[Guest_freelander2_*]

h again, on 08 November 2015 - 06:17 PM, said:

It seems to be at the moment. Do YOU have any idea where the money went?

It's clear to me exactly where the money has gone, on the wage bill.

The wage bill for Y/E 06/15 (£4,374,147) was 23% greater than what it was for Y/E 06/12 (£3,553,833), that's against a reduction in the headcount of 7.5% (268 for Y/E 06/12 v 248 for Y/E 06/15)

So much for the low basic, bonus related structure!

This post has been edited by freelander2: 08 November 2015 - 06:32 PM

[Guest_freelander2_*]

In fact, if you compare the wage bill for Y/E 06/15 (£4,374,147) versus Y/E 06/13 (£3,330,671), it's increased by 31% in two years!

[Westbars Spireite]

If we're led to believe that well under half of that is the playing budget (£1.6m apparently last season) how on earth does the rest add up?

How many full time employees? How many casual/matchday staff?

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

h again, on 08 November 2015 - 12:58 PM, said:

I pointed to his success in recruiting Paul Cook as Manager, and to the fact that on his watch the club had gone from strength to strength. That's success. I'm sure he's had failures as well, but most people past school age accept that people make mistakes and strike a balance. As for the losses made, until somebody actually pinpoints where the money went, playing the blame game is just shooting in the dark, not that it ever stopped you.
The bit about player sales is the usual imaginative stuff you fall back on. Our players went because they were wanted by other clubs with more to offer, and had agents who told them so in no uncertain terms. How do you think I was wrong about that? Or are you still of the opinion that DA took them to the door and threw them out?

Wow!

Just...wow!

Replying twice to the same post then two of your own - your own?

That's really kinda weird...

But for clarity what you actually said was 'We've had every possible version of how wrong I am, so we'll take that as read', remarkable humility which I praised. So is the accusation I imagined it an example of the 'denial and deceit' of which I spoke? And by the way, you left that thread complaining about a few little red numbers - more 'ducking and dodging', perhaps?

Then there's your comment about the CEO's financial skills 'not amounting to very much' - your words: is this the same 'h-again' who's spent post after post after post sneering at others for saying exactly that? Who's repeatedly scorned supposed 'know-nothing conspiracy theorists' for questioning Turner's abilities? Hmmm, seems like a pretty obvious bit of twisting and turning to me. And this only a few months after insisting CT was absolutely right to say no one's going to Pompey 'cos they weren't - before declaring that Roberts had been 'off since April' - whilst at the same time alleging Paul Cook plotted against Town despite numerous attacks on anyone even hinting things might not be as they should be behind the CFC scenes.

That's just off the top of my head.

If I were you I'd let sleeping dogs lie, so to speak; both for your own and the sake of those who have to read your obsessive posturing.

dim view, on 08 November 2015 - 01:00 PM, said:

I've decided not to comment any more until after the AGM. DA/CT/AC must know that the simple question 'how will you make ends meet when you have no players to sell' is bound to be asked. Their explanation can have one of two effects on me....I'll either feel reassured, or I'll think they are idiots. Either way, not much point worrying.

Good post, Dave.

freelander2, on 08 November 2015 - 06:30 PM, said:

It's clear to me exactly where the money has gone, on the wage bill.

The wage bill for Y/E 06/15 (£4,374,147) was 23% greater than what it was for Y/E 06/12 (£3,553,833), that's against a reduction in the headcount of 7.5% (268 for Y/E 06/12 v 248 for Y/E 06/15)

So much for the low basic, bonus related structure!

As insightful and informative as ever, 'F2'.

A few thoughts of my own, too: the last set of accounts will've included the pay-offs for both Alan Stevenson and Gary Cook, won't they? I'll repeat that I've not spoken to GC on this issue yet it wouldn't surprise me if that figure approached or exceeded six figures. Meanwhile the Club appointed Kevin Fitzerald, who I guess Chris Turner knew through their Sheffield connections, and former Wednesday player Roger Wylde. I'd suggest neither came on minimum wage. Then there was the installation of the 'big screen' costing a reported hundred thousand pounds - sponsored in part or not - and the refurb of the lounges and reception area. More money.

