@wwfcwill According to the accounts Although in 2015-2017 WWFC made profits, the trading loss before income from Player sales. the data is as follows:
2015: Profit £36,508 Player Sales£543,000 Loss before Player Sales £506,492
2016: Profit £472,516 Player Sales £809,048 Loss before Players Sales £336,532
2017 Profit £1.029,906 Player Sales £1,807,500 Loss before Players Sales £777,597.
In 2014, the loss was £245,924, Players Sales produces £642,150 Loss before players Sales was £888,074 of which £105,000 was Rent to Frank Adams Legacy.
The published accounts do not give enough basic facts for members to establish where the losses are generated from. It could be over expenditure on Staff( Players and Admin)
Lack of income from Match Days, Sponsorship, Advertising, Marketing of the Non Match use of Adams Park. Without this information members or potential buyers cannot forecast the long term future of the club.
It appears that we have always been in dire need of investment. Short term funding by investors is not working in the EFL, It must be up to the Clubs/EFL/FA to sort out the financial mess that the Premier League has created, anything WWFC try to achieve will only be a short term solution. A Major long term solution is required to keep the EFL from folding from its current status.
@mooneyman, @ValleyWanderer, @Manboobs - I do think that recent events make the most sense if Andrew Howard is involved in one of the consortia. Gareth Ainsworth's behaviour in signing another contract makes sense and so does Trevor Stroud working closely with Andrew Howard. A lot of the language used in the 2nd half of the 12th Meeting to describe the consortia would fit well with this version of the underlying circumstances. The additional defensiveness about accounts also makes sense.
Thinking back, mayhap some 1000 company owning business made an approach a couple of years ago and Andrew Howard thought I could do a better job and I want to do a better job, but I can't make the transition if I continue to be Chairman.
I love the idea of fan ownership, but Andrew Howard as a minority owner would be the least bad alternative that I could imagine.
There may be facts which contradict this rather optimistic view of the current circumstances.
I am happy to wait and see if this is the case. Supportive, but not completely uncritical, trust in the Trust Board looks to me like the best course of action. We will find out soon enough.
So most important thing is winning football games. We have a most excellent Manager on a long term contract, one of the best squads we have had for years with a decent team spirit. Some of them choose to play for the team because of the club that we are. I see and hear our fans and know that we are brilliant. We mustn't let the ownership question become too much of a distraction until it has to be.
As Gareth would say: a result at Portsmouth is always possible.
We could be in the 4th round of the League Cup by this time next week.
I too think AH as part of a consortium would be a plus factor in going that way, concerns about minority becoming a majority and/or the good guys selling on to the bad guys down the line notwithstanding. I thought that his statement was pretty unambiguous about his focus though.
As others have said, all in all he’s done a great job for us and I wish him luck in his future endeavours, whether ice cream or sports related.
@NorsQuarters said: @marlowchair The £100,000 loan has been his contribution to the share scheme and is the maximum allowable. It is fixed for three years but redeemable after that and the annuity date could be coming up fast.
From my understanding the total share value comprises about half of our million pound debt. Please correct me if I have misunderstood.
Very informative thank you Nors.
So despite all the (wrong) speculation that AH is stepping down because he is part of one of the bidding groups, it is more likely that his loan is coming up due and he wants it back , which has a very real potential to be the catalyst for a “sell” strategy by the board?
I’ve spoken re pressures,influence and bias before , some would say ad nauseum, i raised this very scenario but was corrected by a club director stating details of the lenders are not public record, but like me , nors seems to know clearly that Mr Howard has a large chunk generously invested in the club,indeed the maximum.
Neither of the parties Mr Stroud or Burrel referred to at length last week in the meeting include any involvement by Mr Howard .
@Manboobs: I’m not acquainted with the teachings of Mr Strunk but I like to think that he would have agreed that “unambiguous” can be qualified in accordance with individual interpretation of Mr Howard’s statement - ie to some it may be more obviously unambiguous than it is to others. You could equally have said “totally unambiguous”.
@micra said: @Manboobs: I’m not acquainted with the teachings of Mr Strunk but I like to think that he would have agreed that “unambiguous” can be qualified in accordance with individual interpretation of Mr Howard’s statement - ie to some it may be more obviously unambiguous than it is to others. You could equally have said “totally unambiguous”.
@micra I agree that his statement is open to interpretation but I disagree that unambiguous is a word that gains anything by qualification. Mr Strunk was the author of the Elements of Style (I think you know this full well by the way). His oft quoted rule for prose writing was “Omit needless words”. A maxim for the gasroom to live by.
I honestly hadn’t heard of him @Manboobs. I am no academic and I read very little. I like the “omission of needless words” maxim. I’m now trying to think of a couple of examples. “How long have you lived there for ?” is one that springs to mind and Alexander Armstrong’s constant repetition of “Thank you very much indeed” rankles a bit. But I’d better obey the words of my father sixty or seventy years ago to “....stop wittering son.” Words which I fear seem to have fallen on stoney ground.
