Breaking News Today's Echo - Who owns the Blues? (2010 thread)

[Mick]

You can have implicit trust in a set of accounts. You can be slightly sceptical about a set of accounts or you can be downright querulous about them believing them to be duplicitous through and through.

For anyone firmly entrenched in the first camp, it is worth remembering that the likes of Enron filed accounts regularly !

 

[Beefy]

You can have implicit trust in a set of accounts. You can be slightly sceptical about a set of accounts or you can be downright querulous about them believing them to be duplicitous through and through.

For anyone firmly entrenched in the first camp, it is worth remembering that the likes of Enron filed accounts regularly !

The thing is Mick, there's more than enough in the Accounts to have a pop at Ron Martin about. They don't exactly look good and paint a picture of a business on it's knees. As Firestorm said though, it's the way that the figures are twisted to fit unfounded conspiracy theories that I object to.

I'm as appalled at the state of the Club as anyone, and have been warning that this was coming for longer than most. I'd happily see the back of Ron Martin tomorrow if it meant a brighter future for Southend United. But I'll still call ******** when I see it.

 

[GBJ]

2009 Accounts were lodged at companies house early may and were discussed on an earlier thread

The current year does not close until 31/7

As for the comments about those who thought the previous numbers were correct not defending them...the numbers have not changed, they have been explained many times before an I for one am not going to face further comments about repeating my self , boring accounts etc as I have from certain quarters over the passt month just because ipeople could not , or wou;d not read what has been previously posted .

There is no evidence to substantiate claims that RM has been taking any money from SUFC to prop up his other businesses, if he wanted money from SUFC surely he would just call in some of the Millions in debts which SUFC owe the parent undertaking, other than a small reduction in the debt to the parent Undertaking, as reported in the last accounts and discussed on that thread there is nothing to indicate that SUFC's indebtedness has reduced.

As for the accusations about backing RM, personally I don't give a toss about RM, its the fabrication of "facts" which ****es me off . unsubstantiated financial theories are bad enough when bandied about by economists by when they are toted as facts by some people who can't even spell fiscal impropriety let alone debate its finer points its just beyond contempt

Believe what you want to believe I guess. It'll come out one day

 

[fbm]

2009 Accounts were lodged at companies house early may and were discussed on an earlier thread

The current year does not close until 31/7

As for the comments about those who thought the previous numbers were correct not defending them...the numbers have not changed, they have been explained many times before an I for one am not going to face further comments about repeating my self , boring accounts etc as I have from certain quarters over the passt month just because ipeople could not , or wou;d not read what has been previously posted .

There is no evidence to substantiate claims that RM has been taking any money from SUFC to prop up his other businesses, if he wanted money from SUFC surely he would just call in some of the Millions in debts which SUFC owe the parent undertaking, other than a small reduction in the debt to the parent Undertaking, as reported in the last accounts and discussed on that thread there is nothing to indicate that SUFC's indebtedness has reduced.

As for the accusations about backing RM, personally I don't give a toss about RM, its the fabrication of "facts" which ****es me off . unsubstantiated financial theories are bad enough when bandied about by economists by when they are toted as facts by some people who can't even spell fiscal impropriety let alone debate its finer points its just beyond contempt

Thank god you spelt that right

 

[Firestorm]

Believe what you want to believe I guess. It'll come out one day

I believe what I can from the facts as presented.

If factual evidence comes out one day then obviously I will be in a position to reappraise .

 

[fbm]

Which was the quote from HMRC several times?...

Wasn't it the suspicion that he was trading insolvently? I'm not an accountant but I think that if you ARE insolvent (rather than being suspected of being insolvent) the company has to go into liquidation. I don't think it's possible to file a set of insolvent accounts and continue to trade.

 

[Cricko]

2009 Accounts were lodged at companies house early may and were discussed on an earlier thread

The current year does not close until 31/7

As for the comments about those who thought the previous numbers were correct not defending them...the numbers have not changed, they have been explained many times before an I for one am not going to face further comments about repeating my self , boring accounts etc as I have from certain quarters over the passt month just because ipeople could not , or wou;d not read what has been previously posted .

