By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Ever so slightly shorter and less eventful than previous meetings :)
All proposed resolutions were passed unanimously.
The board were re-elected, AK retired.
A good Q&A session after the AGM & EGM, some interesting questions asked and answered. Of particular interest was three people received substantial pay rises in 2021(?). Couldn’t be named but none of them are employed by the club anymore.
Errea contract won’t be renewed, already in advanced discussions with new supplier.
Ever so slightly shorter and less eventful than previous meetings :)
All proposed resolutions were passed unanimously.
The board were re-elected, AK retired.
A good Q&A session after the AGM & EGM, some interesting questions asked and answered. Of particular interest was three people received substantial pay rises in 2021(?). Couldn’t be named but none of them are employed by the club anymore.
Errea contract won’t be renewed, already in advanced discussions with new supplier.
It was another well attended shareholder meeting and as Briels stated finished well before midnight.
The key learning for me was the perilous state of the financial club at the end of May 2021 which the filed accounts brought out.
A loss of £1.2m to May 2021 AFTER receiving about £0.6m of furlough money from the government so the real trading loss was nearer £1.8m. There were no cup runs or transfer fees of any note in that year.
The audited accounts at 31 May 2021 show, the night before the EGM that removed David Bottomley and Graham Rawlinson the state of the club was: * Cash of £570,930 * Creditors due within one year of £1,630,671
So a deficit of cash vs committed creditors of over £1.0m existing when the AGM/EGM's on 1 June 2021 took place.
The increase in creditors was the main concern - between May 2020 and May 2021 the creditors due within one year increased from £0.9m to £1.6m the main reasons for which were: * Amounts owed to HMRC - this was £0.5m at May 2021 - virtually all of the cash balance. * Amounts owed to suppliers - this was £0.4m at May 2021 - up from virtually nothing at May 2020. * Amounts owed for a new pitch - £0.6m was spent and it was noted that there was no funding in place when this was arranged, just that it had been assumed it would "somehow be paid for from future years operation".
The cost of the club dealing with the EFL disciplinary process of the hostile takeover were detailed and are around £0.1m - all unbudgeted. The legal action against a former director is still progressing.
There was a shareholder question about controls over pay and how pay rises were reviewed and signed off which followed a similar question at the 2021 AGM.
Turns out that unlike what we were told in 2021, there were three unnamed former employees who received substantial payrises which added extra costs to the club at a time when it was financially struggling after Covid - there was no commercial rationale for this nor review at a Board level.
I've probably missed a fair bit but that was the gist of it.
George Bernard Shaw had it right:
"He who can does; he who cannot, teaches."
https://www.visittheusa.co.uk/
Intended to go last night but couldn’t make it at the last minute.
I know next to nothing about accounts etc but surely whoever was in charge of finances could have seen that three pay rises during that time wasn’t the most sensible decision. Who was holding the purse strings?
Two years ago I went through the last published accounts of all Div1 and Div 2 clubs an was appalled by how precarious were some clubs were. several "big" clubs included. Ipswich, Wigan, Bolton. Only supported by owners.
That was before the full Covid effect.
Some clubs, notably Oldham, not publishing on time, and some very amateurish statements.
Best set of accounts? Shrewsbury.
I plan to do the same again, but its quite a big job.
I think we all knew the accounts would be bad, but in all honesty the figures outlined by RAFCBLUE above sound even worse than I feared.
Was there an indication as to how we are financially at the minute? We've had lots of money going out (floodlights, mortgage paid off, renovating bits of the main stand, new signage, money spent on the Ratcliffe) and it looks like less money coming in through the gates, no cup runs and as a consequence of l2 rather than l1 payments.
I'd be keen to understand how those bits above were paid for, and if they've left us more vulnerable to short term cash flow challenges.
*None of the above is meant as a criticism, but the quoted accounts are more than a bit worrying last year.
