www.altyfans.co.uk
General Category => Altrincham FC First Team => Topic started by: PukkaPieman on October 15, 2016, 09:14:13 PM
-
On the Telford post the financial progress of the club was being discussed and various misconceptions and inaccuracies were occuring so I thought I would start a new thread and post some actual factual information taken directly out of the clubs accounts for the last 6 years, the latest accounts being published to shareholders today.
It should be noted that the current board inherited shareholder funds of (600K ) ie in debt ) and a short term lease of the ground.
Year Turnover Profit Shareholder League FA cup Other notable
ended 1000's or loss Funds in for year progress events
31 May K K K
2011 553 (62) (40) BSP Lost FAC 4Q Gateshead
2012 416 2.5 (37) BSN Lost FAC2Q Witton
2013 475 386 348 BSN Lost FAC1 Replay Burton Duncan Watmore sold
2014 507 (16) 332 BSN Lost FAC2Q Trafford CSH started being built
2015 587 (39) 292 NL Lost FAC1 Blyth CSH built
2016 675 27 319 NL Lost FAC2 Colchester
The clubs assets have increased from approx 300K to around £1m today.
The club now has an 80 year lease on the ground.
The club has NO DEBT or directors loans.
The club has increased turnover to the highest level ever achieved.
These accounts do not include the CSH income/expenditure as this is a not for profit social enterprise. It is on budget.
Hopefully publishing these figures will correct various misconceptions.
Unlike Telford, and many other NL clubs AFC is financially very stable and living with its (increasing) means.
The benefits that the AFC board foresaw of building the CSH are now being realised in terms of future financial security and stability.
-
Thanks interested reading. So turnover is increasing and we made a healthy profit the last financial year but sadly got relegated.
Does the club aim to break even each year or show a small profit ?
-
Also do we have any outstanding debts or loans ?
For example the profit made the last financial year is it used to pay them off or paid as dividends ?
-
Never paid a dividend in at least 10 years. Every penny is reinvested.
-
So we made a 27k profit last year but didn't bring anyone in to try and keep the club in The National Division? Unbelievable!!
-
This will be the clubs financial year, not a season.
-
Also do we have any outstanding debts or loans ?
For example the profit made the last financial year is it used to pay them off or paid as dividends ?
See below, NONE.
-
This will be the clubs financial year, not a season.
The year end is 31st May so it is basically a season.
-
Also do we have any outstanding debts or loans ?
For example the profit made the last financial year is it used to pay them off or paid as dividends ?
See below, NONE.
thanks
-
So we made a 27k profit last year but didn't bring anyone in to try and keep the club in The National Division? Unbelievable!!
Martin, you need to try and stop being so simplistic, when it comes to accounting periods and what happens on the field it isnt that simple.
-
It's healthy to see this information I think.
It does not change the fact however that we simply have to stay in this league and give Jim all he needs to facilitate this
-
Thanks interested reading. So turnover is increasing and we made a healthy profit the last financial year but sadly got relegated.
Does the club aim to break even each year or show a small profit ?
The clubs policy has always been to break even and invest every penny it can in the playing staff, so the more we make from the CSH etc, the less money we pay out due to volunteers, the bigger the playing budget.
To put things in perspective , even the latest figures put AFC in the bottom 4 of the NL financially.
-
and that very laudable policy is why all the talk of finding "investors" is complete nonsense - invest your money and we promise to spend all the profits on players and give you none of it back. Never going to attract investors with a pitch like that are we - and a good thing too
-
So we made a 27k profit last year but didn't bring anyone in to try and keep the club in The National Division? Unbelievable!!
Martin, you need to try and stop being so simplistic, when it comes to accounting periods and what happens on the field it isnt that simple.
So Ian,we suffered an avoidable relegation,are now 7 points adrift in a regional league but everything's fantastic because we made a 27k profit? Great stuff.
-
So we made a 27k profit last year but didn't bring anyone in to try and keep the club in The National Division? Unbelievable!!
Martin, you need to try and stop being so simplistic, when it comes to accounting periods and what happens on the field it isnt that simple.
So Ian,we suffered an avoidable relegation,are now 7 points adrift in a regional league but everything's fantastic because we made a 27k profit? Great stuff.
No Blind bat, but everything's not bad either. We are where we are, get over it and look forward.
Are you always so damn negative?
-
So we made a 27k profit last year but didn't bring anyone in to try and keep the club in The National Division? Unbelievable!!
Martin, you need to try and stop being so simplistic, when it comes to accounting periods and what happens on the field it isnt that simple.
So Ian,we suffered an avoidable relegation,are now 7 points adrift in a regional league but everything's fantastic because we made a 27k profit? Great stuff.
Ffs, a 27k profit on turnover of 600k+ is not far off a rounding difference. To me, that's balanced the books, and don't forget the loss the previous season of 30k+
If we make a loss - who funds it !
-
On the Telford post the financial progress of the club was being discussed and various misconceptions and inaccuracies were occuring so I thought I would start a new thread and post some actual factual information taken directly out of the clubs accounts for the last 6 years, the latest accounts being published to shareholders today.
It should be noted that the current board inherited shareholder funds of (600K ) ie in debt ) and a short term lease of the ground.
Year Turnover Profit Shareholder League FA cup Other notable
ended 1000's or loss Funds in for year progress events
31 May K K K
2011 553 (62) (40) BSP Lost FAC 4Q Gateshead
2012 416 2.5 (37) BSN Lost FAC2Q Witton
2013 475 386 348 BSN Lost FAC1 Replay Burton Duncan Watmore sold
2014 507 (16) 332 BSN Lost FAC2Q Trafford CSH started being built
2015 587 (39) 292 NL Lost FAC1 Blyth CSH built
2016 675 27 319 NL Lost FAC2 Colchester
The clubs assets have increased from approx 300K to around £1m today.
The club now has an 80 year lease on the ground.
The club has NO DEBT or directors loans.
The club has increased turnover to the highest level ever achieved.
These accounts do not include the CSH income/expenditure as this is a not for profit social enterprise. It is on budget.
Hopefully publishing these figures will correct various misconceptions.
Unlike Telford, and many other NL clubs AFC is financially very stable and living with its (increasing) means.
The benefits that the AFC board foresaw of building the CSH are now being realised in terms of future financial security and stability.
Hi Ian. Thanks for the above. It is indeed very interesting. Although I’m not sure it really has any bearing on any “misconceptions and inaccuracies”? Let’s take out the ‘paper profit’ (as described that year by the board) in 2013 due to the cancelling of the “exception item” relating to the directors loan – that is slightly misleading. We commendably made an actual real profit of £30k that year (2013). Maybe you haven’t seen the accounts from that year. In which case, please feel free to get in touch. It’s always good to clear up any “misconceptions and inaccuracies”.
So the figures you quote leave a deficit of nearly £60k over the same period. In cash profit. So “consistently balancing the books” still looks a long way off and quite fanciful. Particularly when the current chairman himself was drawing attention to the dwindling cash reserves at the last AGM (Feb 16).
And let’s not forget the unbudgeted quarter of a million pounds (£250k!) that have come into the football club over the last few years - that has still ended with us 6 points adrift in a regional league.
If you want to look at this year’s accounts in isolation – as it is surely what has prompted you to start a new post. Let’s consider the previous communication from the current chairman.
Feb 16 – “The 2015-16 budget is projected to lose £36k” (?!?!)
Sep 16 – “Grahame Rowley said that last season's accounts showed that there was just a £4,000 "profit" at the end of the financial period. So funds were largely used up.”
Oct 16 – Club profits for the year to 31st May 2016 show +£27k
From reading the above it’s difficult to know who is misleading who and where the incompetence takes over.
Martin, I can see why it would be a logical conclusion to look at a £27k profit in a relegation season and wonder why we didn’t sign more players, or employ a proper manager to stay in the conference. But when you consider the previous misadventure of the current board then perhaps it is more understandable as to why the funds couldn’t be released. Quoting from the chairman again from earlier this year, “the Club’s cash reserves will be down to £38k by the season end, leaving little room to manoeuvre”. It always needs to be paid back at some stage.
All that said, the unexpected profit turned in the last tax year is a definite positive and a step in the right direction – even if boosted by considerable and unbudgeted FA Cup/TV turnover. On that basis, let’s hope for a favourable draw on Monday.
And finally, without wanting to look like I'm nit-picking (but in the interest of clearing up any "misconceptions and inaccuracies") the chairman's annual address at the AGM indicates that the initial transfer fee for Duncan Watmore was within the year ending 2014, not 2013 as indicated by your table above.
-
Matt
I thought by summarising the accounts would reveal that the overall financial position is stable and improving,.... however your response reveals you have your own agenda and your comments about the chairman are completely out of order.
In any business the accounts are always in flux and WIP accounts can only give a guide. Your estimates are not borne out by the accounts at all.
You clearly dont want the facts to get in the way of your own arguments. Very disappointed in your attitude now.
-
Ian,
Please don't talk about attitude.
You have neglected to mention that Alty Community Sports owes the club £46,000.
If you were working without an agenda I'd have thought this was a very important point to raise.
Or is it just when it suits?
-
Ian,
Please don't talk about attitude.
You have neglected to mention that Alty Community Sports owes the club £46,000.
If you were working without an agenda I'd have thought this was a very important point to raise.
Or is it just when it suits?
you must be mistaken I asked if we had any outstanding debts or loans and was told no.
Ian can you clarify please ?
-
Ian,
Please don't talk about attitude.
You have neglected to mention that Alty Community Sports owes the club £46,000.
If you were working without an agenda I'd have thought this was a very important point to raise.
Or is it just when it suits?
you must be mistaken I asked if we had any outstanding debts or loans and was told no.
Ian can you clarify please ?
With pleasure.
When accounts are prepared there are always creditors and debtors, these are a normal business fact and the accounts reflect a point in time. It only affects cashflow.
As everyone knows, AFC loaned CSH 25K in 2014 to fund the design, sports consultancy and planning consents etc. It appears from the accounts that on 31st May 2016 the club were owed 46K.
I have no idea if this has been repaid yet (some 5 months later) what is clear though is that as of 31 May 2016 AFC had 107K in the bank.
Wayno,... this is a loan made by the club, dont confuse this with a debt. And since this debtor is from a company whom AFC effectively control its not a risk unless the CSH fails, which it clearly isnt doing.
Ballers,... it suits me fine to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth m'lad :D
-
Matt pointed out that the summary included "accounting" items like the removal of the 355K loan in 2013 (which has now gone forever) which distorts the figures.
I agree and would also point out that the profit and loss accounts also allow for another accounting factor ie depreciation.
Since the club now has a new large asset (The CSH) the profits shown are after deduction of depreciation, this isnt a "real" cost but is tax deductable so the profit is reduced so as to avoid tax.
So to give a more accurate reflection of the profit/loss situation I have amended the summary below without depreciation and with the loan removal.
Year Turnover Profit League FA cup Other notable
ended 1000's or loss in for year progress events
31 May K K
2011 553 (62) BSP L ost FAC 4Q Gateshead
2012 416 2.5 BSN Lost FAC2Q Witton
2013 475 31 BSN Lost FAC1 Replay Burton Duncan Watmore sold
2014 507 14 BSN Lost FAC2Q Trafford CSH started being built
2015 587 (5) NL Lost FAC1 Blyth CSH built
2016 675 66 NL Lost FAC2 Colchester
Net profit/loss for last 6 years, = £46K profit. (dividing by 6 this is an average profit of 7K pa.)
