|
|
Post by alwaysnextyear on Mar 1, 2018 8:55:34 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by creaner on Mar 1, 2018 9:02:33 GMT
Here’s a question: If The Board do wind up the company in time to reimburse the share holders, how many of us would ‘take the money & run’ & how many of us would donate our money to The Trust to pursue the new set up ? What’s to stop them spending the money till it’s all gone? There must be an EGM called immediately to inform shareholders of what is going on. Stating that there is no legal obligation to hold a General Meeting should never been allowed to be an excuse to hide the truth from shareholders. |
|
|
|
Post by Noboddy aka Lord Ealing on Mar 1, 2018 9:37:53 GMT
We're all assuming that these people are simply incompetent, I think Boddy is, but why have they held on to power for so long? Has the whole disgraceful affair been a cash cow that they've milked dry over the years? |
|
|
|
Post by Noboddy aka Lord Ealing on Mar 1, 2018 9:41:35 GMT
Here’s a question: If The Board do wind up the company in time to reimburse the share holders, how many of us would ‘take the money & run’ & how many of us would donate our money to The Trust to pursue the new set up ? I'd donate to the Trust, but there isn't a hope in hell of any reimbursements - they will drain the club of all assets. Does Hampson, Colin and even Hallmark have jobs? How do they make a living? |
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Mar 1, 2018 13:31:09 GMT
What I can't get my head round at all is the sheer size of the loss. We left Aggborough because it was too expensive, and losses were running at £150,000. We go to Bromsgrove to reduce costs, halving the rent bill, reducing stewarding costs etc. And remember at the time we were still in the same league, so same standard of football to watch, just a different (cheaper) ground. Yet the losses double to almost £300,000!! I could understand if the loss was say £120,000, or even on a par with Aggborough losses, but surely questions have to be asked as to where the additional £150,000 spend has occurred?
I sat on the Board for a small time during the period of these accounts, and I'd love to be able to give some answers, but I can't. We were never given any access to the management accounts, despite numerous requests, they were never presented at Board meetings. Maybe now shareholders and stakeholders can understand why myself, Rob Crean and Mike Davis (and Carl Heeley) had to walk away from association with the Board.
I wonder how our sponsors feel, knowing that instead of their money being used to forward and promote the football club, its simply been frittered away in a completely unaccountable manner. You put £500 in, and the Board spend it on.....what? and they also spend a further £500 to match your sponsorship, again, on ....what?
The scale of these losses are out of proportion with any losses incurred by the club in previous years, so much so that I am seriously considering whether this might be of interest to the Fraud Squad, or making a complaint to the Insolvency Services.
|
|
|
|
Post by thesecondjack on Mar 1, 2018 13:32:15 GMT
Here’s a question: If The Board do wind up the company in time to reimburse the share holders, how many of us would ‘take the money & run’ & how many of us would donate our money to The Trust to pursue the new set up ? You're assuming the Trust would pursue a new set up. I don't believe the Trust have ever said they'll set up a new club... It'd be down to the membership of the Trust to ask for that. |
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Mar 1, 2018 14:29:21 GMT
Yes that is true, mind you, it would be highly unlikely that the Supporters Trust would consider continuing with the present empty shell of a business. The company had the chance offered to them to convert the business to a CBS, via the Supporters Trust existing vehicle. This would have given access to the kind of potential funding streams like Big Lottery Fund, that the present Ltd. company can't access, and these are funding streams which do not need match funding either! Our business plan showed the level of funding available to the company as a CBS, regardless of Perdiswell, and it put Wilcox paltry £300,000 match funding grants into pale insignificance. The company decided to recommend to shareholders that they reject this constitutional change, and the net result is they carry on doing what they have been doing, and turn a £298,000 loss !
The Supporters Trust offered up advice and guidance in the form of a due diligence exercise, funded by the Supporters Trust, to understand how to move forward, and put a framework in place. The company refused access to the management accounts, and stopped all further communication. I guess, now we know why.
The company is past the point of a pre-pack now, since they've disposed of the last remaining asset, the place in the National League. It's now homeless, penniless, rudderless and worse, valueless. The Supporters Trust aren't some magical being that can wave a wand and put the world of WCFC to right, it is people, with a plan, a viable plan, but with no guarantees. There is/was a time and a place for when the ST could change the fortunes of the business, and sadly, that boat has sailed. We are no different to any other "investor" in an existing business, and they're hardly queuing round the corner to buy into WCFC Ltd.
