New beginnings - 25% Truth, 80% Bollocks

[MangoRed]

Full accounts as opposed to the micro/macro version (not sure if thats the right name for them) is a positive.

[Nemo]

Is great that clem has put his money in and converted the short term debt to effectively long term debt (assuming this is what the ‘other borrowing’ consists of’) but would be risky to think this isn’t money he wouldn’t want back at some point, interest free or no. He’d be more than entitled to it too, of course

That's true of literally anyone who would ever own the club though, surely? Debt to a sole director is a better kind of debt than any other kind we could have (of course they can take money out of the club to pay it down, but they could take money out of the club anyway without any debt element).

[4D]

Full accounts as opposed to the micro/macro version (not sure if thats the right name for them) is a positive.

Abbreviated 

[horlock07]

49 more members of staff compared to the year before, Power really had driven things down to beyond bare bones hadn't he.

[The Artist Formerly Known as Audrey]

49 wages stuffed in his arse pocket

[RobertT]

Full accounts as opposed to the micro/macro version (not sure if thats the right name for them) is a positive.

Power would provide the basic level as well - in fact, as the Court Cases started applying pressure we got some juicy little bits of info as restatements were needed.

This one shows a real increase in Turnover - would be good to ask at the Advisory some high level info on what caused this - is it sustainable, or one off?

Admin costs increased, but not at the same rate as Turnover - some of  that will be the increased staff from the nothingness we were left with.

The debt is largely flat - it's just moved to interest free Director loans in essence.  Not a huge amount has vanished because the Revenue paid it off (which is understandable given football clubs struggle to break even).  The real good one on the debt side is the Tax one (which we know continued to be cleared after May 22).  Directors can also be a real problem when things go wrong, but the Inland Revenue can be a problem whenever they want to be.

[RobertT]

"The club’s overall debts have been reduced from £7.1million down to £4.3million, with Clem Morfuni providing the funds to pay off the remaining deficit."

Are they talking about activity since the Accounting period?  If not, that makes no sense.  Certainly the degree to which the debt is a problem may have shifted, but the business still owes roughly the same amount as it did before according to the accounts.  To reduce the debt we'd have to have agreed write offs (which doesn't look like it has been done) or an equity investment, which there is no evidence to support in these accounts.

[Bob's Orange]

"The club’s overall debts have been reduced from £7.1million down to £4.3million, with Clem Morfuni providing the funds to pay off the remaining deficit."

Are they talking about activity since the Accounting period?  If not, that makes no sense.  Certainly the degree to which the debt is a problem may have shifted, but the business still owes roughly the same amount as it did before according to the accounts.  To reduce the debt we'd have to have agreed write offs (which doesn't look like it has been done) or an equity investment, which there is no evidence to support in these accounts.

I think it's because Clem has verbally stated in the past he isn't necessarily looking to recoup what he has paid in? Not sure it quite works like that in Accounting parlance somehow?

[Bogus Dave]

That's true of literally anyone who would ever own the club though, surely? Debt to a sole director is a better kind of debt than any other kind we could have (of course they can take money out of the club to pay it down, but they could take money out of the club anyway without any debt element).

Absolutely, and it’s probably just my lack of financial understanding. It looks like revenue is up, we know we’re cost saving in certain areas, but the only way the debt has come down is by shifting into a different form of debt (which is completely fine and understandable, but still needs repaying when the club is sold?)

[RobertT]

I think it's because Clem has verbally stated in the past he isn't necessarily looking to recoup what he has paid in? Not sure it quite works like that in Accounting parlance somehow?

The paperwork clearly does not suggest anything quite so definitive, otherwise it would have been treated as a written off amount.  Notwithstanding any public suggestion otherwise, the business owes Clem a wedge.  The good news is that a Directors loan is last in queue in any liquidation, so it's pretty unprotected money.  If you just read the black ink though, Power did much the same - he just paid money back to himself at times (likely not passing it on to those who gave it to him),  The big one is the Debenture being removed - that was much more "hard" in terms of where you'd classify debt, and HMRC being paid down, who are a Preferred Creditor and get quite antsy these days.

[The Artist Formerly Known as Audrey]

Power was charging the club an extortionate interest rate on his ‘loans’. Whatever money Standing did or did not invest got gobbled up. I’m convinced without Clem we’d be a Southend now.

[ChalkyWhiteIsGod]

Power was charging the club an extortionate interest rate on his ‘loans’. Whatever money Standing did or did not invest got gobbled up. I’m convinced without Clem we’d be a Southend now.

Yeah, I would have to agree.

The 'Clem saved the club'/'At least we have a club' thing being a meme and taking the piss out of people saying it is purely down to it being a response to any unrelated negativity. It isn't because it isn't true, because it absolutely is true.

[Nemo]

Absolutely, and it’s probably just my lack of financial understanding. It looks like revenue is up, we know we’re cost saving in certain areas, but the only way the debt has come down is by shifting into a different form of debt (which is completely fine and understandable, but still needs repaying when the club is sold?)

It doesn't *have* to be repaid when the club is sold, plenty of owners have sold at a loss in the past, not least here (Pretty sure Black's debenture covered only a fraction of what he put in, and that wasn't ever paid in full as far as we know).

Not a straight comparison, but director's loans or loans from parent companies are how Abramovich and other big sugar daddies account for their investment in their respective clubs. For example, P47 of Bristol City's accounts - https://www.bcfc.co.uk/media/64587/bristol-city-holdings-lmited-annual-report-and-consolidated-financial-statement-2020-21.pdf - show a £72m owed to the parent company (basically Steve Landsdown).

[DMC]

I may be proved to be wrong but if the club was to be sold and what Clem was owed was the stumbling block i have absolutely no doubt he would waive it for the best of the club

[Batch]

I may be proved to be wrong but if the club was to be sold and what Clem was owed was the stumbling block i have absolutely no doubt he would waive it for the best of the club

hopefully he'll get his money back and our new lifelong Swindon fan multi billionaire owners will be only too happy to oblige