Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2021 10:38:16 GMT
Looks like the Bristol Rovers FC accounts are now visible and the capitalisation is included. Over to the accountants amongst us for the analysis. Do you mean the proper accountants or the ones who pretend they are?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2021 10:46:30 GMT
Looks like the Bristol Rovers FC accounts are now visible and the capitalisation is included. Over to the accountants amongst us for the analysis. Do you mean the proper accountants or the ones who pretend they are? I pay an accountant so I'm not hurt. One or two on here might be though.
|
|
|
Post by holmesgas1 on Jul 11, 2021 10:55:32 GMT
Do you mean the proper accountants or the ones who pretend they are? I pay an accountant so I'm not hurt. One or two on here might be though. I pay an accountant too, but there are accountants and accountants..... and as Benjamin Disraeli said "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."... So look forward to seeing the forums statistical analysis of doom and gloom.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2021 11:02:56 GMT
Poster called contradiction contradicts himself, what are the chances of that? 🤔 I quite enjoy the contributions from contradiction, holmes, bloo and others who put forward the case defending where the club is and how it's arrived there. They've got their point of view and are willing to argue their corner, and mostly do it well. Forums are pointless if all you get is a group of people patting each other on the back and agreeing with each other. Keep it up guys. Don't agree with a lot of what you say, but am glad you are here putting an alternative point of view.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2021 11:06:53 GMT
I pay an accountant so I'm not hurt. One or two on here might be though. I pay an accountant too, but there are accountants and accountants..... and as Benjamin Disraeli said "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."... So look forward to seeing the forums statistical analysis of doom and gloom. I'm pleased to see within the accounts the continued financial backing from Hani. The more the merrier. Hope that's not too positive Holmes.
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,353
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Jul 11, 2021 12:43:26 GMT
I pay an accountant too, but there are accountants and accountants..... and as Benjamin Disraeli said "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."... So look forward to seeing the forums statistical analysis of doom and gloom. I'm pleased to see within the accounts the continued financial backing from Hani. The more the merrier. Hope that's not too positive Holmes. I thought it had been said that Wael was in sole control so this in new to me but glad of it.
|
|
axegas
Joined: November 2015
Posts: 222
|
Post by axegas on Jul 11, 2021 12:59:17 GMT
I'm pleased to see within the accounts the continued financial backing from Hani. The more the merrier. Hope that's not too positive Holmes. I thought it had been said that Wael was in sole control so this in new to me but glad of it. I believe that’s because the accounts are dated up until June of last year. My guess is the change of ownership hadn’t been ratified before 30th June as it was only announced on the 19th. The next accounts up until June 2021 should confirm this either way.
|
|
eppinggas
Administrator
Ian Alexander
Don't care
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 8,502
|
Post by eppinggas on Jul 11, 2021 13:26:09 GMT
Looks like the Bristol Rovers FC accounts are now visible and the capitalisation is included. Over to the accountants amongst us for the analysis. Do you mean the proper accountants or the ones who pretend they are? Who exactly is 'pretending to be an accountant'? Or is this yet another one of your rather tiresome digs at swissgas? swissgas drills into the balance sheet and usually draws pessimistic conclusions. Based on the numbers. Whether you agree with him or not, they are high quality contributions. He is also invariably polite. Which is nice.
