Breaking News Accounts Released 2011/12

[McNasty]

But pretty much every business has had to tighten their belts in recent years - our commercial opportunities and executive boxes etc will always suffer if there's a major economic downturn.

However I always forget that you can't use the recession as an excuse when it comes to Ron 'Pure Evil' Martin.

Jon, I heard on the telly Mr Cameron saying the country was in recovery so you can forget the recession.

 

[OldBlueLady]

The problem Kay is the fact AGMs happen as and when, and should be annually but the Trust meet with the club, irrespective of who, every couple of months.

If the questions are asked on a regular basis SK would pass them on to Ron Martin. As you say whether we get any answers at all --- who knows.

The fact that last lot of accounts has been published must mean that an AGM has to follow quite soon doesn't it? Looking forward to a full house....Civic Centre or the Park Inn?

 

[McNasty]

The fact that last lot of accounts has been published must mean that an AGM has to follow quite soon doesn't it? Looking forward to a full house....Civic Centre or the Park Inn?

or held in our new Stadium when it is built. :winking:

 

[OldBlueLady]

or held in our new Stadium when it is built. :winking:

Possibly. There may be a few venues to take advantage of yet though!

 

[Supa Shrimpa]

I'm sorry, but I still don't think it's a question for the Trust

I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on that one. The Trust meets the football club every two months, where they ask questions on behalf of it's members. Perhaps it should asks its members whether they think the most fundamental questions regarding the future of the football club should be asked ?

 

[Pubey]

I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on that one. The Trust meets the football club every two months, where they ask questions on behalf of it's members. Perhaps it should asks its members whether they think the most fundamental questions regarding the future of the football club should be asked ?

Well said.

 

[united we stand]

The fact that last lot of accounts has been published must mean that an AGM has to follow quite soon doesn't it? Looking forward to a full house....Civic Centre or the Park Inn?

Kay. Like others on thus thread I totally disagree with you. You have come to entrenched in defeafending the trust against what you perceive as anti trust statements that I don't thunk you view the situation dispassionately. This is so obviously a question for the trust to be asking it's untrue. Whether we receive an answer is not relevant

 

[OldBlueLady]

I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on that one. The Trust meets the football club every two months, where they ask questions on behalf of it's members. Perhaps it should asks its members whether they think the most fundamental questions regarding the future of the football club should be asked ?

Kay. Like others on thus thread I totally disagree with you. You have come to entrenched in defeafending the trust against what you perceive as anti trust statements that I don't thunk you view the situation dispassionately. This is so obviously a question for the trust to be asking it's untrue. Whether we receive an answer is not relevant

This would be one of those questions where we ask and don't get an answer. If that is what you want then I will forward the question to the Chairman. I still believe the question would be harder to avoid giving an answer to in the public sight of an AGM.

*Question now forwarded.

 

[Jam_Man]

This would be one of those questions where we ask and don't get an answer. If that is what you want then I will forward the question to the Chairman. I still believe the question would be harder to avoid giving an answer to in the public sight of an AGM.

*Question now forwarded.

Just as an update I already contacted Paul at the Trust and he asked the question last week.

The reply I got when I emaled Ron was that no money had changed hands and Paul confirmed this. The rent looks as we have pretty much deduced an inter company transfer without any cash moving.

What this does mean is that whilst we havent paid rent its certainly affecting our balance sheet and thats something Ron needs to explain at some point as its a major shift in policy.

 

[Smiffy]

So let me get this right. On the SUFC accounts it shows we have paid £450k to the parent company. But we haven't actually paid it?

Dodgy much?

 

[Jam_Man]

So let me get this right. On the SUFC accounts it shows we have paid £450k to the parent company. But we haven't actually paid it?

Dodgy much?

Its a way of making one company look better by the sounds of it.

 

[chapperzUK]

So let me get this right. On the SUFC accounts it shows we have paid £450k to the parent company. But we haven't actually paid it?

Dodgy much?

Nothing dodgy at all. On the accounts it is shown that £450k has been CHARGED as rent.

It isn't strange that one company holds the assets of another company with both of them being owned by the same person(s). Although that is for a different reason that what we have done.

 

[Jam_Man]

Nothing dodgy at all. On the accounts it is shown that £450k has been CHARGED as rent.

It isn't strange that one company holds the assets of another company with both of them being owned by the same person(s). Although that is for a different reason that what we have done.

Whilst it is no doubt legitimate you do have to ask why the parent company is having to have that charged to its accounts. Guess there's no surprise though.

 

[chapperzUK]

Whilst it is no doubt legitimate you do have to ask why the parent company is having to have that charged to its accounts. Guess there's no surprise though.

I was a bit surprised that rent was charged for the first time in several years, but the reasons wouldn't be a surprise. I'm just glad we had Wembley last season otherwise we might have seen more of these surprises.

 

[Its Only A Game]

So let me get this right. On the SUFC accounts it shows we have paid £450k to the parent company. But we haven't actually paid it?

Dodgy much?

Not dodgy at all.

Everytime I read these "accounts and debt" threads there is so much written by people that quite clearly know nothing about company accounts.