Comments
@wwfcwill According to the accounts Although in 2015-2017 WWFC made profits, the trading loss before income from Player sales. the data is as follows:
2015: Profit £36,508 Player Sales£543,000 Loss before Player Sales £506,492
2016: Profit £472,516 Player Sales £809,048 Loss before Players Sales £336,532
2017 Profit £1.029,906 Player Sales £1,807,500 Loss before Players Sales £777,597.
In 2014, the loss was £245,924, Players Sales produces £642,150 Loss before players Sales was £888,074 of which £105,000 was Rent to Frank Adams Legacy.
The published accounts do not give enough basic facts for members to establish where the losses are generated from. It could be over expenditure on Staff( Players and Admin)
Lack of income from Match Days, Sponsorship, Advertising, Marketing of the Non Match use of Adams Park. Without this information members or potential buyers cannot forecast the long term future of the club.
It appears that we have always been in dire need of investment. Short term funding by investors is not working in the EFL, It must be up to the Clubs/EFL/FA to sort out the financial mess that the Premier League has created, anything WWFC try to achieve will only be a short term solution. A Major long term solution is required to keep the EFL from folding from its current status.
@mooneyman, @ValleyWanderer, @Manboobs - I do think that recent events make the most sense if Andrew Howard is involved in one of the consortia. Gareth Ainsworth's behaviour in signing another contract makes sense and so does Trevor Stroud working closely with Andrew Howard. A lot of the language used in the 2nd half of the 12th Meeting to describe the consortia would fit well with this version of the underlying circumstances. The additional defensiveness about accounts also makes sense.
Thinking back, mayhap some 1000 company owning business made an approach a couple of years ago and Andrew Howard thought I could do a better job and I want to do a better job, but I can't make the transition if I continue to be Chairman.
I love the idea of fan ownership, but Andrew Howard as a minority owner would be the least bad alternative that I could imagine.
There may be facts which contradict this rather optimistic view of the current circumstances.
I am happy to wait and see if this is the case. Supportive, but not completely uncritical, trust in the Trust Board looks to me like the best course of action. We will find out soon enough.
So most important thing is winning football games. We have a most excellent Manager on a long term contract, one of the best squads we have had for years with a decent team spirit. Some of them choose to play for the team because of the club that we are. I see and hear our fans and know that we are brilliant. We mustn't let the ownership question become too much of a distraction until it has to be.
As Gareth would say: a result at Portsmouth is always possible.
We could be in the 4th round of the League Cup by this time next week.
First home win of the season against Southend?
Chairboys!
Well said @railwaysteve!
I too think AH as part of a consortium would be a plus factor in going that way, concerns about minority becoming a majority and/or the good guys selling on to the bad guys down the line notwithstanding. I thought that his statement was pretty unambiguous about his focus though.
As others have said, all in all he’s done a great job for us and I wish him luck in his future endeavours, whether ice cream or sports related.
I chastise myself for the ‘pretty’ that preceded ‘unambiguous’. Mr Strunk Jr. must be spinning in his grave.
Very informative thank you Nors.
So despite all the (wrong) speculation that AH is stepping down because he is part of one of the bidding groups, it is more likely that his loan is coming up due and he wants it back , which has a very real potential to be the catalyst for a “sell” strategy by the board?
I’ve spoken re pressures,influence and bias before , some would say ad nauseum, i raised this very scenario but was corrected by a club director stating details of the lenders are not public record, but like me , nors seems to know clearly that Mr Howard has a large chunk generously invested in the club,indeed the maximum.
Neither of the parties Mr Stroud or Burrel referred to at length last week in the meeting include any involvement by Mr Howard .
@Manboobs: I’m not acquainted with the teachings of Mr Strunk but I like to think that he would have agreed that “unambiguous” can be qualified in accordance with individual interpretation of Mr Howard’s statement - ie to some it may be more obviously unambiguous than it is to others. You could equally have said “totally unambiguous”.
@micra I agree that his statement is open to interpretation but I disagree that unambiguous is a word that gains anything by qualification. Mr Strunk was the author of the Elements of Style (I think you know this full well by the way). His oft quoted rule for prose writing was “Omit needless words”. A maxim for the gasroom to live by.
I honestly hadn’t heard of him @Manboobs. I am no academic and I read very little. I like the “omission of needless words” maxim. I’m now trying to think of a couple of examples. “How long have you lived there for ?” is one that springs to mind and Alexander Armstrong’s constant repetition of “Thank you very much indeed” rankles a bit. But I’d better obey the words of my father sixty or seventy years ago to “....stop wittering son.” Words which I fear seem to have fallen on stoney ground.