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Jul 11, 2021 13:45:06 GMT
Do you mean the proper accountants or the ones who pretend they are? Who exactly is 'pretending to be an accountant'? Or is this yet another one of your rather tiresome digs at swissgas? swissgas drills into the balance sheet and usually draws pessimistic conclusions. Based on the numbers. Whether you agree with him or not, they are high quality contributions. He is also invariably polite. Which is nice. yes indeed and there are a lot of us who aren't accountants but can read a simple set of accounts like those of BRFC
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Jul 11, 2021 15:52:15 GMT
some highlights from the numbers:
loss for the year to 30.6.20 is £2.4m
£60k profit made on 'player trading'
turnover down £0.5m, which doesn't seem bad given lockdown from mid-March
balance sheet value, after loan capitalisation, was minus £1.8m
average number of employees up from 186 to 228 - a lot of which I'm guessing is Garner's young guns
£2m owed to 'Group undertakings', but £300k owed from entities with significant control over Rovers
cost of sales is down £1m, which I'm guessing is mainly lower player wages, and is the biggest single change apart from the loan capitalisation
donations from support organisations, which I'm guessing is BRSC, is down from £64k to £44k
I'm guessing the 'continuing support' confirmation from Hani is in his role at Dwane Sports
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Jul 11, 2021 15:55:29 GMT
in other news, Gorringe's middle name is 'Howard'
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Jul 11, 2021 15:56:26 GMT
additionally, Ken Masters' directorship was terminated on the 1st April. You couldn't make it up
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2021 16:24:34 GMT
some highlights from the numbers: loss for the year to 30.6.20 is £2.4m £60k profit made on 'player trading' turnover down £0.5m, which doesn't seem bad given lockdown from mid-Marchbalance sheet value, after loan capitalisation, was minus £1.8m average number of employees up from 186 to 228 - a lot of which I'm guessing is Garner's young guns £2m owed to 'Group undertakings', but £300k owed from entities with significant control over Rovers cost of sales is down £1m, which I'm guessing is mainly lower player wages, and is the biggest single change apart from the loan capitalisation donations from support organisations, which I'm guessing is BRSC, is down from £64k to £44k I'm guessing the 'continuing support' confirmation from Hani is in his role at Dwane Sports I think we lost 4 home matches at the end of the 2019/20 season, but there were also 5 away games cancelled. Home; Ipswich, Rochdale, Burton and Lincoln. Away; Peterborough, Oxford, Accrington, Portsmouth and Gillingham. So, we lost the match day income from those 4 games, but shed the expense of having to play the 5 away matches. I'm guessing that a small number of people would have taken up the offer of having 4/23rds of their season ticket refunded, whilst, it seems to me most likely that the majority would either have donated the money to the academy as the club requested, or had it credited towards future spend with the club, so whilst we don't have actual numbers, it seems to me unlikely that losing those 4 home games and 5 away fixtures would have resulted in a nett loss of £500,000.
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Jul 12, 2021 14:43:12 GMT
The accounts are roughly in line with what was expected because without the Government grant of £ 579,539 the loss would have been £ 3,015,825, a 7.3% reduction from 2019 which indicates in that respect we are going in the right direction.
What is not quite so good is the ratio of turnover to cost of sales. In 2019 Rovers spent £ 1.46 for every £ 1.00 received and in 2020 we spent £ 1.43 for every £ 1.00 received which is a 2% reduction. Again, it's going in the right direction but not exactly the halving of losses which Martyn Starnes had said we were on target to achieve pre-covid which is a period amounting to about nine of the twelve months covered by these accounts.
The part of the report in which Hani Al-Qadi is named as the person who states his intention to maintain financial support for a twelve month period from the signing of the accounts (which is to 18th June 2022) may be a typo or failure to update the template from last year. There is no doubting that Wael gained control of the club during this financial year because it is stated clearly in the strategic report. So why would his brother, with no financial interest in the business, give a financial commitment lasting till next year ? The only possible reason would be if it is actually family money rather than Wael individually that is keeping the club afloat in which case, IMO, it would have been better to have made this clear, "I am taking over responsibility for the club with continued financial support from my family" rather than "It's my club now". But if the family as a whole are continuing to back Rovers financially then, like Pop Harris, I believe that is a good thing for the club.
A poster on Gaschat has expressed reservations about commenting on the accounts because of the danger of misunderstanding or misinterpretation and I understand completely what he is saying. This is something I've mentioned before about setting the test of "will it do any good ?" and "will it upset people unnecessarily ?" as criteria for whether or not to post. There is no doubt in my mind that the Directors read the forums and I believe they do take notice of what is written but unfortunately they sometimes take criticism personally. The reaction to these accounts is generally positive and with headlines of "losses cut to £ 2.4 million" and " £ 15 million capitalised" of course there is the usual "thank you Wael" and "we are so grateful" reaction but is that good for the club ? The true loss is £ 3 million because the Government grant was a one off so should we really be thanking Wael when, for example, the Chairman of Shrewsbury Town opened his 2020 report with an apology to fans that for the first time in five years he had to report a loss which was £ 723 000. This is a club in a higher league than us with a better ground but lower turnover.
Perhaps those who have posted about me having some sort of axe to grind or being bitter about something could reflect on this. Back in 1981 when I attended most home and away games a fellow Gashead and I spent an afternoon at Companies House to look at both the Bristol Rovers and Bristol Stadium company accounts. In those days you had to physically go there to get access and it was a clumsy process of copying microfilm and paying for each page via coins in a slot. We did it because even back then, forty years ago, we realised there is far more to a football club than 90 minutes on a Saturday and part of the enjoyment in following a club can be, if you want it to be, taking a close interest in the business side. I believed then and still do that a successfully run business will bring about a successful football club which will eventually bring about a successful football team.
|
|
|
Post by Curly Wurly on Jul 12, 2021 15:02:50 GMT
For info.
BRISTOL ROVERS (1883) LIMITED Company number 04501223
Date (document was filed at Companies House) 12 Jul 2021
Description (of the document filed at Companies House) Group of companies' accounts made up to 30 June 2020 This document is being processed and will be available in 10 days.
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Jul 12, 2021 15:14:28 GMT
The accounts are roughly in line with what was expected because without the Government grant of £ 579,539 the loss would have been £ 3,015,825, a 7.3% reduction from 2019 which indicates in that respect we are going in the right direction. What is not quite so good is the ratio of turnover to cost of sales. In 2019 Rovers spent £ 1.46 for every £ 1.00 received and in 2020 we spent £ 1.43 for every £ 1.00 received which is a 2% reduction. Again, it's going in the right direction but not exactly the halving of losses which Martyn Starnes had said we were on target to achieve pre-covid which is a period amounting to about nine of the twelve months covered by these accounts. But isn't the cost of sales based on the 'reduced sales' which reflect, among other things, Covid impacts - so it's not quite like-for-like, and is a bit (if not stunningly) better than 2% really?The part of the report in which Hani Al-Qadi is named as the person who states his intention to maintain financial support for a twelve month period from the signing of the accounts (which is to 18th June 2022) may be a typo or failure to update the template from last year. Good point. 'Same old Rovers' and all thatThere is no doubting that Wael gained control of the club during this financial year because it is stated clearly in the strategic report. So why would his brother, with no financial interest in the business, give a financial commitment lasting till next year ? The only possible reason would be if it is actually family money rather than Wael individually that is keeping the club afloat in which case, IMO, it would have been better to have made this clear, "I am taking over responsibility for the club with continued financial support from my family" rather than "It's my club now". I reckon the former explanation is more likely. What's your guess swiss?
But if the family as a whole are continuing to back Rovers financially then, like Pop Harris, I believe that is a good thing for the club. A poster on Gaschat has expressed reservations about commenting on the accounts because of the danger of misunderstanding or misinterpretation and I understand completely what he is saying. This is something I've mentioned before about setting the test of "will it do any good ?" and "will it upset people unnecessarily ?" as criteria for whether or not to post. There is no doubt in my mind that the Directors read the forums and I believe they do take notice of what is written but unfortunately they sometimes take criticism personally. The reaction to these accounts is generally positive and with headlines of "losses cut to £ 2.4 million" and " £ 15 million capitalised" of course there is the usual "thank you Wael" and "we are so grateful" reaction but is that good for the club ? The true loss is £ 3 million because the Government grant was a one off so should we really be thanking Wael when, for example, the Chairman of Shrewsbury Town opened his 2020 report with an apology to fans that for the first time in five years he had to report a loss which was £ 723 000. This is a club in a higher league than us with a better ground but lower turnover. Perhaps those who have posted about me having some sort of axe to grind or being bitter about something could reflect on this. Back in 1981 when I attended most home and away games a fellow Gashead and I spent an afternoon at Companies House to look at both the Bristol Rovers and Bristol Stadium company accounts. In those days you had to physically go there to get access and it was a clumsy process of copying microfilm and paying for each page via coins in a slot. We did it because even back then, forty years ago, we realised there is far more to a football club than 90 minutes on a Saturday and part of the enjoyment in following a club can be, if you want it to be, taking a close interest in the business side. I believed then and still do that a successfully run business will bring about a successful football club which will eventually bring about a successful football team. shots from the hip rather than doing the work of looking things up. Sorry
|
|
|
Post by holmesgas1 on Jul 12, 2021 16:01:52 GMT
