[calvin plummers socks]

Spire-Heights, on 10 February 2018 - 08:42 AM, said:

https://www.chesterf...financial-year/

The trading results for the 2016/17 financial year have been released by CFC (2001) Limited, showing an overall loss of £506,735, compared to a profit of £39,666 the previous year.

Relegation during the trading year saw the income fall by nearly £900,000 compared to the previous year. This was mainly due to the reduced amount of transfer fees during the year. Gate receipts and season ticket money fell by £290,000, although TV and football awards increased by £280,000.

The club’s costs were reduced by over £200,000, despite the costs incurred of replacing the manager and coaching staff during the year.

Company secretary Ashley Carson commented: “Whilst the results are disappointing, the year had been extremely challenging, with five directors resigning and relegation to League Two.

“The club managed to negotiate a reduction in the interest costs of the loans to £100,000, from £244,000 the previous year.”

A meeting of shareholders will be held at the Proact Stadium on Monday, March 5 at 7pm. Shareholders are reminded to submit questions on the form enclosed with the meeting papers at least 48 hours before the AGM.

Just wait to see next year what it looks like with a fall to non-league:-(

[valemadness]

erniemossity, on 12 February 2018 - 10:30 AM, said:

Can the accountant type people who frequent this board dissect these and put any pertinent questions on the 'AGM questions' thread? I'm not that familiar with accounts so wouldn't know what is glaringly questionable in them (if anything). The one thing that surprises me is the average number of playing, coaching and managerial staff each month....76.....really???

2016/2017 squad = 42 players. Average 5/6 management team including physio etc. Then academy/youth team. From ages 8 (?) up to 18. Not all the 76 will be full time, a lot will be casual, but yes can see at least 20 on the academy side.

[erniemossity]

valemadness, on 12 February 2018 - 12:02 PM, said:

2016/2017 squad = 42 players. Average 5/6 management team including physio etc. Then academy/youth team. From ages 8 (?) up to 18. Not all the 76 will be full time, a lot will be casual, but yes can see at least 20 on the academy side.

But the academy/youth team wouldn't be paid would they?

[isleaiw1]

erniemossity, on 12 February 2018 - 12:47 PM, said:

But the academy/youth team wouldn't be paid would they?

Shop, banqueting, sales, etc. Staff is anyone on payroll so easy to get the number stated...

[dim view]

erniemossity, on 12 February 2018 - 10:30 AM, said:

Can the accountant type people who frequent this board dissect these and put any pertinent questions on the 'AGM questions' thread? I'm not that familiar with accounts so wouldn't know what is glaringly questionable in them (if anything). The one thing that surprises me is the average number of playing, coaching and managerial staff each month....76.....really???

Indeed. Note 7 also confirms that the club is paying for a number of community staff. Which ones I wonder?

In fact, the Community Trust continues to owe money. Is it ever likely to be repaid and does it pay for all it's overheads?

[valemadness]

erniemossity, on 12 February 2018 - 12:47 PM, said:

But the academy/youth team wouldn't be paid would they?

I'm not including the academy/youth team players, but do you expect the coaches to work for free?

[erniemossity]

isleaiw1, on 12 February 2018 - 02:22 PM, said:

Shop, banqueting, sales, etc. Staff is anyone on payroll so easy to get the number stated...

The other 'staff' have a separate entry numbering 91. The accounts specifically state 76 for "management, players and coaches". That still seems a huge number to me and the assumption is that these were all paid. If not, then be useful to have a breakdown of number of professionals, number of coaches, number of academy/youth players, and which ones receive payment.

This post has been edited by erniemossity: 12 February 2018 - 05:35 PM

[valemadness]

erniemossity, on 12 February 2018 - 05:30 PM, said:

The other 'staff' have a separate entry numbering 91. The accounts specifically state 76 for "management, players and coaches". That still seems a huge number to me and the assumption is that these were all paid.

Some will only be paid for a couple of hours a week.

[Westbars Spireite]

azul, on 10 February 2018 - 01:07 PM, said:

Dave sat down with Dave with a nice glass of port and said to Dave, this interest is killing us Dave and Dave said, what do you want me to do Dave? Then Dave suggested to Dave that Dave reduces the interest on Dave's loans. Dave eventually accepts Dave's suggestion that Dave reduces his inters rate, and thus Dave doesn't need to put so much into the club to cover Dave's loan repayment

I thought that would be B****Y obvious WB!!

Can you negotiate with yourself?

[Les Ashmore]

erniemossity, on 12 February 2018 - 05:30 PM, said:

The other 'staff' have a separate entry numbering 91. The accounts specifically state 76 for "management, players and coaches". That still seems a huge number to me and the assumption is that these were all paid. If not, then be useful to have a breakdown of number of professionals, number of coaches, number of academy/youth players, and which ones receive payment.

Perfectly valid question

valemadness, on 12 February 2018 - 05:33 PM, said:

Some will only be paid for a couple of hours a week.

With the reply as it is I believe this is an assumption.


Ghost employees are not unknown after all we have Ghost raffle winners

https://actionfraud....isappropriation

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

Les Ashmore, on 12 February 2018 - 07:14 PM, said:

Perfectly valid question


With the reply as it is I believe this is an assumption.


