Fossetts Farm

[BoyWonder2]

Quote[/b] ]However, last season the club effectively turned an operating profit - which is perhaps the best news this club has had in a decade. It shows that, if properly run - and that's something that RM is achieveing - this club is a viable business

But would this have been the case if we hadn't appeared on Sky Tv twice (VS Canvey and Blackpool) and reached our first major final?

 

[Javea Shrimper]

Quote[/b] (BoyWonder2 @ Sep. 25 2004,00:59)]But would this have been the case if we hadn't appeared on Sky Tv twice (VS Canvey and Blackpool) and reached our first major final?

I think you're getting a bit confused. The accounts for the period which includes last season's exploits in the LDV and FA Cup have not yet been released. The figures quoted - a profit of £218,654 - are part of the financial statement for the year ended 31 July 2003. In the "Chairman's Statement" from Geoffrey King which opens the report, it is believed that this profit was largely as a result of SEL writing off rent for the four years to 2003 which amounted to £1,730,247.

For the record, the club recorded a loss in 2002 of £707,665.

WS

 

[Technician]

Quote[/b] (Jávea Shrimper @ Sep. 25 2004,08:42)]

Quote[/b] (BoyWonder2 @ Sep. 25 2004,00:59)]But would this have been the case if we hadn't appeared on Sky Tv twice (VS Canvey and Blackpool) and reached our first major final?

I think you're getting a bit confused. The accounts for the period which includes last season's exploits in the LDV and FA Cup have not yet been released. The figures quoted - a profit of £218,654 - are part of the financial statement for the year ended 31 July 2003. In the "Chairman's Statement" from Geoffrey King which opens the report, it is believed that this profit was largely as a result of SEL writing off rent for the four years to 2003 which amounted to £1,730,247.

For the record, the club recorded a loss in 2002 of £707,665.

WS

One certainty that many clubs will reduce their losses [or indeed make small profits], is the regulation restricting player wages to ?60%? of annual turnover... however, how can clubs like Darlo afford to enrol players such as Alun Armstrong & Craig Hignett who have recently been playing at Championship / Premiership level considering their low attendances and without exceeding these levels?

I hope we can get our attendances above the 5000 per game level this season, in order to maintain a minimum break-even level of income. With FF being at least a couple of years away, we need to have the spending power to compete at this level, or in League 1, if fortune smiles on us this season.

 

[Upminster Blue]

Quote[/b] (Matt the Shrimp @ Sep. 24 2004,19:26)]Hmm... thought SEL then acquired more shares and then sold some of the interest in SEL to Delancey... but you're right, it's as clear as a prehistoric swamp, Mike...  All I can tell you is that by mid-2000 (or was it 2001? I genuinely can't remember), and the time that Main was ousted, Delancey were definitely controlling the shares and calling the shots - it was they who, on the advice of a couple of people in particular, called the EGM and ousted Main.

Gotta go - but I'm sure this one will rumble on!

Matt

Would a search at Companies House clear up the current position? If we knew the current company structure, it my shed some light on the likely financing and ownership of Fossets Farm and therefore also the clubs future.

 

[Matt the Shrimp]

Quote[/b] (Upminster Blue @ Sep. 25 2004,21:36)]Would a search at Companies House clear up the current position? If we knew the current company structure, it my shed some light on the likely financing and ownership of Fossets Farm and therefore also the clubs future.

Not sure it would... I don't think the Companies House records show the size of the share ownerships of the different investors within a particular company, do they...?

Bottom line: Delancey is underwriting us to the extent that they are not actively seeking to recoup any rent off us.

That's quite a significant piece of underwriting; yet, at the same time, it's encouraging in that it shows that on a day-to-day basis, the club trades profitably without relying on Delancey. In other words, if we owned Roots Hall, we wouldn't need Delancey in the background at all...

Matt

 

[overseas shrimper]

Quote[/b] (Matt the Shrimp @ Sep. 26 2004,12:22)]... In other words, if we owned Roots Hall, we wouldn't need Delancey in the background at all...