Its no different to the accountant including his fee for the 2012 accounts in the 2012 Profit & loss account. He has "charged" it to the company, it shows on the expenses in the accounts but it hasn't been paid and therefore appears in creditors on the balance sheet.

In the parent company's accounts it could potentially give rise to a £90,000 tax liability so I doubt very much that its been done to "cook southends books" as so many on here seem to think.

 

[Smiffy]

Not dodgy at all.

Everytime I read these "accounts and debt" threads there is so much written by people that quite clearly know nothing about company accounts.

Its no different to the accountant including his fee for the 2012 accounts in the 2012 Profit & loss account. He has "charged" it to the company, it shows on the expenses in the accounts but it hasn't been paid and therefore appears in creditors on the balance sheet.

In the parent company's accounts it could potentially give rise to a £90,000 tax liability so I doubt very much that its been done to "cook southends books" as so many on here seem to think.

I clearly know nothing.

Hence why my post was a question, with a ? not a statement.

Still doesn't make sense to me, but to be honest what does it matter anyway.

In short we are only 2nd to Hartlepool in the worst financial state table.

 

[TrueBlue]

Spot on.

No doubt about it, we have gone backwards in a massive way.

With a debt probably in excess of £12m for 2012/13 my fear is we are now well past the point of no return.

How on earth are we going to be able to service that debt with a 3 sided shambles?

Here are most of the League 2 clubs Key Financials.....How anyone can say we are in a similar boat to most other League 2 clubs is beyond me....

Oxford: Liabilities = £1,661,805
Assets = £295,917
Net Worth = £-6,069,640

Accrington: Liabilities = £469,152
Assets = £243,042
Net Worth = £-327,224

Scunthorpe: Liabilities = £1,146,350
Assets = £473,461
Net Worth = £3,022,455

Fleetwood: Liabilities = £24,066
Assets = £14,975
Net Worth = £107,303

Rochdale: Liabilities = £551,176
Assets = £1,101,152
Net Worth = £951,824

Burton: Liabilities = £489,251
Assets = £243,241
Net Worth = £5,703,632

Newport: Liabilities = £586,326
Assets = £234,941
Net Worth = £-700,931

Daggers: Liabilities = £503,443
Assets = £410,889
Net Worth = £482,593

AFC Wombles: Liabilities = £1,676,448
Assets = £938,035
Net Worth = £281,192

Morecambe: Liabilities = £962,827
Assets = £367,983
Net Worth = £6,124,240

Plymouth: Liabilities = £1,526,463
Assets = £517,728
Net Worth = £-4,446,678

York: Liabilities = £2,650,188
Assets = £283,043
Net Worth = £-818,809

Cheltenham: Liabilities = £1,839,032
Assets = £775,020
Net Worth = £753,631

Hartlepool: Liabilities = £13,026,391
Assets = £525,928
Net Worth = £-12,281,355

Pompey: Liabilities = £10,246,414
Assets = £14,472,649
Net Worth = £3,627,324

Mansfield: Liabilities = £3,912,852
Assets = £359,667
Net Worth = £-3,493,696

Bristol R: Liabilities = £7,141,313
Assets = £436,689
Net Worth = £-6,662,116

Wycombe: Liabilities = £1,911,812
Assets = £1,153,331
Net Worth = £-367,468

Torquay: Liabilities = £757,150
Assets = £263,316
Net Worth = £434,494

Northampton: Liabilities = £1,674,857
Assets = £209,383
Net Worth = £-7,570,061

Other than Hartlepool, we are the worst looking club in League 2 by quite some distance. It gives me hope Hartlepool are still around though. Quite how I don't know, with their gates.

Interesting that half of these clubs have a Net Worth in the black. So the fact we are getting on for -£10m + net worth is very worrying.

Morecambe are in a good position

 

[chapperzUK]

Morecambe are in a good position

Thanks to selling their old ground to Sainsburys.

 

[Beefy]

I clearly know nothing.

Hence why my post was a question, with a ? not a statement.

Still doesn't make sense to me, but to be honest what does it matter anyway.

In short we are only 2nd to Hartlepool in the worst financial state table.

Smiffy, it's kinda putting things into the position which I think a lot of people always thought that we were in whereby we weren't paying rent but it was accruing as a debt in the accounts. Now rather than just noting in the accounts that the club is obliged to pay rent but it isn't being charged it now is being charged but just not being paid. So our debt goes up by this amount and it appears as an asset in RH Ltd's account.

Your last sentence isn't quite true. Or rather it may be true but can't be claimed as fact purely on the back of the figures you've posted. Our net worth position is the second worst in the division but as I keep saying that doesn't really matter. Cash is king, for football clubs and pretty much every other business.

 

[londonblue]

The auditors have a duty of care and if they consider one or more of the companies as insolvent and not passing the going concern test they would say so- or risk getting sued by subsequent creditors. Given they don't say this but maybe reference to some 'concerns' (I don't know exactly what they say) then there is something to support that the companies can continue to trade.

as I say we won't get any further on this discussion as I think there is zero chance of the additional information getting into the public domain.

Completely and utterly wrong.

Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman