Up to date 'news'

[Mark Colling]

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?

I said in my original post that other operating costs included £626k and that a lot more would have been spent subsequently on the White Elephant bid ( and I doubt any of the bid costs were in the £12m).

However, this was not all of that cost by any means so either he was misquoted or the minutes say that they "included" the proposed development.

You'll see from my previous response that Ridsdale did an interview during one of our ganes earlier this month when he said our staff costs were 120% of income. Irrespective of anything else going on, that is the economics of the asylum.

 

[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

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.

Indeed, they are not separated out but will be included within "Turnover".

The thing is that there is nothing unusual about the level of detail in these accounts at all so I wish people would give up on the fact that it is some kind of cover up by the club.

 

[Greenskin]

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?

I said in my original post that other operating costs included £626k and that a lot more would have been spent subsequently on the White Elephant bid ( and I doubt any of the bid costs were in the £12m).

However, this was not all of that cost by any means so either he was misquoted or the minutes say that they "included" the proposed development.

You'll see from my previous response that Ridsdale did an interview during one of our ganes earlier this month when he said our staff costs were 120% of income. Irrespective of anything else going on, that is the economics of the asylum.

He must have been misquoted then,because the word "included" is not included,so to speak. I don't disagree with what you say about staff costs being the main factor in the rising income/expenditure comparison but nearly £5m [as specified in the last accounts] is still a hell of a sum of money to spend on other things,love to see a detailed breakdown of it sometime.

 

[Mark Colling]

He must have been misquoted then,because the word "included" is not included,so to speak. I don't disagree with what you say about staff costs being the main factor in the rising income/expenditure comparison but nearly £5m [as specified in the last accounts] is still a hell of a sum of money to spend on other things,love to see a detailed breakdown of it sometime.

Well, £626k are development costs written-off (or wasted as you might like to call it). Beyond that, we'll probably know but my guess is that there is wasteage due to inefficiencies/poor management rather than anything underhand.

 

[Baby Face Johnson]

Don't a full set of accounts show itemised expenditure or is that for management eyes only? I'm sure I've seen a set of full accounts, in a season gone by (from a shareholder friend), where expenditure is itemised in more detail.

 

[richy2704]

@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.

Indeed, they are not separated out but will be included within "Turnover".

The thing is that there is nothing unusual about the level of detail in these accounts at all so I wish people would give up on the fact that it is some kind of cover up by the club.

I am not one of those people who beleive in conspiracy theories or look for lies when there are none its just I remember attending a foundation meeting and Mr Stapleton was asked some thorough questions with regards to what happened to and how much moneys received through the sales of SEB, Norris, Gosling etc, he was very open and accounted for it, now my problem is he can do it then he can do it now, surely when the club is as broke and financially embarrassed as we are then surely this would go some way to allaying the fans fears that we have been screwed, I personally beleive that the board peed away a crap load more than they are letting on with regards to the world cup bid and also future development plans on the failed bid, this is why I would like to see it fully explained, I do not think its a cover up of illegal financial irregularities more so of incompetence and a rash high risk gamble bought about through the greed inspired chase of non football based developments.

 

[dennis the menace]

Now did man land on the moon or not - was it a conspiracy? Have I got the wrong board? :lol: :lol:

 

[Mark Pedlar]

I am not one of those people who beleive in conspiracy theories or look for lies when there are none

Careful Richy. It's not for you to say if you are a conspiracy theorist or no, it is something that is bestowed on you by others, usually empathisers of those you are questioning.

How come someone who questions so much is never prepared to give any answers? Do you have any?

 

[Mark Pedlar]

I am not one of those people who beleive in conspiracy theories or look for lies when there are none

Careful Richy. It's not for you to say if you are a conspiracy theorist or no, it is something that is bestowed on you by others, usually empathisers of those you are questioning.

How come someone who questions so much is never prepared to give any answers? Do you have any?

If you want cast iron guarantees and answers, go to a church.
I rarely ask questions on here, if I do they are mainy rhetorical ... when I post, I just state my opinion as a fan. Is that OK ?

Absolutely fine - it's a shame though that many of your opinions are hidden because you prefer to pour scorn on others rather than share your own views.

see what I did there? I answered a question.

 

[Laughter My Ploy]

As an aside if £12,000,000 of prawn sandwiches were piled up in a tower how far would that reach ? Say £2 per sandwich and 1 inch per sandwich thickness .

And for an extra mark...how long would it take a director and his non paying guests to eat them

 

[richy2704]

I am not one of those people who beleive in conspiracy theories or look for lies when there are none

Careful Richy. It's not for you to say if you are a conspiracy theorist or no, it is something that is bestowed on you by others, usually empathisers of those you are questioning.

 

[richy2704]

As an aside if £12,000,000 of prawn sandwiches were piled up in a tower how far would that reach ? Say £2 per sandwich and 1 inch per sandwich thickness .

And for an extra mark...how long would it take a director and his non paying guests to eat them

I really fancy one of those sandwiches now :shock:

 

[David Whitehouse]

It is fair enough for a private company not to detail operating costs if it wishes, but this one is calling on the public to support it in a crisis without saying why the problem has arisen. (':shock:')

 

[Mark Colling]

Don't a full set of accounts show itemised expenditure or is that for management eyes only? I'm sure I've seen a set of full accounts, in a season gone by (from a shareholder friend), where expenditure is itemised in more detail.

Normally, no, the extra detail is for management only.

 

[Mark Colling]

As an aside if £12,000,000 of prawn sandwiches were piled up in a tower how far would that reach ? Say £2 per sandwich and 1 inch per sandwich thickness .

6 million inches; or
500,000 feet; or
166,667 yards; or
94.7 miles