There is no evidence to substantiate claims that RM has been taking any money from SUFC to prop up his other businesses, if he wanted money from SUFC surely he would just call in some of the Millions in debts which SUFC owe the parent undertaking, other than a small reduction in the debt to the parent Undertaking, as reported in the last accounts and discussed on that thread there is nothing to indicate that SUFC's indebtedness has reduced.

As for the accusations about backing RM, personally I don't give a toss about RM, its the fabrication of "facts" which ****es me off . unsubstantiated financial theories are bad enough when bandied about by economists by when they are toted as facts by some people who can't even spell fiscal impropriety let alone debate its finer points its just beyond contempt

I am sorry you must be on a different planet if you believe that for one minute...creative accounting between the myriad of companies is the speciality on the Menu at RH.

 

[GBJ]

I am sorry you must be on a different planet if you believe that for one minute...creative accounting between the myriad of companies is the speciality on the Menu at RH.

Ding! Ding! Ding!

 

[Firestorm]

I am sorry you must be on a different planet if you believe that for one minute...creative accounting between the myriad of companies is the speciality on the Menu at RH.

Lost me a bit there John, if I believe that SUFC owe the parent undertaking money , or if I believe that any funds physically paid from SUFC to the parent undertaking would reduce the debt ?

I find this "creative accounting" argument strange, when it was first brought up, a year or so ago to explain the misheld belief that RM had bought the land at RH and B&L at a cut down price (after VJ had overstated the asset value to make the deal seem a better proposition and to post a book "profit" for his last set of accounts) no one was interested at all, now there is a sniff that RM might be doing it there is uproar.

 

[canveyshrimper]

Wasn't it the suspicion that he was trading insolvently? I'm not an accountant but I think that if you ARE insolvent (rather than being suspected of being insolvent) the company has to go into liquidation. I don't think it's possible to file a set of insolvent accounts and continue to trade.

I believe the phrase used by HMRC was "a company that is obviously insolvent".

 

[Cricko]

Lost me a bit there John, if I believe that SUFC owe the parent undertaking money , or if I believe that any funds physically paid from SUFC to the parent undertaking would reduce the debt ?

I find this "creative accounting" argument strange, when it was first brought up, a year or so ago to explain the misheld belief that RM had bought the land at RH and B&L at a cut down price (after VJ had overstated the asset value to make the deal seem a better proposition and to post a book "profit" for his last set of accounts) no one was interested at all, now there is a sniff that RM might be doing it there is uproar.

My question to you should be Gary ..why do you have such faith in one set of accounts when you have not see the others owned by the same man...you seem to have ignored the obvious loopholes the Echo have pointed out in RM's statements over the past year or so and the light they are now showing him in...I do not have any problem that you want to have faith in these accounts figures I just do not understand why you hold them in such esteem and take them as fact.

 

[number11]

Wasn't it the suspicion that he was trading insolvently? I'm not an accountant but I think that if you ARE insolvent (rather than being suspected of being insolvent) the company has to go into liquidation. I don't think it's possible to file a set of insolvent accounts and continue to trade.

Legally, to be insolvent is an inability to pay debts when they fall due. At the moment it appears Ron / SUFC / Ron's company's are treading a thin line. If all their creditors called in the debts it looks like they would be unable to meet the demands of those creditors and therefore would be insolvent. The HMRC appear to basically be saying that if 'effect' the company is insolvent they are unable to repay all debts and if all the creditors sought payment they are owed the company would not be able to pay all its debts, but at the moment as only one or two creditors are demanding payment at any one time, they are just about finding money to stave those off so are theoretically but not legally insolvent.

 

[Firestorm]

My question to you should be Gary ..why do you have such faith in one set of accounts when you have not see the others owned by the same man...you seem to have ignored the obvious loopholes the Echo have pointed out in RM's statements over the past year or so and the light they are now showing him in...I do not have any problem that you want to have faith in these accounts figures I just do not understand why you hold them in such esteem and take them as fact.