All of those outgoings are in the public domain, so to speak, however what we'll probably never find out is who enjoyed what from the sale of players. I'm not gonna start pointing fingers but surely everyone accepts percentages of what was paid will've ended up in various pockets. Nothing illegal in that but another expense which might explain the gap between record receipts and the debt continuing to rise. Alongside good old fashioned taxes, of course.

Any chance of you or someone else accessing a more comprehensive set of accounts at Company House?

This post has been edited by MDCCCLXVI: 08 November 2015 - 07:52 PM

[azul]

freelander2, on 08 November 2015 - 06:30 PM, said:

It's clear to me exactly where the money has gone, on the wage bill.

The wage bill for Y/E 06/15 (£4,374,147) was 23% greater than what it was for Y/E 06/12 (£3,553,833), that's against a reduction in the headcount of 7.5% (268 for Y/E 06/12 v 248 for Y/E 06/15)

So much for the low basic, bonus related structure!

I don't understand where you are coming from on this occasion. The figure you quoted was the total wage bill. The club made a statement on the football costs....

"In total we spent just over £3m on the football side, including players, coaching staff, management and bonuses"

That doesn't seem that extreme when you have a turnover of £7.4M

The wage bill as you stated was nigh on £4.4 so that must be around £1.3M going on non football related wages. I can't see the girl serving me my Bovril will eat int that budget too much

Also with a total wage bill of £4.4M, any idea where the other £3M has gone?

[60s 70s Spireite]

MDCCCLXVI, on 08 November 2015 - 07:34 PM, said:

Any chance of you or someone else accessing a more comprehensive set of accounts at Company House?

The accounts in the public arena will be the only ones filed at Companies House. Only directors, HMRC and external funders will see a full set, and be entitled to further explanations.

I would also like to know exactly how much of Trust's debt was written off (is it the £170k the loan went down by) and why have the tax liabilities at the year end risen by so much? Is it to do with the Trust debt, and if not is this also a hit on the profit and loss account?

The lack of disclosure on the accounts about the Trust loan write off suggests the Directors are not keen to tell us the background. However when the Trust files its own accounts, which are much more detailed, we may get a better idea.

[azul]

60s 70s Spireite, on 08 November 2015 - 08:16 PM, said:

The accounts in the public arena will be the only ones filed at Companies House. Only directors, HMRC and external funders will see a full set, and be entitled to further explanations.

I would also like to know exactly how much of Trust's debt was written off (is it the £170k the loan went down by) and why have the tax liabilities at the year end risen by so much? Is it to do with the Trust debt, and if not is this also a hit on the profit and loss account?

The lack of disclosure on the accounts about the Trust loan write off suggests the Directors are not keen to tell us the background. However when the Trust files its own accounts, which are much more detailed, we may get a better idea.

Why do we only get and abridged set of accounts anyway?

I seem to remember something about it when DA took over majority ownership of the club, is it something to do with that?

[newboldsteve]

azul, on 08 November 2015 - 08:13 PM, said:

I don't understand where you are coming from on this occasion. The figure you quoted was the total wage bill. The club made a statement on the football costs....

"In total we spent just over £3m on the football side, including players, coaching staff, management and bonuses"

That doesn't seem that extreme when you have a turnover of £7.4M

The wage bill as you stated was nigh on £4.4 so that must be around £1.3M going on non football related wages. I can't see the girl serving me my Bovril will eat int that budget too much

Also with a total wage bill of £4.4M, any idea where the other £3M has gone?

all the food and drink in the hospitality and under the stands , re-laid pitch . travel to and from games not sure about any hotel stays, payments to agents, stadium repairs I'm sure the list is endless

[Mr Mercury]

newboldsteve, on 08 November 2015 - 08:25 PM, said:

all the food and drink in the hospitality and under the stands , re-laid pitch . travel to and from games not sure about any hotel stays, payments to agents, stadium repairs I'm sure the list is endless

I would imagine the take on hospitality and concourse sales would more than cover those outgoings.

