• 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.

The record shows the accounts overdue at Companies House but the important thing is whether they're overdue at the Football League. If it's true that the delay is that the accountants aren't signing off on the final set until they get paid then it may well be that we've supplied draft accounts to the League or something else which satisfies them.

Chris Phillips said that the Club have specifically told him that we're not under an embargo. Millwall's local paper have reported this week that we've tried to sign Mildenhall. I'd say that there's more evidence that we're not under an embargo than there is that we are.
 
Ron has a lot of accountants fee's to cough up doesn't he... :facepalm:

MARTIN DAWN PLC
Next Accounts Due: 31/01/2012 OVERDUE

ROOTS HALL LIMITED
Next Accounts Due: 30/04/2012 OVERDUE

SOUTH EASTERN LEISURE UK LIMITED
Next Accounts Due: 30/04/2012 OVERDUE

SOCCER STADIUM PLC
Next Accounts Due: 11/05/2012 OVERDUE

And they are just the ones I can think of, off the top of my head.
Haven’t been able to get on again until now & I wanted to suggest, even before Smiffy came up with this, that I think the notion that the Auditors are holding the accounts up for non payment is probably (not definitely) fairly spurious.

The issue is most likely to be the “going concern” basis of the company funding & the list above doesn’t surprise me. As I’m at work I don’t have access to the accounts & more importantly the charges against the various company assets.

I think one of the companies above, I can’t remember which, holds the land & thereby charges agsinst which Sainburys issued their loans. If that company hasn’t had its accounts signed then no Auditor worth their salt should even consider signing SUFCs. The continuing funding over the last couple of years has mainly been based on these “guarantees” provided by Ron Group.

The accounts (I’ve found the 2009s in my desk!) used to be Audited by HLB Vantis, but they went bust a while ago. In their 2009 Audit Report the “going concern” matter was based on SEL “continuing to provide the necessary funds……..”. So basically until SEL’s accounts are signed off, or whichever company was the guarantor last year, you can’t sign SUFCs.

I’m sure others think this irrelevant but as a bean counter of 30+ years myself I think it’s a tad worrying as the umbongo or not could be the least of the problems.

Ron Group, & most property companies, are set up with complex structures to avoid issues where one company goes belly up bringing the others down. But it could be that Ron’s empire is stretched to it’s limit & then the domino effect could happen. Not will, could.

Moving money around was known as “teaming & lading” or “lapping” in my early days. One set of funds replaces another set and that is then paid off by a third tranche & on you go. It’s all very well until tranche 200 cash isn’t enough to pay off the funds for loan 199. At that stage the roundabout stops!
 
I wonder whether some people's disillusion with the club is down to thinking they were part of the inner circle of both Ron Martin and Tara Brady and being let down in one way or another.
My own low point with supporting Southend was prior to Steve Tilson's appointment as manager. I had become very detached from Southend United, I looked for their results in the paper the next day but I didn't feel that much joy or pain if they won or lost (it was usually the latter). But since Tilly's appointment and through all the subsequent ups and downs I have become more emotionally involved with them than for a long time.
This doesn't mean I don't think we are in a big hole financially and it doesn't mean I wouldn't happily see the end of Ron Martin's involvement with the club if only some wealthy fan would buy him out. But it isn't affecting how I feel about supporting the team.
 
I don't want much out of life.

But what I do want...











...is a picture of Ron Martin drinking Um Bongo. I'm a simple man. Easily pleased. Come on you graphic experts/Ron Martin stalkers.
 
Haven’t been able to get on again until now & I wanted to suggest, even before Smiffy came up with this, that I think the notion that the Auditors are holding the accounts up for non payment is probably (not definitely) fairly spurious.

The issue is most likely to be the “going concern” basis of the company funding & the list above doesn’t surprise me. As I’m at work I don’t have access to the accounts & more importantly the charges against the various company assets.

I think one of the companies above, I can’t remember which, holds the land & thereby charges agsinst which Sainburys issued their loans. If that company hasn’t had its accounts signed then no Auditor worth their salt should even consider signing SUFCs. The continuing funding over the last couple of years has mainly been based on these “guarantees” provided by Ron Group.