The AFC books are clearly BALANCED over the last 6 years, NOT a loss as some posters seem determined to claim.
So whatever income the club has been able to achieve has been spent on the running of the club, and the vast majority on the team.
-
Hi Ian. Thanks for the above. It is indeed very interesting. Although I’m not sure it really has any bearing on any “misconceptions and inaccuracies”? Let’s take out the ‘paper profit’ (as described that year by the board) in 2013 due to the cancelling of the “exception item” relating to the directors loan – that is slightly misleading. (I AGREE SEE BELOW).
We commendably made an actual real profit of £30k that year (2013). (I AGREE SEE BELOW)
Maybe you haven’t seen the accounts from that year. In which case, please feel free to get in touch. It’s always good to clear up any “misconceptions and inaccuracies”. (THANKS I HAVE ALL THE ACCOUNTS, WHERE DID YOU THINK I GOT ALL THIS FROM).
So the figures you quote leave a deficit of nearly £60k over the same period. In cash profit. (WRONG, THE PROFIT IS 46K OVER LAST 6 YEARS)
So “consistently balancing the books” still looks a long way off and quite fanciful. (WRONG AGAIN)
Particularly when the current chairman himself was drawing attention to the dwindling cash reserves at the last AGM (Feb 16). (CASHFLOW IS DIFFERENT FROM PROFIT/LOSS)
And let’s not forget the unbudgeted quarter of a million pounds (£250k!) that have come into the football club over the last few years - that has still ended with us 6 points adrift in a regional league. (THE ACCOUNTS DONT SUPPORT YOUR FAG PACKET ESTIMATES).
But I do agree the money has not been wisely spent this season by the manager we started with.
If you want to look at this year’s accounts in isolation – as it is surely what has prompted you to start a new post. Let’s consider the previous communication from the current chairman.
Feb 16 – “The 2015-16 budget is projected to lose £36k” (?!?!) (THAT WAS 8 MONTHS AGO, clearly things improved, more functions and donations I suspect probably due top his appeal).
Sep 16 – “Grahame Rowley said that last season's accounts showed that there was just a £4,000 "profit" at the end of the financial period. So funds were largely used up.” (Again, this was before the accounts were actually completed, looks like it was better than expected).
Oct 16 – Club profits for the year to 31st May 2016 show +£27k (66K actually in cash terms)
From reading the above it’s difficult to know who is misleading who and where the incompetence takes over.
And finally, without wanting to look like I'm nit-picking (but in the interest of clearing up any "misconceptions and inaccuracies") the chairman's annual address at the AGM indicates that the initial transfer fee for Duncan Watmore was within the year ending 2014, not 2013 as indicated by your table above.
Firstly the Duncan money has never been published, it is the subject iof a confidentiality agreement so your estimate of 100K is pure speculation, I dont know either.
Secondly, Dunc was sold in late May/june 2013 so any funds would have been in the 2013/14 accounts and if you compare 2013 (475) and 2014 (507) that would seem to tally
Matt. Please see my replies to your comments in bold above.
You have been clearly irked by my comment about "misconceptions and inaccuracies" which wasnt actually aimed specifically at yourself,............ however if the cap fits then please wear it ;)
-
Thanks for coming back to me it's appreciated
It's fair to say we have cash in the bank and more to come from the progression in the cup
Give Jim the pin code please 😎
-
Thanks for coming back to me it's appreciated
It's fair to say we have cash in the bank and more to come from the progression in the cup
Give Jim the pin code please 😎
I am just a fan, I dont have any say in anything, just observing things like the rest of us ::) ;)
-
Thanks for coming back to me it's appreciated
It's fair to say we have cash in the bank and more to come from the progression in the cup
Give Jim the pin code please 😎
I am just a fan, I dont have any say in anything, just observing things like the rest of us ::) ;)
So what has prompted you this year, to publish on this forum, and therefore the world, the accounts of Altrincham FC. Presumably, like me, you are a shareholder and had it in your power to do this on many an occasion in the past but have chosen not to. What has changed?
-
Ian,
Please don't talk about attitude.
You have neglected to mention that Alty Community Sports owes the club £46,000.
If you were working without an agenda I'd have thought this was a very important point to raise.
Or is it just when it suits?
you must be mistaken I asked if we had any outstanding debts or loans and was told no.
Ian can you clarify please ?
With pleasure.
When accounts are prepared there are always creditors and debtors, these are a normal business fact and the accounts reflect a point in time. It only affects cashflow.
As everyone knows, AFC loaned CSH 25K in 2014 to fund the design, sports consultancy and planning consents etc. It appears from the accounts that on 31st May 2016 the club were owed 46K.
I have no idea if this has been repaid yet (some 5 months later) what is clear though is that as of 31 May 2016 AFC had 107K in the bank.
Wayno,... this is a loan made by the club, dont confuse this with a debt. And since this debtor is from a company whom AFC effectively control its not a risk unless the CSH fails, which it clearly isnt doing.
Ballers,... it suits me fine to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth m'lad :D
so Pukka to confirm as at 31st May 2016 the CSH owed AFC £46k ? That being just one month after relegation, great! And we were told that the CSH would never impact on funding for the team - was just bullsh*t wasn't it?
The board prioritised the development of the CSH over the development of the football team which ultimately resulted in relegation. It's this taking the eye of the ball that so many supporters are so bitter about and can't forgive - made worse by the boards lack of acceptance and inability to take some responsibility for the mess
-
Thanks for coming back to me it's appreciated
It's fair to say we have cash in the bank and more to come from the progression in the cup
Give Jim the pin code please 😎
I am just a fan, I dont have any say in anything, just observing things like the rest of us ::) ;)
So what has prompted you this year, to publish on this forum, and therefore the world, the accounts of Altrincham FC. Presumably, like me, you are a shareholder and had it in your power to do this on many an occasion in the past but have chosen not to. What has changed?
