Up to date 'news'

[Tim Chown]

The problem right now is that there are probably a number of 'sources' who are happy to spread whatever 'facts' they feel like depending on whose camp they lie in.

But the numbers don't lie. The club has wrung out every penny, and there's nothing left to see us through to March, yet alone end of season.

 

[p1lgr1m]

This is not rumour, but from a very good source.

HMRC are still looking at PAFC, they are looking intoi everything to do with our club and are 'lifting up floorboards and looking into very dark corners'.

The new tax bill on February 22nd is 'considerably in excess of £300k, possibly nearer the £500k mark'. 'The club have no way of paying that' I was told.

There is rumour that Wraithall and Donnerly will be leaving tomorrow, but that is unsubtstantiated and cannot be lumped in with the above.

If it is true, I reckon admin, and then a Ridsdale/Stapleton alliance.

Is Stapleton allowed to be involved in the club if we go into admin?

Yes

:shock: so you can own a company, run up huge debts, enter admin thus wiping out most of the debts, and still be allowed to be part of the new company that takes over, that makes sense :?

 

[Mike Greening]

I think people are allowed two bites at the cherry as long as they are not bankrupt. Thats why Peter Ridsdale is allowed to do what he is doing. :grin: :grin:

 

[Tim Chown]

:shock: so you can own a company, run up huge debts, enter admin thus wiping out most of the debts, and still be allowed to be part of the new company that takes over, that makes sense :?

Ken Bates and Leeds

"In January 2005, after failing in a bid to invest in Sheffield Wednesday, Bates became the principal owner and chairman of then struggling Championship team, Leeds United
...
In May 2007, with Leeds United entering administration, it was announced that KPMG acting as the administrator had agreed to sell the club to a newly-formed company called Leeds United Football Club Limited of which Bates is one of three directors."

 

[Christchurch Green]

Waht is the minimum number of Directors that the club must have and what are the consequences of having less than this number? I recall we had too few Directors for a while previously (in fact, wasn't that partly why Dennerley was roped in?)

A Company now only needs one director - the previous requirement was that the company should have a minimum of one director and a company secretary (often the same person).

 

[Mark Colling]

Such as 'where did £12 million in 'other operating costs' over 3 years come from?" ?

Why do people seem to get hung up on the wrong line in the accounts?

Other operating costs cover pretty much everything that it takes to run the football club other than the staff costs. The 2009 accounts tell us that £626,000 of these costs related to the aborted Phase II and so no doubt much more followed with the failed White Elephant bid - how much that mismanangement cost us will no doubt come out eventually.

Excluding Phase II, other operating costs over the three years were £11.3m, up by 44% compared with the previous three years (£7.8m). Given that revenue over the same period was only up by 26%, there is no doubt that we had become inefficient but to highlight £12m is just wrong.

If you use the same comparative periods, staff costs were up by 87% to £19.3m (or by 102% to £21.3m if you include transfer and signing-on fees quite rightly written off over the length of the players' contracts).

By 2009, staff costs were 86% of total revenue (or 98% including transfer and signing-on fees). From what Ridsdale has said recently, there is every reason to believe these costs have risen even higher since. If I remember correctly, when a salary cap has been muted, a figure of 60% has been mentioned.

As I said above, I am sure there are some unnecessary costs within other operating costs but the bulk of the problem is that we allowed staff (and let's face it, that's mostly the players) costs get out of hand.

We had a chance to rectify that after the January 2008 firesale but "ambition" intervened and look where we are now.

 

[Mark Colling]

You could resign as a director but remain a shareholder, like SurRoy.

You'd still be liable for what happened whilst you were a shareholder

No, you wouldn't. It is a Limited Company so you're liability is limited by your investment.

As for being liable as a director, as long as you have done nothing dishonest/illegal, you have nothing to fear.

 

[Balham Green]

This is not rumour, but from a very good source.

HMRC are still looking at PAFC, they are looking intoi everything to do with our club and are 'lifting up floorboards and looking into very dark corners'.

