Some Club Staff Salaries Late/Embargo Chat - now resolved (for now)

[brigadista]

No he hasn’t and No they did not.

Yes he did. He said "I've invested a lot of money into this club". When he was challenged on that he danced around the lingo of rent accrued, which he seemed unable to comprehend as a liability on the club's balance sheet, and as point out, the point he hasn't asked for payment of said rent is because it's entirely ludicrous. He asset stripped the club, for property the club never paid rent on for 40+ years, then hey presto, no assets and a 400k+ annual charge ad infinitum.

 

[C'mon you Shrimpers]

As previously stated Patrick Van Der Waag has publicly quoted 35million. I would guess that for a Chartered Accountant to publically lie is a pretty big deal.

 

[harveyoe]

Apologies, that is not the point being made. The dispute is that people have claimed on here that "he put that money in". The supposed debt (I use the term supposed on the basis of renting a stadium and other property, ash trays, tables, carpet that were the club's own, before he took over), is largely accrued rent liabilities and from what I can discern onwards loans.

Still, I welcome anyone to provide any evidence to the contrary that he's actually put his hand in his own pocket and invested into the club - it's been a long wait....

Sorry if I have missed your point. I think I may still be a bit cofnused.

If he had pulled some money from his pocket and loaned it to the club. As far as the year end accounts are concerned that loan would finish up in the same place as the rent charged but unpaid etc.. Or are you saying that is not the case?

 

[Napster]

As previously stated Patrick Van Der Waag has publicly quoted 35million. I would guess that for a Chartered Accountant to publically lie is a pretty big deal.

He doesnt hold an insolvency license. Perhaps he should

Find A Chartered Accountant

find.icaew.com

 

[harveyoe]

As previously stated Patrick Van Der Waag has publicly quoted 35million. I would guess that for a Chartered Accountant to publically lie is a pretty big deal.

Which question were you answering here?

 

[C'mon you Shrimpers]

The amount Ron is alleged by the club's former Head of Finance to have put into the club.

 

[harveyoe]

The amount Ron is alleged by the club's former Head of Finance to have put into the club.

Oh right, thanks. He may not have been lying, he could have been talking about the total that Ron had put into the club. The last accounts show £14m , but this would be after various write downs of the debt over the years. This could be tracked by going back over the accounts for the last 20 years, but I'm afraid I'm too hot and tired to do that.

 

[C'mon you Shrimpers]

Oh right, thanks. He may not have been lying, he could have been talking about the total that Ron had put into the club. The last accounts show £14m , but this would be after various write downs of the debt over the years. This could be tracked by going back over the accounts for the last 20 years, but I'm afraid I'm too hot and tired to do that.

I think we all are. TBH I think it would take a forensic accountant years to unravel this. However as a layman I would say somehow we have bought and sold and usually paid players and staff and gate receipts don't cover the costs so someone has been getting cash from somewhere. One or other of Ron's miriad companies must own Roots Hall and Fossets Farm. Someone is investing in this scheme. Who it is probably only Napster knows.

 

[kentblues]

Yes he did. He said "I've invested a lot of money into this club". When he was challenged on that he danced around the lingo of rent accrued, which he seemed unable to comprehend as a liability on the club's balance sheet, and as point out, the point he hasn't asked for payment of said rent is because it's entirely ludicrous. He asset stripped the club, for property the club never paid rent on for 40+ years, then hey presto, no assets and a 400k+ annual charge ad infinitum.

The club was massively in debt when he took it on. There were no "net assets" just "net liabilities" to begin with. The ground was owned by the bank. No assets to strip.

He has since provided funds over the years and not collected rent. He has mostly provided funding, as far as I can see, by leveraging assets in his various companies by taking charges against said assets or on occasion no doubt selling those said assets (land typically but probably not always I guess).

Given your forensic accountancy skills you may also have noticed that instruments appear to have been set up a while back that would *appear* to allow the development company to provide funds against similar charges (I'm guessing primary assets envisaged being the land at Fossets and RH that now has significant value through planning permission. How that would, or indeed could, work is unclear, or indeed when. This might play into statements some may remember about the development allowing "recapitalisation" of the club or maybe not..)

I can only assume that you don't count funds from group companies owned by Ron, private limited companies with him as primary or main shareholder, as him really putting money in? Well if so then there is nothing to say other than quite possibly many will disagree.

