' is a bill for 147K from HMRC, in addition to some loss of expected revenue from the Trust, but both together only amount to peanuts in the scale of the 'losses'.
Are these figures anywhere near correct, and if so where did the rest go? And if I advanced the theory that DA has learned to live with the outstanding debt and is so relaxed about it that he puts a bit more (300K) in when necessary, but bares his fangs now and again to stop people thinking he's a soft touch - how would you react to that?

Dimview asked the auditor to list some of the other overheads and the amounts involved. As you'd expect, heating, light and power, insurance, ground maintenance, accommodation, etc. I'm not sure if Dave made notes or not.

As for the debt, at some point the Allen family will want their loan notes repaid. What might be an acceptance of the debt now might be something totally different in the future.

Did you listen to DA's Chesterfield Post interview after the AGM? He refers to selling players, trips to Wembley & promotion as being ways to get the debt down. Oh, hang on!

[Guest_freelander2_*]

dim view, on 25 November 2015 - 10:47 PM, said:

I asked the Auditor to account for £1.92m, that being the difference between total administrative expenses of £6.5m and costs that are evident in the accounts - the biggest of which is total staff costs of £4.37m.

He read out plenty of six figure cost streams but I'm bugggered if I can remember them all. Hotels, The Academy, a total of £224k out of the woodwork, Electricity, compo for sacked back room staff....... Perhaps others have a better memory.

Sorry, H. I didn't see this.

[Wooden Spoon]

freelander2, on 27 November 2015 - 06:43 PM, said:

Dimview asked the auditor to list some of the other overheads and the amounts involved. As you'd expect, heating, light and power, insurance, ground maintenance, accommodation, etc. I'm not sure if Dave made notes or not.

As for the debt, at some point the Allen family will want their loan notes repaid. What might be an acceptance of the debt now might be something totally different in the future.

Did you listen to DA's Chesterfield Post interview after the AGM? He refers to selling players, trips to Wembley & promotion as being ways to get the debt down. Oh, hang on!

DA says he want the council to write of around £850k of debts, and he would do the same - he loses £850k. So, would it make sense for him to pay the £850k to council, to ditch debt/mortgage to CBC, and convert that money, and his own loans into shares?

He says he wants £9million for club - and he has more chance of selling a club that has little or no debt. He also then owns the shares so if he did sell he would get his money back would he not?

Does that make sense or am I being niave and lacking a certain level of understanding here?

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

a kick in the balls, on 27 November 2015 - 07:31 PM, said:

DA says he want the council to write of around £850k of debts, and he would do the same - he loses £850k. So, would it make sense for him to pay the £850k to council, to ditch debt/mortgage to CBC, and convert that money, and his own loans into shares?

He says he wants £9million for club - and he has more chance of selling a club that has little or no debt. He also then owns the shares so if he did sell he would get his money back would he not?

Does that make sense or am I being niave and lacking a certain level of understanding here?

I'd guess the nine million was a bit of a throwaway line to 'trump' someone giving him some stick.

In reality he has four million shares at a pound a-piece which would surely be the starting point in any takeover negotiations. The rest of his involvement, loans on which he/A&S Leisure receive interest, could be paid back over time or under certain circumstances.

Let's remember that for all his pugnacity Allen was prepared to do similar deals - and even write off some of what he was owed - when he left Hillsborough.

PS: I'm not sure about subsequent CBC loans but I'm pretty sure the £500K+ they injected to pay off the CVA is ring-fenced and repayable at a fixed rate over a fixed period. Again the figure of around £50K PA comes to mind.

[azul]

a kick in the balls, on 27 November 2015 - 07:31 PM, said:

DA says he want the council to write of around £850k of debts, and he would do the same - he loses £850k. So, would it make sense for him to pay the £850k to council, to ditch debt/mortgage to CBC, and convert that money, and his own loans into shares?

He says he wants £9million for club - and he has more chance of selling a club that has little or no debt. He also then owns the shares so if he did sell he would get his money back would he not?

Does that make sense or am I being niave and lacking a certain level of understanding here?