The new tax bill on February 22nd is 'considerably in excess of £300k, possibly nearer the £500k mark'. 'The club have no way of paying that' I was told.

There is rumour that Wraithall and Donnerly will be leaving tomorrow, but that is unsubtstantiated and cannot be lumped in with the above.

If it is true, I reckon admin, and then a Ridsdale/Stapleton alliance.

The same source that told you we would be going into administration on monday or tuesday :?: :?

Hmmm from a very good source!!! Sensationalism. If HMRC had anything else on us at the moment they would have used it at court today. We all know there is another tax bill later in the month but it will take some time to reach court.

 

[Green]

If PAFC enters administration then we will be deducted 10 points. Am I right in thinking that if we go down to League 2 the penalty deduction comes with us but increases to 20 points?

 

[Baby Face Johnson]

@Mark_Colling

Mark so the £12 Million 'Other Operating Costs' is not just a separate heading at the end of the accounts, after all other itemised expenditure, but the sum total of all expenditure less Wages.

For whatever reason I assumed 'Other Operating Costs' to be an accounts heading where you stuck costs that weren't attributable to any other nominal code in the accounts.

 

[richy2704]

Such as 'where did £12 million in 'other operating costs' over 3 years come from?" ?

Why do people seem to get hung up on the wrong line in the accounts?

Other operating costs cover pretty much everything that it takes to run the football club other than the staff costs. The 2009 accounts tell us that £626,000 of these costs related to the aborted Phase II and so no doubt much more followed with the failed White Elephant bid - how much that mismanangement cost us will no doubt come out eventually.

Excluding Phase II, other operating costs over the three years were £11.3m, up by 44% compared with the previous three years (£7.8m). Given that revenue over the same period was only up by 26%, there is no doubt that we had become inefficient but to highlight £12m is just wrong.

If you use the same comparative periods, staff costs were up by 87% to £19.3m (or by 102% to £21.3m if you include transfer and signing-on fees quite rightly written off over the length of the players' contracts).

By 2009, staff costs were 86% of total revenue (or 98% including transfer and signing-on fees). From what Ridsdale has said recently, there is every reason to believe these costs have risen even higher since. If I remember correctly, when a salary cap has been muted, a figure of 60% has been mentioned.

As I said above, I am sure there are some unnecessary costs within other operating costs but the bulk of the problem is that we allowed staff (and let's face it, that's mostly the players) costs get out of hand.

We had a chance to rectify that after the January 2008 firesale but "ambition" intervened and look where we are now.

Before blaming the ambition how much did they actually spend on players in 2008 and since then, I can understand us getting into debt by going mad and signing loads of top players but our most expensive player is still MaClean(£500,000) not Walts before anyone claims that as his was add ons, our debt is from Other operating costs and it should be fully explained.

 

[Greenskin]

Such as 'where did £12 million in 'other operating costs' over 3 years come from?" ?

Why do people seem to get hung up on the wrong line in the accounts?

Other operating costs cover pretty much everything that it takes to run the football club other than the staff costs. The 2009 accounts tell us that £626,000 of these costs related to the aborted Phase II and so no doubt much more followed with the failed White Elephant bid - how much that mismanangement cost us will no doubt come out eventually.

Excluding Phase II, other operating costs over the three years were £11.3m, up by 44% compared with the previous three years (£7.8m). Given that revenue over the same period was only up by 26%, there is no doubt that we had become inefficient but to highlight £12m is just wrong.

If you use the same comparative periods, staff costs were up by 87% to £19.3m (or by 102% to £21.3m if you include transfer and signing-on fees quite rightly written off over the length of the players' contracts).

By 2009, staff costs were 86% of total revenue (or 98% including transfer and signing-on fees). From what Ridsdale has said recently, there is every reason to believe these costs have risen even higher since. If I remember correctly, when a salary cap has been muted, a figure of 60% has been mentioned.

