|
Post by martinshrew on Mar 28, 2024 15:27:59 GMT 1
Chairman might be putting money in but you can bet your organs he'll have every single penny back. It sits uncomfortably with me that a multimillionaire in his own right, who is a huge town fan and will likely make an enormous amount of profit selling the club can't make a decent one off cash injection. I am far from an expert but would the accounts show if there was a cash injection? There is absolutely no logical argument that RW should give the club his own money. Taking no wage/ dividends and an interest free loan is enough for me. Do you not think buying a club for under £1m, investing/gifting nothing and selling it, likely for £10m+ isn't a wage/dividend? £10m / 30 years = £333k a year.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Rickerton on Mar 28, 2024 15:39:20 GMT 1
A couple of interesting points and clarifications from a quick read of the accounts (apologies may be repeating what has been said on here already - quick lunchbreak). 1) £3m lose leaving us with 80k in the bank... After £500k of loans by the chairman. A perilous financial position. 2) On the topic of the chairman, these are interest free loans with no right to convert to shares. Clearly the chairman is not unduly benefitting from our financial situation and will see no gain upon sale from shares or the like as had previously been speculated. 3) £100k spent on a player last season - was that Shipley?! 4) Contingent fees received of £440k - add ons from previous player sales? 5) Increase in cost of sales (electricity, etc?) by £1m and increase in admin expenses of £500k (where the alleged wrongdoings lie, I suspect) 6) Decrease in debtors and increase in creditors - stretching ourselves as far as possible to cover our current predicament 7) If cost of sales remain at present levels, we will need a major player sale or cup run to keep us from collapse. Neither of which are likely this season. I am concerned for next year's accounts already. Thanks for this, some interesting readings and questions.
|
|
|
Post by suttonshrew on Mar 28, 2024 15:42:23 GMT 1
not quite as bad as id thought they would be, but still a sobering set of accounts.
I actually feel for the chairman in part, for years we have been complaining that he is a one man board, he then goes and gives more financial control of the club to his CEO and we end up in this situation.
i can see the concerns from a fans point of view, if the chairmans putting money in, how long is that sustainable? but knowing the chairman i also know he will be fighting tooth and nail to get the club back to sustainability. Before i get accused of being in his pocket if you know our relationship you will know thats def not the case!
Personally im quite pleased RW is at the helm atm, whilst i havent agreed with everything hes done, i know he craves stability and is as tight as **** if he needs to be, i think Duncan the new finance director and Andy head of finance will also have added a new layer of control as their back ground isnt in football
as a fan, im worried seeing this, but certainly not hit the panic button worried
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Mar 28, 2024 15:53:11 GMT 1
OK, let's be particular - the Chairman has oversight of the Board of Directors and, since the Chairman is himself a director, he also had executive responsibility. You're surely not suggesting that the Chairman had no say in the appointment of every senior manager and everyone with a significant responsibility, are you? I didn't blame Wycherley solely. I said he has ultimate responsibility which, as owner, chairman and director, he surely does. That is not right - The Chairman does not sit over the Board he is part of the board and one of them he has no specific oversight role. So yes by all means give everyone equal blame, and the Board all equal responsibility, but it is not his ultimate repsonsibility, it was the three of them, they collectively had responsibility for what the senior staff were doing. Whether the senior staff were behaving has been the subject of much debate already, and as they had executive power day to day it does start there, but oversight you are quite right should have been exercised by the board as a collective and individually I disagree. The Chairman leads the board, he is not merely part of it. You say all three directors were responsible. I agree but maintain that the Chairman bears the greatest responsibility. The fact is that two of the three have resigned already, but not the Chairman of course! The chairman of an organisation with which I'm closely connected resigned recently over a matter in which he had absolutely no personal involvement. He believed he bore ultimate responsibility for what had gone wrong. Of course Wycherley is never likely to step down as chairman when he owns more than 75% of the shares. And there's no obvious replacement for him if he did. And therein lies another aspect of the problem. The board has been a 2 or 3 man operation for so long, though in reality a one man show as we all know, that its narrowness and lack of diverse thinking has become an accepted part of the club's fabric. It's sclerotic. Is there any succession plan other than an outright sale? Can't see any evidence of one. Had the board been stronger, Wycherley could step back without having to sell his shares, but there's nobody there to step up. Wycherley deserves great credit for rescuing the club when he came in, for overseeing the successful move from Gay Meadow, and for the many years of stability. But he can't take credit for when things go well without taking responsibility for when they don't. And today it's become crystal clear that things haven't gone at all well for some time. I appreciate Wycherley's efforts to put things right but in a better run organisation someone else would be doing that. But that's football! Change is needed, now more than ever.
