High Court hearing v Charterhouse 14/07/2010

[Interpol Shrimper]

That was me.
I spoke to Two members of staff.
I heard some things about how skint Southend were and they couldn't pay for some basic things. This was from someone I didn't want to name or get in trouble. I said in one of the posts that it wasn't Scriven.

Then at the end of training I spoke to D.Scriven, and told everyone what he said as I though it was in the fans interest.

Thanks for clearing that up...

 

[Thorpe Groyney]

The difference between the Stadium Of Light and Fossetts Farm was that Sunderland had a chairman, Bob Murray, who's primary motive was doing what he could for the club and for the city of Sunderland.

He needed money to get the stadium built. He therefore made his own company more profitable by expanding his business. He then put every penny of profit aside to get the stadium built. Added to that was a bonus of tv money, as well as a club shares issue, when the team was unexpectedly promoted. Instead of short term signings, he again saved the money.

Eventually, only when all the money was in place to get the new stadium built, did he arrange the sale of Roker Park. A consequence of not investing in players was a last day relegation but, with a new stadium in place and funds left over from the sale of Roker to dip into the transfer market, the club was left on a sound footing on and off the pitch as the end of the 90's approached. Mr. Murray's reward for this, and his continued investment in social amenities around the area despite no longer being at the club, was a knighthood for his services to the city.

Those Sunderland supporters may have been crying at the loss of their spiritual home, their lost youth even, but it was tempered by the knowledge they were going to a better stadium, at no cost to the club, arranged by a chairman who genuinely wanted what was best for the supporters, whom he considered to be the club itself, and never ever took a penny out but instead put millions and millions in.

Mr. Murray, in short, was everything that is good and decent in football club chairmen. He is also the exact opposite of Ron Martin.

 

[Firestorm]

Does anyone (Firestorm?) have a copy of the relevant set of Martin Dawn's accounts?

The Accounts (2009) for Martin Dawn PLC Show the following

Transactions with Directors

The following Directors had interest free loans during the year .

Amount Outstanding

Ron Martin 921K (2.6M in 2008) so he paid back 1.7M in 2009.....

 

[Hotman]

Charterhouse are based three streets from my house. *******s only just realised.

Normally it's the one who doesn't pay the money that they owe who's the ******

 

[Firestorm]

Jam man,you always support Ron (the ego maniac) Martin.Most of what you have posted i tend to disagree with.Uncle Ron wanted the club to do well so as to get the kudos as well as a nice fat juicy profit.Under the chairmanship of John Main,the ground was transferred out of ownership of SUFC into Ron's company control.Ron then criticised Mr Main for his stewardship of the club(strings being pulled by Martin and his lacky Geoffrey King),eventually forcing John Main to resign.In the meantime Rons favourite solicitor,Paul Robinson had resigned from the SUFC board citing being uneasy with the financial situation.This also helped oust Main.Funny that Paul Robinson rejoined the board after RM was installed as chairman !!He has since resigned again,I wonder for the same reason ? All through these times I have been cynical of this regime,to even being harranged by some other supporters over the years.I do not take any pleasure in being proved right.Like most on here i have supported SUFC, for over fifty years, and i desperately do not want to see the club sink any lower.Please could anybody tell me that if you owned a business and it was encountering large financial and logistic problems,would you just swan off on a holiday ? Would i heck.Even if the new ground was magically produced,i still feel you could not trust this situation as to ground rent etc.Even though Uncle Ron verbally assured us all that we (SUFC) would be protected.The way the club has been run is a disgrace.Staff have been treated abysmally and shoddy.Players and admin staff.I hold no faith and even with a development completion we are in dire straits..God help us.

1) The Ground was purchased by SEL which at the time was 50% Martin Dawn (RM) and 50% Delancy so it was not transferred to RM's control until he purchased Delanceys part of SEL (2006 IIRC) Also Transferred seems a strange word for Sold as the "Transfer" of the ground coincided with cash injects into the club of 5M over 3 years

2) It was Delancy who insisted on the removal of JM, because he was failing to control the expenditure and as they were the ones putting the money in at the time they had the say so, GK only came on to the board afterwards (both JM and GK were employees of Martin Dawn at the time of their appointment)

 

[Tommy2holes]

The only way out of this as i see it for sainsbury's to take control and finish us.

