Pre-Match Thread HMRC v SUFC - FINAL hearing on 1st March. DISMISSED

[basilrobbie]

Same as usual! Your another one who has jumped on the ron out band wagon!! If u knew anything about southend then u would know this has been going on for the last 20 years! Ron always gets us in this position and he always comes through right? It's all too predictable.

And it is delivering such great results too, so clearly there is nothing to worry about.......

 

[MK Shrimper]

Same as usual! Your another one who has jumped on the ron out band wagon!! If u knew anything about southend then u would know this has been going on for the last 20 years! Ron always gets us in this position and he always comes through right? It's all too predictable.

I don't remember a time when groups like St. Johns weren't paid or staff told to look for a new job or away teams not given their share of gate receipts even in the dark days before Sturrock.

 

[CRATE]

As previously mentioned as far as I can see Dellal’s companies appear to already hold charges against the land for the development at FF??

So any surety provided relating to contractual monies released by stage of the development are unlikely to appear in the form of a charge.

Yes CRBE were restructuring debts related to RH.

I think the bit somehow missed in comments so far that maybe important is:

“We are advanced with the council, perhaps a little slower than both the club and council wish but with a fair wind and continued support from the council we could be on site in the close season now that the training ground works are completed.”

Is this not suggesting to anyone that the council has still not approved the revised planning with residential replacing hotel?? And if so how likely is it that the bridging loan would be forwarded without it?? Is the bridging waiting for SBC?

Is anyone even following the revised planning??

Maybe someone knows/can find out..

It’s not just related to Roots Hall (CBRE) the charge documents mention land at FF (Sutton Road) and Roots Hall.

If you look through the charges. And we was to go bust under RM. The knock on effect of this for a buyer would be unwinding who owns what and what owes who what? It’s a complete MESS?

 

[BoyWonder2]

I don't remember a time when groups like St. Johns weren't paid or staff told to look for a new job or away teams not given their share of gate receipts even in the dark days before Sturrock.

I’m not defending anyone or anything here, but can we please stick to facts in all of this.

St John’s haven’t been paid, that’s a fact.
The email is pure speculation at the moment. I’ve spoken to three people so far, and none of them have received said email.
Away teams gate receipts that were due, like Darlington, have been paid. It was a fact that they hadn’t been paid however. Unsure about York’s two recent visits to Roots Hall. Not sure how that all works as yet.

 

[kentblues]

It’s not just related to Roots Hall (CBRE) the charge documents mention land at FF (Sutton Road) and Roots Hall.

If you look through the charges. And we was to go bust under RM. The knock on effect of this for a buyer would be unwinding who owns what and what owes who what? It’s a complete MESS?

Hmm.. yes I looked all the way through to the schedule.

First I guess we have to remember that RHL is completely separate to the club- so even if the club was wound up, or for that matter SEL, RHL and it’s ownership of the land would still stand.

The Dellals have a charge from 2019 over the assets held in the development.
All land (whether registered or unregistered, freehold or leasehold) and intellectual property now or in the future owned by the company.
Contains fixed charge.
Contains floating charge.
Floating charge covers all the property or undertaking of the company.
Contains negative pledge.

What we can’t see is as land is developed how this affects the CRBE charge, the charge above, and the release of funds (presumably as a result of a significant increase in valuation and the value of the debt associated with charge being much lower than the ultimate value of the land?).

However I can’t help but feel that where we are is probably that the bridging loan is indeed all agreed, and may have been for a while, BUT is conditional on approval for the revised plan from SBC and this is going slower than expected. The pieces then it seems to me fall together.

 

[LBBlue]

Just a reminder as to how all this started 20 plus years ago:

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport...nd-soap-opera-may-have-sad-ending-637463.html

 

[TJC]

Hmm.. yes I looked all the way through to the schedule.

First I guess we have to remember that RHL is completely separate to the club- so even if the club was wound up, or for that matter SEL, RHL and it’s ownership of the land would still stand.

The Dellals have a charge from 2019 over the assets held in the development.
All land (whether registered or unregistered, freehold or leasehold) and intellectual property now or in the future owned by the company.
Contains fixed charge.
Contains floating charge.
Floating charge covers all the property or undertaking of the company.
Contains negative pledge.