|
|
abcdef
Midland League Division Two
Posts: 189
|
Post by abcdef on Mar 28, 2024 15:56:37 GMT 1
The criticism directed at wycherley is ridiculous. The great footballing dictator has played a major part in this. Just to achieve a mediocre position playing dreadful football, all whilst chasing player we can not afford.
|
|
|
Post by pughywasfree on Mar 28, 2024 15:58:25 GMT 1
I am far from an expert but would the accounts show if there was a cash injection? There is absolutely no logical argument that RW should give the club his own money. Taking no wage/ dividends and an interest free loan is enough for me. Do you not think buying a club for under £1m, investing/gifting nothing and selling it, likely for £10m+ isn't a wage/dividend? £10m / 30 years = £333k a year. Assuming that he has invested/gifted nothing (you did not answer my question) how much do you think he should have earnt for running (successfully the majority of the time) our football club? Again I am no expert but did he not sell his land to the club for the training in Sundorne in exchange for shares? With all the terrible owners that other clubs have had to suffer it confuses me why you expect so much from RW. He could have done better, he could have invested a lot more but he could have been a lot worse.
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Mar 28, 2024 16:00:10 GMT 1
He is the controlling shareholder and chair of the board. Of course he sits over the board. He effectively "owns" the business. That is why he is the only director who has served in the last 20 years still there and he has a stand named after him.
If it is a collective effort and all about the team then why does only he have an MBE?
What you are implying feels like good news is him and bad news is everyone else.
Two directors and two key staff members appear to have fallen on their swords over the debacle.
The directors shared equal blame with him but only they paid the price? That makes no sense. No - I am saying that if they take their roles as Directors seriously, then all three Directors should have been watching the cash drop including the Chairman. As they (the other two) were unpaid, and had no funds in, I am not sure leaving was "paying a price" for them, they had had all the good times, been to Wembley and Liverpool and all the rest, then left when things were tight. You surely can't believe that the board operated as though it were not under the control of the owner and chairman? Reality trumps theory here. Beginning to think you're either related to Wycherley or work at WR!
|
|
|
Post by hectord0g137 on Mar 28, 2024 16:02:13 GMT 1
Wifey has explained what she can with information garnerd and while there are many questions to be asked/answered there seems to be no need to press panic button yet. Regarding the wage increases I was always told if you pay peanuts you.... so this means the calibre of player should reflect the teams position in the league..... well that went well .....not
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Mar 28, 2024 16:03:59 GMT 1
So much pontificating on here. Find someone who has the money to take over and occasionally inject cash into the business before seeking Roland's head on a plate.
|
|
|
Post by dibblydobbly on Mar 28, 2024 16:04:00 GMT 1
That is not right - The Chairman does not sit over the Board he is part of the board and one of them he has no specific oversight role. So yes by all means give everyone equal blame, and the Board all equal responsibility, but it is not his ultimate repsonsibility, it was the three of them, they collectively had responsibility for what the senior staff were doing. Whether the senior staff were behaving has been the subject of much debate already, and as they had executive power day to day it does start there, but oversight you are quite right should have been exercised by the board as a collective and individually I disagree. The Chairman leads the board, he is not merely part of it. You say all three directors were responsible. I agree but maintain that the Chairman bears the greatest responsibility. The fact is that two of the three have resigned already, but not the Chairman of course! The chairman of an organisation with which I'm closely connected resigned recently over a matter in which he had absolutely no personal involvement. He believed he bore ultimate responsibility for what had gone wrong. Of course Wycherley is never likely to step down as chairman when he owns more than 75% of the shares. And there's no obvious replacement for him if he did. And therein lies another aspect of the problem. The board has been a 2 or 3 man operation for so long, though in reality a one man show as we all know, that its narrowness and lack of diverse thinking has become an accepted part of the club's fabric. It's sclerotic. Is there any succession plan other than an outright sale? Can't see any evidence of one. Had the board been stronger, Wycherley could step back without having to sell his shares, but there's nobody there to step up. Wycherley deserves great credit for rescuing the club when he came in, for overseeing the successful move from Gay Meadow, and for the many years of stability. But he can't take credit for when things go well without taking responsibility for when they don't. And today it's become crystal clear that things haven't gone at all well for some time. I appreciate Wycherley's efforts to put things right but in a better run organisation someone else would be doing that. But that's football! Change is needed, now more than ever. Well when it comes to someone else, the Club has Liam in place who is bringing fresh thinking, no question The succession plan was laid out for all to see with PD but it failed basically through lack of funds (Covid), so now it starts again I should think. If the Board could be 5 or 6 decent people who would put time in (and a bit of cash) and work as a team I would be all for it. But for today, as you say, we need the Chairman until things change.
