Now time to voice your anger at Aldershot

[Firestorm]

2009 accounts (the only figures I have to hand)

Wages 3.4M
Social security 368K
Other expenses 2.2M
Admin Expenses 1.3M

Considering the tax owed at 31/7/2009 was 1.8M and at 31/7/08 was 0.8M that would indicate an annual tax bill of at least a million (probably as we were not wound up in 2008/9 I would guess that the 800K was paid so its probably nearer 1.5M - 1.8M) out of one of the two expenses figures.

Unfortuantely the utilities etc are not seperated.

Altough the rent is discribed in the related parties transctions as charged as Nil, it is shown in the accounts as a commitment to paying 520k pa with the note in Practice no amounts have been payable in recent years .

So of the expenses of 3.5M in 2009 at least 2M of it will be Rent and Tax 9and if the rent was being actually paid the cash flow would be even worse)

In an earlier post I surmised that the reduction in the debt to the parent company may well have been due to a loan from the parent being repaid, after a further look and as the figures are remarkably similar, the reduction in the debt of 520K may well have been due to the write off of a prior years rent

 

[WightShrimper]

I can't wait until Aldershot here goes - Martin you’re a putrescent mass, a walking vomit. You are a spineless little worm deserving nothing but the profoundest contempt. You are a jerk, a cad, a weasel. Your life is a monument to stupidity. You are a stench, a revulsion and despicable liar. You are shagging us like a helpless bitch. Despite your underhandedness and the fact that you are treating us with utter contempt, I'll still be renewing my season ticket because I love the club more than life itself.

What tune do we sing this to?

 

[Beefy]

if we owned the club there would be no debt - the debt belongs to RM cos hes taken all the money

But our problems have nothing to do with debt and everything to do with not being able to pay our bills on a month-by-month basis.

 

[Blue_Wes]

But our problems have nothing to do with debt and everything to do with not being able to pay our bills on a month-by-month basis.

If we're behind in bills, and not paying our liabilities though, would this not accrue as debt?

 

[BrettieAngell]

Evidencially , its not the only way to go though is it. Bournemouth and Gravesend / Ebbsfleet are the nearest wo examples in the upper teirs of English league where fans have got involved in an existing club (altough the Ebbsfleet debacle was probably more of a stunt than an actual attempt) and Bournemouth called in the administrators (for the 2nd time in 20 years) before a new owner stepped in and then they had some success .Where there has been some success is with Startups utilising a larged disenchanted fanbase (AFC Wimbledon and FC United) .

Fan ownership at the moment for SUFC would involve a lot of goodwill from the current owners, lets say that was forthcoming and they wrote off the debts and set a low rent (50% of what they initially charged 8 or so years ago ) of 250K pa. lets also say the fans worked really well and got the administration costs down to 500K PA .

That would leave the club with debts of about 1M to service and a reduction in annual costs of around the 750K mark. Now using this season as a guidline, we have been told that losses were 100-200k per month so if we take the lower figure that would be a loss of 1.2M , less the reduced costs of 750K so 450K.

The fans involved in running the club would have to have found 450k this year to be self sufficient, that would equate to a 4 pound per game ticket price increase (based on 26 games @ 5000) or 4500 fans contributing 100 quid to the fund.

I am not sure it would work for SUFC at the moment

Aren't Exeter owned by the fans? They seem to be doing alright for themselves.

 

[BrettieAngell]

If we're behind in bills, and not paying our liabilities though, would this not accrue as debt?

eventually ala last season and the problems with HMRC.

 

[Pubey]

If we're behind in bills, and not paying our liabilities though, would this not accrue as debt?

Potentially. The point is that on a month by month basis we spend more than we bring in. I haven't seen clear evidence that if there was no stadium development that our outgoings would be any less... especially not so much as to mean we turn a profit.

 

[CAPTAIN BIRDSEYE]

rent paid to Oh let me guess oh thats right Ron Martin!!

 

[Beefy]

If we're behind in bills, and not paying our liabilities though, would this not accrue as debt?

Well I guess it's the difference between debt and debts. We have a cashflow shortage which causes some of our obligations (tax and wages most notably) to on occasion not be paid. When that happens they obviously do become debts. But these will continue to be the case no matter who is in charge unless they are in a position to personally sign the cheques to pay them if the Club can't.