If he was being totally honest yes to both points

If the council wrote of its debt and he matched that would reduce the debt by 1.7M which would make the club look more attractive to any investor. However there is nothing stopping him demanding 9M for the club anyway. Seems unlikely he would get that, but it would give him an opportunity to trouser some of the councils money.

Converting his loans to shares would an absolute no no for him, if things go from bad to worse he could lose all his investment. If he keeps the loans it would keep him in the driving seat and with serious leverage over any new administration that came along. I don't know if his investment would be classed as a football debt and thus be protected but it would certainly be enough to wreck any proposed CVA.

[spireman]

Surely hes already paid £850k into the club for him to write off. If he paid this amount to the council he would have to find another £850k.

[Wooden Spoon]

MDCCCLXVI said:

1448655410[/url]' post='1163864']

PS: I'm not sure about subsequent CBC loans but I'm pretty sure the £500K+ they injected to pay off the CVA is ring-fenced and repayable at a fixed rate over a fixed period. Again the figure of around £50K PA comes to mind.

Went from a loan to a 25yr commercial mortgage as it actually meant CFC was paying less IIRC

[h again]

freelander2, on 27 November 2015 - 06:43 PM, said:

Dimview asked the auditor to list some of the other overheads and the amounts involved. As you'd expect, heating, light and power, insurance, ground maintenance, accommodation, etc. I'm not sure if Dave made notes or not.

As for the debt, at some point the Allen family will want their loan notes repaid. What might be an acceptance of the debt now might be something totally different in the future.

Did you listen to DA's Chesterfield Post interview after the AGM? He refers to selling players, trips to Wembley & promotion as being ways to get the debt down. Oh, hang on!

Obliged for that. Doesn't show any smoking guns, but just how money can dribble away if nobody's keeping a close eye on things, I suppose.
There doesn't even look to be a lot of room for savings but I'd have expected noises to be made by the directors about areas where savings are possible - they aren't daft and must be even more aware than the members of this Board that current financing is unsustainable, given it rests on the need to sell players regularly.
It's the seeming acceptance of this formula that makes me wonder more and more if DA is happy to live with the situation, with the odd growl to make sure nobody thinks he's just a cash machine. Perhaps he enjoyed the success so much he's decided to be the rich uncle and keep the kids happy?

[Middle East]

h again, on 28 November 2015 - 11:16 AM, said:

Obliged for that. Doesn't show any smoking guns, but just how money can dribble away if nobody's keeping a close eye on things, I suppose.
There doesn't even look to be a lot of room for savings but I'd have expected noises to be made by the directors about areas where savings are possible - they aren't daft and must be even more aware than the members of this Board that current financing is unsustainable, given it rests on the need to sell players regularly.
It's the seeming acceptance of this formula that makes me wonder more and more if DA is happy to live with the situation, with the odd growl to make sure nobody thinks he's just a cash machine. Perhaps he enjoyed the success so much he's decided to be the rich uncle and keep the kids happy?

No room for savings eh? Having studied the accounts at length there is an area where significant savings can be made...

Wages, player costs was £3.95m
Previous seasons playing budget £1.7m

Leaving £2.25m being spent on others wages....if you are looking where savings can be made let's start here!

248 staff according to the accounts! 71 management, players and coaches and 94 on the admin and banqueting side both of which are way too high for a club of our size!

It boils down to which individual is being payed for what and and that isn't in the abridged version of what us shareholders get!

Neither is a breakdown of the income streams...

We know we got the Cooper/Majority of the Doyle money so let's say £1.5m but overall turnover only went up by £1 million, meaning we are at least £500k down on overall! Which when you consider crowds were up, we had a cup run and got some compensation for Cook/Roberts means that other revenues were well down! So commercial, tv, advertising etc. must have fallen significantly...and my question to the board had I made it to the AGM would have been be why?

It's unacceptable for a club with our income streams to be losing £1m every year and for me if the club was run more financially efficiently DA wouldn't have any need to moan, because he wouldn't have to keep putting money in... but at the end of the day he's the one calling the shots!

