• Welcome to the ShrimperZone forums.
    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which only gives you limited access.

    Existing Users:.
    Please log-in using your existing username and password. If you have any problems, please see below.

    New Users:
    Join our free community now and gain access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and free. Click here to join.

    Fans from other clubs
    We welcome and appreciate supporters from other clubs who wish to engage in sensible discussion. Please feel free to join as above but understand that this is a moderated site and those who cannot play nicely will be quickly removed.

    Assistance Required
    For help with the registration process or accessing your account, please send a note using the Contact us link in the footer, please include your account name. We can then provide you with a new password and verification to get you on the site.

Accounts for the year to 20 July 2023 published

Up until 2016 there was a separate line in the creditor analysis for Loans from Directors which always tied in with the related parties note.

Then these loans were subsumed into Other Creditors and I guess have been there ever since.

So for the last 4 sets of accounts Other Creditors have been, £421k, £526k, £937k and £798k and other loans have been £123k, £92k, £381k and £368k.

My guess is that the interest that is being rolled up, £274k in the last 2 years is being shown separately as part of Other Accruals and Deferred Income, as the total sums owed to Directors in the note is far greater than the total of Other Loans and Other Creditors.

Some or all of the extra loan must have been put in in 21/22 but the related parties note must have been incorrect. The note has also changed from capital element of loan to capital and interest.

Not that easy to follow to say the least. I presume Gary Lockett will know how much the club owes him!
Remarkable how opaque a set of accounts can be. I don't think that's the intention of the requirement to produce accounts.
 
Back
Top