• Welcome to the ShrimperZone forums.
    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which only gives you limited access.

    Existing Users:.
    Please log-in using your existing username and password. If you have any problems, please see below.

    New Users:
    Join our free community now and gain access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and free. Click here to join.

    Fans from other clubs
    We welcome and appreciate supporters from other clubs who wish to engage in sensible discussion. Please feel free to join as above but understand that this is a moderated site and those who cannot play nicely will be quickly removed.

    Assistance Required
    For help with the registration process or accessing your account, please send a note using the Contact us link in the footer, please include your account name. We can then provide you with a new password and verification to get you on the site.

Accounts since 2003

Agree entirely.

Let's be honest, who is going to benefit the most from the ground:

1) Southend United Football Club (The) Limited, or
2) Ron Martin


I think that both SUFC and MD are desperately reliant on this ground going ahead - I don't think one needs it more or less than the other.
 
Don't think that's the point that was being asked, Cricko.

As we, the club, are tennants of whatever ground is provided for us, why are the legal costs involved with FF being (at least partly) met by the club and not exclusively by the parent company? It should not matter that the stadium is being built for our benefit - it is being built, at least in part, so the parent company can develop other facilities that would not have got permission otherwise.

It could, and in my opinion should, be argued that the parent company will gain massively from this development and therefore should have footed the legal bill on its own.

No legal bill means hugely reduced admin costs (they CAN'T have risen that much over 6 years on their own!), our debt is a hell of a lot less, and we're not in the mess we're currently in.

Overly simplistic, maybe, but even so I can't see where I'm being excessively cynical.

I may be wrong but I don't think that Ron Martin has ever said that SUFC are paying for the new ground. Our finances are tied in with those of the parent company, who are paying for it though.
 
I may be wrong but I don't think that Ron Martin has ever said that SUFC are paying for the new ground. Our finances are tied in with those of the parent company, who are paying for it though.

Well, on that basis, my idea for what constitutes the admin costs goes out the window. In which case what the heck are they, and why have they rocketed over the last few years?

Being INCREDIBLY cynical, but they wouldn't be management charges made by the parent company would they? A back door way of getting money from the club that isn't being taken directly as the rent etc.....

I know that sounds silly, and in the main part I'm joking when saying it, but then a 440% increase over 6 years for those charges is also a touch silly. Our finances would look a whole lot rosier without them rising at almost double the rate of wages and gate receipts etc. On that basis, if you're right and they're not legal fees then, I repeat, what the heck are they?
 
As the Administration expenses were 1.5M in 1995 they have only risen by 500k in the past 14 years
As for management charges made by the parent company , Quoting the accounts to 31/7/08
R Martin is a director of Mart Dawn PLC, MD Plc is a joint venture partner in SEL. a Management charge of 60,000 (60,000 : 2007) and recharged expenses of 4,625 (2007: 95,585) were charged to the company by MD

The administrative expenses for the years prior to 2006 were kept artificially low by the writing back of the previous years rent
In 2002 when the club was being run pretty much on a shoestring they were still 1.4M
 
Back
Top