|
|
|
Post by Pilch on Mar 28, 2024 16:05:39 GMT 1
Chairman might be putting money in but you can bet your organs he'll have every single penny back. It sits uncomfortably with me that a multimillionaire in his own right, who is a huge town fan and will likely make an enormous amount of profit selling the club can't make a decent one off cash injection. It’s time for Roland to go. What an absolute burden this football club is on him that in the past 10 years he’s finally had to put his hand in his own pocket to bail us out with 500k and he wont ever let us forget it. Roland would rather have a nice balance of payments every year than he would ever actually want to do some philanthropy and invest his own money. In case you missed it he's been trying to sell up for ages, I think todays figures might give a hint at why potential new owners keep quietly slipping away , and not for the petty reasons some keep spouting
|
|
|
Post by dibblydobbly on Mar 28, 2024 16:06:20 GMT 1
No - I am saying that if they take their roles as Directors seriously, then all three Directors should have been watching the cash drop including the Chairman. As they (the other two) were unpaid, and had no funds in, I am not sure leaving was "paying a price" for them, they had had all the good times, been to Wembley and Liverpool and all the rest, then left when things were tight. You surely can't believe that the board operated as though it were not under the control of the owner and chairman? Reality trumps theory here. Beginning to think you're either related to Wycherley or work at WR! Next you'll be calling me Noreen! I give up - must go back to work
|
|
|
Post by Salop_Ian on Mar 28, 2024 16:10:19 GMT 1
Interesting to note that in the same financial year Ipswich Town could lose £18m - approximately three times Salop's turnover.
Ipswich say the losses are within their projections and do not threaten the club's sustainability.
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Mar 28, 2024 16:12:02 GMT 1
Wifey has explained what she can with information garnerd and while there are many questions to be asked/answered there seems to be no need to press panic button yet. Regarding the wage increases I was always told if you pay peanuts you.... so this means the calibre of player should reflect the teams position in the league..... well that went well .....not In the year these accounts relate to we came 12th and should have been higher had it not been for whatever happened after Christmas that season.
|
|
|
Post by dibblydobbly on Mar 28, 2024 16:12:13 GMT 1
Interesting to note that in the same financial year Ipswich Town could lose £18m - approximately three times Salop's turnover. Ipswich say the losses are within their projections and do not threaten the club's sustainability. If they go up there is no sanction from EFL...
|
|
|
Post by mattmw on Mar 28, 2024 16:17:12 GMT 1
As in previous years a big thanks to Ant Thomas for interpreting the accounts and pointing out the key pieces of information.
I'm still a bit in the dark where we stand with the Premier League money? Are we ever likely to see that money an annual payment or a one off. If we had priviously had £500,000 a year and its no longer coming in each season thats obviusly a big hit the club has little control over.
Looking in more detail the turnover figures look reasonably healthy with growth in some areas, but then that growth doesn't really seem to be reflected in the profit levels. So it could just be we are having to charge more for food and beverage sales due to inflation, but the profit levels on these are reduced. Its quite a common feature across the hospitality sector. Ticket sales decreasing would also link back to the wider cost of living that everyone is facing too
|
|
|
Post by davycrockett on Mar 28, 2024 16:17:20 GMT 1
OK, let's be particular - the Chairman has oversight of the Board of Directors and, since the Chairman is himself a director, he also had executive responsibility. You're surely not suggesting that the Chairman had no say in the appointment of every senior manager and everyone with a significant responsibility, are you? I didn't blame Wycherley solely. I said he has ultimate responsibility which, as owner, chairman and director, he surely does. That is not right - The Chairman does not sit over the Board he is part of the board and one of them he has no specific oversight role. So yes by all means give everyone equal blame, and the Board all equal responsibility, but it is not his ultimate repsonsibility, it was the three of them, they collectively had responsibility for what the senior staff were doing. Whether the senior staff were behaving has been the subject of much debate already, and as they had executive power day to day it does start there, but oversight you are quite right should have been exercised by the board as a collective and individually Perhaps the size and experience of the boards one of the problems. When you look at similar clubs like Lincoln they’ve got 15 directors who all take an active roll as well as a Strategic Adviser and 6 key named investors. We had 3 one of which never really played an active role.
