The Spirit of '69 and our Day of Action

[STFC_Manc]

We lost less in total though. We all know admin fees could first with these kinds of owners.

As I said before he was losing £1.3m to £1.8m for the final three years, so no that's not correct.

[Batch]

There is inflation to consider as above. And the Eady Money/ admin expenses. I shouldn't have brought Power into it in a serious conversation really. Was being mischievous.

Its the here and now that matter
  - Club in the worst state I can remember (food, stock, general state of the infrastructure)
  - Owner AWOL from the public and at the very least in denial about it all
  - 1M+ a season losses. A growing mountain of debt
  - Absolute shambles of a SLT (Ollie excluded)
  - Opaque structure around the club (unofficial) with matchday guests and minor shareholders and so forth..

And none of this can last forever.
  - Take Ollie out the building and where are we?
  - What is our direction of travel?
  - Do we have ownership that can turn this around?
  - Do we have ownership that can make the most of what we have?
 
That's why I'm putting my Orange hat on.

[theakston2k]

There are 2 questions that need answering. What is really contained in the admin expenses bucket and where is the money coming from for the ‘Directors Loans’?

Is he just recycling ‘admin expenses’ from the club back in via loans to make it look like he’s plugging gaps and doing creative accounting or is there really new money going in via these loans? If it’s new, where does it come from as everything in the public domain suggests Morfuni has nowhere near the disposable cash to put £m’s into the club.

When he needed cash for the debenture he had to ‘sell’ shares to fund it. His U.K. companies folded with significant external debts that he may now be liable for with the court case starting immediately. Is he just playing accounting games or is he a funnel for someone else’s cash, that remains an unanswered question.

[No Longer Posh Red]

When he needed cash for the debenture he had to ‘sell’ shares to fund it. His U.K. companies folded with significant external debts that he may now be liable for with the court case starting immediately. Is he just playing accounting games or is he a funnel for someone else’s cash, that remains an unanswered question.

Also, in living up to his open & transparent way didn't tell anyone (including his CEO) about it, and when caught out by a fan (9 months later), got the CEO to lie about it at the fans forum.

And now won't let the Trust buy back those shares, as presumably that would mean the Trust would then have access to the "Real" finances

[TheSpiritof69]

Our position re debt:

 - Clubs running at a loss is normal.
 - Clubs borrowing money from its owner to fund those losses is normal.
 - Owners promising on record to clear debt and then not is not normal.
 - Debt increasing year on year thanks to unexplained and unprecedented operating costs while delivering record low performance on the pitch and setting new lows in terms of experience off the pitch is, by definition, managed decline and utter incompetence.

As the delta between performance declining and operating costs/debt increasing grows, it becomes really precarious for the viability of a business.

I am on the board of a business of similar size to STFC, and am it's Group Ops Director. If my business costs were growing year on year, and performance was declining, I (along with the rest of the team trusted to run that business) would be fired.

The business is broken. It does not function.

 

[STFC_Manc]

Also, in living up to his open & transparent way didn't tell anyone (including his CEO) about it, and when caught out by a fan (9 months later), got the CEO to lie about it at the fans forum.

And now won't let the Trust buy back those shares, as presumably that would mean the Trust would then have access to the "Real" finances

I didn't know the Trust were looking to buy the shares, they can't buy them back as they didn't own them.

[No Longer Posh Red]

I didn't know the Trust were looking to buy the shares, they can't buy them back as they didn't own them.

When he confirmed he was looking to buy them back, but didn't have the funds to do so currently, the Trust offered to buy them, he declined their offer.

We won't know the actual reason, but you can only fear the worst

[STFC_Manc]

When he confirmed he was looking to buy them back, but didn't have the funds to do so currently, the Trust offered to buy them, he declined their offer.

We won't know the actual reason, but you can only fear the worst

That must have passed me by, however Clem doesn't own those shares, so how could he stop the Trust buying them and where would the trust get the money from?

[STFC_Manc]

Our position re debt:

 - Debt increasing year on year thanks to unexplained and unprecedented operating costs while delivering record low performance on the pitch and setting new lows in terms of experience off the pitch is, by definition, managed decline and utter incompetence.
 

Can you confirm what you mean by unexplained & unprecedented operating costs?

[No Longer Posh Red]

That must have passed me by, however Clem doesn't own those shares, so how could he stop the Trust buying them and where would the trust get the money from?

Who knows where they were getting the money from (maybe they have a benefactor), but the fact that the Aussie Plumber told us he was going to buy them back from his mates when he had the funds (which he still hasn't, as far as we know) but wasn't keen on entertaining the fact that the Trust would help out does (to me at least) raise some massive red flags, especially as they are also part of the JV.

We can only presume that he has something to hide

[Ƭ̵̬̊: The Artist Formerly Known as CWIG]

Its quite crazy that the Clem recycling admin costs putting back in as director loans is actually the least bad theory out there. The other one is actually literally criminal.

But that is what happens when you're involved with these types.

[DV]

Its quite crazy that the Clem recycling admin costs putting back in as director loans is actually the least bad theory out there. The other one is actually literally criminal.

But that is what happens when you're involved with these types.

That theory only *really* works if Clem plans to sell though because that’s the only way he’d get his director loans back (+ interest I assume)

Otherwise, he could just take the admin expenses out - not ‘fund’ the club & just keep them for himself.

[STFC_Manc]

Its quite crazy that the Clem recycling admin costs putting back in as director loans is actually the least bad theory out there. The other one is actually literally criminal.

But that is what happens when you're involved with these types.

Why do you think that is happening? Are Swindons admin expenses out of line with other clubs? I very much doubt it apart from this year, which has a very specific reason behind it.

[DV]

Our admin expenses might be in line with other clubs (I doubt it though) but are those other clubs also operating their football team & off field operations on a shoe string budget with people doing multiple jobs whilst also not stocking the club shop or the food kiosks & not paying any invoices from suppliers on time?

Even if our finances are actually a 100% accurate (I don’t for one second think they are) then there are still massive questions as to why we are being run so poorly in comparison to all the other clubs making similar yearly losses.

[DV]

Even if there are no nefarious goings on with the money & Clem (and company) are genuine people trying to do their best for this football club…

…then there is still a humongous level of incompetence. Enough to want change even if they are above board