Chairman's Blog - 24th March

[Matt the Shrimp]

The only real probing question, Matts was dealt with rather dismissively imho could almost be seen as rude

So we may have debt , but I am not going to say how much , to whom etc , but we are not servicing it (ie paying back any interest or any of the capital)

Yes, I thought it bordered on the dismissive as well - albeit that it's always nice to have written confirmation of debt being written off, which he appears to have given us.

Matt

 

[THE SEVENTIES NORTH BANK]

Providing you go down the little lane at Warners bridge, thru Warners Park and along the little stream it will be.....what fun!!

Just shecked it out on the map and no matter which way you walk or cut through, Prittlewell is much nearer.

 

[Smiffy]

Doesn't look much in it to me if you use the Fossetts Way entrance, rather than Eastern Avenue..

 

[Sammy The Shrimp]

Of course they would be changed, I can't think of two seasons where we kept the same shirt recently.

And I feel sorry for that first guy being called Mick Bailey to similar to Nick Bailey.

We had the same shirt when we went up from league 2 and kept it in league 1

 

[THE SEVENTIES NORTH BANK]

Doesn't look much in it to me if you use the Fossetts Way entrance, rather than Eastern Avenue..

Yes, but you can use the front entrance when arriving from Prittlewell station.
I would draw it for you but I can't do the blue line on the map thingy.

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

Yes, I thought it bordered on the dismissive as well - albeit that it's always nice to have written confirmation of debt being written off, which he appears to have given us.

Matt

Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't Ron said in the past that we cannot spend all of the transfer profits becuase much of that money is needed to service our debt? And now he seems to be claiming that we're free of debt? Can't have it both ways Ronald.

 

[A Century United]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't Ron said in the past that we cannot spend all of the transfer profits becuase much of that money is needed to service our debt? And now he seems to be claiming that we're free of debt? Can't have it both ways Ronald.

You're wrong. I have seen that arguement used many times on Shrimperzone, but I can't recall Ron using it.

 

[Sean 2]

You're wrong. I have seen that arguement used many times on Shrimperzone, but I can't recall Ron using it.

I was of the same opinion, but didn't want to post first in case i was wrong and then i'd look stupid, which i'm not you see! But i'll gladly follow ACU's new-found superiority on this site:)

 

[sufc_tom]

We had the same shirt when we went up from league 2 and kept it in league 1

Ok I stand corrected :)

Question for Ron:

"Can we change our sponsors back to Betterview because we got 2 promotions in the two years with them, now we have Insureandgo we have had a relegation, lucky but unsuccessful playoff push and this year could be the same. (But I hope we're successfull this time!)"

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

I was of the same opinion, but didn't want to post first in case i was wrong and then i'd look stupid, which i'm not you see! But i'll gladly follow ACU's new-found superiority on this site:)

It seems that being blunt and dismissive is the way to deal with questions regarding our 'non-existent' debts. However, when I spoke to Mr Martin face to face, he indicated that not all transfer profits could be re-invested, as much of these profits were needed to balance the books. Do we therefore assume that SUFC has a net deficit in excess of £1m before transfer activity? Or do we rightfully ask questions regarding debts? Obviously, as far as Ron and ACU are concerned, the answer would appear to be the former.

 

[J]

I have a question Ronald Mcdonald -

Is Tilson going to be replaced at the end of this season - as you quite clearly said, that non-promotion 2 years after relegation was a complete failure -

 

[grassroots]

I note that the question regarding future 'funding streams' from hotel, flats, retail outlets etc and what exactly would the club own (if anything) was not mentioned.

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

I have a question for Ron, courtesy of much of Shrimperzone:

'How difficult is it being so ****ing great?'

 

[Sean 2]

It seems that being blunt and dismissive is the way to deal with questions regarding our 'non-existent' debts. However, when I spoke to Mr Martin face to face, he indicated that not all transfer profits could be re-invested, as much of these profits were needed to balance the books. Do we therefore assume that SUFC has a net deficit in excess of £1m before transfer activity? Or do we rightfully ask questions regarding debts? Obviously, as far as Ron and ACU are concerned, the answer would appear to be the former.

Rightfully ask away my learned poster, certainly no problem there. It's jolly important to keep an open and inquisitive mind and i do miss Irate Ian for that very reason.
I don't think you can discuss ACU though as some sort of right-hand man for Ron unless there's summat else you're not telling us!
Interesting about your chat to RM re transfer profits, like ACU said earlier i've never heard Ron actually say that. So yes there is a debt to service then, by all accounts, albeit nothing less than we expected.

Maybe Ron would like everyone to publicly believe that there is no debts for the club to deal with, a shiny new stadium nearly built and all is good with the world.


Yer right!

 

[Suffolk Blue]

It seems that being blunt and dismissive is the way to deal with questions regarding our 'non-existent' debts.

Ron's not dim, nor do I think we was overly blunt or dismissive. He has though given a very carefully worded answer that I have my own interpretation of...

The Club is servicing no debt. => The club isn't paying off a debt, nor is it paying interest on a debt. I'm not sure if this means that interest isn't being accrued though, even if it isn't being services (i.e. paid off).

The Club does not operate an overdraft ... => any money that the club owes is to its parent company. i.e. the club doesn't owe money to the bank.

... and has not been paying rent or any interest to its parent company. => again, means exactly what it says. The club isn't paying any money to the parent company; this doesn't mean that the club isn't accruing debts relating to rent and interest.

I have written off a significant sum of money year on year => I believe this is so, and applaud RM for this. It'd be interesting to know if this money is actually the rent and interest from the use of the ground.

and therefore the implication is not relevant. => I'm not sure what Matt's implication was, nor do I see anything in Ron's reply that would mean that there was any irrelevance to the questions asked.

I'm not being overly critical here; simply pointing out that you can say something perfectly true in response to a question without actually divulging anything you don't want to.

... when I spoke to Mr Martin face to face, he indicated that not all transfer profits could be re-invested, as much of these profits were needed to balance the books. Do we therefore assume that SUFC has a net deficit in excess of £1m before transfer activity? Or do we rightfully ask questions regarding debts? Obviously, as far as Ron and ACU are concerned, the answer would appear to be the former.

Very few clubs can really afford to reinvest all of their transfer profits on new players, not even if they enjoy some unexpected windfalls (e.g. Chelsea money). We sell to survive because, even though we are believed to pay poorly by L1 standards, our wages bill for players alone exceeds our operating (non-transfer) income (if I recall correctly). If you add in all of the other wages, admin costs, ground maintenance, policing and stewardship costs, taxes, rates, utility bills etc. our costs far outweigh our revenue.

Some or all of that operating loss may well be offset by transfer profits, although some transfer profits of course are themselves offset by transfer losses.

That we have any cash left for investment in new players, even for wages of loan players is quite an achievement for a club of our size.

I wouldn't necessarily believe there is any massive problem of which we're unaware; well not on the basis of Ron's latest responses anyway.