Fossetts Farm

[sufcintheprem]

To be fair, he's done a good job in a difficult time. He's also my dad, my hero and all time favourite singer/songwriter.

Also, you mgiht want to check your link Naps. The page is quite funny but I don't reckon it's what you intended!

 

[footymad13]

Well anyone know a rough figure of our debt, because obviously RM is such a saint it can't be more than a million or two can it ?

 

[Javea Shrimper]

During the year ending 31 July 2003, the club made a profit of £218,654 on a turnover of £2,194,162 (as opposed to a loss the previous year of over £700,000). This was largely due to SEL writing off rent due amounting to £1,730,247 which "only serves to demonstrate the continued commitment by SEL to the club's prosperity*". This is a FACT that FM should appreciate before spouting off rubbish about SEL getting their money back or shutting down the football club.

WS

* Source : SUFC Ltd 'Report and Financial Statements 31 July 2003'

 

[Napster]

Quote[/b] (footymad13 @ Sep. 20 2004,17:42)]Well anyone know a rough figure of our debt, because obviously RM is such a saint it can't be more than a million or two can it ?

It's more than my credit card debt and less than Enron's debt.

 

[Napster]

Quote[/b] (Javea Shrimper @ Sep. 20 2004,17:55)]During the year ending 31 July 2003, the club made a profit of £218,654 on a turnover of £2,194,162 (as opposed to a loss the previous year of over £700,000). This was largely due to SEL writing off rent due amounting to £1,730,247 which "only serves to demonstrate the continued commitment by SEL to the club's prosperity*". This is a FACT that FM should appreciate before spouting off rubbish about SEL getting their money back or shutting down the football club.

WS

* Source : SUFC Ltd 'Report and Financial Statements 31 July 2003'

This is the thing which confuses me-

Why charge the club rent in the first place? (especially at 25% per annum)

All the club or whoever is doing is shifting paper money around. So why did it take so long for the accounts to come out?

To make them look good by writing off debt that they had no intention of paying? What's the point? Can we see the accounts for Roots Hall Limited at all?

 

[Javea Shrimper]

Quote[/b] (Napster @ Sep. 20 2004,18:59)]This is the thing which confuses me-

Why charge the club rent in the first place? (especially at 25% per annum)

Probably because SUFC leases the ground from SEL and the training ground from SEL UK Ltd and it needs to be shown in the accounts ... or something ... I dunno ...

WS

 

[footymad13]

Quote[/b] (Javea Shrimper @ Sep. 20 2004,18:55)]During the year ending 31 July 2003, the club made a profit of £218,654 on a turnover of £2,194,162 (as opposed to a loss the previous year of over £700,000). This was largely due to SEL writing off rent due amounting to £1,730,247 which "only serves to demonstrate the continued commitment by SEL to the club's prosperity*". This is a FACT that FM should appreciate before spouting off rubbish about SEL getting their money back or shutting down the football club.

WS

* Source : SUFC Ltd 'Report and Financial Statements 31 July 2003'

How can the club ever pay back nearly £2,000.000 in rent i ask you ?

Mike, Yes they put money into the club but at the end of the day if they get there hands on RH they will get there pot of gold.

BTW Does anyone know roughly the sort of money we are talking if they build on RH. I mean look at the location and the prices atm.

At the end of the day im sure the club has enough debt without the rent to be getting on with and SEL know that no one will buy the club with millions of debt and not a asset to its name.

I appreciate what RM and Delancey are doing believe me but at the end of the day they are both property developers who have the clubs two main assets in there control.

 

[Napster]

Quote[/b] (Javea Shrimper @ Sep. 20 2004,18:06)]

Quote[/b] (Napster @ Sep. 20 2004,18:59)]This is the thing which confuses me-

Why charge the club rent in the first place? (especially at 25% per annum)

Probably because SUFC leases the ground from SEL and the training ground from SEL UK Ltd and it needs to be shown in the accounts ... or something ... I dunno ...

WS

It's confusing, isn't it.

 

[Javea Shrimper]

Quote[/b] (footymad13 @ Sep. 20 2004,19:08)]Mike, Yes they put money into the club but at the end of the day if they get there hands on RH they will get there pot of gold.

THEIR hands! THEIR pot of gold!! Jeez!! Basic grammatical knowledge is alarmingly poor these days ...

I think you've missed the FACT that Roots Hall and the training ground were sold to SEL back in 1999 as part of the sale and leaseback agreement so they already have THEIR hands on the stadium. As for a pot of gold? I have reservations whether the plot of land at Roots Hall will ever provide lucrative development potential. After all, the stadium is built on top of an old rubbish dump and much of Roots Hall is subsiding ...

