Jump to content

Latest Accounts To May 2015


div

Recommended Posts


Salient points appear to be;

1) Overall loss of £261K

2) This includes depreciation charges of just over £300K

3) Cash trading position roughly break even

4) Turnover of £3m

4) Wage bill of £2m

5) 66% wages to turnover ratio. (PWC recommends 60% for football clubs)

6) Board lent the club £245K interest free last season with no set repayment date. Also £100K the previous season

7) Directors took salary of £0 between them

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Salient points appear to be;

1) Overall loss of £261K

2) This includes depreciation charges of just over £300K

3) Cash trading position roughly break even

4) Turnover of £3m

4) Wage bill of £2m

5) 66% wages to turnover ratio. (PWC recommends 60% for football clubs)

6) Board lent the club £245K interest free last season with no set repayment date. Also £100K the previous season

7) Directors took salary of £0 between them

Sack the board !!!!

:P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Salient points appear to be;

1) Overall loss of £261K

2) This includes depreciation charges of just over £300K

3) Cash trading position roughly break even

4) Turnover of £3m

4) Wage bill of £2m

5) 66% wages to turnover ratio. (PWC recommends 60% for football clubs)

6) Board lent the club £245K interest free last season with no set repayment date. Also £100K the previous season

7) Directors took salary of £0 between them

Point 6) could be £100K in 2014 and £145k in 2015 giving the total owed as £245K.

Eta page 17 confirms £145k last season.

Edited by Thorizaar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well that's fans ownership out the windae

If we are making losses and the BOD are putting money in out of their own pockets to break even

Yip,

We'd need some serious cash reserves before any fan ownership would work.

Edited by davidg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no argument against the way the board run the club. Yes mistakes have been made regarding management appointments which in reality is easy to point the finger when it's not working. We should feel lucky to have a board who work hard to make sure we don't go into debt. Have always thought fan ownership would not be easy. Buying the club is one thing while cash flow is quite another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Much to debate at the AGM.Perfectly straight forward running a business prudently you don't spend more than you take in.We have sound source of income viz: Gate Receipts Commercial Income Broadcasting Income SPFL Income etc.Equally certain the club would be in good hands if G Scott was Chairman.Now is time for change.NB not entirely convinced The Accounts should be exhibited on a public forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Much to debate at the AGM.Perfectly straight forward running a business prudently you don't spend more than you take in.We have sound source of income viz: Gate Receipts Commercial Income Broadcasting Income SPFL Income etc.Equally certain the club would be in good hands if G Scott was Chairman.Now is time for change.NB not entirely convinced The Accounts should be exhibited on a public forum.

There is no issue with the accounts being published as they are readily available. Once the shareholders have their copies then they are in the public domain.

It does appear that we do spend more than we take in as the directors continue to lend to the club. The shortfall will certainly have been partly due to the reduction in takings related to poor performances on the park and the one-off/ongoing cost of paying up departed employees contracts.

If you contend the poor performances are down to board appointments and signing policy constraints that affected the quality of player we could bring in last year, then you have to say that the board are at least in part covering their own mistakes by lending the cash to balance the books. Bear in mind we are also told that the money from Kenny McLean's transfer meant we could continue to pay salaries February to the end of the season. All told, the situation does not look very rosy, or very sustainable. Without compensation for transfer moves our position is very questionable

Wouldn't GS run a bath. Ask him about his American investments.

That's a bit harsh, he ran a very successful company and sold it on for a good sum. Why would you not let him "run a bath"?

Edited by beyond our ken
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no argument against the way the board run the club. Yes mistakes have been made regarding management appointments which in reality is easy to point the finger when it's not working. We should feel lucky to have a board who work hard to make sure we don't go into debt. Have always thought fan ownership would not be easy. Buying the club is one thing while cash flow is quite another.

Sorry? Yes there f**king is!

Lets put this into any other context. Let's say it's another company with shareholders. One we all know. Lets say it was Tesco and the board were about to face their shareholders at the annual AGM. On the table was accounts showing sizeable losses, a high level of complaints from customers not only dissatisfied at the quality of the product on offer, but downright angry at value for money it's being sold for. And there's obvious failings in the employees the board has themselves been directly involved in recruiting into the company. In every possible measure the value of your shareholding is being diminished by the actions of a seemingly incompetent board.

Do you think the shareholders of that company would have no argument about the way the company is being run?

Customers (fans) have every right to complain at the product on offer just now. Shareholders have every right to complain about the way the club is being run. The fact that the board has given loans to cover their own shortcomings might be admirable, but at the end of the day it's only really been done to protect their own investment as their 51% shareholding will become totally worthless if the club goes bust.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think people are looking at the accounts in separation from the performance of the football club I.e. Comments along the lines of the board doing well however the two are intrinsically linked. Interest free loans are all very commendable but without improvement on the park the financial situation will not improve and ultimately it's the same board folk are praising for prudence who are the root cause of the problems on the park. A classic dog chasing it's tail scenario.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry? Yes there f**king is!