In terms of "personal" non company cash injections he has reportedly remortgaged his house, and again this has been covered previously. But, to be honest, I'm sure that was in extremis as, as lovely as his house probably is (I have never driven past), what re mortgaging it would raise would be relatively insignificant against the sums here more widely.

So he has put a lot of money/investment in. And the plan will be to get it and more back through the developments at RH and Fossets. So when its all done no need to feel sorry for him. Very few will.

Yes the debts are bigger, and the money/investment put in, higher than it would have been if the club had been run properly/better. Again, don't feel sorry for him - in the end this started, many would argue, as a business transition with the purchase of the club, and hopefully ends when the club is sold to a buyer we want with a shiny new stadium and training facilities. (If along the way he has come to genuinely care for the club then that's another debate and let's not cloud this issue with that. BTW I'm not saying he has but I mention as an aside).

In the nicest possible way, and I know your questioning and desire to get to the facts is well meant, please don't come to me looking for a job in finance or as a commercial analyst...:-)

PS. I add for clarity, and as I have repeatedly said, Ron Martin has made many mistakes and will, no doubt, make many more. Regrettably..

 

[Holy Joe]

on the contrary, he owns no meaningful assets. That's the whole point I am making.

Seeing as people screamed blue murder for proof of non-payment of wages or an embargo on this thread, the same criteria should be set for the claim he has assets to place as security - could you point me to them in companies accounts owned by him? I'd genuinely be grateful, as I imagine would the SFO.

Using your point, do you think any bank would lend to him when any asset he provides as security is potentially going to be seized by a court in the future?

All his loans, as I've already stated, appear to come from property companies, some seemingly linked to relatives, some not. I'd imagine they are either lent as a favour or securitized against a slice of the FF profits.

In the past he has borrowed against land he has owned in Benfleet.

According to companies House he has 26 companies, a brief look at a handful of these show some owning land/property that has been mortgaged. Probably exactly what you'd expect from a property developer. But also shows you the potential source of funds that have, or have not, been put into the club

Additionally why do you think he is being charge for vat fraud? Its do with a property transaction in one of his other companies - if there were no assets in these there couldn't possibly be a vat fraud on the sale/purchase of the asset

 

[brigadista]

As previously stated Patrick Van Der Waag has publicly quoted 35million. I would guess that for a Chartered Accountant to publically lie is a pretty big deal.

That can still be the same linguistic gymnastics the owner is fond of, e.g. "put in" could just mean onward lent - given the wily one claimed by not taking payment for rent, he hasnt charged rent, it shows the level of financial literacy or disingenuous behaviour from this circle.
I might be wrong, but I didnt think Patrick has been around that long to know anyway.

 

[brigadista]

The club was massively in debt when he took it on. There were no "net assets" just "net liabilities" to begin with. The ground was owned by the bank. No assets to strip.

This just simply isnt true. The stadium appeared as an asset in the club's balance sheet. Not only is it there as an asset of the club, but after the present owner took over the club, the stadium was miraculously revalued to circa £2m (again I'm quoting figures here I've not looked at for a while, so apologies if it's off by 0.1m's) LESS than it was valued the year before. If memory serves me, that valuation was carried out by the same accountants that were appointed that year to sign off our accounts.

The stadium was then transferred to the present owner and the funds the club received were then used to repay the creditors. You may be confusing "owned by the bank" with the bank having a first lien charge secured against the stadium for the debt they lent?

He has mostly provided funding, as far as I can see, by leveraging assets in his various companies by taking charges against said assets or on occasion no doubt selling those said assets (land typically but probably not always I guess).

So to labour the point, but where do you see this, or is it a personal assumption?

Given your forensic accountancy skills you may also have noticed that instruments appear to have been set up a while back that would *appear* to allow the development company to provide funds against similar charges (I'm guessing primary assets envisaged being the land at Fossets and RH that now has significant value through planning permission. How that would, or indeed could, work is unclear, or indeed when. This might play into statements some may remember about the development allowing "recapitalisation" of the club or maybe not..)

I think here we exactly agree - my point being he's not put money in, but is securitising future profits from FF to raise funding. Much the same as Barca have sold off their future TV rights for cash lent today to get them out of the present day pickle they find themselves in, but hamstrung their future.

I can only assume that you don't count funds from group companies owned by Ron, private limited companies with him as primary or main shareholder, as him really putting money in? Well if so then there is nothing to say other than quite possibly many will disagree.