There was a time, a place, an opportunity for the football club Board, and the Supporters Trust, to carve a way through this together. The ST kept going back to the table, only to be continually cast aside. Remember, the ST never spoke of takeovers, we just proposed a constitutional change, which would allow the present Board to continue should they so wish to. The Chairman in particular fought against this, saying that he represented the shareholders, and that Ltd by shares, with investment via share purchase was the way forward. Personally, a £298,000 loss suggests that this isn't quite working!
|
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Mar 1, 2018 14:34:13 GMT
www.worcesternews.co.uk/sport/15459016.Vice_chairman_Layland_positive_over_City_s_future_and_says_club_will_hold_AGM/This bit.........really? I mean really? So £298,000 isn't considered a big amount of money hey Colin? Can you even afford to hold an AGM now? BTW this was Vice Chairman Colin Layland's comments 3 months AFTER the close of FY2017, as Vice Chairman he must have already known that the club had made such substantial losses, so basically....he lied, or he sat as Vice Chairman on the Board of Directors and was completely oblivious to the financial position of the company.
|
|
cogg
Squad Member
Posts: 208
|
Post by cogg on Mar 1, 2018 14:53:52 GMT
Jem, you were in the room with these people last year. Why ( other than the bleeding obvious) are the management accounts withheld from other board members ? Who in your opinion does know where this extra £150,000 has gone ? It isn't on player wages, it isn't on ground improvements, they have not bought ( to our knowledge) any major non-capital equipment ? It stinks....
|
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Mar 1, 2018 15:18:56 GMT
Oh there was always an excuse, the accounts were with the bookkeeper, they're not fully up to date yet, blah blah. In my opinion, Hampson, Layland and Wilcox must know where this additional £150,000 has gone. I doubt Pinches would have been told, Preece wouldn't have been told. Sure they wrote off the costs of the Perdiswell project, which was probably around c.£16,000 , and yes they were over budget on wages, but nowhere near this level of overspend. I don't know how much was spent on professional services, such as for the AGM / EGM and seeking advice regarding constitutional change (the report from Collins & Co LLP) but it is inconceivable that is was anywhere near this much.
For FY16 they forecast a loss of £120,000 and came in at £150,000. For FY17 even if they budgetted for a loss of £200,000 , this would still amount to a further 50% overspend. I simply do not know the answers. I had clarification that there were no further payments to be made to SMD, or Careys, or to HMRC re the sale of SGL. Maybe they've bought a speedboat?
|
|
cogg
Squad Member
Posts: 208
|
Post by cogg on Mar 1, 2018 15:37:09 GMT
Jem, I was never the best accountant in the world but you are right, these numbers are HUGE....I have not the time nor the energy to look into them in detail but it sticks. And as you, Ealing, Niels etc have always been saying, follow the money.....
|
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Mar 1, 2018 17:12:31 GMT
If messrs Pinches are putting money into the Club with no evidence of what it’s eing used for, why on earth not withdraw
their sponsorship? I’m damned sure I would.
|
|
|
|
Post by Croc on Mar 1, 2018 21:41:23 GMT
I put most of these views into a letter to the Worcester News - which was printed today. Bringing it to the attention of the ordinary person of Worcester.
Got the main letter and a photo of Hampson looking abhorrent.
|
|
|
|
Post by Croc on Mar 1, 2018 21:42:21 GMT
And hopefully tomorrow a follow up asking questions of the Council (especially Hodgson, Mitchell, Stephen, etc. )
|
|
|
|
Post by Woodenose on Mar 2, 2018 8:39:11 GMT
|
|
niels
City Legend
Posts: 1,741
|
Post by niels on Mar 2, 2018 10:21:24 GMT
I have seldom heard such buck passing claptrap in my lifetime. Anthony blames most of it on Carl signing too many players, some before it could be discussed by the board. Well correct me if I'm wrong but as far as I'm aware no signing is complete without the paperwork being completed by the football secretary, which at that time was Joe Murphy, a director of WCFC during that period. It is the board's job to make sure the manager sticks to the agreed plan and they failed. That's apart from including cup runs in the budget, other mis-calculations and absolutely no effort made to get any sponsorship in. This board are, as we have all known for a long time, completely incompetent.
