City Finances as at 31.05.18

[alwaysnextyear]

We all now know that the club had £ 206,717 at 31.05.17, after the 290k loss for 16/17.

Hampson has told the WN " There will be about £ 150,000 left at the end of this season ", meaning a loss ( if Hampson is correct - hah ! ) of circa 50 -60 k for 17/18.

Reading this in the WN from John Snape, I noticed,

" We will have to work within our budget and it will be more difficult than this season, one that saw us come in well under budget."

www.worcesternews.co.uk/sport/wcfc/16222766.Worcester_City__End-of-season_review_2017-18/


Perhaps it's just me, but if the playing budget has " come in well under budget ", why is Hampson predicting a loss of at least 50k - 60 k, when he told us all that the Board had set a balanced budget for this season ?

[Brooksiders Return!!]

Playing budget is only one of the issues at the club, and not the main one. After all, Carl Heeley never spent £500,000 in his last year of management, yet the club still overspent by £300,000!
And why have they already had to move away from the 3 year plan? I suppose that somehow they'll need to find £100,000+ to pay for the planning application at Parsonage Way!

[alwaysnextyear]

Now that the financial year is finished, will we really have to wait until the end of February next year for the most minimal set of accounts to be filed at Companies House ?

With the playing costs apparently coming in "well under budget" for 17/18, one would think that Anthony would be trumpeting the good news via the WN ( obviously not to shareholders ). How's that 2015 plus AGM coming along then, Colin ?

I can't wait to see how accurate Anthony's prediction was - Based on his financial stewardship since 2008, I'm not optimistic !

With the deafening silence about Parsonage Way, maybe the Board will just spend what's left, and just bugger off, consigning all the SGL records to the shredder.

[alwaysnextyear]

A £ 71,135 loss in the MPL ! After apparently, a playing budget that came in " well under budget ".

£ 135, 582 left after selling SGL !

Simply staggering

Hampson said " There will be about £ 150,000 left at the end of this season "

If Hampson told me today was Thursday, I'd go out and buy a paper !

[Brooksiders Return!!]

The club no longer has the funds to cover shareholders reserves. In essence, there is no money left in the bank and they are trading using shareholders money , which is perfectly acceptable business practice, but not really advisable. I think that it is feasible that there will be another small loss next year as the FY ends 05 April 2018, and the seasons liabilities probably extend through May, and they'll probably need to lose another £50k from the expenditure - thats a further 30% cut.
It really does beggar belief though that in FY16/17 the Board were able to spend over £500,000 with a turnover of £200,000. This is why I believe that the shareholders deserve to see more detail of the P&L for that year, and last year.
The Board are working bloody hard to try and turn the club round the corner, it may be possible, but its something of a long shot. Supporters need to have a reality check after reading these accounts, as do shareholders, particularly those who supported the status quo, and backed Hampsons plan. This situation could have been remedied 2 or 3 years ago, if only Hampson had stepped down when he was given the chance in the Boardroom!

[jupu]

It is a point well made that we cannot underestimate how much work will be needed to try and rescue the situation. It's like turning around an ocean liner. As much as the new board has brought about some optimism, there needs to be a degree of understanding as to the size of the task ahead and what is required to accomplish it. In my view what's happening on the field now is a consequence of what has gone before off the field.

[althom]

A breakdown of the Administrative Expenses for the 2 years would be most welcome if the Board really want to be fully open to us fans!

[Brooksiders Return!!]

Exactly, I've asked Andy Jones and others on the Board. It's not pretty but as a friend of mine always says "Bad breath is better than no breath"

[wr4change]

I understand why a detailed P&L Account for 2 years ago may be of interest, but I do question what providing this information will achieve?? Surely everyone's efforts would be better channelled into moving the Club forwards instead of continuing to search for skeletons in the cupboard.

[Brooksiders Return!!]

I'm certainly not looking for skeletons in the cupboard. What I want to understand is, how much does it really cost to run the football club, and how much revenue does the club need to be bringing in to be viable. Without an understanding of these kinds of figures, how can any interested party know what "moving the club forwards" looks like? As a shareholder, I'm going to have to vote at some stage as to the future shape of the company, and at the moment I've got no idea if the patient can be revived, or should be taken through a managed death. Take the £300k loss. Was that just BAU costs? Or were there a number of one off costs which spiked the figures? Last year there was a substantial reduction in overheads, but still a £70k loss, can the company continue with these reductions at the present level, or could they still function with £70k less spend? The income was drastically reduced last year too, how can that income be increased to offset next years losses?
Efforts could then be channelled into what needs to be doing, and what is viable to be doing, based on facts, based on figures, and based on people having a clear understanding of what is and what isn't achievable.
Without this, we're still operating blindly as shareholders, and as supporters, there are still many demanding better from the club on the pitch, without knowing the constraints that the management are working within.
The company used to include a P&L breakdown in the printed accounts provided to shareholders each year. If the club want to engage fans in a fan owned club, they'll have an obligation to be providing this kind of information anyway.

[Croc]

As a new shareholder I agree with Jem. I’d want to be in full possession of the facts if I’m to cast a vote as to the future of the club to give us the best chance possible of surviving or going forward

[Noboddy aka Lord Ealing]

What’s wrong with uncovering any skeletons in the cupboard? Where did the money go? Did anything illegal take place? If so then criminal proceedings should follow.

Why should anyone get away with possible corrupt actions?

[B*ue dragonstander]

I don’t really care about Bromsgrove City any more. Sad but true.

Unless the club can run at break even or better then it’s time to wind it up and give the shareholders (most of) their money back.

[wr4change]

There is nothing wrong with finding skeletons, the thing is you won't find any! Now I am not saying that there has been no wrong doing but it won't be recorded in the books & records. Any such skeletons will involve cash in brown envelopes, not cheques and bank transfers.

