New beginnings - 25% Truth, 80% Bollocks

[RobertT]

I am not missing the point - I am just stating that the factual evidence does not support a statement of we are losing between 500k and 1m per year.  We only have one full years accounts, and we made a profit.  We haven't completed this financial year, so we can't use it to make a statement of fact about performance (we could still sell a player for money in January for example, we did sell Wakeling for money and so on).  We have one other season not yet accounted for, we may have lost 500k on that one, but it doesn't support a statement of we are losing that A year - that suggests continual performance.

It's simple Accounting - Loss does not equal Cash drain.  It can do, but they are not the same thing.  A business can go into Liquidation while making a profit and a business can continue trading for years while making Losses on paper.

I am, not doubting any of the claims about debt values and money put into the club, not at all.

I also do not doubt that to be a top three team in this league we have to probably lose money doing it.

Clem has not stated whether we are going to cut costs or he is willing to chuck more cash in - Batch's point.  He has thrown a number out, with little evidence (none to support it that he has produced by the way) and no context, or description of what the plan is because of it.

As an example - the Debenture cost, based on statements made, 2.9m to pay off.  Not a penny of that is going to show up in the P&L account, but it is certainly painful for someone.  We could end up this season making a profit, but it costs Clem several million to support the club for that same year.

Football, as a business, is all about making what you can when the good times roll - so you can't just say, "Oh, the Man City game was a one off".  It is all part of trading as a football club - nobody made us spend the money we made, we could bank it if we think it's a one off, or use it against debt.  Same goes for the Wakeling sale - more profit (we would bank the profit of his sale vs the cost to acquire him, assuming he was counted as an Asset in the Balance Sheet).  Another one off - see the theme, they are not one off's, they are precisely the operating model we said we were using.  Get young players and sell for profit, make some money on cup runs.

[RobertT]

Also, in Accounting terms, we made a few profits in financial years under Power - usually because we sold players for profits.  He "accidently" forgot to include the Ritchie one (Standing later forcing that one into the books) and we may have made more profits if he wasn't also charging the club for services!

[STFC_Manc]

I am not missing the point - I am just stating that the factual evidence does not support a statement of we are losing between 500k and 1m per year.  We only have one full years accounts, and we made a profit.  We haven't completed this financial year, so we can't use it to make a statement of fact about performance (we could still sell a player for money in January for example, we did sell Wakeling for money and so on).  We have one other season not yet accounted for, we may have lost 500k on that one, but it doesn't support a statement of we are losing that A year - that suggests continual performance.

It's simple Accounting - Loss does not equal Cash drain.  It can do, but they are not the same thing.  A business can go into Liquidation while making a profit and a business can continue trading for years while making Losses on paper.

I am, not doubting any of the claims about debt values and money put into the club, not at all.

I also do not doubt that to be a top three team in this league we have to probably lose money doing it.

Clem has not stated whether we are going to cut costs or he is willing to chuck more cash in - Batch's point.  He has thrown a number out, with little evidence (none to support it that he has produced by the way) and no context, or description of what the plan is because of it.

As an example - the Debenture cost, based on statements made, 2.9m to pay off.  Not a penny of that is going to show up in the P&L account, but it is certainly painful for someone.  We could end up this season making a profit, but it costs Clem several million to support the club for that same year.

Football, as a business, is all about making what you can when the good times roll - so you can't just say, "Oh, the Man City game was a one off".  It is all part of trading as a football club - nobody made us spend the money we made, we could bank it if we think it's a one off, or use it against debt.  Same goes for the Wakeling sale - more profit (we would bank the profit of his sale vs the cost to acquire him, assuming he was counted as an Asset in the Balance Sheet).  Another one off - see the theme, they are not one off's, they are precisely the operating model we said we were using.  Get young players and sell for profit, make some money on cup runs.

So you are arguing that we have no way to know that the figure is correct - shock horrow no we don't.  I made several points that suggest it was a one off  profit and referenced that they may come back this year but they weren't around last year, so I would expect a loss for last year.

You keep making the same point about debt, yet the debenture was £2.95m, so if Clem was confused on that the loss would be much larger?

I can see Batch's point of will he continue to fund this but my response is that he would lose all his money if he let the club go into admin, so for now I can't see the sense of him not continiung to fund any losses.