This post has been edited by Mr Mercury: 08 November 2015 - 08:45 PM

[Tha Knows...]

60s 70s Spireite, on 08 November 2015 - 08:16 PM, said:

The accounts in the public arena will be the only ones filed at Companies House. Only directors, HMRC and external funders will see a full set, and be entitled to further explanations.

I would also like to know exactly how much of Trust's debt was written off (is it the £170k the loan went down by) and why have the tax liabilities at the year end risen by so much? Is it to do with the Trust debt, and if not is this also a hit on the profit and loss account?

The lack of disclosure on the accounts about the Trust loan write off suggests the Directors are not keen to tell us the background. However when the Trust files its own accounts, which are much more detailed, we may get a better idea.

People need to ask for more details about this early into the meeting and pursue it. The club should at least give a verbal breakdown of losses if asked - and attempt to be honest and transparent.

This post has been edited by Spire-Power: 08 November 2015 - 08:29 PM

[60s 70s Spireite]

azul, on 08 November 2015 - 08:23 PM, said:

Why do we only get and abridged set of accounts anyway?

I seem to remember something about it when DA took over majority ownership of the club, is it something to do with that?

Because that's all all shareholders are entitled to. If you hold shares in say BT you will only receive similar. When Norton Lea owned the company there was the same limited disclosure.

[Tha Knows...]

60s 70s Spireite, on 08 November 2015 - 08:30 PM, said:

Because that's all all shareholders are entitled to. If you hold shares in say BT you will only receive similar. When Norton Lea owned the company there was the same limited disclosure.

But presumably shareholders can still ask questions and insist on answers

[Ernie Ernie Ernie]

h again, on 08 November 2015 - 05:28 PM, said:

I'm with you, but here we have a lot of people wanting what amounts to a Financial Director, which isn't cheap. Meanwhile the rest of the non-playing football staff have reached levels that would have seemed ridiculous 5 years ago. The trouble is, there's a case to be made for all of them, and PC obviously made it, but would an accountant look at them all and say "cut", and then be told they were all indispensable in this day and age?
With the best accountant in the world, if the decision is taken higher up to spend in pursuit of success, all he can do is record it on the balance sheet.

But all this is idle speculation until we know where the money went. If it disappeared by poor financial control then systems need tightening and knuckles rapping: if it went by a conscious decision to spend in pursuit of success then it's a dodgy strategy but not incompetence.

I think that's what everybody else has been saying for weeks, somebody needs to find out and then stop it happening.

It seems at the minute we have unexpected expenses keep coming out of the woodwork and you have to wonder why they should all be unexpected.

It might be a question for the AGM to ask what they have been and a supplementary to ask why unexpected if it seems they shouldn't have been.

People keep saying some of the questions being suggested are difficult to answer but given people from the club read these boards, they have plenty of time to do some preparation and so they shouldn't be

[newboldsteve]

Mr Mercury, on 08 November 2015 - 08:28 PM, said:

I would imagine the take on hospitality and concourse calves would more than cover those outgoings.

yes cause but you have to spend it to make the money

[dim view]

60s 70s Spireite, on 08 November 2015 - 08:16 PM, said:

The accounts in the public arena will be the only ones filed at Companies House. Only directors, HMRC and external funders will see a full set, and be entitled to further explanations.

I would also like to know exactly how much of Trust's debt was written off (is it the £170k the loan went down by) and why have the tax liabilities at the year end risen by so much? Is it to do with the Trust debt, and if not is this also a hit on the profit and loss account?

The lack of disclosure on the accounts about the Trust loan write off suggests the Directors are not keen to tell us the background. However when the Trust files its own accounts, which are much more detailed, we may get a better idea.

I know a bit more now, but not enough to be confident that any detailed explanatory statements would be spot on. Feel free, anybody, to correct me.