Matt

But our potential is somewhat limited unless we have a facility where football isn't the only major revenue stream. So... would FF etc. be possible without a 'Delancey' in the background?

 

[Matt the Shrimp]

Quote[/b] (overseas shrimper @ Sep. 26 2004,11:30)]But our potential is somewhat limited unless we have a facility where football isn't the only major revenue stream. So... would FF etc. be possible without a 'Delancey' in the background?

Not sure. Martin Dawn have done some pretty big developments... maybe they could do a football stadium too. No doubt that Delancey have bigger clout in terms of arranging financing for the property and construction deals, though.

This whole debate has sprung from Luke's concern that we'd be screwed if Delancey walked away. To that extent, I'm on Mike's side of the debate, but perhaps a little more tempered: whilst I recognise that it's very useful to have Delancey's help, and I recognise that to a considerable extent they have underwritten us in the past (and continue to do so vis-a-vis the rent), I also believe that we could survive without them (subject to the rent issue being resolved).

Matt

 

[footymad13]

Thing is, if Delancey did walk away for whatever reason couldnt they just call in ANY debts we owe them and surely there must be some book debts somewhere even if its just 500,000, and would MD really bail us out even if they wanted to, wern't they close to bankruptcy a while back ?

Delancey want RH so if they got frustrated enough and walked away couldn't they try to fold the club thus we'd have no SUFC and the convient would be lifted ?

At the very least couldn't they make things very hard for us ?

Any ideas anyone ?

 

[overseas shrimper]

Quote[/b] (footymad13 @ Sep. 26 2004,19:45)]... surely there must be some book debts somewhere ...

Southend United in 'Overdue Library Books' shocker!

 

[Napster]

but what about Delancey Southend Ltd?

 

[Happy Clappy Hooly]

Quote[/b] (Matt the Shrimp @ Sep. 26 2004,11:22)]Not sure it would... I don't think the Companies House records show the size of the share ownerships of the different investors within a particular company, do they...?

Yes they do Matt.  The company's Annual Return (which for the uninitiated is a Return legally required to be lodged Annually!

) will show details of all shareholders, size of shareholding & movements in the year.  It also shows Director's details & should also show any other directorships they have.

Accounts these days depend increasingly upon the size of the company as to how much information they have to show, which in the case of tracing through a group organisation can be tricky to follow though.  Most of the major credit reference houses due to this complexity can now provide a Group Tree which shows all related, associated, holding & subsidiary companies from top to bottom, but these are generally subscription based & expensive.

Both Annual Reports & Accounts can be downloaded off the Companies House website for a fee which last time I used it was £4 each or £5 the pair.

 

[Matt the Shrimp]

Quote[/b] (Happy Clappy Hooly @ Sep. 27 2004,12:55)]Yes they do Matt.  The company's Annual Return (which for the uninitiated is a Return legally required to be lodged Annually!

) will show details of all shareholders, size of shareholding & movements in the year.  It also shows Director's details & should also show any other directorships they have.

Ah, I didn't know that! Good skills, Hooly. So now we just need to download the accounts for Roots Hall Limited and South-Eastern Leisure...

 

[Happy Clappy Hooly]

Quote[/b] (Matt the Shrimp @ Sep. 27 2004,13:51)]Good skills, Hooly.

Cheers Matt.  But not much to show for 25 years as a bean counter!  

 

[Firestorm]

Quote[/b] (Napster @ Sep. 27 2004,12:26)]but what about Delancey Southend Ltd?

Well Delancy had a compulsory purchase type thing on all of their shares a few years ago (I can't recall the name of the company used to buy them) so that the company could go back into private ownership. They also shed a lot of their asscociate companies to concentrate on the core activity of Prperty Development (I believe they owned a few shopping centres and other Developments which were all sold)
So Delancey Southend could well have been passed all over the MD/SEL/Delancey/RHL mire.

as for FM's comment about Delancey could call in the debt anytime, True, but they are the only people SUFC owe money to. In the past we have had the inland Revenue, as said before those ones get a bit scary, local Builders, Printers etc all issue winding up orders, at least we aren't in that situation anymore.