SKY Sports and Players Wages

[A Century United]

Well surely no one expected the truth did they? How naive and gullible. I am some times surprised that the man ever opens his mouth, just in case the truth just happens to slip out.

A statement that we didn't have debts at that point doesn't mean we don't have debts now. When a club is running at a loss, debt has a habit of piling up again.

And if assuming that he might be telling the truth sometimes is "naive and gullible", isn't the assumption that everything he says is a lie somewhat shallow and cynical?

 

[The Late One]

A statement that we didn't have debts at that point doesn't mean we don't have debts now. When a club is running at a loss, debt has a habit of piling up again.

So working on that score on the 22nd of March when RM stated that SUFC have no debts except the revenue at the Q & A...
1) The Trust had been paid it's 60k back (obviously there will be a statement from them soon to confirm this)
2) The players were not owed any wages (Echo & SSN is wrong - sue them!!)
3) The PFA has been paid back all that was owed (funny how we still had a embargo at that time)

maybe Ron had been misinformed by the same accounts dept that works out the VAT/PAYE payments.

 

[A Century United]

So working on that score on the 22nd of March when RM stated that SUFC have no debts except the revenue at the Q & A...
1) The Trust had been paid it's 60k back (obviously there will be a statement from them soon to confirm this)

The Trust were present and as has been posted, they sat on their hands. They know what RM said, it's up to them to say if it isn't so.

2) The players were not owed any wages (Echo & SSN is wrong - sue them!!)

Why such a strange point? Sue them??? SSN are likely to be gettinjg their information from the Echo or the same source. I neither disbelieve nor believe the Echo. I have been told by a close relative who has talked to someone near the top at the Echo that the Echo have no time for RM, which may or may not influence their editorial policy.

3) The PFA has been paid back all that was owed (funny how we still had a embargo at that time)

maybe Ron had been misinformed by the same accounts dept that works out the VAT/PAYE payments.

The embargo is still in place because we are in dispute with HMRC. Until that is settled it is irrelevant whether we owe the PFA or not.

 

[The Late One]

But correct me if I am wrong (and I'm sure you will) in a earlier post in reply to BilbyBoy you said just because "we didn't have debts at that point doesn't mean we don't have debts now", well the three points that I have mentioned surely show we did have other debts at that time (that were obviously overlooked).

 

[Firestorm]

What context was the phrase "we have no other debts" used in though ?

If it was , for example, in response to a question about winding up orders then it could be argued that he was referring to debts which would result in the creditor filing a petition (which the PFA, Trust or players will not do).

 

[canveyshrimper]

What context was the phrase "we have no other debts" used in though ?

If it was , for example, in response to a question about winding up orders then it could be argued that he was referring to debts which would result in the creditor filing a petition (which the PFA, Trust or players will not do).

TBH I don't remember the phrase "we have no debts", having said that the meeting was about 10 days ago and I have trouble remembering things I was doing 10 minutes ago.

One phrase that was oft repeated was that the club do not have an overdraft. Therefore the club may not be indebted to the bank, but must have other creditors/suppliers.

 

[ElstreeBlue]

So working on that score on the 22nd of March when RM stated that SUFC have no debts except the revenue at the Q & A...
1) The Trust had been paid it's 60k back (obviously there will be a statement from them soon to confirm this)
2) The players were not owed any wages (Echo & SSN is wrong - sue them!!)
3) The PFA has been paid back all that was owed (funny how we still had a embargo at that time)

maybe Ron had been misinformed by the same accounts dept that works out the VAT/PAYE payments.

The statement at the Q&A had seemed pretty clear to me. There were no current creditors other than (ultimately) Ron Martin and HMRC. That must have meant that at the time of the Q&A, the players and manager had been paid outstanding monies in full, so had all the other staff, the PFA had been repaid for their loans, Paul Brush had settled any outstanding monies due to him, any other court judgment against the club had been discharged in full, the Trust's loan had been re-paid, and all ouststanding monies due to external service providers and lenders had been paid in full.

The only real creditors are HMRC and Ron Martin and his companies.

Since Ron's not going to take the club down, that leaves only the HMRC money which needs to be found - which shouldn't be a problem as it's a drop in the ocean compared to the £3m that we need to keep the club going for the 2 years - which is when Fossetts Farm will be completed in time for the start of the 2012/2013 season. And we shouldn't even need to find the money to pay HMRC as we don't owe it anyway. Plus we don't need an overdraft.

So there's not really much money owed and not much of a problem generally.

 

[EastStandBlue]

Well, we could always throw our blind faith into a collection of apparent businessmen that, despite assurances this would change, still remain as elusive as a permanent central defender...