|
|
|
Post by martinshrew on Mar 28, 2024 16:19:30 GMT 1
That is not right - The Chairman does not sit over the Board he is part of the board and one of them he has no specific oversight role. So yes by all means give everyone equal blame, and the Board all equal responsibility, but it is not his ultimate repsonsibility, it was the three of them, they collectively had responsibility for what the senior staff were doing. Whether the senior staff were behaving has been the subject of much debate already, and as they had executive power day to day it does start there, but oversight you are quite right should have been exercised by the board as a collective and individually Perhaps the size and experience of the boards one of the problems. When you look at similar clubs like Lincoln they’ve got 15 directors who all take an active roll as well as a Strategic Adviser and 6 key named investors. We had 3 one of which never really played an active role. How many has Roland fell out with over the years? Blokes with bigger pockets than his house such as Passant.
|
|
|
Post by dibblydobbly on Mar 28, 2024 16:20:00 GMT 1
That is not right - The Chairman does not sit over the Board he is part of the board and one of them he has no specific oversight role. So yes by all means give everyone equal blame, and the Board all equal responsibility, but it is not his ultimate repsonsibility, it was the three of them, they collectively had responsibility for what the senior staff were doing. Whether the senior staff were behaving has been the subject of much debate already, and as they had executive power day to day it does start there, but oversight you are quite right should have been exercised by the board as a collective and individually Perhaps the size and experience of the boards one of the problems. When you look at similar clubs like Lincoln they’ve got 15 directors who all take an active roll as well as a Strategic Adviser and 6 key named investors. We had 3 one of which never really played an active role. Don't disagree except that i suspect two did not play an active role. Would be nice to afford a Strategic Adviser, and have cash coming in.
|
|
|
Post by davycrockett on Mar 28, 2024 16:20:42 GMT 1
"THERE WILL BE NO COMMENT FROM THE CLUB UNTIL AFTER OUR ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING (AGM)" What a load of BS. We all care deeply and want answers and reassurance now! Only right that they address shareholders first surely? Would you want to hear it at the same ti e as the public if you owned shares in a company?
|
|
|
Post by davycrockett on Mar 28, 2024 16:22:46 GMT 1
Perhaps the size and experience of the boards one of the problems. When you look at similar clubs like Lincoln they’ve got 15 directors who all take an active roll as well as a Strategic Adviser and 6 key named investors. We had 3 one of which never really played an active role. How many has Roland fell out with over the years? Blokes with bigger pockets than his house such as Passant. Cant change the past, but we can learn from it.
|
|
|
Post by dibblydobbly on Mar 28, 2024 16:24:40 GMT 1
Perhaps the size and experience of the boards one of the problems. When you look at similar clubs like Lincoln they’ve got 15 directors who all take an active roll as well as a Strategic Adviser and 6 key named investors. We had 3 one of which never really played an active role. How many has Roland fell out with over the years? Blokes with bigger pockets than his house such as Passant. Okay so now I have an observation: After people have run their own business for years with no-one to answer to and no-one to tell them no, business owners tend to find it difficult to play as a team where someone else has final say. You have to have a team or part employee mentality to do it. It is very tricky to get collegiate style working when you have three (say) independent business people who are all used to being told yes, to work as a team and not have differences of opinion that become intransigent So who fell out with whom is a tricky one, I suspect it is more a function of the circumstances than any individuals being desperate for a row. Then again I am regularly told I am too nice
|
|
|
Post by Pilch on Mar 28, 2024 16:30:17 GMT 1
Well we finally have our answers but I do have two questions. If we were in an absolute mess financially with player salaries wouldn’t we have sold Dunkley or Marosi at the start of the season and made some of the high earners available? Im sure we’d have had some teams in this league have interest in them. What steps have actually been taken to minimise these losses as I haven’t seen much change beyond Steve and Brian being shown the door? We overspent, Roland did something he doesn’t like doing - actually putting his hand in his pocket to invest in the club, we keep rolling on. Wouldn’t it be nice one day to have a chairman who wants to spend money to better this club rather than oversee a balance of payments though. What an absolute saint Roland is for reaching into his pocket to invest in this club. That 500k put into the club for the past 10 years really shows us how lucky we are to have our lord and master. Here's a potential reason , when the manager sat down with the chairman , and deceived him like a rogue trader on matt alwright , it appears some of the players contracts had small print which enabled them to take home a much enhanced wage just for the likes of turning up and playing , These personal terms are simply out of reach of any league one clubs that might have wanted to sign them , bit like obrien , we couldn't even give him away , we had to pay someone to take him off our hands , and he we are today as a result of misguided trust
|
|
|
Post by tarporleyblue on Mar 28, 2024 16:32:05 GMT 1
"THERE WILL BE NO COMMENT FROM THE CLUB UNTIL AFTER OUR ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING (AGM)" What a load of BS. We all care deeply and want answers and reassurance now! AGM is very soon - if you have a specific question do email it to me and Iw ill get you ansswers if I can I assume that you are therefore a shareholder in the club?