Now that is a very good question, indeed THE question.
Firstly, the AFC accounts are public knowledge, published and available on the companies house and many other websites, so hardly secret.
I never posted anything before on this but have been taking a keen interest since the CSH was built (which I was involved with) as I wanted to see how this was going, since the primary reason behind the board taking the decision to do it was to find a way of securing the club's long term financial future, rather than struggling to survive year on year as we, and many of our competitors, had been doing.
Since the CSH was completed in late 2014 and then opened in Jan 2015, it was obvious that the CSH was attracting more and more people to the club on match days and other occasions, as was hoped it would,... increasing AFC income from the Bar, Functions and snack bar etc.
By chance, a topic appeared on the forum last week about Telford struggling financially and it set me thinking again about how we were doing. Then our latest accounts were published (I got mine friday) which gave me chance to see a full years accounts of the club including the CSH.
Its not easy to attribute the rise in turnover from the accounts but it seems as though we have had a significant increase in overall income from 507K in 2014 (which included the watmore money) to 675K last year.
Even allowing for the FAC money last year, that is at least a 100K pa rise in income, maybe more which is a serious game changer.
Having said that the turnover will fall this year due to relegation unless we do even better in the FAC and FAT.
The other reason I have posted more factual data is that some posters were drawing conclusions about how well or otherwise the board were running the club based on "estimates" of income, so I thought it only fair that everyone (most forum members dont get accounts I imagine) knew the actual numbers.
You can draw your own conclusions now based on accurate figures. I know I have.
What a lot of fans cannot reconcile is how well we have been doing off the pitch,... rather than ON IT.
On that, I can only agree with them.
-
Ian,
Please don't talk about attitude.
You have neglected to mention that Alty Community Sports owes the club £46,000.
If you were working without an agenda I'd have thought this was a very important point to raise.
Or is it just when it suits?
you must be mistaken I asked if we had any outstanding debts or loans and was told no.
Ian can you clarify please ?
With pleasure.
When accounts are prepared there are always creditors and debtors, these are a normal business fact and the accounts reflect a point in time. It only affects cashflow.
As everyone knows, AFC loaned CSH 25K in 2014 to fund the design, sports consultancy and planning consents etc. It appears from the accounts that on 31st May 2016 the club were owed 46K.
I have no idea if this has been repaid yet (some 5 months later) what is clear though is that as of 31 May 2016 AFC had 107K in the bank.
Wayno,... this is a loan made by the club, dont confuse this with a debt. And since this debtor is from a company whom AFC effectively control its not a risk unless the CSH fails, which it clearly isnt doing.
Ballers,... it suits me fine to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth m'lad :D
so Pukka to confirm as at 31st May 2016 the CSH owed AFC £46k ? That being just one month after relegation, great! And we were told that the CSH would never impact on funding for the team - was just bullsh*t wasn't it?
The board prioritised the development of the CSH over the development of the football team which ultimately resulted in relegation. It's this taking the eye of the ball that so many supporters are so bitter about and can't forgive - made worse by the boards lack of acceptance and inability to take some responsibility for the mess
Jamie. You are an accountant I believe, yet you dont appear to understand accounts or cashflow?
On 31st May 2016 (a month after the season finished) the club had 107K in the bank and a debtor of 46K, of which 25K was a loan.
The P/L accounts clearly show that the CSH did not impact the team, 66K profit, YES/NO ?
Indeed, the CSH increased our income by at least 100K,... do you get it now Mr Accountant? Sorry it doesnt suit your agenda.
-
What a lot of fans cannot reconcile is how well we have been doing off the pitch,...
And has this thread shown that your publishing of this information and subsequent misguided interpretation of the figures, has allowed the fans to reconcile how well we have been doing off the pitch?
-
What a lot of fans cannot reconcile is how well we have been doing off the pitch,...
And has this thread shown that your publishing of this information and subsequent misguided interpretation of the figures, has allowed the fans to reconcile how well we have been doing off the pitch?
No ::)
-
There are lies damned lies and there are accounts.
I personally think the club is in a healthy state (especially considering the unhealthy state we were in 6 years ago) and in a position to move forwards with a proper manager in jim in charge and that the CSH is a worthy project we should be proud of and most fans assume we are doing well off the pitch and are frustrated this is not being matched on the pitch.
I heard Lee Sinnot was told he had funds to strengthen but left it to late when he should have done it before the Colchester game which was a pivotal moment.
We are where we are and we are not in AFC Telford's situation!!!
The relegation was avoidable but it happened because of bad management and bad managerial appointments IMHO......those mistakes have been rectified (again IMHO)
-
Ian,
Please don't talk about attitude.
You have neglected to mention that Alty Community Sports owes the club £46,000.
If you were working without an agenda I'd have thought this was a very important point to raise.
Or is it just when it suits?
you must be mistaken I asked if we had any outstanding debts or loans and was told no.
Ian can you clarify please ?
With pleasure.
When accounts are prepared there are always creditors and debtors, these are a normal business fact and the accounts reflect a point in time. It only affects cashflow.
As everyone knows, AFC loaned CSH 25K in 2014 to fund the design, sports consultancy and planning consents etc. It appears from the accounts that on 31st May 2016 the club were owed 46K.
I have no idea if this has been repaid yet (some 5 months later) what is clear though is that as of 31 May 2016 AFC had 107K in the bank.
Wayno,... this is a loan made by the club, dont confuse this with a debt. And since this debtor is from a company whom AFC effectively control its not a risk unless the CSH fails, which it clearly isnt doing.