The accounts (I’ve found the 2009s in my desk!) used to be Audited by HLB Vantis, but they went bust a while ago. In their 2009 Audit Report the “going concern” matter was based on SEL “continuing to provide the necessary funds……..”. So basically until SEL’s accounts are signed off, or whichever company was the guarantor last year, you can’t sign SUFCs.

I’m sure others think this irrelevant but as a bean counter of 30+ years myself I think it’s a tad worrying as the umbongo or not could be the least of the problems.

Ron Group, & most property companies, are set up with complex structures to avoid issues where one company goes belly up bringing the others down. But it could be that Ron’s empire is stretched to it’s limit & then the domino effect could happen. Not will, could.

Moving money around was known as “teaming & lading” or “lapping” in my early days. One set of funds replaces another set and that is then paid off by a third tranche & on you go. It’s all very well until tranche 200 cash isn’t enough to pay off the funds for loan 199. At that stage the roundabout stops!

Excellent post.

As I said earlier, we (Ron Group & SUFC) are a house of cards.

To me, we just seem to be getting closer and closer to losing one of those cards each season.

Robbing Peter to pay Paul springs to mind. At some point though, Peter will learn from his mistakes...
 
Haven’t been able to get on again until now & I wanted to suggest, even before Smiffy came up with this, that I think the notion that the Auditors are holding the accounts up for non payment is probably (not definitely) fairly spurious.

The issue is most likely to be the “going concern” basis of the company funding & the list above doesn’t surprise me. As I’m at work I don’t have access to the accounts & more importantly the charges against the various company assets.
I think one of the companies above, I can’t remember which, holds the land & thereby charges agsinst which Sainburys issued their loans. If that company hasn’t had its accounts signed then no Auditor worth their salt should even consider signing SUFCs. The continuing funding over the last couple of years has mainly been based on these “guarantees” provided by Ron Group.

The accounts (I’ve found the 2009s in my desk!) used to be Audited by HLB Vantis, but they went bust a while ago. In their 2009 Audit Report the “going concern” matter was based on SEL “continuing to provide the necessary funds……..”. So basically until SEL’s accounts are signed off, or whichever company was the guarantor last year, you can’t sign SUFCs.

I’m sure others think this irrelevant but as a bean counter of 30+ years myself I think it’s a tad worrying as the umbongo or not could be the least of the problems.

Ron Group, & most property companies, are set up with complex structures to avoid issues where one company goes belly up bringing the others down. But it could be that Ron’s empire is stretched to it’s limit & then the domino effect could happen. Not will, could.

Moving money around was known as “teaming & lading” or “lapping” in my early days. One set of funds replaces another set and that is then paid off by a third tranche & on you go. It’s all very well until tranche 200 cash isn’t enough to pay off the funds for loan 199. At that stage the roundabout stops!



Excellent post Hooly.
I think we all know that Ron Martin is very shrewd but also dodgy. So many pies for fingers. So much of which is not transparent. So much seems to be poorly run, to do with accounts, finances etc. Robbing Peter to pay Paul. Looks like the begging bowl will be off to Sainsbury's again.

Only he knows what he is up to and what his real goal is. I bet all the Directors don't have a clue in that respect.
 
Embargo lifted

Just down the club and they are waiting for confirmation from the FA the embargo should be lifted today

Cant divulge my source but this is for real and those that know me know that my source is legit
 
Just down the club and they are waiting for confirmation from the FA the embargo should be lifted today

Cant divulge my source but this is for real and those that know me know that my source is legit


Did this said person also tell you how to complete a game of solitaire within 57 moves :winking:
 
As MK says.

What embargo?

A club spokesman said yesterday we were NOT under one!

:hilarious::facepalm:
 
As MK says.

What embargo?

A club spokesman said yesterday we were NOT under one!

:hilarious::facepalm:

This happened last time we were under one. From memory it was technically true when they said it, although we then had an embargo enforced shortly after.

It may well be they know it is going to be lifted so they are saying there isnt one now.

The question they should be asked is are we/were we/will we be under embargo.
 

ShrimperZone Sponsors

FFM MSPFX Foreign Exchange Services
Estuary MFF2
Zone Advertisers Zone Advertisers

ShrimperZone - SUFC Player Sponsorship

Southend United Away Travel


All At Sea Fanzine


Back
Top