The accounts are roughly in line with what was expected because without the Government grant of £ 579,539 the loss would have been £ 3,015,825, a 7.3% reduction from 2019 which indicates in that respect we are going in the right direction. What is not quite so good is the ratio of turnover to cost of sales. In 2019 Rovers spent £ 1.46 for every £ 1.00 received and in 2020 we spent £ 1.43 for every £ 1.00 received which is a 2% reduction. Again, it's going in the right direction but not exactly the halving of losses which Martyn Starnes had said we were on target to achieve pre-covid which is a period amounting to about nine of the twelve months covered by these accounts. The part of the report in which Hani Al-Qadi is named as the person who states his intention to maintain financial support for a twelve month period from the signing of the accounts (which is to 18th June 2022) may be a typo or failure to update the template from last year. There is no doubting that Wael gained control of the club during this financial year because it is stated clearly in the strategic report. So why would his brother, with no financial interest in the business, give a financial commitment lasting till next year ? The only possible reason would be if it is actually family money rather than Wael individually that is keeping the club afloat in which case, IMO, it would have been better to have made this clear, "I am taking over responsibility for the club with continued financial support from my family" rather than "It's my club now". But if the family as a whole are continuing to back Rovers financially then, like Pop Harris, I believe that is a good thing for the club. A poster on Gaschat has expressed reservations about commenting on the accounts because of the danger of misunderstanding or misinterpretation and I understand completely what he is saying. This is something I've mentioned before about setting the test of "will it do any good ?" and "will it upset people unnecessarily ?" as criteria for whether or not to post. There is no doubt in my mind that the Directors read the forums and I believe they do take notice of what is written but unfortunately they sometimes take criticism personally. The reaction to these accounts is generally positive and with headlines of "losses cut to £ 2.4 million" and " £ 15 million capitalised" of course there is the usual "thank you Wael" and "we are so grateful" reaction but is that good for the club ? The true loss is £ 3 million because the Government grant was a one off so should we really be thanking Wael when, for example, the Chairman of Shrewsbury Town opened his 2020 report with an apology to fans that for the first time in five years he had to report a loss which was £ 723 000. This is a club in a higher league than us with a better ground but lower turnover. Perhaps those who have posted about me having some sort of axe to grind or being bitter about something could reflect on this. Back in 1981 when I attended most home and away games a fellow Gashead and I spent an afternoon at Companies House to look at both the Bristol Rovers and Bristol Stadium company accounts. In those days you had to physically go there to get access and it was a clumsy process of copying microfilm and paying for each page via coins in a slot. We did it because even back then, forty years ago, we realised there is far more to a football club than 90 minutes on a Saturday and part of the enjoyment in following a club can be, if you want it to be, taking a close interest in the business side. I believed then and still do that a successfully run business will bring about a successful football club which will eventually bring about a successful football team. We may still differ on our opinions on what we believe Weal can achieve in the long term, but thanks for a fair overview. Costs for sure need to continue to be reduced and revenue streams increased. Would be very interesting to understand Shrewsbury accounts in more detail. Are they just leaner and meaner?
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Jul 12, 2021 16:04:38 GMT
The accounts are roughly in line with what was expected because without the Government grant of £ 579,539 the loss would have been £ 3,015,825, a 7.3% reduction from 2019 which indicates in that respect we are going in the right direction. What is not quite so good is the ratio of turnover to cost of sales. In 2019 Rovers spent £ 1.46 for every £ 1.00 received and in 2020 we spent £ 1.43 for every £ 1.00 received which is a 2% reduction. Again, it's going in the right direction but not exactly the halving of losses which Martyn Starnes had said we were on target to achieve pre-covid which is a period amounting to about nine of the twelve months covered by these accounts. But isn't the cost of sales based on the 'reduced sales' which reflect, among other things, Covid impacts - so it's not quite like-for-like, and is a bit (if not stunningly) better than 2% really? I understand the logic behind your thinking, that certain costs are fixed but income has been reduced due to circumstances beyond our control. But I agree with the analysis made by TheThinWhiteDuke that Covid had minimal impact on this accounting period though of course it will greatly affect the 2021 accounts. I suppose the main point is concerning Martyn's statement from June 10th last year about being on target pre-Covid to halve the previous years losses which doesn't now stack up. The 2019 losses were £ 3.3 million so half would have been £ 1.65 million which means for this to be true and on target then in the nine months pre Covid to March 2020 the losses would have been about £ 1.24 million. But the actual 12 month losses (discounting the grant) were £ 3 million so if his figures were correct then about £ 1.76 million would have had to have been lost in the last three months of the year. Many posters have quoted the "halving the losses" line over the past twelve months and I think they were misled. The only way to prevent this happening in the future is for the club to know that fans will check the numbers and challenge them which gives a big incentive to make sure the information the club provides is accurate. The part of the report in which Hani Al-Qadi is named as the person who states his intention to maintain financial support for a twelve month period from the signing of the accounts (which is to 18th June 2022) may be a typo or failure to update the template from last year. Good point. 