The gap has only been temporarily plugged by player sales but a business model based on hoping we can make up our shortfall by doing this every year is simply pie in the sky.

I have to say that I really beg to differ with Ashley Carson's assertion that we are in a strong financial position!

This post has been edited by Middle East: 28 November 2015 - 12:27 PM

[Wooden Spoon]

Middle East said:

1448712958[/url]' post='1163956']
No room for savings eh? Having studied the accounts at length there is an area where significant savings can be made...

Wages, player costs was £3.95m
Previous seasons playing budget £1.7m

Leaving £2.25m being spent on others wages....if you are looking where savings can be made let's start here!

248 staff according to the accounts! 71 management, players and coaches and 94 on the admin and banqueting side both of which are way too high for a club of our size!

It boils down to which individual is being payed what and and that isn't in the abridged version of what us shareholders get!

Neither is a breakdown of the income streams...

We know we got the Cooper/Majority of the Doyle money so let's say £1.5m but overall turnover went up by only £1 million, meaning we are £500k down on our turnover! Which when you consider crowds were up, we had a cup run and got some compensation for Cook/Roberts means that other revenues were well down! So commercial, tv, advertising etc. must have fallen considerably...and my question to the board had I made it to the AGM would have been be why?

It's unacceptable for a club with our income streams to be losing £1m a year and for me if the club was run more financially efficiently DA wouldn't have any need to moan, because he wouldn't have to keep putting money in... but at the end of the day he's the one calling the shots!

I have this say that I really beg to differ with Ashley Carson's assertion that we are in a strong financial position!

No doubt the bonus structure won't be paid out to the extent of the previous 2 seasons. It would be interesting to see what the difference is between the total football wages. Didn't CT say total football wages were £3 million or so? Leaving around £1.2 million in other wages?
That's a lot of money in wages being paid out on running the stadium and it's facilities. 60 people on £20k a year. Does CFC employ 60 permanent full time staff?

I also disagree with AC statement about the finances. Selling players to just about break even. It's like having 20 hrs overtime a week and having to rely on that overtime. If it goes back to your standard hours your in trouble.
I'm worried about the finances and short/medium term future. Thankfully the worry is only superficial - it's not like I am in danger f losing my house and my wife and son are going to be evicted, but even so......

[h again]

Middle East, on 28 November 2015 - 12:15 PM, said:

No room for savings eh? Having studied the accounts at length there is an area where significant savings can be made...

Wages, player costs was £3.95m
Previous seasons playing budget £1.7m

Leaving £2.25m being spent on others wages....if you are looking where savings can be made let's start here!

248 staff according to the accounts! 71 management, players and coaches and 94 on the admin and banqueting side both of which are way too high for a club of our size!

It boils down to which individual is being payed for what and and that isn't in the abridged version of what us shareholders get!

Neither is a breakdown of the income streams...

We know we got the Cooper/Majority of the Doyle money so let's say £1.5m but overall turnover only went up by £1 million, meaning we are at least £500k down on overall! Which when you consider crowds were up, we had a cup run and got some compensation for Cook/Roberts means that other revenues were well down! So commercial, tv, advertising etc. must have fallen significantly...and my question to the board had I made it to the AGM would have been be why?

It's unacceptable for a club with our income streams to be losing £1m every year and for me if the club was run more financially efficiently DA wouldn't have any need to moan, because he wouldn't have to keep putting money in... but at the end of the day he's the one calling the shots!

The gap has only been temporarily plugged by player sales but a business model based on hoping we can make up our shortfall by doing this every year is simply pie in the sky.

I have to say that I really beg to differ with Ashley Carson's assertion that we are in a strong financial position!

Yes, that's my problem. I just can't see a bloke like DA lying back and letting it happen if he hadn't already taken the decision to live with it, within reason. Putting another 300K in without any attempt at savings seems weird to me - there must be something going on that he's decided to go with.
Staff numbers look ridiculous, but most of them are presumably stewards,counter staff etc. who must be on peanuts.