I have looked at MD's accounts and there is little there .

As for having faith in the accounts, I have looked at these accounts and many other of SUFC accounts and whilst I can see things which are not particular inspiring regarding the state of the clubs finances, i have not seen anything which indicates anything particular "criminal".
Now I am likely to have missed something, I am not a top notch financial wizard, but that said , in all the accounts SUFC have submitted over the years, I can not recall any comments about specific items in the accounts which look dubious and out of keeping with prior years figures (except maybe the aforementioned asset revaluation in 1994) .

To a degree I would like to be wrong, I would like someone to point out something specific I have missed, i would love to see concrete evidence that Ron has embezzled, screwed, raped or whatever is the SZ phrase of the day, the club. I would love to have someone specific to blame and focus my anger on rather than be sitting here with the current opinion that I have that the club I love has been unsustainable for many many years unless i am content with the lower reaches of League 2 every year.

 

[Cricko]

I have looked at MD's accounts and there is little there .

As for having faith in the accounts, I have looked at these accounts and many other of SUFC accounts and whilst I can see things which are not particular inspiring regarding the state of the clubs finances, i have not seen anything which indicates anything particular "criminal".
Now I am likely to have missed something, I am not a top notch financial wizard, but that said , in all the accounts SUFC have submitted over the years, I can not recall any comments about specific items in the accounts which look dubious and out of keeping with prior years figures (except maybe the aforementioned asset revaluation in 1994) .

To a degree I would like to be wrong, I would like someone to point out something specific I have missed, i would love to see concrete evidence that Ron has embezzled, screwed, raped or whatever is the SZ phrase of the day, the club. I would love to have someone specific to blame and focus my anger on rather than be sitting here with the current opinion that I have that the club I love has been unsustainable for many many years unless i am content with the lower reaches of League 2 every year.

I think that is the whole crux of the matter..2 companies sets of accounts at most out of what was it 28?and one of them had little there.

 

[fbm]

Legally, to be insolvent is an inability to pay debts when they fall due. At the moment it appears Ron / SUFC / Ron's company's are treading a thin line. If all their creditors called in the debts it looks like they would be unable to meet the demands of those creditors and therefore would be insolvent. The HMRC appear to basically be saying that if 'effect' the company is insolvent they are unable to repay all debts and if all the creditors sought payment they are owed the company would not be able to pay all its debts, but at the moment as only one or two creditors are demanding payment at any one time, they are just about finding money to stave those off so are theoretically but not legally insolvent.

But if a company owns real estate that is unencumbered but has little cash, how does that work?

Surely the fact that the assets of the company exceed the debts of the company mean that it is not insolvent? But in my example there are no liquid assets so that bills cannot be met. But they could be met if the assets were liquidated.

When Grant was given a 2.5 year extension out of the blue last year I suspected this was a move to keep the club solvent. Grant is worth his annual contract x 2.5, which might make him worth (at that time) say £130,000 (if he was on £1000 a week). That asset on the balance sheet might keep the club the right side of the line on paper.

Whether the assets as shown in the books are realisable assets at the values stated is another matter.

Let's face it, there are 29 companies apparently and some offshore. It's a minefield and there will be people making damn sure that everything is, on the face of it, as above board as it could be.

And you know what? If RM is trading insolvently, and gets caught out, then he will pay the price. If the club is insolvent, we'll go into liquidation, take a 10 point hit and the club will have new owners appointed by the administrator.

Surely that will appease everyone then, won't it?

 

[Firestorm]

But if a company owns real estate that is unencumbered but has little cash, how does that work?

Surely the fact that the assets of the company exceed the debts of the company mean that it is not insolvent? But in my example there are no liquid assets so that bills cannot be met. But they could be met if the assets were liquidated.

When Grant was given a 2.5 year extension out of the blue last year I suspected this was a move to keep the club solvent. Grant is worth his annual contract x 2.5, which might make him worth (at that time) say £130,000 (if he was on £1000 a week). That asset on the balance sheet might keep the club the right side of the line on paper.