What we can’t see is as land is developed how this affects the CRBE charge, the charge above, and the release of funds (presumably as a result of a significant increase in valuation and the value of the debt associated with charge being much lower than the ultimate value of the land?).

However I can’t help but feel that where we are is probably that the bridging loan is indeed all agreed, and may have been for a while, BUT is conditional on approval for the revised plan from SBC and this is going slower than expected. The pieces then it seems to me fall together.

Can we take slight comfort from that if true? The council will surely be desperate to hit housing targets and keep a club in the city?

 

[Smiffy]

Just a reminder as to how all this started 20 plus years ago:

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport...nd-soap-opera-may-have-sad-ending-637463.html

Main says Martin has a conflict of interest: "How can he argue for the club, particularly against SEL, if he jointly owns SEL and his main interest is in making money from the property deal?"

He was a good bloke Main. Perhaps too nice and got **** on. A lot of stuff he said was right though.

 

[kentblues]

Can we take slight comfort from that if true? The council will surely be desperate to hit housing targets and keep a club in the city?

Yes you would think the council will feel significant pressure as March 1 approaches, MPs getting excited, ministers saying HMRC are in “negotiations” (all be it ministers are generally clueless), government agency trying to wind the club up, I suspect behind the scenes our slippery friend is pressing a few buttons.

 

[kentblues]

Main says Martin has a conflict of interest: "How can he argue for the club, particularly against SEL, if he jointly owns SEL and his main interest is in making money from the property deal?"

He was a good bloke Main. Perhaps too nice and got **** on. A lot of stuff he said was right though.

A good bloke that was running the club at a loss of £1.67m 20 years ago with no rent being charged (what’s that in today’s money?)
We don’t need a good bloke we need a good businessman who can run a sustainable business. New owner, yes who has a passion for the club, but above all can run the club in such a way it is sustainable, including for future owners/generations

 

[Medway Blue]

This is the full email from RM as read out by Glen at BBC Essex yesterday for those that missed it.

The position is quite simple,once HMRC collapsed our time to pay agreement which meant the legacy debt which was nearly all accured during the pandemic when income was very limited with costs the same the whole sum fell due to HMRC.

The amount was made up entirely of PAYE for players wages when in league 1 and league 2. Over time the clubs wage bill has reduced but the legacy debt has remained.. The club arranged and managed a time to pay agreement quite well for some 8 months and then missed a payment due at the end of August last year. Combined with double relegations and a large reduction of central income this proved to be the perfect storm.

The clubs cash flow deficit is circa 2 milliom pounds and that is what we are trying to fix before March 1st. We will not let the club be wound up and there are reasonable prospects in train to meet the clubs cash needs in time but it will be close.

Roots Hall is a cash pit, income once a fortnight for 9 months of the year has always meant it needs a beneficiary, for that reasonthe club will never be sustainable while it remains at Roots Hall. The relocation plans will fix that for good allowing us to compete without the constant large cash cold when we get back in the EFL.

Raising the funds is my primary focus, we are advanced but not there yet but i am not a magician. However if we can get past this current trauma the future for the club is bright.

We are advanced with the council, perhaps a little slower than both the club and council wish but with a fair wind and continued support from the council we could be on site in the close season now that the training ground works are completed.

I know that there are many questions people wish to ask and i would be happy to speak to you Glen. I had yesterday thought about attending the game today but i have to many commitments and will therefore intermittently be listening to BBC Essex this afternoon instead.

Time to pick this utter guff apart.


"once HMRC collapsed our time to pay agreement..."

 Typical RM deflection and "it's always someone else's fault, never mine". Even worse, it suggests a sense of exceptionalism and entitlement. He entered into a TTP with HMRC. The TTP had Ts&Cs attached, and possible punishment in the event of them being broken would have been clear. He broke the Ts&Cs. It doesn't matter how close to the end of the schedule it was - he entered into an agreement and didn't honour it, notwithstanding the fact he's been taking the **** out of HMRC for years anyway. Plenty of other clubs entered into TTP agreements with HMRC, but no other club but SUFC appears to have failed to fulfil theirs.