Ballers,... it suits me fine to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth m'lad :D
so Pukka to confirm as at 31st May 2016 the CSH owed AFC £46k ? That being just one month after relegation, great! And we were told that the CSH would never impact on funding for the team - was just bullsh*t wasn't it?
The board prioritised the development of the CSH over the development of the football team which ultimately resulted in relegation. It's this taking the eye of the ball that so many supporters are so bitter about and can't forgive - made worse by the boards lack of acceptance and inability to take some responsibility for the mess
Jamie. You are an accountant I believe, yet you dont appear to understand accounts or cashflow?
On 31st May 2016 (a month after the season finished) the club had 107K in the bank and a debtor of 46K, of which 25K was a loan.
The P/L accounts clearly show that the CSH did not impact the team, 66K profit, YES/NO ?
Indeed, the CSH increased our income by at least 100K,... do you get it now Mr Accountant? Sorry it doesnt suit your agenda.
There is not a chance the CSH alone made the extra 100k!! I'm not saying it didn't contribute but lets not get carried away!
-
As stated elsewhere on this forum, a paper profit of £27k does not equal additional free cashflow of £27k. The balance sheet is a single point of view at one particular day in time i.e. the final day of the Club’s financial year. Although cash balances on that day might have been £100k+, there could have been outstanding bills that needed to be paid which could significantly reduce the amount of cash held.
Notwithstanding if you spend a good proportion on a new player, or players, it could impact on your cashflow for the remainder of the season.
As someone who works in international finance, any paper profit or any paper cash balances needs to be taken with a pinch of salt- you need to look at the full picture which includes cashflow forecasting. And as forecasting involves trying to predict the future, it is nigh on impossible to get it right. Even the world’s most revered economists have never got it right.
So if there is an Alty fan out there with such insight, I’m sure the board will be happy to hear from you, and I’m sure that the company I work for will be willing to pay you a small fortune for your services. So shout up…
-
As stated elsewhere on this forum, a paper profit of £27k does not equal additional free cashflow of £27k. The balance sheet is a single point of view at one particular day in time i.e. the final day of the Club’s financial year. Although cash balances on that day might have been £100k+, there could have been outstanding bills that needed to be paid which could significantly reduce the amount of cash held.
Notwithstanding if you spend a good proportion on a new player, or players, it could impact on your cashflow for the remainder of the season.
As someone who works in international finance, any paper profit or any paper cash balances needs to be taken with a pinch of salt- you need to look at the full picture which includes cashflow forecasting. And as forecasting involves trying to predict the future, it is nigh on impossible to get it right. Even the world’s most revered economists have never got it right.
So if there is an Alty fan out there with such insight, I’m sure the board will be happy to hear from you, and I’m sure that the company I work for will be willing to pay you a small fortune for your services. So shout up…
a few may be available from the tesco accountants ... 🙄
-
There are lies damned lies and there are accounts.
I personally think the club is in a healthy state (especially considering the unhealthy state we were in 6 years ago) and in a position to move forwards with a proper manager in jim in charge and that the CSH is a worthy project we should be proud of and most fans assume we are doing well off the pitch and are frustrated this is not being matched on the pitch.
I heard Lee Sinnot was told he had funds to strengthen but left it to late when he should have done it before the Colchester game which was a pivotal moment.
We are where we are and we are not in AFC Telford's situation!!!
The relegation was avoidable but it happened because of bad management and bad managerial appointments IMHO......those mistakes have been rectified (again IMHO)
That's when we should have got rid of him and maybe we wouldn't have been relegated.
-
So if there is an Alty fan out there with such insight, I’m sure the board will be happy to hear from you, and I’m sure that the company I work for will be willing to pay you a small fortune for your services. So shout up…
And if you don't have such insight, shut up and don't question anything you plebs?
-
Hands up if you remember the forum being a fun place?
-
So if there is an Alty fan out there with such insight, I’m sure the board will be happy to hear from you, and I’m sure that the company I work for will be willing to pay you a small fortune for your services. So shout up…
And if you don't have such insight, shut up and don't question anything you plebs?
Feel free to question but with accounting, you can't take an isolated figure on a piece of paper at face value. No mention of the word "plebs". Simply acting in good faith to try to add a bit more colour to the black & white...
-
Hands up if you remember the forum being a fun place?
what is this mythical place you speak of pray tell?
Did it coincide with league wins ? 😂
-
Hands up if you remember the forum being a fun place?
what is this mythical place you speak of pray tell?
Did it coincide with league wins ? 😂
Yeah quite possibly. Until the good times roll once more we'll row about Accounting Conventions and Principles, something spectacularly few of us are qualified to do.😨
I'm off to the pub.
-
Hi Ian. Thanks for the above. It is indeed very interesting. Although I’m not sure it really has any bearing on any “misconceptions and inaccuracies”? Let’s take out the ‘paper profit’ (as described that year by the board) in 2013 due to the cancelling of the “exception item” relating to the directors loan – that is slightly misleading. (I AGREE SEE BELOW).
We commendably made an actual real profit of £30k that year (2013). (I AGREE SEE BELOW)
Maybe you haven’t seen the accounts from that year. In which case, please feel free to get in touch. It’s always good to clear up any “misconceptions and inaccuracies”. (THANKS I HAVE ALL THE ACCOUNTS, WHERE DID YOU THINK I GOT ALL THIS FROM).
So the figures you quote leave a deficit of nearly £60k over the same period. In cash profit. (WRONG, THE PROFIT IS 46K OVER LAST 6 YEARS)
So “consistently balancing the books” still looks a long way off and quite fanciful. (WRONG AGAIN)
Particularly when the current chairman himself was drawing attention to the dwindling cash reserves at the last AGM (Feb 16). (CASHFLOW IS DIFFERENT FROM PROFIT/LOSS)
And let’s not forget the unbudgeted quarter of a million pounds (£250k!) that have come into the football club over the last few years - that has still ended with us 6 points adrift in a regional league. (THE ACCOUNTS DONT SUPPORT YOUR FAG PACKET ESTIMATES).