Ghost employees are not unknown after all we have Ghost raffle winners

https://actionfraud....isappropriation

Blimey - could summat like this really happen, Les?

[Les Ashmore]

MDCCCLXVI, on 12 February 2018 - 07:30 PM, said:

Blimey - could summat like this really happen, Les?

Not a clue Mate and I'm not saying it is

But it has happened before many times, and after all it is a valid question

The accounts show quote " Number of Management, players and coaches " = 76

I personally cannot see management, players and coaches only working a couple of hours a week, Can You?

[60s 70s Spireite]

erniemossity, on 12 February 2018 - 12:47 PM, said:

But the academy/youth team wouldn't be paid would they?

Surely Youth Team Players would be paid wouldn’t they, albeit at apprentice type levels?

[dim view]

Les Ashmore, on 12 February 2018 - 07:14 PM, said:

Ghost employees are not unknown after all we have Ghost raffle winners

https://actionfraud....isappropriation

The Audit Report in the accounts has grown from 1.5 pages last year to 2.5 pages this, stressing to us shareholders that there has been no 'material mistatement' anywhere.

I conclude that the illegal payment of CFC staff by a third party is immaterial, not warranting a comment.

Les, if you have any evidence then please let us know what it is.

[Les Ashmore]

dim view, on 12 February 2018 - 08:03 PM, said:

Les, if you have any evidence then please let us know what it is.

As I said, I am not for an instant suggesting that is what is happening, The question posed in my opinion was a perfectly valid question which got a reply of an assumption that said "Some will only be paid for a couple of hours a week." In my opinion no Management, Players and coaches would come in that bracket

[dim view]

Les Ashmore, on 11 February 2018 - 04:29 PM, said:

By my reckoning, the move by the club to force the old directors to resign has cost the club money this year.
I believe there were debentures of circa £1.4 mill owed to them in loans, rumors are that they accepted a reduction of circa 20% which would mean £280,000 thereby reducing the loans to £1.12 Mill.
We are all aware the ex-directors agreed that they would take no interest so had the directors not been forced to resign there would be no interest payments to be met nor in actual fact ANY payments to them at all.
BUT
After they were forced to resign (According to accounts) an agreement was made with them to repay the debentures (Loans) over a 48 month period, so to me that means that the club has paid out £23,333.3333 p/m totaling £280,000 over the past 12 months to the ex-directors which had they NOT been forced to resign the club would still have in it's account.

So would someone please explain to me what benefit there was in forcing the directors to resign?

This also means that over the next 3 years (Unless sold) the loans have to be repaid thereby putting an absolutely unnecessary hardship on the club.

Now I'm no accountant Les, but if the loans have been reduced by 20% as you suggest then surely that money (£290k?) should appear elsewhere in t'accounts? Double entry book keeping at it's simplest.

If it's in 'Other Income' then isn't the actual trading loss getting on for a cute little £800k?

Would any proper accountant mark me out of 10 please?

[60s 70s Spireite]

dim view, on 12 February 2018 - 08:57 PM, said:

Now I'm no accountant Les, but if the loans have been reduced by 20% as you suggest then surely that money (£290k?) should appear elsewhere in t'accounts? Double entry book keeping at it's simplest.

If it's in 'Other Income' then isn't the actual trading loss getting on for a cute little £800k?

Would any proper accountant mark me out of 10 please?

Not got my copy of the accounts yet.
But, no, any reduction (or increase) in loans won’t affect profit or losses. The double entry occurs solely on the balance sheet. Credit bank, debit loans or credit one loan debit another loan.

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

Les Ashmore, on 12 February 2018 - 07:38 PM, said:

Not a clue Mate and I'm not saying it is

But it has happened before many times, and after all it is a valid question

The accounts show quote " Number of Management, players and coaches " = 76

I personally cannot see management, players and coaches only working a couple of hours a week, Can You?

I know, pal. All just guesswork. Infact I've probably been watching too many of the American cop shows my missus is into because the line 'Imagine the lengths someone would go to to keep this quiet' keeps going through my mind...

[valemadness]

Les Ashmore, on 12 February 2018 - 08:12 PM, said:

As I said, I am not for an instant suggesting that is what is happening, The question posed in my opinion was a perfectly valid question which got a reply of an assumption that said "Some will only be paid for a couple of hours a week." In my opinion no Management, Players and coaches would come in that bracket

Do you think someone who is coaching the u12's academy once/twice a week is a full time member of staff? Coaching staff covers everyone that even only does 1 or 2 hours a week.

[Les Ashmore]

valemadness, on 12 February 2018 - 10:20 PM, said:

Do you think someone who is coaching the u12's academy once/twice a week is a full time member of staff? Coaching staff covers everyone that even only does 1 or 2 hours a week.

Please look at the comment I made, How the reply was written ie "Some will only be paid for a couple of hours a week." is an assumption

Had it been written thus "Some ARE only paid a couple of hours a week" it would be fact.

So, therefore, it was a valid question, OR can you categorically state some ARE only paid a couple of hours a week?