Whether the assets as shown in the books are realisable assets at the values stated is another matter.

Let's face it, there are 29 companies apparently and some offshore. It's a minefield and there will be people making damn sure that everything is, on the face of it, as above board as it could be.

And you know what? If RM is trading insolvently, and gets caught out, then he will pay the price. If the club is insolvent, we'll go into liquidation, take a 10 point hit and the club will have new owners appointed by the administrator.

Surely that will appease everyone then, won't it?

The first part, assets exceed liability but there is no liquidity is a prime example of cash flow problems which ultimately result in administration and the assets being realised, creditors being paid and possibly the company coming out of administration (if the company can't borrow against its assets in the first place to raise a bit of working capital)

If SUFC go into liquidation there is no 10 point penalty as there is no football club.

 

[THE SEVENTIES NORTH BANK]

I believe what I can from the facts as presented.

If factual evidence comes out one day then obviously I will be in a position to reappraise .

So things that are put down as sundries for example, you are going to believe. They can put any figure down and say the fact is, that is what went on sundries.


If you ask any self employed person, they want an accountant to claim for as much as possible,for example, tools, sundries, petrol and many other expenses. Some things need proof and some don't and are put down under different headers. These figures can be vastly exaggerated to lessen the tax bill for the self employed person. We all know it happens, and some of you are doing it or have done it. The figures are looked at as fact and are usually given the all clear. But it doesn't match the true figures in reality.

If you want to believe the accounts and figures that are unbroken, that is your choice.
I personally will only believe them when they are broken down properly.
I would also like an explanation on the charges from Martin Dawn to S.U.F.C.

It may all turn out to be straight down the line. But in general, if things don't seem or feel right, they usually aren't.

 

[Fiftyone]

If Ron is the honest man that he proclaims to be, why does he run 29 companies,many of whom are registered in overseas tax havens?.

 

[A Century United]

So things that are put down as sundries for example, you are going to believe. They can put any figure down and say the fact is, that is what went on sundries.


If you ask any self employed person, they want an accountant to claim for as much as possible,for example, tools, sundries, petrol and many other expenses. Some things need proof and some don't and are put down under different headers. These figures can be vastly exaggerated to lessen the tax bill for the self employed person. We all know it happens, and some of you are doing it or have done it. The figures are looked at as fact and are usually given the all clear. But it doesn't match the true figures in reality.

If you want to believe the accounts and figures that are unbroken, that is your choice.
I personally will only believe them when they are broken down properly.
I would also like an explanation on the charges from Martin Dawn to S.U.F.C.

It may all turn out to be straight down the line. But in general, if things don't seem or feel right, they usually aren't.

A better way of looking at it is Occam's Razor - in any situation, the simplest explanation is the most likely to be correct. There are any number of complicated conspiracy theories being propounded (some of which, BTW, are worryingly* close to libelous) but the simplest explanation is that Ron Martin has bitten off more than he can chew, and has run out of money.

And on another point, HMRC were alleging that SUFC were trading insovently, not Martin Dawn et al.

*Worryingly for the owners of Shrimperzone, that is.l

 

[Hotman]

But if a company owns real estate that is unencumbered but has little cash, how does that work?

Surely the fact that the assets of the company exceed the debts of the company mean that it is not insolvent? But in my example there are no liquid assets so that bills cannot be met. But they could be met if the assets were liquidated.

When Grant was given a 2.5 year extension out of the blue last year I suspected this was a move to keep the club solvent. Grant is worth his annual contract x 2.5, which might make him worth (at that time) say £130,000 (if he was on £1000 a week). That asset on the balance sheet might keep the club the right side of the line on paper.

Whether the assets as shown in the books are realisable assets at the values stated is another matter.

You suspected incorrectly. You cannot revalue intangible assets like that, and certainly not by capitalising ongoing salary. That would be like your employer capitalising your wages over the average life-span of an employee.