No, I'm stating that those parent companies are just borrowing cash. They hold relatively no assets or capital and he is borrowing (from sources I mentioned before) to then just lend to SUFC in a great big cycle. Sorry to labour the point, but at no point is he surrendering net wealth to support the club.

In the nicest possible way, and I know your questioning and desire to get to the facts is well meant, please don't come to me looking for a job in finance or as a commercial analyst...:-)

PS. I add for clarity, and as I have repeatedly said, Ron Martin has made many mistakes and will, no doubt, make many more. Regrettably..

Au contraire, I could say the same on the basis of your initial statement about the banks owning RH. It never happened. I'd be genuinely delighted for either the benevolent king, the club CFO, yourself or anyone else to prove sale of assets, transfer of his net wealth or anything, just anything to prove to the contrary what most of companies house shows on the face of things. For example, going back to the Zooms he was never pressed to explain why the banks released their charges which almost exactly equated to the reduction in the club's debts. Again, on face value, it would appear the club satisfied the debts and the charges were therefore lifted. Can it really be that hard to just say "I sold xyz/I took it from this capital balance/(or most likely) I securitized that amount of my FF profits and someone lend me the dosh"?

I think it's that "honesty, integrity, transparency" old Stanley promised :)

 

[londonblue]

This just simply isnt true. The stadium appeared as an asset in the club's balance sheet. Not only is it there as an asset of the club, but after the present owner took over the club, the stadium was miraculously revalued to circa £2m (again I'm quoting figures here I've not looked at for a while, so apologies if it's off by 0.1m's) LESS than it was valued the year before. If memory serves me, that valuation was carried out by the same accountants that were appointed that year to sign off our accounts.

The stadium was then transferred to the present owner and the funds the club received were then used to repay the creditors. You may be confusing "owned by the bank" with the bank having a first lien charge secured against the stadium for the debt they lent?


So to labour the point, but where do you see this, or is it a personal assumption?


I think here we exactly agree - my point being he's not put money in, but is securitising future profits from FF to raise funding. Much the same as Barca have sold off their future TV rights for cash lent today to get them out of the present day pickle they find themselves in, but hamstrung their future.


No, I'm stating that those parent companies are just borrowing cash. They hold relatively no assets or capital and he is borrowing (from sources I mentioned before) to then just lend to SUFC in a great big cycle. Sorry to labour the point, but at no point is he surrendering net wealth to support the club.


Au contraire, I could say the same on the basis of your initial statement about the banks owning RH. It never happened. I'd be genuinely delighted for either the benevolent king, the club CFO, yourself or anyone else to prove sale of assets, transfer of his net wealth or anything, just anything to prove to the contrary what most of companies house shows on the face of things. For example, going back to the Zooms he was never pressed to explain why the banks released their charges which almost exactly equated to the reduction in the club's debts. Again, on face value, it would appear the club satisfied the debts and the charges were therefore lifted. Can it really be that hard to just say "I sold xyz/I took it from this capital balance/(or most likely) I securitized that amount of my FF profits and someone lend me the dosh"?

I think it's that "honesty, integrity, transparency" old Stanley promised :)

That may be true, but it was more to do with the fact that Vic massively overvalued the stadium so that the balance sheet looked better. All Ron did was allow it to be valued and a more realistic level.

That's not to say Ron is squeaky clean, but on this point he was actually right and it's unfair to try and beat him up for it.

 

[kentblues]

This just simply isnt true. The stadium appeared as an asset in the club's balance sheet. Not only is it there as an asset of the club, but after the present owner took over the club, the stadium was miraculously revalued to circa £2m (again I'm quoting figures here I've not looked at for a while, so apologies if it's off by 0.1m's) LESS than it was valued the year before. If memory serves me, that valuation was carried out by the same accountants that were appointed that year to sign off our accounts.

The stadium was then transferred to the present owner and the funds the club received were then used to repay the creditors. You may be confusing "owned by the bank" with the bank having a first lien charge secured against the stadium for the debt they lent?


So to labour the point, but where do you see this, or is it a personal assumption?


I think here we exactly agree - my point being he's not put money in, but is securitising future profits from FF to raise funding. Much the same as Barca have sold off their future TV rights for cash lent today to get them out of the present day pickle they find themselves in, but hamstrung their future.


No, I'm stating that those parent companies are just borrowing cash. They hold relatively no assets or capital and he is borrowing (from sources I mentioned before) to then just lend to SUFC in a great big cycle. Sorry to labour the point, but at no point is he surrendering net wealth to support the club.