"...which meant the legacy debt which was nearly all accured during the pandemic when income was very limited with costs the same...combined with double relegations and a large reduction of central income this proved to be the perfect storm."

Was it also the perfect storm the other, what is it, 8 times that the club has been subject to winding-up petitions over the last 10 years? Or when Sainsbury's saved the club from being wound-up in 2009/10? Are we also forgetting the fact that the buck for the double relegations lies with you and the fact that you made a string of terrible managerial selections and took your eye off the ball with the football side of things as you became increasingly desperate for the Fossetts Farm plans to come to fruition?


"We will not let the club be wound up and there are reasonable prospects in train to meet the clubs cash needs in time but it will be close.....Raising the funds is my primary focus, we are advanced but not there yet but i am not a magician."

This message is contradictory. Either the club's cash needs are met or it is wound up. Why are the prospects only "reasonable"? If we assume that you are still pursuing a bridging loan (assumptions and conjectures are all we have since you don't have the decency to tell us what is actually going on), and you are adamant that you won't let the club be wound up, then what are your backup/contingency plans? What does "advanced but not there yet" mean and what is the hold up, especially since it seems to stuck at the same point it was stuck at back in October. We have a right to know more than you're letting on.


"Roots Hall is a cash pit, income once a fortnight for 9 months of the year has always meant it needs a beneficiary, for that reasonthe club will never be sustainable while it remains at Roots Hall."

Whilst there is a modicum of merit to this argument, let's not forget that you've contributed to Roots Hall becoming a "money pit". You've neglected it and let it rot, and you long ago gave up on trying anything new and inventive to get some extra revenue in on match days - and plenty of sound ideas from supporters have been scoffed at by the club's hierarchy. Some might say you took your eye off Roots Hall completely and put all focus on Fossetts.....others might suggest you knew what you were doing and have deliberately backed the club into a corner where it is literally your Fossetts plans or bust.


"The relocation plans will fix that for good allowing us to compete without the constant large cash cold when we get back in the EFL."

This is the hundredth time we've heard all this but there is still a lot of vagueness and secrecy around the extent to which the club will benefit from the new stadium with the current plans. Sure, any additional non-matchday income will be an improvement over the current situation, but where are the details about exactly what ancilliary facilities there will be and forecasts of how much income they could generate? Will it be enough to cover the current losses? What is break-even point forecast to be? Is there scope to expand/add to the facilities? This information, and its importance to the buy-in of the fanbase, has been forgotten and relegated down the priority list in favour of the housing element. Who is truly promoting the club's interests and future financial well-being, outside of your vague, empty references to unquantifiable additional revenue streams?


"However IF we can get past this current trauma the future for the club is bright."

"If" doesn' fill anybody with any confidence and if it is still an "if" at this lead time then you need to be thinking outside the box to get the WUP dismissed, even if that means conceding a slice of your ample half-a-billion £ pie.

Also, please stop deluding yourself that any future for SUFC with you in it is bright. The damage is done, there is too much water under the bridge for you to redeem yourself and this club will never fully drag its reputation out of the gutter and get the fresh start that it so badly needs whilst you are still here. The new stadium, especially without clarity regarding the extent to which SUFC will quantifiably benefit from it, is not enough to be a true light at the end of the tunnel. If you truly love the club then let it move on. Whatever happens on 1st March, you need to go.


"We are advanced with the council, perhaps a little slower than both the club and council wish but with a fair wind and continued support from the council we could be on site in the close season now that the training ground works are completed."

Woah, woah, woah, woah. What's with the "advanced with the council" and "could be on site in the close season"? I thought planning permission had been granted already? You have had us under the impression for ages now that the final key to unlocking the commencement of the stadium build is the vacation of B&L and the occupation of the new training facilities. Now you suggest that there are more hurdles to overcome with the council? So we've been misled. Again. If "a fair wind and continued support from the council" isn't enough to get the stadium build started at Fossetts in the close season, then how can we feel safe that it'll begin before your bridging finance (if successful in getting it) runs out and we're back in this same sorry position again? Shambles.