WS

 

[footymad13]

Quote[/b] (Javea Shrimper @ Sep. 20 2004,19:15)]

Quote[/b] (footymad13 @ Sep. 20 2004,19:08)]Mike, Yes they put money into the club but at the end of the day if they get there hands on RH they will get there pot of gold.

THEIR hands! THEIR pot of gold!! Jeez!! Basic grammatical knowledge is alarmingly poor these days ...

I think you've missed the FACT that Roots Hall and the training ground were sold to SEL back in 1999 as part of the sale and leaseback agreement so they already have THEIR hands on the stadium. As for a pot of gold? I have reservations whether the plot of land at Roots Hall will ever provide lucrative development potential. After all, the stadium is built on top of an old rubbish dump and much of Roots Hall is subsiding ...

WS

I know that, but as you know they can't build on RH until they find SUFC a new home, ok they could fold us but it wouldn't be a very good move for either RM or Delancey, esp MD being a localish company and generally its in everyones best interests to do it the 'nice' way if you like and build us a nice new stadium.

Im sure RH is good for something, i haven't seen the plans or know little or nothing about the state of the soil etc but somehow i think Delancey and RM have looked into this.

 

[Javea Shrimper]

Quote[/b] (footymad13 @ Sep. 20 2004,19:19)]I know that, but as you know they can't build on RH until they find SUFC a new home, ok they could fold us but it wouldn't be a very good move for either RM or Delancey, esp MD being a localish company and generally its in everyones best interests to do it the 'nice' way if you like and build us a nice new stadium.

OK. Hands up who had heard of Martin Dawn BEFORE they got involved in the football club back in 1998. Local company or not, I don't think there would be many PR problems if SUFC folded. Same with Delancey; water off a duck's back ...

WS

 

[footymad13]

Quote[/b] (Javea Shrimper @ Sep. 20 2004,19:25)]

Quote[/b] (footymad13 @ Sep. 20 2004,19:19)]I know that, but as you know they can't build on RH until they find SUFC a new home, ok they could fold us but it wouldn't be a very good move for either RM or Delancey, esp MD being a localish company and generally its in everyones best interests to do it the 'nice' way if you like and build us a nice new stadium.

OK. Hands up who had heard of Martin Dawn BEFORE they got involved in the football club back in 1998. Local company or not, I don't think there would be many PR problems if SUFC folded. Same with Delancey; water off a duck's back ...

WS

Im not quite so sure, but i am generally pleased with the way the club is run obviously a few picks but a heck of alot has improved in these last 3-4 years. But all im saying is these people didn't take over the club because they are avid football fans. Ill always be wary and im sure others will be too but lets not pretend that we arn't in alot of debt and a club without any assets.

 

[C'mon you Blues]

Having met Ron a few times I've a theory about him. Sure he wants to make some dosh and who doesn't. However I honestly believe he wants to be remembered as somebody who did something for the community and that is saving its football club. I definitely think he doesn't want to be remembered as the man at the helm when the club went belly up. He wants his place in history.
Hope I'm right.

 

[Kent Shrimper]

Quote[/b] (Napster @ Sep. 20 2004,18:59)]

Quote[/b] (Jávea Shrimper @ Sep. 20 2004,17:55)]During the year ending 31 July 2003, the club made a profit of £218,654 on a turnover of £2,194,162 (as opposed to a loss the previous year of over £700,000). This was largely due to SEL writing off rent due amounting to £1,730,247 which "only serves to demonstrate the continued commitment by SEL to the club's prosperity*". This is a FACT that FM should appreciate before spouting off rubbish about SEL getting their money back or shutting down the football club.

WS

* Source : SUFC Ltd 'Report and Financial Statements 31 July 2003'

This is the thing which confuses me-

Why charge the club rent in the first place? (especially at 25% per annum)

All the club or whoever is doing is shifting paper money around. So why did it take so long for the accounts to come out?

To make them look good by writing off debt that they had no intention of paying? What's the point? Can we see the accounts for Roots Hall Limited at all?

I would reckon for some sort of Tax purpose, im purely speculating and havent really got a clue

 

[TrueBlue]

Quote[/b] ]He wants his place in history.
Hope I'm right.

you better be right if you aint we are shafted!

 

[Hong Kong Blue]

Quote[/b] (Kent Shrimper @ Sep. 20 2004,20:40)]

Quote[/b] (Napster @ Sep. 20 2004,18:59)]

Quote[/b] (Jávea Shrimper @ Sep. 20 2004,17:55)]During the year ending 31 July 2003, the club made a profit of £218,654 on a turnover of £2,194,162 (as opposed to a loss the previous year of over £700,000). This was largely due to SEL writing off rent due amounting to £1,730,247 which "only serves to demonstrate the continued commitment by SEL to the club's prosperity*". This is a FACT that FM should appreciate before spouting off rubbish about SEL getting their money back or shutting down the football club.