Sainsbury's take control and finish the work then sell the club

Administration happens and the consortium comes in and works in tandem with sainsbury's to relocate.

Im thinking option 3 is the best bet.

 

[Rob Noxious]

The difference between the Stadium Of Light and Fossetts Farm was that Sunderland had a chairman, Bob Murray, who's primary motive was doing what he could for the club and for the city of Sunderland.

He needed money to get the stadium built. He therefore made his own company more profitable by expanding his business. He then put every penny of profit aside to get the stadium built. Added to that was a bonus of tv money, as well as a club shares issue, when the team was unexpectedly promoted. Instead of short term signings, he again saved the money.

Eventually, only when all the money was in place to get the new stadium built, did he arrange the sale of Roker Park. A consequence of not investing in players was a last day relegation but, with a new stadium in place and funds left over from the sale of Roker to dip into the transfer market, the club was left on a sound footing on and off the pitch as the end of the 90's approached. Mr. Murray's reward for this, and his continued investment in social amenities around the area despite no longer being at the club, was a knighthood for his services to the city.

Those Sunderland supporters may have been crying at the loss of their spiritual home, their lost youth even, but it was tempered by the knowledge they were going to a better stadium, at no cost to the club, arranged by a chairman who genuinely wanted what was best for the supporters, whom he considered to be the club itself, and never ever took a penny out but instead put millions and millions in.

Mr. Murray, in short, was everything that is good and decent in football club chairmen. He is also the exact opposite of Ron Martin.

Nice one, Groyney. Having been to two away thrashings at Sunderland's grounds separated by 20 years, ie 1987 (0-7) and 2007 (0-4), the contrast in facilities was actually light years away (excuse the pun). Niall Quinn came into the Supporters' Bar after the game and he was lauded by the fans. I suspect Ron would get lynched.

 

[Mick]

The Accounts (2009) for Martin Dawn PLC Show the following

Transactions with Directors

The following Directors had interest free loans during the year .

Amount Outstanding

Ron Martin 921K (2.6M in 2008) so he paid back 1.7M in 2009.....

Wonder where he got that from ?

 

[Smiffy]

Wonder where he got that from ?

Well indeed....

Orange and White knight's again maybe?

Who know's.

The whole financial picture is a web of messyness. Look in the Stadium & Finances part of the board.

 

[Beefy]

If the implication is that he got the money from the football club then there's no evidence to show that at all. I wish the Club could generate enough money to enable someone to embezzle that sort of cash.

 

[Mick]

If the implication is that he got the money from the football club then there's no evidence to show that at all. I wish the Club could generate enough money to enable someone to embezzle that sort of cash.

Once again, you may have inferred that; I wouldn't dream of implying it.

 

[Matt the Shrimp]

the other common thread in that statement is we all hate Ken Bates too...!

No Shrimper should have a problem with Bates. I don't. He dipped his hand into his pocket voluntarily during the mid 80s and helped the club out of a very tight spot indeed.

 

[westie]

The difference between the Stadium Of Light and Fossetts Farm was that Sunderland had a chairman, Bob Murray, who's primary motive was doing what he could for the club and for the city of Sunderland.

He needed money to get the stadium built. He therefore made his own company more profitable by expanding his business. He then put every penny of profit aside to get the stadium built. Added to that was a bonus of tv money, as well as a club shares issue, when the team was unexpectedly promoted. Instead of short term signings, he again saved the money.

Eventually, only when all the money was in place to get the new stadium built, did he arrange the sale of Roker Park. A consequence of not investing in players was a last day relegation but, with a new stadium in place and funds left over from the sale of Roker to dip into the transfer market, the club was left on a sound footing on and off the pitch as the end of the 90's approached. Mr. Murray's reward for this, and his continued investment in social amenities around the area despite no longer being at the club, was a knighthood for his services to the city.