 

[Smiffy]

Time to pick this utter guff apart.


"once HMRC collapsed our time to pay agreement..."

 Typical RM deflection and "it's always someone else's fault, never mine". Even worse, it suggests a sense of exceptionalism and entitlement. He entered into a TTP with HMRC. The TTP had Ts&Cs attached, and possible punishment in the event of them being broken would have been clear. He broke the Ts&Cs. It doesn't matter how close to the end of the schedule it was - he entered into an agreement and didn't honour it, notwithstanding the fact he's been taking the **** out of HMRC for years anyway. Plenty of other clubs entered into TTP agreements with HMRC, but no other club but SUFC appears to have failed to fulfil theirs.


"...which meant the legacy debt which was nearly all accured during the pandemic when income was very limited with costs the same...combined with double relegations and a large reduction of central income this proved to be the perfect storm."

Was it also the perfect storm the other, what is it, 8 times that the club has been subject to winding-up petitions over the last 10 years? Or when Sainsbury's saved the club from being wound-up in 2009/10? Are we also forgetting the fact that the buck for the double relegations lies with you and the fact that you made a string of terrible managerial selections and took your eye off the ball with the football side of things as you became increasingly desperate for the Fossetts Farm plans to come to fruition?


"We will not let the club be wound up and there are reasonable prospects in train to meet the clubs cash needs in time but it will be close.....Raising the funds is my primary focus, we are advanced but not there yet but i am not a magician."

This message is contradictory. Either the club's cash needs are met or it is wound up. Why are the prospects only "reasonable"? If we assume that you are still pursuing a bridging loan (assumptions and conjectures are all we have since you don't have the decency to tell us what is actually going on), and you are adamant that you won't let the club be wound up, then what are your backup/contingency plans? What does "advanced but not there yet" mean and what is the hold up, especially since it seems to stuck at the same point it was stuck at back in October. We have a right to know more than you're letting on.


"Roots Hall is a cash pit, income once a fortnight for 9 months of the year has always meant it needs a beneficiary, for that reasonthe club will never be sustainable while it remains at Roots Hall."

Whilst there is a modicum of merit to this argument, let's not forget that you've contributed to Roots Hall becoming a "money pit". You've neglected it and let it rot, and you long ago gave up on trying anything new and inventive to get some extra revenue in on match days - and plenty of sound ideas from supporters have been scoffed at by the club's hierarchy. Some might say you took your eye off Roots Hall completely and put all focus on Fossetts.....others might suggest you knew what you were doing and have deliberately backed the club into a corner where it is literally your Fossetts plans or bust.


"The relocation plans will fix that for good allowing us to compete without the constant large cash cold when we get back in the EFL."

This is the hundredth time we've heard all this but there is still a lot of vagueness and secrecy around the extent to which the club will benefit from the new stadium with the current plans. Sure, any additional non-matchday income will be an improvement over the current situation, but where are the details about exactly what ancilliary facilities there will be and forecasts of how much income they could generate? Will it be enough to cover the current losses? What is break-even point forecast to be? Is there scope to expand/add to the facilities? This information, and its importance to the buy-in of the fanbase, has been forgotten and relegated down the priority list in favour of the housing element. Who is truly promoting the club's interests and future financial well-being, outside of your vague, empty references to unquantifiable additional revenue streams?


"However IF we can get past this current trauma the future for the club is bright."

"If" doesn' fill anybody with any confidence and if it is still an "if" at this lead time then you need to be thinking outside the box to get the WUP dismissed, even if that means conceding a slice of your ample half-a-billion £ pie.

Also, please stop deluding yourself that any future for SUFC with you in it is bright. The damage is done, there is too much water under the bridge for you to redeem yourself and this club will never fully drag its reputation out of the gutter and get the fresh start that it so badly needs whilst you are still here. The new stadium, especially without clarity regarding the extent to which SUFC will quantifiably benefit from it, is not enough to be a true light at the end of the tunnel. If you truly love the club then let it move on.


