Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Comments

  • Now that is very interesting indeed. The 'creditors: amounts falling due within one year' is key. We basically had to find £1m extra this year to pay back creditors or else we'd go under. I thought we only borrowed £500k from Bill & Jim, so who was demanding the rest of it back? Ivor Beeks? Steve Hayes? Someone else? If it was Steve Hayes it - once again - raises important questions of conflict of interest given he employs (employed?) Trevor Stroud. Speaking of whom, have I missed an announcement of which Trust directors are now going onto the new board?

    👍 👎 ( 0 )
  • @aloysius said:
    Now that is very interesting indeed. The 'creditors: amounts falling due within one year' is key. We basically had to find £1m extra this year to pay back creditors or else we'd go under. I thought we only borrowed £500k from Bill & Jim, so who was demanding the rest of it back? Ivor Beeks? Steve Hayes? Someone else? If it was Steve Hayes it - once again - raises important questions of conflict of interest given he employs (employed?) Trevor Stroud. Speaking of whom, have I missed an announcement of which Trust directors are now going onto the new board?

    Yes. I think you have missed the announcement.

    Also was Stroud employed by Hayes and Andrew Howard?

  • Soz, meant Howard.

    Thanks for letting me know about the new board. Quelle surprise - Trevor Stroud has managed to find himself a place on it.

  • Would the 'no' voters have voted the same way knowing what we know now?

    👍 👎 ( -2 )
  • you seem to be rather desperate to find conspiracy theories, bogeymen and conflicts of interest @aloysius . Been eating too many carrots?

    The accounts filed with companies house suggest that we lost £800k or so to June 2019, roughly in line with what we expected to hear.

    Unsurprisingly our borrowings increased as a result with loans increasing by around £650k. £150k moved from over one year to less than one year but really thats just accounting.

    £500k was now secured (presumably the Luby loan). I believe Couhigs were already on the scene by June 19 so I suspect the remaining £150k or so was to them?

    Of more interest (and a matter for some pleasure i suggest) is that all charges against the stadium within FALL have now been released.

    👍 👎 ( 0 )
  • I'm afraid that's all just guesswork, Dev. Not your fault, there's no clarifying information provided, and it's an intelligent guess. Who knows, you may be right. But we just don't know how much of that million were new loans and how much was carried over. All we do know is that Bill & Jim had leant us £500k during that period and that the Couhigs didn't come onto the scene until July (the Yeovil deal fell apart in May).

    👍 👎 ( -1 )
  • edited February 26

    We know that overall borrowings increased by £668,000 year on year with an additional increase in amount due to HMRC and trade creditors of around £100k.

    You are right we don't know whether any existing debt was paid off and replaced by new debt. No reason to believe either way.

    Overall though debt increased by £668k of which £500k was to Luby. We don't know where the other (net) £168k came from. There is no reason at all that I can see to suggest conflict of interest/conspiracy in that respect.

    👍 👎 ( 1 )
  • @aloysius said:
    Now that is very interesting indeed. The 'creditors: amounts falling due within one year' is key. We basically had to find £1m extra this year to pay back creditors or else we'd go under. I thought we only borrowed £500k from Bill & Jim, so who was demanding the rest of it back? Ivor Beeks? Steve Hayes? Someone else?

    Would a portion of the amounts falling due within a year be contributors to the share scheme coming due, gestation period being three years from memory?

  • The answers to the above questions should be available to all of the non voting shareholders soon, as the accounts have been filed at Companies House, and all shares should now received a full copy of the accounts as registered.

  • Looking at the net profit on player sales of £200k, I am pondering how that would have been made up. The only significant transactions I can recall that financial year that were likely to have involved fees were Luke O'Nien's sale to Sunderland and Jason McCarthy's purchase from Barnsley a few days later.

    If those are the relevant deals, a £200k differential was probably a good deal at the time, I'd say. I hope we've got a decent sell-on for Luke, though.

Sign In or Register to comment.