CT and another CFC bod have replaced others on the Trust Board, and DalekPete is the new Temporary Chairman. The tax liability is nowt to do with the Trust, which is VAT neutral. My own personal conclusion, having tried and failed to understand a lot of detail, is that DA wants to replace the lease, which nets him a steady £5.7k a year plus minimal interest for 99 years, with an arrangement that gets him his money back far quicker and that Enforcer CT has been put in to make sure it happens. A cynic might suggest that CFC might then be easier to sell.

Presumably, if the £170k was still presented in the 'debtor' column, and we hadn't paid so much tax, then our profit would have been a whopper.

[Tha Knows...]

Ernie Ernie Ernie, on 08 November 2015 - 08:41 PM, said:

I think that's what everybody else has been saying for weeks, somebody needs to find out and then stop it happening.

It seems at the minute we have unexpected expenses keep coming out of the woodwork and you have to wonder why they should all be unexpected.

It might be a question for the AGM to ask what they have been and a supplementary to ask why unexpected if it seems they shouldn't have been.

People keep saying some of the questions being suggested are difficult to answer but given people from the club read these boards, they have plenty of time to do some preparation and so they shouldn't be

Agree but this tends not to happen. Sometimes other people have to pursue a similar line of enquiry if they want the question answered, until the point is reached where the answer is given or the club shamefacedly refuse to answer.

[dim view]

Ernie Ernie Ernie, on 08 November 2015 - 08:41 PM, said:

People keep saying some of the questions being suggested are difficult to answer but given people from the club read these boards, they have plenty of time to do some preparation and so they shouldn't be

The Accountants attend the AGM armed with their detailed spreadsheets on their laptops. Factual answers to questions like 'how much did we spend on....' can be provided in real time if DA allows it. The interpretation of the numbers might lead to a fair bit of waffle. I'm thinking of making a poster with the word 'waffle' on it, to hold up.

[Guest_freelander2_*]

MDCCCLXVI, on 08 November 2015 - 07:34 PM, said:

A few thoughts of my own, too: the last set of accounts will've included the pay-offs for both Alan Stevenson and Gary Cook, won't they? I'll repeat that I've not spoken to GC on this issue yet it wouldn't surprise me if that figure approached or exceeded six figures. Meanwhile the Club appointed Kevin Fitzerald, who I guess Chris Turner knew through their Sheffield connections, and former Wednesday player Roger Wylde. I'd suggest neither came on minimum wage. Then there was the installation of the 'big screen' costing a reported hundred thousand pounds - sponsored in part or not - and the refurb of the lounges and reception area. More money.

1) AS - He came here as a self employed consultant, I don't see any reason why that would have changed.

2) GC - Unless the club screwed up, I can't imagine the settlement figure being anywhere near the amount you mentioned. Besides & without researching, I think any claim for unfair/constructive dismissal (should that have been applicable) is capped at circa £70K or 12 months salary.

3) Scoreboard - Reading between the lines, this strikes me as a bit of reciprocal trading. The supplier retains ownership of the screen & the rental is covered by FOC sponsorship/exposure.

4) KF was recommended to the club by Rotherham's Commercial Director.

5) With regards to refurbishments costs, these wouldn't have impacted on the P&L.

[Wooden Spoon]

Ernie Ernie Ernie, on 08 November 2015 - 08:41 PM, said:

I think that's what everybody else has been saying for weeks, somebody needs to find out and then stop it happening.

It seems at the minute we have unexpected expenses keep coming out of the woodwork and you have to wonder why they should all be unexpected.

It might be a question for the AGM to ask what they have been and a supplementary to ask why unexpected if it seems they shouldn't have been.

People keep saying some of the questions being suggested are difficult to answer but given people from the club read these boards, they have plenty of time to do some preparation and so they shouldn't be

Another question to ask - "is it true that bailiffs turned up at the proact recently"

[60s 70s Spireite]

a kick in the balls, on 08 November 2015 - 09:12 PM, said:

Another question to ask - "is it true that bailiffs turned up at the proact recently"

Looking at the tax due, on behalf of HMRC?