Chairman Support from the Board

Great support from the board, and we thank them for that.

So frustrating that the financial progress we were obviously making has been curtailed by this poxy pandemic, but hopefully we haven't suffered too much, and can really kick on now.

Thank you Tiger and the board 👏 👏
 
The throwaway line of 'The Shareholders supported the club by a further £3.3m during the year and that helped the club substantially reduce its third party creditor base,' is concerning. Yes, it is obviously preferable that the club be funded through equity rather than debt, but it does suggest that, but for shareholders injecting a huge amount of cash, the club would have made a loss of £1.8m. That's in a financial year where we sold, as the article says, three of our most valuable assets in Whyte, Fosu and Baptiste. The cup runs were probably less lucrative than you would initially assume, given the League Cup not paying out any prize money and, for all the drama, only actually winning in three rounds of the FA Cup, but the high-profile televised games you would have thought would have swelled the coffers a bit. And sure, we missed out on the revenue of a few home games towards the end of the season, but would they have covered the £1.8m shortfall? I doubt it. It's more than a little alarming that we are still so far from being organically sustainable.

These accounts presumably won't show any of the revenues gained from being in the playoffs, as they are up to June 30th, and the first playoff match was 3 July. That's another three televised games to take into account. But they also won't show the harshest financial effects of the pandemic, which would have been really felt in the months after June 2020.

It's obviously great that we are being supported so generously by the board and the shareholders and we do of course owe them all a great deal of gratitude. But it is always sobering seeing just how reliant we are on the generosity of others.
 
ttg17 said:
The throwaway line of 'The Shareholders supported the club by a further £3.3m during the year and that helped the club substantially reduce its third party creditor base,' is concerning. Yes, it is obviously preferable that the club be funded through equity rather than debt, but it does suggest that, but for shareholders injecting a huge amount of cash, the club would have made a loss of £1.8m.
Click to expand...

That's not true.
It is suggesting that £1.8 debt instead of being owed to third party creditors is now being covered by the Shareholders.
So it is a shift in who the debt is owed to and has no impact at all on the Profit and Loss.
 
ttg17 said:
The throwaway line of 'The Shareholders supported the club by a further £3.3m during the year and that helped the club substantially reduce its third party creditor base,' is concerning. Yes, it is obviously preferable that the club be funded through equity rather than debt, but it does suggest that, but for shareholders injecting a huge amount of cash, the club would have made a loss of £1.8m. That's in a financial year where we sold, as the article says, three of our most valuable assets in Whyte, Fosu and Baptiste. The cup runs were probably less lucrative than you would initially assume, given the League Cup not paying out any prize money and, for all the drama, only actually winning in three rounds of the FA Cup, but the high-profile televised games you would have thought would have swelled the coffers a bit. And sure, we missed out on the revenue of a few home games towards the end of the season, but would they have covered the £1.8m shortfall? I doubt it. It's more than a little alarming that we are still so far from being organically sustainable.

These accounts presumably won't show any of the revenues gained from being in the playoffs, as they are up to June 30th, and the first playoff match was 3 July. That's another three televised games to take into account. But they also won't show the harshest financial effects of the pandemic, which would have been really felt in the months after June 2020.

It's obviously great that we are being supported so generously by the board and the shareholders and we do of course owe them all a great deal of gratitude. But it is always sobering seeing just how reliant we are on the generosity of others.
Click to expand...
Good post - a few points in response.

I don't think the play-off revenues would be very high. I seem to recall that the club indicated they don't see much of the TV revenue from these matches and of course we received no revenue from paying punters at the matches but there was the cost of continuing to pay players rather than have them on furlough, test them regularly and ongoing costs such as stewarding etc.

Whilst it is sobering that we are reliant on the generosity of others, I strongly suspect we are much better off then most clubs. How many of them are reliant on the goodwill of non-invested creditors who might pull up a drawbridge and how many might soon struggle to pay HMRC?

What the above points to is a real need to move out of a costly, run-down poor stadium to a purpose-built modern facility where the club can maximise matchday revenues and other income streams associated with the infrastructure - anyone heard any rumours?
 
Foley said:
That's not true.
It is suggesting that £1.8 debt instead of being owed to third party creditors is now being covered by the Shareholders.
So it is a shift in who the debt is owed to and has no impact at all on the Profit and Loss.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, I'll readily admit I'm not an expert in this sort of thing. Does the point not remain though that without that injection of capital the club would have otherwise failed to pay off its costs / debts and been further in the red (or less far in the black, as the case may be)? Or is it more that the 3.3m was used to pay off debts owed to third parties?
 
ttg17 said:
Fair enough, I'll readily admit I'm not an expert in this sort of thing. Does the point not remain though that without that injection of capital the club would have otherwise failed to pay off its costs / debts and been further in the red (or less far in the black, as the case may be)? Or is it more that the 3.3m was used to pay off debts owed to third parties?
Click to expand...
I presume this relates to historical debts that are now owed to the shareholders rather than to third parties. If the club is sold the buyer would need to cover them , but until then we are in practice free of the debts? Not sure if the shareholders would charge interest. Someone who knows will be along!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Sarge
General Post Match, Post Season Board Gathering
Replies
12
Views
2K
Mellowyellow
Mellowyellow
Mellowyellow
  • Poll
Manager/Coach If many feel so strongly ,what would you do to let the board know enough is enough?
2 3 4
Replies
69
Views
5K
arthurturner
A
Paul Cannell
Manager/Coach Proper question for a poll to inform the OUFC board of our belief K. Robinson should be summarily dismissed
2
Replies
20
Views
2K
Paul Cannell
Paul Cannell
Malc
  • Poll
Chairman A message for the board, with a poll "I have lost all faith in the manager"
Replies
3
Views
3K
Berliner
Berliner
R
  • Locked
Manager/Coach A message for the board.
2 3
Replies
53
Views
3K
Malc
Malc
Back
Top Bottom