Intended to go last night but couldn’t make it at the last minute.
I know next to nothing about accounts etc but surely whoever was in charge of finances could have seen that three pay rises during that time wasn’t the most sensible decision. Who was holding the purse strings?
At the time, Bottomley and Grindrod were the 'committee' holding the purse strings and didn't require or seek board approval for said pay rises. Essentially there was very little governance in place.
Unless I've misheard/misinterpreted what was said.
At the time, Bottomley and Grindrod were the 'committee' holding the purse strings and didn't require or seek board approval for said pay rises. Essentially there was very little governance in place.
Unless I've misheard/misinterpreted what was said.
Cheers. I must have had my wires crossed somewhere along the line.
A couple of things I recall from last night in addition to what has already been mentioned were the termination of the Lotto company in 12 months time, (12 months being the notice period) and an idea that was floated in passing but which I think has legs was the formation of an "Army of Volunteers", people prepared to take on lots of the jobs that need doing, painting, decorating, mending, lending their time , expertise, muscle power, whatever to help make things better at less cost that having to pay to get things done.
"Turns out that unlike what we were told in 2021, there were three unnamed former employees who received substantial payrises which added extra costs to the club at a time when it was financially struggling after Covid - there was no commercial rationale for this nor review at a Board level."
In a year when turnover dropped by a whopping 52%, administrative expenses rose by £133,000 following a year in which administrative expenses had gone up by £167,000 on the previous year when the number of admin staff reduced by 1, so a nett increase in admin costs of £300,000k over two seasons.
How?
In the last set of accounts the club mention being in receipt of £425,000 of public money via the Furlough scheme. On 20th May 2020, the MEN published an article that announced RMBC was giving an unspecified amount as a loan to RAFC as "Not making the loan would potentially place one of the Borough’s most significant assets at risk at this difficult time. " (source: RMBC)
Within the decision notes of the council document it also states :
"Delegate authority to the Chief Finance Officer, in consultation with the Chief Executive, the Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Finance and the Director of Resources to negotiate and finalise the details of the loan as outlined in the body of this report."
The details of the loan would make for very interesting reading, I suspect, for local tax payers.
A couple of things I recall from last night in addition to what has already been mentioned were the termination of the Lotto company in 12 months time, (12 months being the notice period) and an idea that was floated in passing but which I think has legs was the formation of an "Army of Volunteers", people prepared to take on lots of the jobs that need doing, painting, decorating, mending, lending their time , expertise, muscle power, whatever to help make things better at less cost that having to pay to get things done.
That “Army of Volunteers” did sound a good idea. Looking forward to more detailed information and a proposed structure of how it would work moving forward.
If we can identify areas of the club where individuals/businesses/supporter groups can contribute, it will not only help those at Spotland but increase the feeling of inclusivity across the town.
Think there would be a definite willingness to be involved, it’s now down to the club to put forward how it’s going to look in the short, medium and long term.
That “Army of Volunteers” did sound a good idea. Looking forward to more detailed information and a proposed structure of how it would work moving forward.
If we can identify areas of the club where individuals/businesses/supporter groups can contribute, it will not only help those at Spotland but increase the feeling of inclusivity across the town.
Think there would be a definite willingness to be involved, it’s now down to the club to put forward how it’s going to look in the short, medium and long term.
I think this has been mentioned before. In my opinion it is an important part of being fan-owned and we do it to a small degree already. Previously I posted about how it works at Exeter but here is a video from a few years ago about it:
It is also something that is quite normal at (smaller) non-league clubs where that is the only way to get things done.
One thing that seems to have been glossed over is "I don't know who you are" got a £12,000 pay rise during furlough.* No wonder she doted on Bottomley and attacked those who saw through him.
Bottomley lives outside this town, so is sort of safe.
*Not named, but bloody obvious. The other two pay increases were obviously BBM and the dastardly DB who was clearly paying people, club money, to be his aides.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
