How is it possible?

[mrsblue]

So, here's the answer to that lot (it took a while to get registered)...

Dagenham have spent money on the ground in order to get the ground grading to get promoted, and since promotion, in order to stay in the Football League. The new stand at the away end is there just because the league insist that there are at least 2,000 seats, we previously had just over 1,000 which was enough to go up. We could have just nailed seats to the existing terracing, which is what it appears to be at Roots Hall, but given the support of the local council and the Football Foundation we have invested in the new stand, changing rooms, offices etc. There is money owed on these projects, but it is not ridiculous amounts and it is owed to sympathetic lenders, mostly the local council.

We have also improved the floodlights, twice since promotion, in order to keep the ground grading current.

The squad is decent at the moment, but we do have a bit of churn and usually to get a player in we have to let one go to stay in budget. The sale of Dwight Gayle to Posh last season, followed by the money from the sell on clause when he then moved on to Crystal Palace means we are actually fairly flush at the moment, but it was getting pretty ugly at one stage last season, hence the timing of Gayle's exit. The Daggers are, and will remain, a selling club, looking to find good young players from the non-league game, polish them up and sell them on. As long as every so often we can find a Gayle or a Mackail-Smith we ought to be ok.

The Daggers are a limited company, which the Football League insist all clubs are, but prior to going up it was actually a members club, along similar lines to FC Barcelona, owned by the community and run by a committee. It is now set up so that there are no shares that can be bought or sold meaning no money bags can come in and take over (I believe the term is "Limited by Guarantee" but don't quote me). This causes some problems in getting in investment as well as benefits in meaning hopefully the club doesn't become a plaything or "project" for a speculator down the line. We don't have a Chairman who will bail the club out from his own pocket, nor would we want one.

The club does not own the ground either so there is not much point in a speculator getting involved, not that it is exactly prime development space anyway, being under covenant as a sports ground. There is actually a load of space available next to the ground where Orlake Records and a few other manufacturing companies used to be which could be developed much easier than Victoria Road could be. The ground is actually owned by the local council and rented back to the club for a peppercorn rent.

The Daggers do indeed get average crowds of around 2,000 and would like more, and juggling income against expenditure is a never ending task. Given all of the stuff above though and realistic ambitions regarding where we are as a club and what might be achievable in the short term, medium term and longer term, we do OK to be honest.

Have fun, and see you Tuesday week. :smile:

Great stuff Mike,

I look at the Daggers with envy as they appear to be well run and never attempt to go above their station so to speak where at Southend it's disaster after disaster.

 

[londonblue]

So then the question is, can Sainsbury proceed without the Prospects land?

No it can't .

But we can.

 

[Uncle Leo]

Great stuff Mike,

I look at the Daggers with envy as they appear to be well run and never attempt to go above their station so to speak where at Southend it's disaster after disaster.

Steady on now.

 

[londonblue]

"Why does Roman Ibramovich own chelsea? Cost him over a billion to do so."

But Roman paid 10 million for the club that is now valued at about 800 million as global brand .... hes not stupid .

Ignoring, of course, all the players he's bought.

 

[londonblue]

I never said we had 5 million in the bank - did I ?

Apparently according to Ron Martin we received 5 million from Sainsburys - which is one hell of a lot of money for a league 2 club - and does go against the much hyped public perception of "we are broke."

"We are broke" really suits RM doesn't it ?

Its not like we are sitting on the most valuable piece of retail real estate in the whole of England - worth zillions .....

Sorry to state the obvious but given the value of our de facto assets - i.e. Roots Hall - we are not broke - in fact we are
in a great position .....which is why our local hapless capitalist is still around.

Look at what has happened at Portsmouth - thats the way to go ...

Roots Hall is not owned by SUFC.

 

[londonblue]

It basically means that you turn the money that was showing as being a loan to the club into share capital. So Abramovich will have cancelled those loans and swapped them for shares which makes their balance sheet look a lot better. Instead of lending Chelsea money he has bought shares.

Most of the debts on SUFC's books will never be paid back but they can't be capitalised because every penny that we owe will be showing as a corresponding asset in someone else's accounts. So if SEL, for example, lends Southend United a million pounds that million shows as a debt in our balance sheet but shows as an asset in SEL's. If the debt gets written off or capitalised in our book's then the asset also has to disappear in the books of the company who lent the money. You remove that asset from the lending company's balance sheet and what was a solvent entity suddenly becomes insolvent.

At this point the club's books are full of loans to a whole load of group companies who themselves appear to be being propped up by other related companies. It's a whole network of debtors and corresponding creditors and if one falls it'll take the whole lot with it.

But what was the reason for capitalising their debt? It couldn't possibly be to get around the Fair Play rules could it?

 

[DTS]

We have historic debt and they don't would be my simple answer.

 

[markw]

But what was the reason for capitalising their debt? It couldn't possibly be to get around the Fair Play rules could it?

Of course it could...
Fifa had to come up with something that at a glance made it look like football was spending within its means.. Do you really think a champions league without chelsea, manure, man city, real madrid, barcelona, psg, milan and so on would ever happen :P

 

[chapperzUK]

But what was the reason for capitalising their debt? It couldn't possibly be to get around the Fair Play rules could it?

Aren't the FFP rules mainly about stopping football clubs racking up massive losses by spending beyond their means?

Don't see how capitalising the debt will affect the profit, simply just reduce the liabilities.

 

[Beefy]

But what was the reason for capitalising their debt? It couldn't possibly be to get around the Fair Play rules could it?

FFP was the reason the media used but like chapperzUK I'm slightly unsure how it works as FFP isn't anything to do with the debt on the books of a club. Man United are hundreds of millions in debt but they're fine for FFP because they're profitable and generate a lot of cash. At the same time Man City are debt free but will need to make huge cuts in order to meet FFP (well they won't because FFP is a sham and won't stand up to any legal challenge as UEFA fully know).

I think it's simply that Abramovich never intended to get that money back so it didn't need to be sitting as a liability in the books. As the owner of all of those shares he's in pretty much as strong a position anyway.

It's the same story at Man City. The Sheiks don't need the cash and didn't put it in in order to see it again. It's their promotional tool to further their other commercial interests so every penny that they have put in as ended up in capital rather than loans.

 

[chapperzUK]

FFP was the reason the media used but like chapperzUK I'm slightly unsure how it works as FFP isn't anything to do with the debt on the books of a club. Man United are hundreds of millions in debt but they're fine for FFP because they're profitable and generate a lot of cash. At the same time Man City are debt free but will need to make huge cuts in order to meet FFP (well they won't because FFP is a sham and won't stand up to any legal challenge as UEFA fully know).

I think it's simply that Abramovich never intended to get that money back so it didn't need to be sitting as a liability in the books. As the owner of all of those shares he's in pretty much as strong a position anyway.

It's the same story at Man City. The Sheiks don't need the cash and didn't put it in in order to see it again. It's their promotional tool to further their other commercial interests so every penny that they have put in as ended up in capital rather than loans.

On the legal challenge front, I read that the lawyer that won the Bosman case years ago is also heading one to challenge the FFP ruling too.

 

[Beefy]

UEFA always knew that it would never stand up which is why they said that any Club who takes them to Court over it would be expelled from FIFA. Which itself would never stand up in Court either. But yeah there's talk of him challenging it from a player's perspective.