"We are advanced with the council, perhaps a little slower than both the club and council wish but with a fair wind and continued support from the council we could be on site in the close season now that the training ground works are completed."

Woah, woah, woah, woah. What's with the "advanced with the council" and "could be on site in the close season"? I thought planning permission had been granted already? You have had us under the impression for ages now that the final key to unlocking the commencement of the stadium build is the vacation of B&L and the occupation of the new training facilities. Now you suggest that there are more hurdles to overcome with the council? So we've been misled. Again. If "a fair wind and continued support from the council" isn't enough to get the stadium build started at Fossetts in the close season, then how can we feel safe that it'll begin before your bridging finance (if successful in getting it) rubs out and we're back in this same sorry position again? Shambles.

Brilliant.

 

[Shrimpermattp]

Been following this as live in hampshire now and been a blue fan since I played for them as a kid until 18. First post on here and thought and hope the info below might be useful. Spoke with a commercial banker (best mates wife) who deals with similar stuff.

Said the legacy debt is terrible finance management (no shock there), as they have kicked it down the line hoping it would go away or a miracle finance would come in. Using Covid she said wasn’t an excuse as there were so many things to help.

Secondly she said the loan interest would be at least 10% and she read the statements by Ron (knows nothing about footie, and didn’t disclose who or what club it was, so completely impartial). She said even if the loan comes in, the risk further down the line is huge….. also said hardly any people would give the loan as run ins with hmrc and paye problems are huge red flags.

The land of roots hall and boots and laces would be used incase the worst happens. So if we do go busy Ron would lose it all….and go to the bank typically.

Obviously, we are all praying for the best. She did say the only way out typically of this is a new owner….

 

[pottster]

I find it hard to believe any bank would lend ron money. They would need some sort of security on a loan. Even at 10% he is too high risk. The whole thing just seems pie in the sky which runs parallel to essex way.

 

[rayleigh dan]

Time to pick this utter guff apart.


"once HMRC collapsed our time to pay agreement..."

 Typical RM deflection and "it's always someone else's fault, never mine". Even worse, it suggests a sense of exceptionalism and entitlement. He entered into a TTP with HMRC. The TTP had Ts&Cs attached, and possible punishment in the event of them being broken would have been clear. He broke the Ts&Cs. It doesn't matter how close to the end of the schedule it was - he entered into an agreement and didn't honour it, notwithstanding the fact he's been taking the **** out of HMRC for years anyway. Plenty of other clubs entered into TTP agreements with HMRC, but no other club but SUFC appears to have failed to fulfil theirs.


"...which meant the legacy debt which was nearly all accured during the pandemic when income was very limited with costs the same...combined with double relegations and a large reduction of central income this proved to be the perfect storm."

Was it also the perfect storm the other, what is it, 8 times that the club has been subject to winding-up petitions over the last 10 years? Or when Sainsbury's saved the club from being wound-up in 2009/10? Are we also forgetting the fact that the buck for the double relegations lies with you and the fact that you made a string of terrible managerial selections and took your eye off the ball with the football side of things as you became increasingly desperate for the Fossetts Farm plans to come to fruition?


"We will not let the club be wound up and there are reasonable prospects in train to meet the clubs cash needs in time but it will be close.....Raising the funds is my primary focus, we are advanced but not there yet but i am not a magician."

This message is contradictory. Either the club's cash needs are met or it is wound up. Why are the prospects only "reasonable"? If we assume that you are still pursuing a bridging loan (assumptions and conjectures are all we have since you don't have the decency to tell us what is actually going on), and you are adamant that you won't let the club be wound up, then what are your backup/contingency plans? What does "advanced but not there yet" mean and what is the hold up, especially since it seems to stuck at the same point it was stuck at back in October. We have a right to know more than you're letting on.


"Roots Hall is a cash pit, income once a fortnight for 9 months of the year has always meant it needs a beneficiary, for that reasonthe club will never be sustainable while it remains at Roots Hall."