|
|
|
Post by tarporleyblue on Mar 28, 2024 16:40:04 GMT 1
"THERE WILL BE NO COMMENT FROM THE CLUB UNTIL AFTER OUR ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING (AGM)" What a load of BS. We all care deeply and want answers and reassurance now! Only right that they address shareholders first surely? Would you want to hear it at the same ti e as the public if you owned shares in a company? Indeed, that's how it should be. The accounts are now in the public domain for all to see, that should be good enough for one and all at this point.
|
|
|
Post by davycrockett on Mar 28, 2024 16:44:08 GMT 1
Only right that they address shareholders first surely? Would you want to hear it at the same ti e as the public if you owned shares in a company? Indeed, that's how it should be. The accounts are now in the public domain for all to see, that should be good enough for one and all at this point. Some will still have their long term views on RW and want to rub them in but the fact is we’re going through a period of change including the clubs for sale, IF as some suggest Roland walked we’d be in an immediate financial problem. Needs a bit of patients
|
|
|
Post by dibblydobbly on Mar 28, 2024 16:45:42 GMT 1
AGM is very soon - if you have a specific question do email it to me and Iw ill get you ansswers if I can I assume that you are therefore a shareholder in the club? Yep
|
|
|
Post by tarporleyblue on Mar 28, 2024 16:52:14 GMT 1
Our opponents tomorrow, Oxford Utd have just published their end of year accounts.
They made a loss of £6,180,52.
This figures includes the sum of £1,627,407 for player sales.
|
|
blueboy48
Midland League Division Two
Posts: 167
|
Post by blueboy48 on Mar 28, 2024 17:06:45 GMT 1
I'm thinking MartinB might be onto something there with talk of hotels. Didn't we get a new bus too? But no idea, that is the standout though. It would be good to know the reason for that increase. Bus owned by Longmynd but costs us per trip.... 5* every away game is a stretch no one knows how many and 4 or 5 * but likely extravagant.... New 5* longmynd coach previously contracted to Tottenham Hotspur FC. We take two coaches to away games so when we stay overnight we pay not only for the hotel but for two days coach hire and drivers. Apparently we stayed overnight at Oxford which is hard to justify, to say the least.
|
|
|
Post by DiglisShrew on Mar 28, 2024 17:08:44 GMT 1
Well we finally have our answers but I do have two questions. If we were in an absolute mess financially with player salaries wouldn’t we have sold Dunkley or Marosi at the start of the season and made some of the high earners available? Im sure we’d have had some teams in this league have interest in them. What steps have actually been taken to minimise these losses as I haven’t seen much change beyond Steve and Brian being shown the door? We overspent, Roland did something he doesn’t like doing - actually putting his hand in his pocket to invest in the club, we keep rolling on. Wouldn’t it be nice one day to have a chairman who wants to spend money to better this club rather than oversee a balance of payments though. What an absolute saint Roland is for reaching into his pocket to invest in this club. That 500k put into the club for the past 10 years really shows us how lucky we are to have our lord and master. Here's a potential reason , when the manager sat down with the chairman , and deceived him like a rogue trader on matt alwright , it appears some of the players contracts had small print which enabled them to take home a much enhanced wage just for the likes of turning up and playing , These personal terms are simply out of reach of any league one clubs that might have wanted to sign them , bit like obrien , we couldn't even give him away , we had to pay someone to take him off our hands , and he we are today as a result of misguided trust These contracts had to be signed off responsible officers of this club . Are you saying they couldn’t be bothered with the small print or somehow BC/SC had them redacted !!
|
|