[Dodger]

As a relatively new shareholder, I totally disagree with ‘throwing the towel in’. We need to support a sustainability approach.


Whilst it’s no doubt sensitive information, it would be nice to know (or have an indication of) what the weekly ‘shortfall’ in finances is. If, say, it was £300 a week, then the maths would say that our 300+ attendance need to chip in an extra 2 quid on match days to cover it. If it’s nearer £3000 then a much greater revenue stream would be need to be generated (although the extra £2 on match days would still be useful).


I, for one, have decided not to attend any more away games but instead will contribute some of those expenses (travel, pint of beer, entrance fee ) direct to WCFC.

Maybe we could have donation buckets inside the ground so supporters could throw in any loose change (remember the blankets at SGL that paraded at half-time??)


As Tesco say......”Every little helps!”

[camper]

I agree and I will no longer pay the pensioner rate for entrance but will pay the adult rate at every game I attend starting TOMORROW.

[alwaysnextyear]

I appreciate that the new board ( with the exception of Pinches and Layland ) were not there for the 17/18 season, and have heroically inherited our awful situation . However the " full set of accounts " on the City website is frankly, nowhere near " full " enough, nor anywhere near good enough. We can all work out from the balance sheet movements that we lost £ 291,197 in 16/17, and £ 71,135 in 17/18. But how, where, and why ?

What is most certainly required is how the " Revenue ( Income ) amounts of £ 224,436 for 16/17, and the vastly reduced amount of £ 114,117 for 17/18 are made up. What elements of the income were so massively reduced ? Gate receipts ? Gold Bond ? Sponsorship ?

Conversely the " Admin Expenses " numbers of £ 515,633 for 16/17, and the £ 185,252 for 17/18 also need breaking down. Without this honest " warts and all " analysis, the accounts are barely more useful than those of the Hampson era. We all know that the bad news can't be sugarcoated as it's already happened, and the money has been spent, but full transparency is essential if the club is to survive, and get lapsed supporters confidence back behind it. Why would anyone invest in the Club without this essential standard knowledge ?

As an example, I've literally just had my GoldBond agent call round to collect from me. Where do these show up in the accounts ? Presumably in the " Revenue " totals ? If so, then why not show all itemised amounts ? I pay £ 8 a week to go and watch. Where is a " gate receipts " total ? There can't be that many income and revenue streams to itemise ?

Sorry, this just ain't good enough, and needs correcting.

[The sound and the fury]

Nobody is going to gain any confidence in the club without full transparency, and a proper breakdown of where the expenses were incurred. If there's nothing to hide, don't hide, else people will continue to be suspicious that something ain't quite right. The only way to get people back is by being upfront with them. Don't smokescreen us, new board, else the people will quickly start to think you're no better than the previous ones.

[The Verner]

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this the norm.

Aren't the full account breakdowns done at the AGM in front of shareholders and the whittled down version put on companies house ?

I remember a more detailed version from Andy Watson a few years ago at an AGM ?

[Brooksiders Return!!]

No, the norm is that the accounts published at Companies House is whats presented at an AGM. Nothing else needs to be presented. Of course, if the club want to show higher levels of transparency, I also would hope that a more detailed breakdown is provided at the AGM. Not least because, I was on the Board during the time of those figures, and I don't know where they came from.
I fear that little more info will be presented at the AGM, I hope that I am wrong, but I'm sure that questions will be asked about this, and the stock answer of "overspend on wages" will be given.

[jupu]

It's important, I think, that someone is present at the AGM who can answer these questions and more, preferably whoever was providing financial services to the Club during the periods in question. It might be helpful if they are submitted to the Club Secretary in advance of the meeting.

There are two current directors who were also directors for the whole of the periods covered. If they are present at the AGM they may be able to provide some relevant information to shareholders.

[City4Eva]

Cash movements should be easy to identify in the accounts. What needs more scrutiny is debits from the bank accounts. Cash withdrawals, money transfers etc would love to see the bank statements

[cogg]

It beggars belief....again....

How much did you spend last year on Admin guys ? " Oh, around £515,000 " Really ? What was that spent on then ? " Oh, just some stuff....."

RUBBISH.....and no one is ever going to invest ( time or money) into this club until a fully transparent accounting regime is set up; why isn't this the norm ?

[cloud]

Did the club ever get that financial review from supporter's direct? (The one with the nda saga, from last year). I can't remember hearing anything.

[alwaysnextyear]

I've just looked at the accounts filed at Companies House from 1979 / 80 when George Goode was chairman, and we made a profit of £ 37,278 that season, with a full breakdown of income and expenditure. Those were the days. A great team, with a wage bill of £ 32,118 for the season !

beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/00232010/filing-history?page=9

Following the years of financial secrecy of Boddy, Hampson and their cronies, where millions of pounds went through the club's books following the sale of SGL with little accountability to shareholders and fans, this is exactly the financial transparency required from the new Board. One total for income and expenditure simply isn't good enough.

[althom]

It is to be hoped that full Profit and Loss accounts for the last few years will be available to us shareholders at the AGM!...... Or am i living in cloud cuckoo land?
Until we know exactly where the money went, how can shareholders possibly make any judgement on which way to vote for the change in the Constitution of the club?
It would be easy to turn a blind eye, water under the bridge etc, but these details need to be published for the sake of transparency!

[Brooksiders Return!!]

Feb 12, 2019 8:17:33 GMT cloud said:

Did the club ever get that financial review from supporter's direct? (The one with the nda saga, from last year). I can't remember hearing anything.

No, the previous Board would not agree to providing access to various bits of historical financial information, which was quite rightly considered important to carry out a full level of due diligence.