Whilst there is a modicum of merit to this argument, let's not forget that you've contributed to Roots Hall becoming a "money pit". You've neglected it and let it rot, and you long ago gave up on trying anything new and inventive to get some extra revenue in on match days - and plenty of sound ideas from supporters have been scoffed at by the club's hierarchy. Some might say you took your eye off Roots Hall completely and put all focus on Fossetts.....others might suggest you knew what you were doing and have deliberately backed the club into a corner where it is literally your Fossetts plans or bust.


"The relocation plans will fix that for good allowing us to compete without the constant large cash cold when we get back in the EFL."

This is the hundredth time we've heard all this but there is still a lot of vagueness and secrecy around the extent to which the club will benefit from the new stadium with the current plans. Sure, any additional non-matchday income will be an improvement over the current situation, but where are the details about exactly what ancilliary facilities there will be and forecasts of how much income they could generate? Will it be enough to cover the current losses? What is break-even point forecast to be? Is there scope to expand/add to the facilities? This information, and its importance to the buy-in of the fanbase, has been forgotten and relegated down the priority list in favour of the housing element. Who is truly promoting the club's interests and future financial well-being, outside of your vague, empty references to unquantifiable additional revenue streams?


"However IF we can get past this current trauma the future for the club is bright."

"If" doesn' fill anybody with any confidence and if it is still an "if" at this lead time then you need to be thinking outside the box to get the WUP dismissed, even if that means conceding a slice of your ample half-a-billion £ pie.

Also, please stop deluding yourself that any future for SUFC with you in it is bright. The damage is done, there is too much water under the bridge for you to redeem yourself and this club will never fully drag its reputation out of the gutter and get the fresh start that it so badly needs whilst you are still here. The new stadium, especially without clarity regarding the extent to which SUFC will quantifiably benefit from it, is not enough to be a true light at the end of the tunnel. If you truly love the club then let it move on. Whatever happens on 1st March, you need to go.


"We are advanced with the council, perhaps a little slower than both the club and council wish but with a fair wind and continued support from the council we could be on site in the close season now that the training ground works are completed."

Woah, woah, woah, woah. What's with the "advanced with the council" and "could be on site in the close season"? I thought planning permission had been granted already? You have had us under the impression for ages now that the final key to unlocking the commencement of the stadium build is the vacation of B&L and the occupation of the new training facilities. Now you suggest that there are more hurdles to overcome with the council? So we've been misled. Again. If "a fair wind and continued support from the council" isn't enough to get the stadium build started at Fossetts in the close season, then how can we feel safe that it'll begin before your bridging finance (if successful in getting it) runs out and we're back in this same sorry position again? Shambles.

Fantastic post which sums up my feelings about Ron's statement perfectly. Could we get this reply sent to Ron? If he really cared he'd read it surely...

 

[Fairport]

With regards to the planning permission for the stadium/housing FF project I think there maybe issues regarding roads, access etc even though the main complex plans have been approved. Maybe another poster can clarify this issue?

 

[tommy tucker]

2008 I think we were supposed to move in

I find it hard to believe any bank would lend ron money. They would need some sort of security on a loan. Even at 10% he is too high risk. The whole thing just seems pie in the sky which runs parallel to essex way.

Bank woh mention banks .There other loan companys out there other than banks yiou know .My car was financed wasnt a bank .

 

[basilrobbie]

Time to pick this utter guff apart.


"once HMRC collapsed our time to pay agreement..."

 Typical RM deflection and "it's always someone else's fault, never mine". Even worse, it suggests a sense of exceptionalism and entitlement. He entered into a TTP with HMRC. The TTP had Ts&Cs attached, and possible punishment in the event of them being broken would have been clear. He broke the Ts&Cs. It doesn't matter how close to the end of the schedule it was - he entered into an agreement and didn't honour it, notwithstanding the fact he's been taking the **** out of HMRC for years anyway. Plenty of other clubs entered into TTP agreements with HMRC, but no other club but SUFC appears to have failed to fulfil theirs.


"...which meant the legacy debt which was nearly all accured during the pandemic when income was very limited with costs the same...combined with double relegations and a large reduction of central income this proved to be the perfect storm."