As I said above, I am sure there are some unnecessary costs within other operating costs but the bulk of the problem is that we allowed staff (and let's face it, that's mostly the players) costs get out of hand.

We had a chance to rectify that after the January 2008 firesale but "ambition" intervened and look where we are now.

If you look at Mr Ridsdales answers in minutes of the meeting held with the Argyle trust on January 14th,he states that "other operating charges " related to "proposed development which did not take place and was not sustainable" and no mention of any other avenues on which the money was spent.I may be being thick here,but how does that rather definite statement tie in with the above?

 

[Mark Colling]

@Mark_Colling

Mark so the £12 Million 'Other Operating Costs' is not just a separate heading at the end of the accounts, after all other itemised expenditure, but the sum total of all expenditure less Wages.

For whatever reason I assumed 'Other Operating Costs' to be an accounts heading where you stuck costs that weren't attributable to any other nominal code in the accounts.

Indeed, the only expense headings in the accounts are:

- Staff costs
- Depreciation written off fixed assets (principally transfer and signing-on fees)
- Other operating costs

 

[PL2 3DQ]

@Mark_Colling

Mark so the £12 Million 'Other Operating Costs' is not just a separate heading at the end of the accounts, after all other itemised expenditure, but the sum total of all expenditure less Wages.

For whatever reason I assumed 'Other Operating Costs' to be an accounts heading where you stuck costs that weren't attributable to any other nominal code in the accounts.

Indeed, the only expense headings in the accounts are:

- Staff costs
- Depreciation written off fixed assets (principally transfer and signing-on fees)
- Other operating costs

The accounts also do not show income from sponsorship, gate receipts, season and match day ticket sales, TV money, programme sales etc etc.

So they could all be lumped in the "other operating costs" section just as easily as anything else such as costs associated with running a football club.
If so, it's even more amazing that £12m has not been properly accounted for over the last three years and that the "other operating costs" section shows such a massive big hole.

 

[Mark Colling]

Such as 'where did £12 million in 'other operating costs' over 3 years come from?" ?

Why do people seem to get hung up on the wrong line in the accounts?

Other operating costs cover pretty much everything that it takes to run the football club other than the staff costs. The 2009 accounts tell us that £626,000 of these costs related to the aborted Phase II and so no doubt much more followed with the failed White Elephant bid - how much that mismanangement cost us will no doubt come out eventually.

Excluding Phase II, other operating costs over the three years were £11.3m, up by 44% compared with the previous three years (£7.8m). Given that revenue over the same period was only up by 26%, there is no doubt that we had become inefficient but to highlight £12m is just wrong.

If you use the same comparative periods, staff costs were up by 87% to £19.3m (or by 102% to £21.3m if you include transfer and signing-on fees quite rightly written off over the length of the players' contracts).

By 2009, staff costs were 86% of total revenue (or 98% including transfer and signing-on fees). From what Ridsdale has said recently, there is every reason to believe these costs have risen even higher since. If I remember correctly, when a salary cap has been muted, a figure of 60% has been mentioned.

As I said above, I am sure there are some unnecessary costs within other operating costs but the bulk of the problem is that we allowed staff (and let's face it, that's mostly the players) costs get out of hand.

We had a chance to rectify that after the January 2008 firesale but "ambition" intervened and look where we are now.

Before blaming the ambition how much did they actually spend on players in 2008 and since then, I can understand us getting into debt by going mad and signing loads of top players but our most expensive player is still MaClean(£500,000) not Walts before anyone claims that as his was add ons, our debt is from Other operating costs and it should be fully explained.

More than we could afford. If your staff costs exceed your income (and a recent Ridsdale interview indicated they have risen further; he was vague but said he thought it was about 120%) then you are in a lot of trouble. Staff costs are the biggest cost a footbal club has but they are far from the only ones.

I did say that the other operating costs were higher than they should have been but they really weren't the biggest problem.

As we became more desperate to stay up, we threw more money at players such as Kenny Cooper and Damian Johnson to keep us up.

When they didn't, our income slumped and we were in even more trouble.