Au contraire, I could say the same on the basis of your initial statement about the banks owning RH. It never happened. I'd be genuinely delighted for either the benevolent king, the club CFO, yourself or anyone else to prove sale of assets, transfer of his net wealth or anything, just anything to prove to the contrary what most of companies house shows on the face of things. For example, going back to the Zooms he was never pressed to explain why the banks released their charges which almost exactly equated to the reduction in the club's debts. Again, on face value, it would appear the club satisfied the debts and the charges were therefore lifted. Can it really be that hard to just say "I sold xyz/I took it from this capital balance/(or most likely) I securitized that amount of my FF profits and someone lend me the dosh"?

I think it's that "honesty, integrity, transparency" old Stanley promised :)

Well I have shared my analysis. You are, of course entitled to your own. And readers on the thread will make their own conclusions. I'm not sure going through this debate all over again is what we all want- I will leave others to decide if there is an appetite for that.

 

[Blue Yonder]

The idea that moving a football clubs stadium (even if mortgaged up to the the eyeballs) out of the clubs ownership and into a third party property company ownership is in the clubs interests is baffling. Your home may have a 100% mortgage but its still your house and over time the property increases in value and your equity increases. The number of clubs and stadia around Essex lost to property developers is depressing.

 

[brigadista]

According to companies House he has 26 companies, a brief look at a handful of these show some owning land/property that has been mortgaged. Probably exactly what you'd expect from a property developer. But also shows you the potential source of funds that have, or have not, been put into the club

Sorry, not following. He only has 12 active companies/directorships, the rest are dissolved. I've been through each of the 12 most recent balance sheets very quickly now and only the group accounts of "Martin Dawn PLC (01767042)" have any property as assets, which are "property investments" to the princely value of £56,000. The only assets across the whole myriad of any meaningful sums are all the intragroup loans and investments in each of the respective companies.

Which active company can you see that owns property and is mortgaged? Much obliged.

​

 

[brigadista]

Well I have shared my analysis. You are, of course entitled to your own. And readers on the thread will make their own conclusions. I'm not sure going through this debate all over again is what we all want- I will leave others to decide if there is an appetite for that.

It's purely conjecture about the stadium and him asset stripping though. Having an erroneous opinion is not analysis. Could you please point to the year in the club's accounts that it did not own the stadium and it was stated in the comments the property had been taken into ownership by the banks?

Otherwise, I'd be extremely grateful if you retract your comment about jobs in finance, being a qualified accountant and all that ;)

 

[kentblues]

It's purely conjecture about the stadium and him asset stripping though. Having an erroneous opinion is not analysis. Could you please point to the year in the club's accounts that it did not own the stadium and it was stated in the comments the property had been taken into ownership by the banks?

Otherwise, I'd be extremely grateful if you retract your comment about jobs in finance, being a qualified accountant and all that ;)

You may or may not have noticed the smiley at the end of my comment?

Quote: In the nicest possible way, and I know your questioning and desire to get to the facts is well meant, please don't come to me looking for a job in finance or as a commercial analyst...:-)

If nonetheless I have offended you I am sincerely sorry..

 

[brigadista]

You may or may not have noticed the smiley at the end of my comment?

Quote: In the nicest possible way, and I know your questioning and desire to get to the facts is well meant, please don't come to me looking for a job in finance or as a commercial analyst...:-)

If nonetheless I have offended you I am sincerely sorry..

fair play.

FWIW, for those interested in the "asset stripping" pantomime, here it is courtesy of CH:

It has that infamous £400,000 per annum sum in it that has hung round our neck ever since.

 

[brigadista]

That may be true, but it was more to do with the fact that Vic massively overvalued the stadium so that the balance sheet looked better. All Ron did was allow it to be valued and a more realistic level.

That's not to say Ron is squeaky clean, but on this point he was actually right and it's unfair to try and beat him up for it.

I counter that point too. Given it was revalued under "alternate use", what possibly could that alternate use of a football stadium have been we all wonder??? Oh yes, housing. Now tell me, what was worth more in 99/00, a football stadium largely built in the 1950's and 3/4 untouched since the 70's with repeated attempts to relocate, or a housing development slap bang in town.

I think the majority would assume such "alternate use" would have yielded a significantly higher valuation than whatever the stadium was valued at....