Was it also the perfect storm the other, what is it, 8 times that the club has been subject to winding-up petitions over the last 10 years? Or when Sainsbury's saved the club from being wound-up in 2009/10? Are we also forgetting the fact that the buck for the double relegations lies with you and the fact that you made a string of terrible managerial selections and took your eye off the ball with the football side of things as you became increasingly desperate for the Fossetts Farm plans to come to fruition?


"We will not let the club be wound up and there are reasonable prospects in train to meet the clubs cash needs in time but it will be close.....Raising the funds is my primary focus, we are advanced but not there yet but i am not a magician."

This message is contradictory. Either the club's cash needs are met or it is wound up. Why are the prospects only "reasonable"? If we assume that you are still pursuing a bridging loan (assumptions and conjectures are all we have since you don't have the decency to tell us what is actually going on), and you are adamant that you won't let the club be wound up, then what are your backup/contingency plans? What does "advanced but not there yet" mean and what is the hold up, especially since it seems to stuck at the same point it was stuck at back in October. We have a right to know more than you're letting on.


"Roots Hall is a cash pit, income once a fortnight for 9 months of the year has always meant it needs a beneficiary, for that reasonthe club will never be sustainable while it remains at Roots Hall."

Whilst there is a modicum of merit to this argument, let's not forget that you've contributed to Roots Hall becoming a "money pit". You've neglected it and let it rot, and you long ago gave up on trying anything new and inventive to get some extra revenue in on match days - and plenty of sound ideas from supporters have been scoffed at by the club's hierarchy. Some might say you took your eye off Roots Hall completely and put all focus on Fossetts.....others might suggest you knew what you were doing and have deliberately backed the club into a corner where it is literally your Fossetts plans or bust.


"The relocation plans will fix that for good allowing us to compete without the constant large cash cold when we get back in the EFL."

This is the hundredth time we've heard all this but there is still a lot of vagueness and secrecy around the extent to which the club will benefit from the new stadium with the current plans. Sure, any additional non-matchday income will be an improvement over the current situation, but where are the details about exactly what ancilliary facilities there will be and forecasts of how much income they could generate? Will it be enough to cover the current losses? What is break-even point forecast to be? Is there scope to expand/add to the facilities? This information, and its importance to the buy-in of the fanbase, has been forgotten and relegated down the priority list in favour of the housing element. Who is truly promoting the club's interests and future financial well-being, outside of your vague, empty references to unquantifiable additional revenue streams?


"However IF we can get past this current trauma the future for the club is bright."

"If" doesn' fill anybody with any confidence and if it is still an "if" at this lead time then you need to be thinking outside the box to get the WUP dismissed, even if that means conceding a slice of your ample half-a-billion £ pie.

Also, please stop deluding yourself that any future for SUFC with you in it is bright. The damage is done, there is too much water under the bridge for you to redeem yourself and this club will never fully drag its reputation out of the gutter and get the fresh start that it so badly needs whilst you are still here. The new stadium, especially without clarity regarding the extent to which SUFC will quantifiably benefit from it, is not enough to be a true light at the end of the tunnel. If you truly love the club then let it move on. Whatever happens on 1st March, you need to go.


"We are advanced with the council, perhaps a little slower than both the club and council wish but with a fair wind and continued support from the council we could be on site in the close season now that the training ground works are completed."

Woah, woah, woah, woah. What's with the "advanced with the council" and "could be on site in the close season"? I thought planning permission had been granted already? You have had us under the impression for ages now that the final key to unlocking the commencement of the stadium build is the vacation of B&L and the occupation of the new training facilities. Now you suggest that there are more hurdles to overcome with the council? So we've been misled. Again. If "a fair wind and continued support from the council" isn't enough to get the stadium build started at Fossetts in the close season, then how can we feel safe that it'll begin before your bridging finance (if successful in getting it) runs out and we're back in this same sorry position again? Shambles.

Masterly.

 

[Yer Blues]

Bank woh mention banks .There other loan companys out there other than banks yiou know .My car was financed wasnt a bank .

Ah Tommy. Wonga don't do loans this big mate x

 

[pottster]

Ah Tommy. Wonga don't do loans this big mate x

Do you think that Ron has tried ocean finance?