WS

* Source : SUFC Ltd 'Report and Financial Statements 31 July 2003'

This is the thing which confuses me-

Why charge the club rent in the first place? (especially at 25% per annum)

All the club or whoever is doing is shifting paper money around. So why did it take so long for the accounts to come out?

To make them look good by writing off debt that they had no intention of paying? What's the point? Can we see the accounts for Roots Hall Limited at all?

I would reckon for some sort of Tax purpose, im purely speculating and havent really got a clue  

I have a hypothetical question for any accountants/auditors out there.

If there was a hypothetical company, which hypothetically was operating at a loss and had large hypothetical debts, would that hypothetical company's auditors sign off on its accounts?

My hypothetical understanding is that the auditors would only be able to sign off, if they thought that the company was a viable going concern.

And if that is the case, might any delay in producing the accounts hypothetically be caused because the hypothetical auditors had hypothetically refused to sign the accounts.

Presumably the owners of the hypothetical company would claim that the hypothetical company was still a viable business because they were still backing it. In this hypothetical scenario, might the hypothetical auditors then ask for some proof of the continued commitment by the owners to the hypopthetical company's prosperity, particularly if the hypothetical company's main creditor was its owner?

 

[Firestorm]

Hypothetically of course :-), but my understanding is that there must be a reasonable basis for assuming that the any debt is covered (or underwritten) in some way, However in SUFC's case, there is only two (IIRC) creditors, MD and Delancy, both of whom are major share/stake holders. As such there is no impending worry about court action to fold the club up and Compulsory liquidation etc.

So as long as the inland revenue, and any third parties are paid we should stay above water until the Property development, which our owners have effectively gambled our whole existance on, pays off.

So a number of years ago we were in debt, losing money hand over fist and plummeting down the football ladder. We had several ways forward
Find a reich benefactor who would pump loads of money in expecting no return to bail us out...yeah Right !!
Sell our assets to realise some cash in the short term and hope that it enough to turn things round
Or take a punt on someone who has a cunning plan which will keep us going in the short term and hopefully provide a cash balance in the long term.

The latter sounds the least feasible, but we are on the final straight of it actually coming true...despite serious misgivings amongst a number of fans since the onset (Why was the Trust formed in the first place ?)

Personally I think it is taking a long while, but we havn't had a high court winding up order for a few years now so we must be on the up (especially at a time when more clubs are going under), so I , for one can wait a little longer.

And the xmas club money doesn't go missing these days.....

 

[Hooly]

HKB, I'll give the simple answer & then ArseMad can fill you in with the detailed technical information.  

Auditors as can be seen from recent high profile cases, always basically rely on the client, even after they've done their compliance work which has come out with the wrong answer.  In the old days this was done by the "letter of representation" which basically says "everything I've told you is true" (even if I've lied a bit or about everything) and nothing has materially changed since.

The directors would have judge that there is "reasonable" expectation that the company has "adequate" resources to continue operating for the "forseeable" future.  Or words to that effect as they've changed over the years.  So yes you are correct.

The extent of "reasonable", "adequate" & "foreseeable" will vary from case to case, but I was once involved with a company where due to ongoing refinancing negotiatons we were having almost daily minuted board meetings, based on the fact that the directors were only able to "forsee" the next couple of days until the next argument!  The negotiations eventually took about a year & I'd hate to think how many minutes I typed, expletives deleted, & the company still exists.

In the club case it would likely be a letter from one of the investing parties futher up the chain guaranteeing "support", whatever that may mean, to a certain date thence to be reviewed.  Also the league also want similar "guarantees" when a club gets into a real fix.

 

[Einstein]

Quote[/b] (Firestorm @ Sep. 21 2004,15:04)]Personally I think it is taking a long while, but we havn't had a high court winding up order for a few years now so we must be on the up (especially at a time when more clubs are going under), so I , for one can wait a little longer.

Its usually when a High Court Winding Order comes from a company such as the Inland Revenue that the sh*t starts to hit the fan!

 

[Hooly]

Quote[/b] (Hong Kong Blue @ Sep. 21 2004,14:38)]If there was a hypothetical company, which hypothetically was operating at a loss and had large hypothetical debts, would that hypothetical company's auditors sign off on its accounts?

When I trained I was sent a few times to "do" the company books of a client which did not hypothetically have losses & debts, as it had no income!!  And never had as far as the eye could see.

Turned out the "director" was the ex president of the Nigerian senate who was "somewhere" in the UK, as recently his best mate had been discovered in a crate at Stansted being "taken" back to Nigeria.

Somewhere this "company" had some undisclosed income of some kind but the Companies House, Inland Revenue et al accepted the accounts as they were!!  Wonder why?