But I do agree the money has not been wisely spent this season by the manager we started with.
If you want to look at this year’s accounts in isolation – as it is surely what has prompted you to start a new post. Let’s consider the previous communication from the current chairman.
Feb 16 – “The 2015-16 budget is projected to lose £36k” (?!?!) (THAT WAS 8 MONTHS AGO, clearly things improved, more functions and donations I suspect probably due top his appeal).
Sep 16 – “Grahame Rowley said that last season's accounts showed that there was just a £4,000 "profit" at the end of the financial period. So funds were largely used up.” (Again, this was before the accounts were actually completed, looks like it was better than expected).
Oct 16 – Club profits for the year to 31st May 2016 show +£27k (66K actually in cash terms)
From reading the above it’s difficult to know who is misleading who and where the incompetence takes over.
And finally, without wanting to look like I'm nit-picking (but in the interest of clearing up any "misconceptions and inaccuracies") the chairman's annual address at the AGM indicates that the initial transfer fee for Duncan Watmore was within the year ending 2014, not 2013 as indicated by your table above.
Firstly the Duncan money has never been published, it is the subject iof a confidentiality agreement so your estimate of 100K is pure speculation, I dont know either.
Secondly, Dunc was sold in late May/june 2013 so any funds would have been in the 2013/14 accounts and if you compare 2013 (475) and 2014 (507) that would seem to tally
Matt. Please see my replies to your comments in bold above.
You have been clearly irked by my comment about "misconceptions and inaccuracies" which wasnt actually aimed specifically at yourself,............ however if the cap fits then please wear it ;)
Hi Ian. It's great we agree on so much. We would probably agree on much more if you hadn't spent your entire weekend trying to find more creative and misleading way of presenting the clubs accounts to suit your own agenda. No-one had been talking about the overall health of the club bank balance/assets. I was talking about the balancing of the books year to year and living within our means (profit/loss over the year). Which we haven't managed to do during the period you have identified - despite the current board enjoying more unbudgeted income into the club during that time than any other Alty board for 20+ years.
While it would indeed be inaccurate to describe us as "consistently balancing the books", for what it's worth, I actually don't even think it's that imperative the books do balance every year as long as the cash reserves are keeping us above water. I would actually be more disappointed if the football club cash reserves looked healthy and we weren't making an annual loss. I would prefer that we over-spend the money into the team if we have it, provided we are able to absorb the loss – all of the available evidence would suggest this is something that the current chairman and I are closely aligned on.
What no-one should expect or accept is a £60k cash loss over the extended period above, having had a bucket load of money coming in, and the end result is a position where Evo-stick football is a reality. Despite you trying to patronise Martin to the contrary the other day, the two are inextricably linked - we are a football club. A fact far too easily forgotten these days, between new found delights such as walking football and geriatric yoga.
I can only hope your casual disregard of the profit/loss and your misleading spinning of the accounts isn't a view shared by the current board. I'm fairly confident that it isn't Ian. Thankfully.
I'm not sure how many times you would like me to explain my estimates in regard to cup/transfer turnover? Even I'm becoming bored by it. The cup/TV revenue is publicly available for both cup runs and so I would assume can be considered factual - unless you are suggesting the club agreed to accept less?
The Watmore money arrived into the 2014 accounts. Subtract the £75k cup money in 2013 from the 2013 turnover (£475k). Leaves £400k. We played at the same level the year afterwards (2014), and made no progress in the cups. The difference in the turnover is an increase in excess of £100k in the year the transfer funds came in. While it's not clear if this is near the final figure for player transfers or not, what is clear is that turnover (excluding cup money) increased by this amount.
So a ballpark total (unbudgeted) turnover increase of a quarter of a millions pounds for the current board to spend over the time period that you have identified above.
Instead of discussing what I've said properly you seem intent on repeating the words "fag packet" to me at every opportunity. It's most unhelpful and rather childish.
You have also been intentionally misleading over claiming that the chairman’s initial forecast at the Feb 16 AGM for a sharp loss in 2015/16 was 8 months before the final accounts. While the AGM was 8 months prior to the actual publishing of the annual accounts, the financial year ended in May 16, a matter of weeks after the AGM. Surely the final accounts aren't a surprise for anyone at the club when they do eventually arrive, and everyone is aware of what flows in and out throughout the year?
Unless you are trying to insinuate that the chairman/board aren't keeping a close enough eye on the books throughout the year and don't really know what is going on? In which case you should be ashamed of yourself Ian.
What I find more likely is that the forecast was given in good-faith and it was based on the best estimates of the board as of Feb16. Which then makes me wonder what has driven an unexpected and unbudgeted £60(odd)k turnover increase in the next 12 weeks that they were not able to foresee? It's a fantastic (almost miraculous…) turnaround in a matter of weeks, and perhaps a good-news story we should be making more of. Either way it's probably a question for the next fans forum or the AGM itself - whichever comes first.
As for the announcement in Sept16 that we spent all the money last season and made just £4k, maybe he's just panicked. Perhaps it wasn't the right meeting for announcing a near £30k profit over the season, while also claiming we spent everything we had to stay in the conference. I wasn't able to attend, so it’s also plausible that the chairman has been mis-quoted - it wouldn't be the first time. Apparently.
And you still keep trying to blame Neil Young for everything. You are considering a 6 year period off-the-pitch, and then blaming a 6-game manager for all the woes on it?
-
Hands up if you remember the forum being a fun place?
Was it ? Bugger me !
-
Hands up if you remember the forum being a fun place?
i do it was a nice place to be and sometimes i smiled at posts and on a couple of occasssions roared laughing .