Those Sunderland supporters may have been crying at the loss of their spiritual home, their lost youth even, but it was tempered by the knowledge they were going to a better stadium, at no cost to the club, arranged by a chairman who genuinely wanted what was best for the supporters, whom he considered to be the club itself, and never ever took a penny out but instead put millions and millions in.

Mr. Murray, in short, was everything that is good and decent in football club chairmen. He is also the exact opposite of Ron Martin.

Excellent post. I think everyone is now beginning to realise just how serious this situation is. We all have our opinions and are free to express them, but in this case we really need to look at the basic facts.

We DON'T pay our wages anything like on time. The same applies to ALL our bills, especially HMRC. We CANNOT keep going to Court with the same old excuses in order to buy more time. Sooner, rather than later, the Courts are going to say "enough is enough". My guess is that day will be August 2nd and we'll go into Administration. Who knows what will happen after that.

 

[Beefy]

How will going into Administration help us pay our wagebill? How will it help us pay our taxbill?

 

[Kestrel]

How will going into Administration help us pay our wagebill? How will it help us pay our taxbill?

with the current squad i shouldn't think the players wagebill will be too excessive - they should be able to cover that through petty cash

 

[Matt the Shrimp]

How will going into Administration help us pay our wagebill? How will it help us pay our taxbill?

It will reduce both. The administrator can strike deals with employees (although they are a protected class of creditor), and he can in particular strike deals with unsecured creditors, of which HMRC is now one (having lost its protected status).

If the administrator and the court agree that the dividend in the administration is (say) only 10p in the £, then overnight our liability to the taxman becomes £23,800 - not £238,000.

Administration can be a very powerful and helpful thing. For any business that isn't too fussed about its long-term credit rating (and since SUFC's rating has been scarcely above "junk" for a while now, the club can be a bit more relaxed than most about it), it is often the best way forward.

The reason the league imposes points deductions is because administration was seen as giving irresponsible clubs an advantage and an easy way out of their fecklessness!

 

[Beefy]

with the current squad i shouldn't think the players wagebill will be too excessive - they should be able to cover that through petty cash

We have no cash, petty or otherwise.

 

[Beefy]

It will reduce both. The administrator can strike deals with employees (although they are a protected class of creditor), and he can in particular strike deals with unsecured creditors, of which HMRC is now one (having lost its protected status).

If the administrator and the court agree that the dividend in the administration is (say) only 10p in the £, then overnight our liability to the taxman becomes £23,800 - not £238,000.

Administration can be a very powerful and helpful thing. For any business that isn't too fussed about its long-term credit rating (and since SUFC's rating has been scarcely above "junk" for a while now, the club can be a bit more relaxed than most about it), it is often the best way forward.

The reason the league imposes points deductions is because administration was seen as giving irresponsible clubs an advantage and an easy way out of their fecklessness!

I get that, Matt. But the current board has already slashed the wagebill pretty much as low as it can go and whilst an Administration would be likely to reduce the specific bills we have on the table right now they won't have any impact on our ability to meet future liabilities. The underlying failure to generate cash will still be there.

 

[Napster]

Something else - there's a rule which the HMRC are challenging - see the article below

A source close to the case told Accountancy Age, the tax office was getting tough on clubs from the Premiership down to the smaller clubs. He said petitions added weight to its challenge of the Football Creditors Rule against the Football Association Premier League.

The Football Creditor Rule entails football creditors, including the players, being paid in full first if a club enters administration, ahead of the taxman and banks. HMRC, which decribe the rule as "unlawful" filed a writ against the rule in May.

 

[Interpol Shrimper]

The underlying failure to generate cash will still be there.

I am still of the opinion we don't have a horrendous issue of "failing to generate cash".
Controversial (& IN MY OWN PERSONAL OPINION) but as far as I'm concerned we've been financially mismanaged combined with certain funds being creamed off to other group companies...

I refer Our Glorious Leader to his previous statements about Yeovil & Exeter ;)