|
|
|
|
Post by andymitchell on Mar 2, 2018 10:27:15 GMT
If I'd delivered a loss of £290,000 to the company like Colin has, then I might be tempted to hide away like a coward. And he had the temerity to say to me and Rob that unless we could guarantee that a CBS would work, he wouldn't back it. I told him straight that what they were doing wasn't working, and guess what? He, along with the rest of the Board whose names are on that set of accounts have taken the club to a new low. So, are you going to man up Colin? Call that AGM, and explain the losses. As Vice Chairman, you were of course fully aware of them weren't you? Being Vice Chairman means a lot more than being able to sit in the Chairmans seat when he leaves the Board meeting early. Maybe the Worcester News should re-interview Wilcox about the chances of getting those Football Foundation grants too? How about it Andy Mitchell? You asked for evidence, its there in the accounts, a £290,000 loss , on a turnover of probably around £300,000. That means that for every £1 that supporters and sponsors put into the club, the Board of Directors spent £2 ! And £500k disposed of in two years! Where? How? And you seriously believed that the Supporters Trust just had a personal vendetta against Hampson? We just wanted to save our club before it got to this all time low. Or maybe the Worcester News should make its own editorial judgements? As stated many times before on other social media platforms, I believe you have no idea what we know, what we are attempting to find out or what we intend to publish and/or when. Correct me if I am wrong. Perhaps as someone who is (rightly or wrongly) seen as a senior figure in the trust, you would have more of an idea if you offered anything more than vitriol. Once more, Jeremy, you have chosen to manipulate the nature of our past communications, something I am not at all surprised about because we see many instances of it directed at many different people on different internet platforms, particularly through this forum. In my opinion, that behaviour has irrevocably damaged the reputation of the trust in the eyes of many supporters outside the 40-50 who still choose to attend meetings. This is based on what I have seen and heard. The vast majority of Worcester City Supporters' Trust board members, volunteers and members put their opinions to one side and do not choose to make it personal. Their dismay is over the position the club finds itself in and their motivation is to try to do something about it. This is my opinion based on what I have seen and heard. For clarity, when I suggested you or others should come forward with evidence of wrongdoing (not evidence that proves it was a bad deal), it was in relation to your assertion that WN should investigate the sale of St George's Lane. That had nothing to do with the set of accounts for 2016-17, which had not been published at the time. This is an example of where you have chosen to manipulate the nature of past communications with me. It is worth pointing out that I tried to call you (long before these accounts came out) to get at exactly what you were claiming regarding the sale of St George's Lane but you made it clear you had no desire to speak to WN. I do not believe the supporters' trust has a personal vendetta against Anthony Hampson. From my communications with you and my knowledge of what you have posted on various internet platforms under different guises, I have formed the opinion that you, Jeremy, have a personal vendetta against Anthony Hampson. As always, I invite you (or anyone else) to speak with us if there is anything you think we should be looking into. I believe acting in the way you are now does nothing to help Worcester City FC or Worcester City Supporters' Trust. Best wishes, Andy. |
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Mar 2, 2018 10:50:32 GMT
Andy (sorry Sir Andy! I mean really?? delusions of grandeur methinks) , you've been on the scene a few months, quite frankly I really don't care about your personal opinions. My football club is dying. The business of which I am a shareholder has dispersed of 100% of its assets (in excess of 7 million pounds worth of assets) with no discussion or authority of the shareholders. Not unlawful, but inadvisable.
I also don't care about anyone's opinion of me, I'm not here to be liked, this is not a beauty parade or a popularity contest. I'm just one of the few who put their heads above the parapet, get shot to pieces, but carry on carrying on.
|
|
|
|
Post by alwaysnextyear on Mar 2, 2018 11:23:36 GMT
Andy, this has been going on for years, long before you arrived.
It has been impossible for fans and shareholders ( and some directors for that matter ) to find out anything relating to the finances of WCFC.
An EGM was only held back in 2008, when a " rebel group of fans " tried to take over the running of the club. The existing Board parachuted in a bunch of chums en block as " new " Board members, proxied up as many block votes as possible, got re-elected, then most of the bunch of chums instantly buggered off into the distance. Control and financial secrecy maintained.
Ground sold, as part of the unaffordable St Modwen deal for Nunnery Way. No income and expenditure accounts produced for shareholders for many years.
No AGM's held ............
Get to 2016, Hampson has AGM where full accounts for y/e 31.05.15 are produced, and a " funds tracking summary 2010 to 2015 " ie no full sets of accounts for those years. A brief summary it indeed was. The most important event in the club's history, the club has sold its only asset, apparently has had millions of pounds go through its bank account, yet all is presented is a " fag packet " summary on a side of A4. Why might Hampson and his Board consider that historic event not really worth accounting for properly and in full over a 7 year period with individual years full sets of accounts produced ?
Perhaps that might be the question that the WN should be asking, and if no suitable answer from Hampson, why not ? He's been Chairman.