 

[Reg Martin]

The statement at the Q&A had seemed pretty clear to me. There were no current creditors other than (ultimately) Ron Martin and HMRC. .

Was the question as precise as that ie 'does the club have no current (ie short-term ie debts outstanding for less than 12 months) creditors?'
The question could easily have been taken as referring to long-term debts, ie outstanding for over 12 months, which are shown separately on a balance sheet and which could easily be interpreted as being only HMRC and Ron Martin.
It may be the wrong question was asked. It may be Ron Martin interpreted the question to suit him. It may be that some people are interpreting his answer to suit their views. I suspect a combination of all of these are the case

 

[ElstreeBlue]

Was the question as precise as that ie 'does the club have no current (ie short-term ie debts outstanding for less than 12 months) creditors?'
The question could easily have been taken as referring to long-term debts, ie outstanding for over 12 months, which are shown separately on a balance sheet and which could easily be interpreted as being only HMRC and Ron Martin.
It may be the wrong question was asked. It may be Ron Martin interpreted the question to suit him. It may be that some people are interpreting his answer to suit their views. I suspect a combination of all of these are the case

You may well be right. If so, I just wish Ron had been clearer in talking about the current situation. I think the answer didn't clearly distinguish between the two as you have done.

People's concerns are clearly what other money does the club currently owe? If the answer Ron gave did not reflect that but a more technical "balance sheet" type position, that doesn't reflect people's concerns: ie will we have a club to support because are there other people lining up that the club need to pay off as well as HMRC and can it do so? Surely Ron must have known that's what the person asking the question was getting at?

 

[Reg Martin]

You may well be right. If so, I just wish Ron had been clearer in talking about the current situation. I think the answer didn't clearly distinguish between the two as you have done.

People's concerns are clearly what other money does the club currently owe? If the answer Ron gave did not reflect that but a more technical "balance sheet" type position, that doesn't reflect people's concerns: ie will we have a club to support because are there other people lining up that the club need to pay off as well as HMRC and can it do so? Surely Ron must have known that's what the person asking the question was getting at?

Unfortunately I think some of the statments RM has made on the OS have subsequently turned out to be strictly true but at the same time not giving the full picture. For example, the initial statement regarding the latest winding up order made it sound much more of a storm in a tea cup than it now seems to be. So it could be that at the Q&A he answered 'woolly' questions with strictly true answers that didn't give the full picture.
Equally of course he may genuinely not see the short-term debts as a major issue compared to the longer term position. He certainly seems far more relaxed about the court situation than I am.

 

[KrustyTheKray]

It's stated in todays Echo that the players haven't been paid for March.

 

[The Late One]

Was the question as precise as that ie 'does the club have no current (ie short-term ie debts outstanding for less than 12 months) creditors?'
The question could easily have been taken as referring to long-term debts, ie outstanding for over 12 months, which are shown separately on a balance sheet and which could easily be interpreted as being only HMRC and Ron Martin.
It may be the wrong question was asked. It may be Ron Martin interpreted the question to suit him. It may be that some people are interpreting his answer to suit their views. I suspect a combination of all of these are the case

But the revenue was paid in full in November (or overpaid as some people claim!!), working on that theory the revenue debt is since November (4 months outstanding).

The Trust debt is from December, Players (December or January), PFA (January or February). So unless Ron slipped back to some time in November/December when answering at the Q & A I fail to see how the HMRC would be classed as the only outstanding debt.

 

[united we stand]

GUYS

A very important clarification that I posted on the Q &A thread. Ron did NOT say that we did not have any other debts. he DID say that we had no other significant debts, or something of that nature. It will be on the recording if anyone wants to listen and get the exact wording .

No one then asked what exactly does this mean

 

[The Late One]

GUYS

A very important clarification that I posted on the Q &A thread. Ron did NOT say that we did not have any other debts. he DID say that we had no other significant debts, or something of that nature. It will be on the recording if anyone wants to listen and get the exact wording .

No one then asked what exactly does this mean

Players wages not significant
Trust not significant
PFA not significant

I'll say no more

 

[pickledseal]

Confirmed by TIlly on BBC Essex

 

[weststander]

GUYS

A very important clarification that I posted on the Q &A thread. Ron did NOT say that we did not have any other debts. he DID say that we had no other significant debts, or something of that nature. It will be on the recording if anyone wants to listen and get the exact wording .

No one then asked what exactly does this mean

As far as i understand it Ron has never said we are debt free, he has always maintianed that we do not have an OVERDRAFT. This does not mean the same thing, we have of course plenty of debt, around £5 million i believe from the last accounts.