(A) Question of trust

[Tangled up in Blue]

http://gu.com/p/2njxc

It seems to me that the article link(above)from yesterday's Guardian about Plymouth is equally applicable to the SUFC trust.
It would be fascinating to hear their views on this.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Bump

Any chance of someone from the Trust commenting on the previous post?
(If not could one of the owners/moderators please move the thread to Finances,where it might attract a bit more attention and comment? Thanks).

 

[McNasty]

Moved as requested.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Moved as requested.

Thanks.The key quote for me was :
"had the trust withheld its money in favour of Guilfoyle's administration now,then it could have bought more time for Argyle.Instead the cash served only to prop up an insolvent business run by a dysfunctional regime."
Ring any bells?

 

[Beefy]

Seems like a case of 20:20 hindsight. Had the Trust withheld the money and Plymouth then go into administration then people would be able to ask why the Trust didn't do everything it could to help the Club.

Whether they gave it to the old entity or to the new one, the fact is that that £330,000 is less than the amount needed to operate that Club for a single week. Therefore I think the argument would be that the Trust would have been better off keeping that cash and not giving it to anyone. But that is just my opinion and I've not been elected to make that call.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Seems like a case of 20:20 hindsight. Had the Trust withheld the money and Plymouth then go into administration then people would be able to ask why the Trust didn't do everything it could to help the Club.

Whether they gave it to the old entity or to the new one, the fact is that that £330,000 is less than the amount needed to operate that Club for a single week. Therefore I think the argument would be that the Trust would have been better off keeping that cash and not giving it to anyone. But that is just my opinion and I've not been elected to make that call.

And what about SUSCT's recent loan( albeit for a rather lesser sum).
Would you apply the same reasoning to that particular loan?

 

[Beefy]

I would apply the same reasoning as I did in the part of the post you didn't highlight. it is a very difficult decision for people to be asked to make because the Club is clearly struggling for cash and the Trust is sitting on cash which can be used to help. The members of the Trust (of which I am now one) vote for people to make these decisions. If we disagree with the decisions which they make then we vote other people in to make the decisions instead.

Either way I imagine it's a no win position for the Trust to be in. Personally I said on here at the time of the first loan that were I a Trust member (which I wasn't at the time) then I'd be very unhappy at funds being used in that way. But putting myself in their shoes I guess it would be a tough spot for them to be in.

 

[Firestorm]

Apart from the words loan and Trust there is no similarity

Plymouth trust gave the club loan secured on the ground who then quickly went into administration.

SUFCST loaned a much smaller amount, had it repaid and the club have avoided administration

 

[Firestorm]

Deleted, factually incorrect

 

[Beefy]

If that is what Plymouth did (and I only glanced the Guardian article) then yeah that is the case. So have their Trust been saddled with that debt then?

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Apart from the words loan and Trust there is no similarity
Plymouth trust look out a loan secured on the ground and immediately gave it to the club, who almost as quickly went into administration.

SUFCST loaned a much smaller amount, had it repaid and the club have avoided administration

Try and see a/the (hypothetical)bigger picture.

 

[Beefy]

Why don't you spell it out?

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Try and see a/the (hypothetical)bigger picture.

Why don't you spell it out?

Ok.How long do you think it might be before we're in administration like Plymouth?

 

[Firestorm]

Try and see a/the (hypothetical)bigger picture.

I would rather debate facts to be honest, hypothesising leaves the debate open to unsubstantiated opinion and we know where that leads.


Beefy

The attached BBC article explains it better http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/p/plymouth_argyle/9420006.stm

The Plymouth Trust is a Charity to help fund and support young players on the club's youth development programme.

I misread the mortgage bit, the mortgage is the loan to the club secured on the ground . The Trust lent the money to the club as it gave a better return on the money than their current investment vehicle and are under investigation by the charities commission regarding a breach of regulations regarding investments.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

I would rather debate facts to be honest, hypothesising leaves the debate open to unsubstantiated opinion and we know where that leads.QUOTE]





Unfortunately, facts from SUFC are rather hard to come by at the present time, as the recent statment on the OS about Tilly indicates:-

http://www.southendunited.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0,,10444~2313042,00.html

Here's a fact and an opinion for you though.

Fact.SUFC has been financially mis-managed for some seasons now, as evidenced by frequent court appearances and non-payment of players.

Opinion.This situation is only likely to be resolved by:-
a)SUFC going into administration
b)FF being built.
c)?

 

[Beefy]

Can you explain how administration would change that? It hasn't changed it at Plymouth, hence the article that you originally linked to. FF being built on its own doesn't change it either.

Your analysis also doesn't factor in the evidence which strongly suggests that the bigger problem pertaining to our cashflow shortage today is the business model being fundamentally flawed rather than financial mismanagement. The default position for this Club appears to be that we lose a lot of money every month.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Can you explain how administration would change that? It hasn't changed it at Plymouth, hence the article that you originally linked to. FF being built on its own doesn't change it either.

Your analysis also doesn't factor in the evidence which strongly suggests that the bigger problem pertaining to our cashflow shortage today is the business model being fundamentally flawed rather than financial mismanagement. The default position for this Club appears to be that we lose a lot of money every month.

This is of course the position the Trust took in the summer when they refused to support HMRC's attempts to put us into administration.
With respect to Plymouth,I'd have thought it's far too early to say what the effects of administration might be there-apart from almost certain relegation to L2.

 

[Jam_Man]

I would rather debate facts to be honest, hypothesising leaves the debate open to unsubstantiated opinion and we know where that leads.QUOTE]





Unfortunately, facts from SUFC are rather hard to come by at the present time, as the recent statment on the OS about Tilly indicates:-

http://www.southendunited.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0,,10444~2313042,00.html

Here's a fact and an opinion for you though.

Fact.SUFC has been financially mis-managed for some seasons now, as evidenced by frequent court appearances and non-payment of players.

Opinion.This situation is only likely to be resolved by:-
a)SUFC going into administration
b)FF being built.
c)?

Define mismanaged?

If you have money and fail to pay bills and run the business efficiently then yes thats mis management. Certainly we were mismanaged for a while paying Championship wages to players to League One level players.

However for the last season we have not, we have made cutbacks and done the right things, failure to pay bills isnt as far as I see it a result of poor management but of a lack of money. Doesnt matter how you manage a business, if your incomings fall short of outgoings you are screwed.

I dont see how administration will mean we are better off, we will be making no more money and paying the same bills.

 

[Beefy]

This is of course the position the Trust took in the summer when they refused to support HMRC's attempts to put us into administration.
With respect to Plymouth,I'd have thought it's far too early to say what the effects of administration might be there-apart from almost certain relegation to L2.

Of course it isn't too early to say it at Plymouth. They went into Administration because they couldn't afford to pay their outgoings. Those outgoings don't reduce just because you're in Admin. Their wage and tax bill will be pretty much the same this month as it was last month and their income will likely be even.lower due.to the Administrator taking his sizeable slice.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Of course it isn't too early to say it at Plymouth. They went into Administration because they couldn't afford to pay their outgoings. Those outgoings don't reduce just because you're in Admin. Their wage and tax bill will be pretty much the same this month as it was last month and their income will likely be even.lower due.to the Administrator taking his sizeable slice.

I imagine though they will be better run by the Administrator than by their previous BOD and that snake Ridsdale.