As for any personal vendetta against Hampson, I don't really think so. He's not worth it. Fans are against Wilcox, Layland, and Pinches as well, plus all those directors involved in the sale of SGL - all done without Shareholder and fan consultation at any stage regarding taking that decision. That is unless you consider another set of fanciful drawings to be consultation ? Hang on, this sounds familiar..................
|
|
|
|
Post by Noboddy aka Lord Ealing on Mar 2, 2018 11:39:55 GMT
Andy are you saying that asking Hampson for an agm, egm and explanation of the accounts is a personal vendetta? We have been fighting the actions of successive boards for decades. They have driven the club over a cliff, not Jeremy, not me, not the Trust. You're a journalist. Dig into this scandal. That's your job.
|
|
|
|
Post by andymitchell on Mar 2, 2018 12:06:30 GMT
Andy, this has been going on for years, long before you arrived. It has been impossible for fans and shareholders ( and some directors for that matter ) to find out anything relating to the finances of WCFC. An EGM was only held back in 2008, when a " rebel group of fans " tried to take over the running of the club. The existing Board parachuted in a bunch of chums en block as " new " Board members, proxied up as many block votes as possible, got re-elected, then most of the bunch of chums instantly buggered off into the distance. Control and financial secrecy maintained. Ground sold, as part of the unaffordable St Modwen deal for Nunnery Way. No income and expenditure accounts produced for shareholders for many years. No AGM's held ............ Get to 2016, Hampson has AGM where full accounts for y/e 31.05.15 are produced, and a " funds tracking summary 2010 to 2015 " ie no full sets of accounts for those years. A brief summary it indeed was. The most important event in the club's history, the club has sold its only asset, apparently has had millions of pounds go through its bank account, yet all is presented is a " fag packet " summary on a side of A4. Why might Hampson and his Board consider that historic event not really worth accounting for properly and in full over a 7 year period with individual years full sets of accounts produced ? Perhaps that might be the question that the WN should be asking, and if no suitable answer from Hampson, why not ? He's been Chairman. As for any personal vendetta against Hampson, I don't really think so. He's not worth it. Fans are against Wilcox, Layland, and Pinches as well, plus all those directors involved in the sale of SGL - all done without Shareholder and fan consultation at any stage regarding taking that decision. That is unless you consider another set of fanciful drawings to be consultation ? Hang on, this sounds familiar.................. If true (no inference from me either way, I don't personally know), there may be things to look at there. I'd appreciate knowing who you are and being able to have a chat with you regarding the above points. My email is below, I return to the office on Monday. Cheers, Andy. |
|
|
|
Post by alwaysnextyear on Mar 2, 2018 12:15:44 GMT
If anyone comes out of this awful financial mess with any credit, it is Andy Jones, the Finance guy who volunteered his services in Dec 2016. He is totally blameless.
He instantly brought a financial acumen and credibility to the club that has been lacking for years. He looked at the numbers, looked at the ever decreasing bank balance, instantly identified the financial madness taking place, produced proper cash flow and management accounts, told the heads buried in sand Board members of the gravity of the situation, leading one of them, Mark Wilcox to be sent to see the players, and the firesale of players began. The Worcs FA were notified of the Club's intention to relegate itself 2 levels off the pitch, as 3 months notice had to be given.
If he had not volunteered, and the board just carried on blindly paying out twice what it got in, the seriousness of the situation would not have been addressed, and there would be a lot less than the 206 k at 31.05.17. However bad things are, and they are really bad, simply put, without his intervention, there would be no club.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Mar 2, 2018 12:17:48 GMT
And not a word of what alwaysnextyear says is new information, its been in the public domain at all times, its been brought to the attention of the WN at every opportunity.
How can a Plc like St Modwens act as another companies banker, and forbid them from providing any information to their shareholders, including forbidding them from hold AGMs?
How can a Plc charge WCFC Ltd 600,000 to NOT buy a piece of land which they were previously contracted to buy for 600,000 ?
|
|
|
|
Post by andymitchell on Mar 2, 2018 12:17:52 GMT
Andy are you saying that asking Hampson for an agm, egm and explanation of the accounts is a personal vendetta? We have been fighting the actions of successive boards for decades. They have driven the club over a cliff, not Jeremy, not me, not the Trust. You're a journalist. Dig into this scandal. That's your job. Andy are you saying that asking Hampson for an agm, egm and explanation of the accounts is a personal vendetta? No. That is not said or implied.