[Middle East]

h again, on 28 November 2015 - 12:33 PM, said:

Yes, that's my problem. I just can't see a bloke like DA lying back and letting it happen if he hadn't already taken the decision to live with it, within reason. Putting another 300K in without any attempt at savings seems weird to me - there must be something going on that he's decided to go with.
Staff numbers look ridiculous, but most of them are presumably stewards,counter staff etc. who must be on peanuts.

I agree that many of the part time staff will be on peanuts (less than that if you consider a mate of mines daughter hasn't been paid by them for work she did weeks ago) which when you add in the additional £400k spent on NI and pension contributions means some people at the club MUST be on a very high wage and as with any business if you want to make savings that's where you look first...

[Guest_freelander2_*]

a kick in the balls, on 27 November 2015 - 07:31 PM, said:

DA says he want the council to write of around £850k of debts, and he would do the same - he loses £850k. So, would it make sense for him to pay the £850k to council, to ditch debt/mortgage to CBC, and convert that money, and his own loans into shares?

He says he wants £9million for club - and he has more chance of selling a club that has little or no debt. He also then owns the shares so if he did sell he would get his money back would he not?

Does that make sense or am I being niave and lacking a certain level of understanding here?

He's cute.

He wants a creditor to write off circa £850K in a business that they have no significant shareholding & at the same time, DA, with an 80% stake in the business will write off a further £850K!

Yeah, that seems fair!

[Freddie]

a kick in the balls, on 28 November 2015 - 12:31 PM, said:

No doubt the bonus structure won't be paid out to the extent of the previous 2 seasons. It would be interesting to see what the difference is between the total football wages. Didn't CT say total football wages were £3 million or so? Leaving around £1.2 million in other wages?
That's a lot of money in wages being paid out on running the stadium and it's facilities. 60 people on £20k a year. Does CFC employ 60 permanent full time staff?

I also disagree with AC statement about the finances. Selling players to just about break even. It's like having 20 hrs overtime a week and having to rely on that overtime. If it goes back to your standard hours your in trouble.
I'm worried about the finances and short/medium term future. Thankfully the worry is only superficial - it's not like I am in danger f losing my house and my wife and son are going to be evicted, but even so......

The lower than expected turnover compared to the accounts for the year before was covered at the AGM and was explained by the Auditors that it was due to the concert turnover which was in the previous accounts but obviously no comparable sum was generated in the last year.

a kick in the balls, on 28 November 2015 - 12:31 PM, said:

No doubt the bonus structure won't be paid out to the extent of the previous 2 seasons. It would be interesting to see what the difference is between the total football wages. Didn't CT say total football wages were £3 million or so? Leaving around £1.2 million in other wages?
That's a lot of money in wages being paid out on running the stadium and it's facilities. 60 people on £20k a year. Does CFC employ 60 permanent full time staff?

I also disagree with AC statement about the finances. Selling players to just about break even. It's like having 20 hrs overtime a week and having to rely on that overtime. If it goes back to your standard hours your in trouble.
I'm worried about the finances and short/medium term future. Thankfully the worry is only superficial - it's not like I am in danger f losing my house and my wife and son are going to be evicted, but even so......

The lower than expected turnover compared to the accounts for the year before was covered at the AGM and was explained by the Auditors that it was due to the concert turnover which was in the previous accounts but obviously no comparable sum was generated in the last year.

[Guest_freelander2_*]

h again, on 28 November 2015 - 11:16 AM, said:

Obliged for that. Doesn't show any smoking guns, but just how money can dribble away if nobody's keeping a close eye on things, I suppose.
There doesn't even look to be a lot of room for savings but I'd have expected noises to be made by the directors about areas where savings are possible - they aren't daft and must be even more aware than the members of this Board that current financing is unsustainable, given it rests on the need to sell players regularly.
It's the seeming acceptance of this formula that makes me wonder more and more if DA is happy to live with the situation, with the odd growl to make sure nobody thinks he's just a cash machine. Perhaps he enjoyed the success so much he's decided to be the rich uncle and keep the kids happy?

On the subject of the Board, DA did suggest that some Board members would probably choose to walk away if they could find someone to buy out their loan notes.