-
As everyone knows, AFC loaned CSH 25K in 2014 to fund the design, sports consultancy and planning consents etc. It appears from the accounts that on 31st May 2016 the club were owed 46K.
I have no idea if this has been repaid yet (some 5 months later) what is clear though is that as of 31 May 2016 AFC had 107K in the bank.
Ballers,... it suits me fine to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth m'lad :D
I'm sure it does Ian. I was pointing out though that Matt Taylor has been entirely fair and it's wrong to accuse him of having an agenda if you are not including quite important points from the latest accounts in the context of the discussion.
I am worried however, that if the CSH I'd doing as well as you'd suggest, that the original £25 k loan has not been repaid and in fact a further 21k has been leant to it. What was that for?
And Jamie is quite right to point out that's £46k owing to the club that could've been better spent preventing our slide into regional football. No?
-
Quite annoying having to read every word of all this to ensure nobody has caused offence more than the usual tit for tat verbals. It is starting to get a bit beyond belief though.
We have one person who has a clear agenda to defend the club against any criticism of poor investment, or purposely ignoring needs on the pitch. On the other hand we have others who are determined to call to question the clubs financial handling, although I admittedly am not entirely clear on what the exact criticisms/accusations are?
If I understand correctly, and I don't profess I do because this is punctuated largely by people aiming to disprove each other and not trying to make a point, then the idea is that we have suffered on pitch because we favoured off pitch initiatives financially.
If that is the case then it seems to me total rubbish. We've had money in the bank at the times when the club have needed to invest on the pitch.
What, in amongst all this lovely infighting, I can summarise is that its blatantly clear to me that the board clearly had a disconnect with the fans last season. When LS quit they thought it wasn't that big a deal to get relegated. That must have been the case because all this silly arguing shows in fact that they had the means to replace LS with a proven manager, and we also know several applied at the time, even the club have said that.
For whatever reason they decided to go with the guy who was assistant to the guy who was mostly responsible for our horrendous slide in form and lack of immediate investment in the playing staff.
I suspect they thought along these lines: A short term appointment would cost more money and go against our general principles and that we still had a shot at staying up but worst case we'd sink like a stone until summer appoint some top manager on a more rational deal who would then give the fans a few seasons of joy fighting at the top, winning loads of games and getting us back up. In the meantime we are healthier off the pitch and everyones happy, we'll stay up longer when we go back up.
The fans however, and seemingly correctly, had another viewpoint which is that if we go down now we'll never get back up anytime soon looking at the shark infested pit we'll have to swim in for a few seasons until all the bank rolled bull sharks have swam up stream. Low and behold we go down, appoint NY which brings short term joy as he makes noise and signs players before proving himself to be the second coming of Brian Kilkline and leaving us right down in the mire where even the sharks won't eat us.
On top of all this the club has conspired to remind us that its absolutely toss at PR on a regularly basis.
I would suggest that this is why we are all angry, this is why we are in the position we are in and this is why this forum is a complete toxic wasteland of online bewilderment.
The sooner we accept all that and work out how we move on from it the better. A couple of things to suggest:
1. We draw a line under club finances, they appear to be healthy and none of our concern.
2. The club make some form of statement just accepting there have been some failings in several areas (PR, manager appointments) and that they want to connect back with fans
That way we might have something to smile about, other than being in the FA cup 1st round again of course and our first league win, because those positives just wont do for half of us.
-
So if there is an Alty fan out there with such insight, I’m sure the board will be happy to hear from you, and I’m sure that the company I work for will be willing to pay you a small fortune for your services. So shout up…
And if you don't have such insight, shut up and don't question anything you plebs?
Feel free to question but with accounting, you can't take an isolated figure on a piece of paper at face value. No mention of the word "plebs". Simply acting in good faith to try to add a bit more colour to the black & white...
I know.
And astonishingly I am aware that you have to read into accounts rather than taking them at immediate face value.
Let's hope that the apparent economic upturn discussed translates into prioritisation and improvement on the field which has evidently not been the case so far.
I'm hoping that's it's more been a case of the board taking their eye of the ball somewhat over the last year, and that can be understood to an extent given the vast project the CSH is, mistakes get made, rather than the two being irreconcilable.
A bit more clarity and humility on these areas would benefit everyone greatly though I think.
-
I won't quite the entire post but just to say that (imo) L'Homme du Sports post above very fairly sets it out and I am in absolutely full agreement with it. Especially the two points at the bottom.
Extremely well put Sir.
-
I agree with 90% of L'Homme du Sport's post, especially the need to focus on the future.
The only reason the topic was started was to inform fans of the actual figures so everyone could make informed judgements as prior to that all we had was some people's opinions.
The account summary is not a spin its straight from them.
What the accounts show is that the club has been living within its (increasing ) means due to the CSH, however obtained, however unbudgeted, and surely that is the most important thing.
I completely agree that on the playing side it has been a disaster but just hope now that under Jim Harvey we may be heading in the right direction again, 4 wins out of 5 is a good start but still a long, long way to go.
-
Quite annoying having to read every word of all this to ensure nobody has caused offence more than the usual tit for tat verbals. It is starting to get a bit beyond belief though.
We have one person who has a clear agenda to defend the club against any criticism of poor investment, or purposely ignoring needs on the pitch. On the other hand we have others who are determined to call to question the clubs financial handling, although I admittedly am not entirely clear on what the exact criticisms/accusations are?
If I understand correctly, and I don't profess I do because this is punctuated largely by people aiming to disprove each other and not trying to make a point, then the idea is that we have suffered on pitch because we favoured off pitch initiatives financially.
If that is the case then it seems to me total rubbish. We've had money in the bank at the times when the club have needed to invest on the pitch.