Lets put this into any other context. Let's say it's another company with shareholders. One we all know. Lets say it was Tesco and the board were about to face their shareholders at the annual AGM. On the table was accounts showing sizeable losses, a high level of complaints from customers not only dissatisfied at the quality of the product on offer, but downright angry at value for money it's being sold for. And there's obvious failings in the employees the board has themselves been directly involved in recruiting into the company. In every possible measure the value of your shareholding is being diminished by the actions of a seemingly incompetent board.

Do you think the shareholders of that company would have no argument about the way the company is being run?

Customers (fans) have every right to complain at the product on offer just now. Shareholders have every right to complain about the way the club is being run. The fact that the board has given loans to cover their own shortcomings might be admirable, but at the end of the day it's only really been done to protect their own investment as their 51% shareholding will become totally worthless if the club goes bust.

What the f**k has it got to do with you, Your a Motherwell fan, according to you

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry? Yes there f**king is!

Lets put this into any other context. Let's say it's another company with shareholders. One we all know. Lets say it was Tesco and the board were about to face their shareholders at the annual AGM. On the table was accounts showing sizeable losses, a high level of complaints from customers not only dissatisfied at the quality of the product on offer, but downright angry at value for money it's being sold for. And there's obvious failings in the employees the board has themselves been directly involved in recruiting into the company. In every possible measure the value of your shareholding is being diminished by the actions of a seemingly incompetent board.

Do you think the shareholders of that company would have no argument about the way the company is being run?

Customers (fans) have every right to complain at the product on offer just now. Shareholders have every right to complain about the way the club is being run. The fact that the board has given loans to cover their own shortcomings might be admirable, but at the end of the day it's only really been done to protect their own investment as their 51% shareholding will become totally worthless if the club goes bust.

Yes but this isn't a Supermarket chain is it, Its a football club and whilst I am not happy presently. I totally agree with better the devil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yip,

We'd some serious cash reserves before ay fan ownership would work.

Every business needs a float of some sort and the size of it depends on cash-flow , if we could find a way to get more revenue through the gates and from other sources then things could at least be the same without the need for loans from directors. We are feeling the effects of the laws of diminishing returns, you shell out less, get less revenue in return and end up cutting more with an ever decreasing spiral. The only upturn will come from a cup run with big gate receipts or a big transfer fee, unlikely at best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Much to debate at the AGM.Perfectly straight forward running a business prudently you don't spend more than you take in.We have sound source of income viz: Gate Receipts Commercial Income Broadcasting Income SPFL Income etc.Equally certain the club would be in good hands if G Scott was Chairman.Now is time for change.NB not entirely convinced The Accounts should be exhibited on a public forum.

Ways and means to make a point i'd say

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every business needs a float of some sort and the size of it depends on cash-flow , if we could find a way to get more revenue through the gates and from other sources then things could at least be the same without the need for loans from directors. We are feeling the effects of the laws of diminishing returns, you shell out less, get less revenue in return and end up cutting more with an ever decreasing spiral. The only upturn will come from a cup run with big gate receipts or a big transfer fee, unlikely at best.

Right now (excluding directors loans) have zero as a float and budget to break even.

Any fan ownership bid would need the backing of some wealthy individuals or businesses willing to provide short term cash flow solutions until we accumulate some sort of "float".

The model of SMISA & GLS doesn't work IMO.

Edited by davidg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basically the year gone off the park was as bad as it was on the park, and significantly worse than the year before!

A caveat or two to add.... Those accounts are for a full Premiership season, where you can see wages etc were significantly cut, but we still paid off TC and Tealzo.... Or is that hit still to come?

What State will the next set of accounts be in after a season of Murray Madness on declining Championship income???

Time for Smisa to consider if there is anyway a fan supported bid could sustain those losses, and the debt that would be owed to the sellers and Scott?

There isnt yet a larger club like ours in actual fan ownership.

Dundee fans chucked it for US investment

Ann Budge owns Hearts, and Jambo fans pay her for the privilege, and it recorded a significant loss last year!(they will never f**king learn)

Motherwell look less and less likely to ever cross the line!

I simply don't see how a fan supported bid as briefly outlined by Smisa/Scott can ever afford to run the club, manage the debt, and cover the shortfall?

Is there Anyone looking at that figures that can see it differently? Backed up with where the money is coming from

To add the loans £245k still need to be paid off too!

Edited by Lord Pityme
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As the old saying go's "you need to speculate to accumulate".... Our bod are doing neither... What they are doing is selling off the assets (our best players) and using that money to patch up holes & pay for mistakes..... What happens when, at the end of this season (when) we have no assets left to sell...... The only way is down, with no decent assets (players) to bring us (the business) back out its hole!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right now (excluding directors loans) have zero as a float and budget to break even.

Any fan ownership bid would need to backing of some wealthy individuals or businesses willing to provide short term cash flow solutions until we accumulate some sort of "float".

The model of SMISA & GLS doesn't work IMO.

good luck with this.

i got a mountain of shit when i suggested it was good financial management to have a rainy day fund.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...