|
Post by Minormorris64 on Mar 28, 2024 14:35:19 GMT 1
We could most certainly do with some sort of update from the club covering these figures (not the detail obviously but an outline). I'd like to hear what measures are being taken to move us back towards being sustainable going forward. On measures, I think you may have seen or heard of some of them already: New Sponsors Staff changes, football and non-football Director Changes Shop changes Kit Supplier Changes Which we can assume means other supplier changes are done, proper financial controls and reporting are in place, and plans are afoot for more changes e.g. academy move, and revenue generation And a more realistic wage structure more befitting a Company with a turnover of £6,000,000, than paying out just because its "football"
|
|
|
Post by dibblydobbly on Mar 28, 2024 14:35:30 GMT 1
Well: No points deducted No payments to staff missed Chairman putting his money in to make sure of thatChange medium term, sure, why not, but in the meantime suggest we stay firmly behind the club while it works its way out of the hole, The fans money is what keeps the club running, and he should keep that very close in mind, rather than constantly take our support for granted... I suspect he knows full well.
|
|
|
Post by dibblydobbly on Mar 28, 2024 14:36:51 GMT 1
Gravy Train? Please explain that one
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Mar 28, 2024 14:37:23 GMT 1
Perhaps that relationship's too cosy as well. A bit more challenge from the auditors might have helped sharpen the focus earlier. Fair point, but their "cosy" relationship was with people who are gone. They are starting again with new professionals in Liam and the Head of Finance The Head of Finance who used to be a partner at WR .....
|
|
|
Post by shrewdshrewssupporter on Mar 28, 2024 14:37:57 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.
|
|
|
Post by Scarecrow on Mar 28, 2024 14:38:53 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.
|
|
|
Post by DiglisShrew on Mar 28, 2024 14:39:34 GMT 1
br]. I am shocked by the 500k admin expense increase - can't quite work that one out. I recall Dibblydobbly suggesting fans send questions to him about the accounts and he pose those at the AGM. Maybe he could ask for a detailed analysis of the Admin Costs ?
|
|
|
Post by Exkeeper on Mar 28, 2024 14:40:00 GMT 1
Moore is on record as saying we are now living within our budget. I am assuming that includes paying the higher earners their “inflated” wages. Does that means we would be able to keep the likes of Marosi for another season? Relegation would reduce our income substantially.
|
|
|
Post by southshropblue on Mar 28, 2024 14:40:03 GMT 1
I think good PR would include an honest appraisal of why we are in this mess (not naming name obviously as that may be legally unwise) What we are doing to get out of this situation, and a little bit of hope for the future
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Mar 28, 2024 14:42:18 GMT 1
The Chairman had oversight of all of this, or should have. It's ultimately his responsibility. We have new management in place since this disaster but I don't think it's enough. Bigger change is needed - new ownership, new thinking. Well if we are being particular: The performance of the company is the responsibility (ultimately) of the Board of Directors and each Director has the same duties. They appoint the management and should have oversight. When the losses were made there were three Companies House registered Directors, two of whom have now gone. I am sure New Ownership and New Thinking will happen one day, and good luck to it, but I can't see that the one man of the three who chose to stay and fight for the club gets all the blame. 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 financial responsibility, are you? I didn't blame Wycherley solely. I said he has ultimate responsibility which, as owner, chairman and director, he surely does.
|
|
|
Post by mattmw on Mar 28, 2024 14:42:47 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. We did sell Leahy to Wycombe and Travis Hernes to Newcastle this season (so not in these accounts) which have hopefully brought in high 5 figure transfer fees, and taken Leahy off the books, so should go towards balancing the books for the next financial year I imagine had we had realistic offers for Dunkley and Marosi we'd have taken them, but maybe no offers were made so we've had to stick with them until the contracts run out (that often suits the player too)
|
|
|
Post by Worthingshrew on Mar 28, 2024 14:43:35 GMT 1
This may sound bizarre but I see cause for optimism in the accounts: Wages will be heavily trimmed with high earners coming off the books (Bennett, Flanagan, Pierre, Bowman, AOB, Price, Benning, Dunkley, Burgoyne, Marosi, Bayliss, Udoh.) Yes you obviously want to keep some of the players, but that should bring the 800k down massively. Lack of Premier League money - if this is a contractual obligation the money will have to be paid eventually. I am shocked by the 500k admin expense increase - can't quite work that one out. Those expensive players are still with us and we’ve had 9 months since these accounts ended, so don’t know why next years accounts will be much better! Worrying times.
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on Mar 28, 2024 14:43:45 GMT 1
It's got nothing to do with hotel stays.
If the club is losing money and someone spends too much then you stop them.
That's what financial control is and clearly there's been a failure of financial control.
I'm concerned that the hope is that two of the three directors have since left. Which were they? Paul Delves and James Hughes? Two successful local business people who know how to control finances.