What, in amongst all this lovely infighting, I can summarise is that its blatantly clear to me that the board clearly had a disconnect with the fans last season. When LS quit they thought it wasn't that big a deal to get relegated. That must have been the case because all this silly arguing shows in fact that they had the means to replace LS with a proven manager, and we also know several applied at the time, even the club have said that.
For whatever reason they decided to go with the guy who was assistant to the guy who was mostly responsible for our horrendous slide in form and lack of immediate investment in the playing staff.
I suspect they thought along these lines: A short term appointment would cost more money and go against our general principles and that we still had a shot at staying up but worst case we'd sink like a stone until summer appoint some top manager on a more rational deal who would then give the fans a few seasons of joy fighting at the top, winning loads of games and getting us back up. In the meantime we are healthier off the pitch and everyones happy, we'll stay up longer when we go back up.
The fans however, and seemingly correctly, had another viewpoint which is that if we go down now we'll never get back up anytime soon looking at the shark infested pit we'll have to swim in for a few seasons until all the bank rolled bull sharks have swam up stream. Low and behold we go down, appoint NY which brings short term joy as he makes noise and signs players before proving himself to be the second coming of Brian Kilkline and leaving us right down in the mire where even the sharks won't eat us.
On top of all this the club has conspired to remind us that its absolutely toss at PR on a regularly basis.
I would suggest that this is why we are all angry, this is why we are in the position we are in and this is why this forum is a complete toxic wasteland of online bewilderment.
The sooner we accept all that and work out how we move on from it the better. A couple of things to suggest:
1. We draw a line under club finances, they appear to be healthy and none of our concern.
2. The club make some form of statement just accepting there have been some failings in several areas (PR, manager appointments) and that they want to connect back with fans
That way we might have something to smile about, other than being in the FA cup 1st round again of course and our first league win, because those positives just wont do for half of us.
Excellent post.
Can I just say that I stood there with a pint in the CSH on Saturday, per-match/HT/FT, and thought how lovely it was to relax in there compared to what we happily put up with a couple of years ago.
The club isn't perfect and has made some dreadful decisions of late, however isn't hindsight just a wonderful thing - I'm sure Halifax and Kiddy would have been wondering why they went down as well.
We'll be fine, you know - but looking at the league's average attendances we don't have the divine right to get out of this league any time soon. Replacing Darlington, Fylde, Halifax with the likes of NFU, Solihull, Guiseley might redress the balance a bit.
-
Hands up if you remember the forum being a fun place?
I've found myself visiting the forum more than I have in a long time.
I think it's great at the moment. The forum should be a place for people to disagree and argue, otherwise it becomes a boring circlejerk with everyone making dreadful jokes about sandwiches.
-
Quite annoying having to read every word of all this to ensure nobody has caused offence more than the usual tit for tat verbals. It is starting to get a bit beyond belief though.
We have one person who has a clear agenda to defend the club against any criticism of poor investment, or purposely ignoring needs on the pitch. On the other hand we have others who are determined to call to question the clubs financial handling, although I admittedly am not entirely clear on what the exact criticisms/accusations are?
If I understand correctly, and I don't profess I do because this is punctuated largely by people aiming to disprove each other and not trying to make a point, then the idea is that we have suffered on pitch because we favoured off pitch initiatives financially.
If that is the case then it seems to me total rubbish. We've had money in the bank at the times when the club have needed to invest on the pitch.
What, in amongst all this lovely infighting, I can summarise is that its blatantly clear to me that the board clearly had a disconnect with the fans last season. When LS quit they thought it wasn't that big a deal to get relegated. That must have been the case because all this silly arguing shows in fact that they had the means to replace LS with a proven manager, and we also know several applied at the time, even the club have said that.
For whatever reason they decided to go with the guy who was assistant to the guy who was mostly responsible for our horrendous slide in form and lack of immediate investment in the playing staff.
I suspect they thought along these lines: A short term appointment would cost more money and go against our general principles and that we still had a shot at staying up but worst case we'd sink like a stone until summer appoint some top manager on a more rational deal who would then give the fans a few seasons of joy fighting at the top, winning loads of games and getting us back up. In the meantime we are healthier off the pitch and everyones happy, we'll stay up longer when we go back up.
The fans however, and seemingly correctly, had another viewpoint which is that if we go down now we'll never get back up anytime soon looking at the shark infested pit we'll have to swim in for a few seasons until all the bank rolled bull sharks have swam up stream. Low and behold we go down, appoint NY which brings short term joy as he makes noise and signs players before proving himself to be the second coming of Brian Kilkline and leaving us right down in the mire where even the sharks won't eat us.
On top of all this the club has conspired to remind us that its absolutely toss at PR on a regularly basis.
I would suggest that this is why we are all angry, this is why we are in the position we are in and this is why this forum is a complete toxic wasteland of online bewilderment.
The sooner we accept all that and work out how we move on from it the better. A couple of things to suggest:
1. We draw a line under club finances, they appear to be healthy and none of our concern.
2. The club make some form of statement just accepting there have been some failings in several areas (PR, manager appointments) and that they want to connect back with fans
That way we might have something to smile about, other than being in the FA cup 1st round again of course and our first league win, because those positives just wont do for half of us.
Excellent post.
Can I just say that I stood there with a pint in the CSH on Saturday, per-match/HT/FT, and thought how lovely it was to relax in there compared to what we happily put up with a couple of years ago.
The club isn't perfect and has made some dreadful decisions of late, however isn't hindsight just a wonderful thing - I'm sure Halifax and Kiddy would have been wondering why they went down as well.
We'll be fine, you know - but looking at the league's average attendances we don't have the divine right to get out of this league any time soon. Replacing Darlington, Fylde, Halifax with the likes of NFU, Solihull, Guiseley might redress the balance a bit.
we have to Stay in this league before we can get out of it that's for sure