What Rayleigh boy is talking about is the idea that there are large debts which either RM has or the Club has and that the reason why we can't meet our liabilities is because the Club's income has been used to service these debts. Maybe this is the case. I don't know. But I'd want to see some evidence of this which we have not seen at the moment.

The fundamental split on this board isn't between those who are Pro-Ron and those who are anti-Ron. I don't believe there to be a single Pro-Ron person on here, really. The split is between those who think that our cashflow problems are the result of a fundamental flaw in the business model which sees us constantly operating with much higher expenses than we can justify on our income, and those who think that there is something more sinister than that. I'm obviously in the former, which is why I find it hard to imagine people criticising the Club for trying to increase income through ticket prices at a time where we (to me) are so obviously dying through lack of cash. I imagine though that if I was in the latter I'd not want to give RM a penny of my money.

This fundamental split is why we go round in circles so much and why tempers get raised - because both sides see the other as being a major cause of our problems.

 

[Pubey]

Well I guess it's the difference between debt and debts. We have a cashflow shortage which causes some of our obligations (tax and wages most notably) to on occasion not be paid. When that happens they obviously do become debts. But these will continue to be the case no matter who is in charge unless they are in a position to personally sign the cheques to pay them if the Club can't.

What Rayleigh boy is talking about is the idea that there are large debts which either RM has or the Club has and that the reason why we can't meet our liabilities is because the Club's income has been used to service these debts. Maybe this is the case. I don't know. But I'd want to see some evidence of this which we have not seen at the moment.

The fundamental split on this board isn't between those who are Pro-Ron and those who are anti-Ron. I don't believe there to be a single Pro-Ron person on here, really. The split is between those who think that our cashflow problems are the result of a fundamental flaw in the business model which sees us constantly operating with much higher expenses than we can justify on our income, and those who think that there is something more sinister than that. I'm obviously in the former, which is why I find it hard to imagine people criticising the Club for trying to increase income through ticket prices at a time where we (to me) are so obviously dying through lack of cash. I imagine though that if I was in the latter I'd not want to give RM a penny of my money.

This fundamental split is why we go round in circles so much and why tempers get raised - because both sides see the other as being a major cause of our problems.

well said Beefy.

 

[Mick]

The fundamental split on this board isn't between those who are Pro-Ron and those who are anti-Ron. I don't believe there to be a single Pro-Ron person on here, really. The split is between those who think that our cashflow problems are the result of a fundamental flaw in the business model which sees us constantly operating with much higher expenses than we can justify on our income, and those who think that there is something more sinister than that. I'm obviously in the former,

... whereas I'm in the latter.

 

[Beefy]

I don't think you needed to spell that out, Mick.

 

[Napster]

first lesson in any business - cash flow is king.

 

[Firestorm]

first lesson in any business - cash flow is king.

“Turnover is vanity, profit is sanity, cash flow is king”

 

[Pubey]

Why get angry at Aldershot? What have they every done to us?

 

[Jam_Man]

They scored and stopped us winning 10-0.

10-1 is barely worth mentioning, its almost a draw. Pah.

 

[Mick]

Why get angry at Aldershot? What have they every done to us?

Unloaded Soares on us ?

 

[CC51DAS]

2009 accounts (the only figures I have to hand)

Wages 3.4M
Social security 368K
Other expenses 2.2M
Admin Expenses 1.3M

Considering the tax owed at 31/7/2009 was 1.8M and at 31/7/08 was 0.8M that would indicate an annual tax bill of at least a million (probably as we were not wound up in 2008/9 I would guess that the 800K was paid so its probably nearer 1.5M - 1.8M) out of one of the two expenses figures.

Unfortuantely the utilities etc are not seperated.

Altough the rent is discribed in the related parties transctions as charged as Nil, it is shown in the accounts as a commitment to paying 520k pa with the note in Practice no amounts have been payable in recent years .

So of the expenses of 3.5M in 2009 at least 2M of it will be Rent and Tax 9and if the rent was being actually paid the cash flow would be even worse)

In an earlier post I surmised that the reduction in the debt to the parent company may well have been due to a loan from the parent being repaid, after a further look and as the figures are remarkably similar, the reduction in the debt of 520K may well have been due to the write off of a prior years rent

Its a pity you can't go through the bank statements !