'Same old Rovers' and all thatThere is no doubting that Wael gained control of the club during this financial year because it is stated clearly in the strategic report. So why would his brother, with no financial interest in the business, give a financial commitment lasting till next year ? The only possible reason would be if it is actually family money rather than Wael individually that is keeping the club afloat in which case, IMO, it would have been better to have made this clear, "I am taking over responsibility for the club with continued financial support from my family" rather than "It's my club now". I reckon the former explanation is more likely. What's your guess swiss? I reserve the right to remain silent
But if the family as a whole are continuing to back Rovers financially then, like Pop Harris, I believe that is a good thing for the club. A poster on Gaschat has expressed reservations about commenting on the accounts because of the danger of misunderstanding or misinterpretation and I understand completely what he is saying. This is something I've mentioned before about setting the test of "will it do any good ?" and "will it upset people unnecessarily ?" as criteria for whether or not to post. There is no doubt in my mind that the Directors read the forums and I believe they do take notice of what is written but unfortunately they sometimes take criticism personally. The reaction to these accounts is generally positive and with headlines of "losses cut to £ 2.4 million" and " £ 15 million capitalised" of course there is the usual "thank you Wael" and "we are so grateful" reaction but is that good for the club ? The true loss is £ 3 million because the Government grant was a one off so should we really be thanking Wael when, for example, the Chairman of Shrewsbury Town opened his 2020 report with an apology to fans that for the first time in five years he had to report a loss which was £ 723 000. This is a club in a higher league than us with a better ground but lower turnover. Perhaps those who have posted about me having some sort of axe to grind or being bitter about something could reflect on this. Back in 1981 when I attended most home and away games a fellow Gashead and I spent an afternoon at Companies House to look at both the Bristol Rovers and Bristol Stadium company accounts. In those days you had to physically go there to get access and it was a clumsy process of copying microfilm and paying for each page via coins in a slot. We did it because even back then, forty years ago, we realised there is far more to a football club than 90 minutes on a Saturday and part of the enjoyment in following a club can be, if you want it to be, taking a close interest in the business side. I believed then and still do that a successfully run business will bring about a successful football club which will eventually bring about a successful football team. shots from the hip rather than doing the work of looking things up. Sorry
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Jul 12, 2021 16:39:34 GMT
The accounts are roughly in line with what was expected because without the Government grant of £ 579,539 the loss would have been £ 3,015,825, a 7.3% reduction from 2019 which indicates in that respect we are going in the right direction. What is not quite so good is the ratio of turnover to cost of sales. In 2019 Rovers spent £ 1.46 for every £ 1.00 received and in 2020 we spent £ 1.43 for every £ 1.00 received which is a 2% reduction. Again, it's going in the right direction but not exactly the halving of losses which Martyn Starnes had said we were on target to achieve pre-covid which is a period amounting to about nine of the twelve months covered by these accounts. The part of the report in which Hani Al-Qadi is named as the person who states his intention to maintain financial support for a twelve month period from the signing of the accounts (which is to 18th June 2022) may be a typo or failure to update the template from last year. There is no doubting that Wael gained control of the club during this financial year because it is stated clearly in the strategic report. So why would his brother, with no financial interest in the business, give a financial commitment lasting till next year ? The only possible reason would be if it is actually family money rather than Wael individually that is keeping the club afloat in which case, IMO, it would have been better to have made this clear, "I am taking over responsibility for the club with continued financial support from my family" rather than "It's my club now". But if the family as a whole are continuing to back Rovers financially then, like Pop Harris, I believe that is a good thing for the club. A poster on Gaschat has expressed reservations about commenting on the accounts because of the danger of misunderstanding or misinterpretation and I understand completely what he is saying. This is something I've mentioned before about setting the test of "will it do any good ?" and "will it upset people unnecessarily ?" as criteria for whether or not to post. There is no doubt in my mind that the Directors read the forums and I believe they do take notice of what is written but unfortunately they sometimes take criticism personally. The reaction to these accounts is generally positive and with headlines of "losses cut to £ 2.4 million" and " £ 15 million capitalised" of course there is the usual "thank you Wael" and "we are so grateful" reaction but is that good for the club ? The true loss is £ 3 million because the Government grant was a one off so should we really be thanking Wael when, for example, the Chairman of Shrewsbury Town opened his 2020 report with an apology to fans that for the first time in five years he had to report a loss which was £ 723 000. This is a club in a higher league than us with a better ground but lower turnover. Perhaps those who have posted about me having some sort of axe to grind or being bitter about something could reflect on this. Back in 1981 when I attended most home and away games a fellow Gashead and I spent an afternoon at Companies House to look at both the Bristol Rovers and Bristol Stadium company accounts. In those days you had to physically go there to get access and it was a clumsy process of copying microfilm and paying for each page via coins in a slot. We did it because even back then, forty years ago, we realised there is far more to a football club than 90 minutes on a Saturday and part of the enjoyment in following a club can be, if you want it to be, taking a close interest in the business side. I believed then and still do that a successfully run business will bring about a successful football club which will eventually bring about a successful football team. We may still differ on our opinions on what we believe Weal can achieve in the long term, but thanks for a fair overview. Costs for sure need to continue to be reduced and revenue streams increased. Would be very interesting to understand Shrewsbury accounts in more detail. Are they just leaner and meaner? Yes, I think leaner and meaner sums it up well. A simple analysis of Shrewsbury's turnover to cost of sales ratio shows that for every £ 1.00 received they spent £ 1.02. But there is an anomaly in the way they treat administrative expenses compared to Rovers so in an effort to correct that and include the same administrative expenses as Rovers I came up with them spending £ 1.16 for every £ 1.00 received compared to Rovers spending £ 1.43 for every £ 1.00 received. Shrewsbury are also quite transparent in showing where their 2020 revenue came from. Ticket Sales £ 1,923,737 Football League Income £ 1,646,271 Contingent Fees Received £ 109,266 Sundry Income £ 1,003,602 TV and Internet Portal £ 248,205 Supporters Donations £ 39,704 Food & Beverage Sales £ 480,687 Total £ 5,451,472 (increase of £ 85,000 from 2019)
|
|
womble
Arthur Cartlidge
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 300
|
Post by womble on Jul 12, 2021 17:01:26 GMT
A poster on Gaschat has expressed reservations about commenting on the accounts because of the danger of misunderstanding or misinterpretation and I understand completely what he is saying. This is something I've mentioned before about setting the test of "will it do any good ?" and "will it upset people unnecessarily ?" as criteria for whether or not to post. There is no doubt in my mind that the Directors read the forums and I believe they do take notice of what is written but unfortunately they sometimes take criticism personally. The reaction to these accounts is generally positive and with headlines of "losses cut to £ 2.4 million" and " £ 15 million capitalised" of course there is the usual "thank you Wael" and "we are so grateful" reaction but is that good for the club ? The true loss is £ 3 million because the Government grant was a one off so should we really be thanking Wael when, for example, the Chairman of Shrewsbury Town opened his 2020 report with an apology to fans that for the first time in five years he had to report a loss which was £ 723 000. This is a club in a higher league than us with a better ground but lower turnover. Perhaps those who have posted about me having some sort of axe to grind or being bitter about something could reflect on this. Back in 1981 when I attended most home and away games a fellow Gashead and I spent an afternoon at Companies House to look at both the Bristol Rovers and Bristol Stadium company accounts. In those days you had to physically go there to get access and it was a clumsy process of copying microfilm and paying for each page via coins in a slot. We did it because even back then, forty years ago, we realised there is far more to a football club than 90 minutes on a Saturday and part of the enjoyment in following a club can be, if you want it to be, taking a close interest in the business side. I believed then and still do that a successfully run business will bring about a successful football club which will eventually bring about a successful football team. I note that you have modestly omitted the following comment from the poster on Gaschat, “There are others on here prepared to give a technical review (eg Swiss - who I have always found to be technically accurate).” As my knowledge of accounting would fit on the back of a modestly sized postage stamp, it is always nice to read the comments from people with the required insight. As ever, there will be varying views even when based on the same information (The Quarters springs to mind 😀), but your unwavering civility, even in the face of less than polite responses, is much appreciated.
|
|