[The Artist Formerly Known as Audrey]

Which is precisely why Power was keen to put us in admin - it wasn’t his money to lose by doing so.

[Legends-Lounge]

Which is precisely why Power was keen to put us in admin - it wasn’t his money to lose by doing so.

How that cunt sleeps at night is a mystery to me.

[Posh Red]

How that cunt sleeps at night is a mystery to me.

Because like every other criminal he doesn’t give a shit about his victims.

[Peter Venkman]

Because like every other criminal he doesn’t give a shit about his victims.

Except most criminals don't have about 25,000 victims!

[ron dodgers]

It's just business, happens all the time, unfortunately

[Bennett]

He’s paid off £6.8m of debt, as well as picking up other costs. Would suggest that he’s got “near” the £7m number.

It could be my interpretation that's off here, but I don't think that's accurate.

From the AB minutes:
Chairman Clem Morfuni has to-date injected c£6m into Swindon Town, to help stabilise the club finances.
The accounts will reflect that this is owed back to him, however no interest will be due, and there is no timeframe for repayment

The debt exists, it's been transferred to CM.
(I'm not saying there's anything wrong with this or that there are nefarious actions afoot. Just looking to clarify understanding)

[Posh Red]

It could be my interpretation that's off here, but I don't think that's accurate.

From the AB minutes:
Chairman Clem Morfuni has to-date injected c£6m into Swindon Town, to help stabilise the club finances.
The accounts will reflect that this is owed back to him, however no interest will be due, and there is no timeframe for repayment

The debt exists, it's been transferred to CM.
(I'm not saying there's anything wrong with this or that there are nefarious actions afoot. Just looking to clarify understanding)

I think you are correct, the football club owes Clem the money, but as the current owner he effectively owes it to himself. I’m assuming he is only likely to want it back if/when he sells up.

The point was the the clubs external debt has been reduced by £6.8m since July 21 and that has (predominantly) been funded by Clem.

It was to answer the suggestion by Rob that Clem hadn’t got near the £7m he said that he had to put into the club.

[Robinz]

So what are you saying.
Morfuni purchased the club for an amount reported to be in the region of 250k.
And then its claimed loaned the club 7 million to pay off debts.?
So in reality Morfuni has purchased the club as a going concern for 7.250 million debt free.
Well established football club with a solid supporter base of 9000 for 7.25 million. This going concern has the security of a 50% ownership in the ground.
There are players currently on the books with a value such as Hutton RHM and others. Other PE from Scott Twine and Wakelyn future Say in total 1.5 million
Based on the above
Has he or has he not got a good buy here

[joeydubya]

Clem "will not take a penny from the club"

Chris Kiely provides data and recruitment services. Sandro Di Michele was hired as a technical director presumably to support those services. Adam Hart provides S&C services, after the rest of the team have gone to Crawley.

How much does the club pay for these services, and also - why?

[Nemo]

Those are all services that a club at our level would reasonably want to have. If it paid something around market rate for them then that's fine, right?

The only questionable "hire" in terms of whether the club needs one would be our Chief Sustainability Officer... but I assume that's an unpaid role, considering it also appears to come without influence or work attached.

[joeydubya]

Of course. But do many clubs have the data management guy loaning them a few million in a pinch?

[RobertT]

Of course. But do many clubs have the data management guy loaning them a few million in a pinch?

Which is precisely why the terms of the loan would be very important to question if you were the Trust and looking into the finances, as was agreed.  What we know is that shares exchanged hands and the Memorandum and Articles of Association were updated at the same time - which means the rules for running the business were changed.  It's no unreasonable to think both are linked.

Even then, the fact someone stands to make money if we make money, you can kind of live with - you'd want the club to state clearly the position and how it benefits the club, to avoid the appearance of any Power style book keeping.

I am not saying Clem hasn't put his own money up, I am just saying the only evidence we have of the trading/operating position, financially, currently does not support a statement of losing 500k-1m per year.  And if we are indeed now losing that amount, in year three, after increases in Revenue from the POwer period (peak Power period) and reduction in squad size this season, it begs the question how is that now being funded if Clem had reached his limit?  I was trying to say that Clem himself may have confused trading position with cash position - where he has to keep paying off that remaining external debt.