Dig into this scandal. That's your job. As explained to Jeremy, I would imagine you know little/anything of what we know or what we are trying to find out. That said, I don't know who you are so perhaps I am incorrect. Who are you? |
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Mar 2, 2018 12:20:36 GMT
Gosh, only my mother calls me Jeremy  |
|
|
|
Post by andymitchell on Mar 2, 2018 12:31:57 GMT
Gosh, only my mother calls me Jeremy That's not quite true, is it Jeremy? |
|
|
|
Post by alwaysnextyear on Mar 2, 2018 12:40:04 GMT
Steady on No.16........sorry to be pedantic.........
" How can a Plc charge WCFC Ltd 600,000 to NOT buy a piece of land which they were previously contracted to buy for 600,000 ? "
Who said anything about actually paying to not buy the land ? Were we actually going to own the land ? The deal as we all know was no doubt " commercially sensitive " and was shrouded in mystery, and few details released to shareholders, who were not consulted, other than the usual fanciful drawings pinned to a wall.
If I recall, WCFC were contracted to pay circa 1.2 m towards infrastructure costs for the site. The deal, which was never a goer in the first place falls through, the club has a contractual obligation to St Modwen. It is this infrastructure cost, that Anthony negotiated down to 500 k plus VAT.
In the " Funds Tracking Summary 2010 to 2015 " this 600k payment is described as " Nunnery Way Contract release fee ( inc VAT ) ".
|
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Mar 2, 2018 12:41:39 GMT
Gosh, only my mother calls me Jeremy That's not quite true, is it Jeremy? True enough to be completely irrelevant Andrew |
|
|
|
Post by andymitchell on Mar 2, 2018 13:27:06 GMT
My last post for now.
What I would say to any critics of WN and our coverage, past or present, is that not every sports reporter is a seasoned investigative journalist, particularly on a local paper.
I have had the benefit of being involved with some investigative pieces along the way but covering what I do, it is not something that crops up on a day-to-day, even week-to-week, basis.
That does not mean we won't look at things and investigate if and when appropriate, and I am sure the more sensible viewers of this forum would realise the first the public would see of this would be at the publication stage and why that would be the case.
The level of vitriol some of my predecessors have been subjected to by a tiny minority, which I stumbled across while looking into something else, was unreasonable and disproportionate to say the least. Some of it was defamatory.
We are not above criticism, nor should we be, but I do struggle to understand the mentality of people who do nothing but have a pop yet won't identify themselves or cannot wait to get away from us (well, me) when we/I try to speak to them face to face to decipher exactly what the accusations are, etc.
What do you achieve by having a go at those that don't automatically agree with you or see your point of view as the only credible one? Not just from a media point of view, the public as well. Have you not considered that could be part of the reason why so many people have become tired of the debate and drifted away? (I accept there could be other reasons).
If you are so concerned about the future of Worcester City, why hide behind usernames? Why not get in touch with the local press? As people who are clearly personally invested in the club and passionate, you guys are likely to know better than anyone where the information resides, who said what and when and how to stand it up. As I said to Jeremy Pitt a while back, you are the kind of people we should be talking to but in some cases, there is a clear issue with credibility.
It is easy to imply things on a forum/Facebook/Twitter but as yet, no conversation held in person or via any direct private communication has got us any closer to a direct accusation.
Any journalist looking to investigate anything also has to consider the issue of credibility unless there is absolute proof.
When those pointing the finger can't or won't specify what they are pointing the finger at, when they can't or won't do so without the benefit of anonymity or are not willing to have their claims scrutinised, it is difficult to afford them that credibility.
I will reiterate one more time, we will make time for and listen to anyone, in private at first if necessary, who has any allegations of wrongdoing or any information they want us to look at. You can reach me via email: andy.mitchell@newsquest.co.uk
I have no doubt this open invite will be picked apart with individual bits quoted out of context in an attempt to justify more vitriol from certain quarters. What the motivation is for that, only the people involved know.
|
|
|
|
Post by sleepinggiant on Mar 2, 2018 14:01:32 GMT
Andy, there are some fairly obvious questions that are not being asked by the WN. You don't need to have conversations with anybody to ask these (and be pushed on them until they give an answer!).
1. Why the lack of AGM's and shareholder contact in general?
2. How as the club gone from holding a £7m asset and playing National North football to playing 'pub football', homeless and skint within 6 years under his stewardship. Some accountability from him and fellow directors.
3. What is plan going forward? (Parsonage Way?. Some idea of funding and costs. Still to be worked out isn't good enough.
4. Why is he sticking with being Chairman? What is he getting out of this apart from lots of flak?
|
|