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Mar 28, 2024 14:48:37 GMT 1
This may sound bizarre but I see cause for optimism in the accounts: Wages will be heavily trimmed with high earners coming off the books (Bennett, Flanagan, Pierre, Bowman, AOB, Price, Benning, Dunkley, Burgoyne, Marosi, Bayliss, Udoh.) Yes you obviously want to keep some of the players, but that should bring the 800k down massively. Lack of Premier League money - if this is a contractual obligation the money will have to be paid eventually. I am shocked by the 500k admin expense increase - can't quite work that one out. Those expensive players are still with us and we’ve had 9 months since these accounts ended, so don’t know why next years accounts will be much better! Worrying times. "Expensive" players might have contributed to the £800k increased wage costs, but we've lost another £2.7m somewhere else. The playing budget is not the millstone some would have us believe.
|
|
|
Post by dibblydobbly on Mar 28, 2024 14:50:44 GMT 1
Well if we are being particular: The performance of the company is the responsibility (ultimately) of the Board of Directors and each Director has the same duties. They appoint the management and should have oversight. When the losses were made there were three Companies House registered Directors, two of whom have now gone. I am sure New Ownership and New Thinking will happen one day, and good luck to it, but I can't see that the one man of the three who chose to stay and fight for the club gets all the blame. 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
|
|
|
Post by tarporleyblue on Mar 28, 2024 14:51:08 GMT 1
In any company or organisation, the buck stops at the top, and rightly so. These eye opening results vindicate the change that some of us have been asking for, for a fair amount of time now - those results are protest worthy imo Well: No points deducted No payments to staff missed Chairman putting his money in to make sure of that Change medium term, sure, why not, but in the meantime suggest we stay firmly behind the club while it works its way out of the hole, A hole that shouldn't have happened? Let us hope that this is as bad as it gets.
|
|
|
Post by dibblydobbly on Mar 28, 2024 14:53:19 GMT 1
It's got nothing to do with hotel stays. If the club is losing money and someone spends too much then you stop them. That's what financial control is and clearly there's been a failure of financial control. I'm concerned that the hope is that two of the three directors have since left. Which were they? Paul Delves and James Hughes? Two successful local business people who know how to control finances. If they know how to control finances, why was the loss generated on their watch, suspect that they have organisations they are good in, but don't hold enough other Directorships to be good at oversight elsewhere. Does not stop them being great people or successful in their business.
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on Mar 28, 2024 14:59:06 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
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.
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on Mar 28, 2024 15:00:21 GMT 1
It's got nothing to do with hotel stays. If the club is losing money and someone spends too much then you stop them. That's what financial control is and clearly there's been a failure of financial control. I'm concerned that the hope is that two of the three directors have since left. Which were they? Paul Delves and James Hughes? Two successful local business people who know how to control finances. If they know how to control finances, why was the loss generated on their watch, suspect that they have organisations they are good in, but don't hold enough other Directorships to be good at oversight elsewhere. Does not stop them being great people or successful in their business.
Change the name to Mr Wycherley and you get my point.
|
|
|
Post by dibblydobbly on Mar 28, 2024 15:04:58 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
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.
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Mar 28, 2024 15:06:02 GMT 1
Yes, ultimate responsibility belongs to the board of directors, but there was clearly a lapse by BC, despite being pulled up about the expenditure a number of times. BC has parted company with us in whatever way it was done and found a new job in which he will need to rebuild his financial reputation, the board have addressed the issue. The club will now resume it's careful approach to finance. Our club is safe.
|
|
|
Post by dibblydobbly on Mar 28, 2024 15:07:09 GMT 1
If they know how to control finances, why was the loss generated on their watch, suspect that they have organisations they are good in, but don't hold enough other Directorships to be good at oversight elsewhere. Does not stop them being great people or successful in their business.
Change the name to Mr Wycherley and you get my point.
Point Taken
|
|
|
Post by martinshrew on Mar 28, 2024 15:07:12 GMT 1
Would Roland not be wise to make a proper informative, heartfelt and meaningful statement to the fans? Do the fans not deserve this?
I don't know if Roland has it in him, but if there's ever a time for an honest statement, the time is now, surely?
|
|
|
Post by southshropblue on Mar 28, 2024 15:07:50 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 Of course the Chairman has overall responsibility
|
|
|
Post by martinshrew on Mar 28, 2024 15:09:27 GMT 1
It's got nothing to do with hotel stays. If the club is losing money and someone spends too much then you stop them. That's what financial control is and clearly there's been a failure of financial control. I'm concerned that the hope is that two of the three directors have since left. Which were they? Paul Delves and James Hughes? Two successful local business people who know how to control finances. If they know how to control finances, why was the loss generated on their watch, suspect that they have organisations they are good in, but don't hold enough other Directorships to be good at oversight elsewhere. Does not stop them being great people or successful in their business. That makes sense, though the scary thing is a statement said something like " despite regular meetings and warnings", so we can't exactly claim they didn't know it was happening? I'm just concerned the taps weren't tightened quicker.
|
|
|
Post by pughywasfree on Mar 28, 2024 15:14:50 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.
|
|
|
Post by tarporleyblue on Mar 28, 2024 15:16:50 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by pughywasfree on Mar 28, 2024 15:22:09 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!
|
|
|
Post by pughywasfree on Mar 28, 2024 15:24:56 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by dibblydobbly on Mar 28, 2024 15:27:16 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
|
|