Change Of Owner?

[Guest GudniB]

OK. I believe we are in agreement that player contracts were the biggest problem but let me give you some stats:

 

Operating Losses

 

2004/05 to 2013/14                 Aggregate            £162m

Best year 2004/05                     Profit                     £1.9m

Worst year 2012/13                   Loss                     £50.7m

 

Directors’  Remuneration

 

2004/05 to 2013/14              Aggregate                       £9.2m

Lowest                                    2004/05                           £626,000

Highest                                     2011/12                           £1.4m    (includes Duckworth pay off)

 

We were relegated in 2011/12 and the loss in 2012/13 included the cost of writing off excessive player contract costs. (The amount for 2010/11 was £1.2m and did not include pay offs)

 

These figures tell us that directors’ remuneration was extremely generous despite continuously poor financial performance. There is no indication of anything being paid to Eddie Davies (quite the opposite) but why did he allow it to happen?

 

There appears to have been little effective questioning because control rested with one individual.

 

Fair enough Gudni, but you've fallen into the trap of arbitrary digs at the 'faceless suits' again. I heard that Duckworth was well respected, that considerable expense to pay him off was considerably less than say Tyrone Mears trousered from us for a kick off.

 

A pay off is always going to look a horror show in the accounts. Maybe if we kept hold of Duckworth we wouldn't be in this mess, who knows?

 

We probably needed more board level interference in transfers since we came down as the traditional model has not worked, which in fairness you acknowledge at the end of your post.

Edited March 13, 2016 by GudniB

[Leyther_Matt]

Far too early for that shit.

[Guest]

"poor financial performance"?

 

 

In who's eyes?

 

Yours or ED's?

 

You are making assumptions based on no more than guesswork

[Guest GudniB]

"poor financial performance"?

 

 

In who's eyes?

 

Yours or ED's?

 

You are making assumptions based on no more than guesswork

Do you think that losses in excess  of £160m and nearly going bust is  good financial performance?  

[Guest]

No, but you do

 

But you are linking Directors income with performance without knowing targets set

 

"poor" is subjective

[Guest GudniB]

I don’t wish to be rude so I won’t imply that you may be picking nits but I do believe that a company director has (and should have) a greater responsibility than meeting some target that earns them large amounts of remuneration but puts the business (and all those employed by it) at significant financial risk. Will that do?

 

No, but you do

 

But you are linking Directors income with performance without knowing targets set

 

"poor" is subjective

Edited March 13, 2016 by GudniB

[bwfcfan5]

 

I don’t wish to be rude so I won’t imply that you may be picking nits but I do believe that a company director has (and should have) a greater responsibility than meeting some target that earns them large amounts of remuneration but puts the business (and all those employed by it) at significant financial risk. Will that do?

Eddie employed them and knew the financial performance. He had years to change if that is what he wanted to do. That was his responsibility.

[Mounts Kipper]

Was Garry Jones the one in the wheelchair when the ex-players were on the pitch at half time?

 

Yes that was him.

[Mounts Kipper]

Strange how every self-proclaimed insider you speak to confirms all your conspiracy theories, yet you can only ever quote a few words (which are remarkably similar to your own style of talking), and you are never able to name the 'source'.

 

 

Carefull Cheesers have you seen how big Glenn is !

 

He might sauce out of you when he Crushes you like a Spoiled Rotten Tomato . SPOILED and ROTTEN being the operative word for you .

You Ickle W U M you ......

 

I've not a problem that Cheese does not believe what I say, it's a football forum and he doesn't know me from Adam, greater worries in life than a difference of opinion. Plus I've got him on ignore basically because he's a WUM not because he doesn't believe me.

[Guest GudniB]

Eddie employed them and knew the financial performance. He had years to change if that is what he wanted to do. That was his responsibility.

That’s not in dispute. That’s not the point I was making.

The point is that there are now new owners on the scene who appear to have mortgaged previously mortgage-free assets and have a pot of money from that and asset sales negotiated in recent weeks. There will be a queue of people wanting paying including HMRC, employees and suppliers.

What arrangements are the new owners making to pay themselves and how much will be left when they do?  I am not expecting an answer but it is a concern.

[Carlos]

appear to have mortgaged previously mortgage-free assets

This is made up, isn't it.

[RoadRunnerFan]

OK. I believe we are in agreement that player contracts were the biggest problem but let me give you some stats:

 

Operating Losses

 

2004/05 to 2013/14                 Aggregate            £162m

Best year 2004/05                     Profit                     £1.9m

Worst year 2012/13                   Loss                     £50.7m

 

Directors’  Remuneration

 

2004/05 to 2013/14              Aggregate                       £9.2m

Lowest                                    2004/05                           £626,000

Highest                                     2011/12                           £1.4m    (includes Duckworth pay off)

 

We were relegated in 2011/12 and the loss in 2012/13 included the cost of writing off excessive player contract costs. (The amount for 2010/11 was £1.2m and did not include pay offs)

 

These figures tell us that directors’ remuneration was extremely generous despite continuously poor financial performance. There is no indication of anything being paid to Eddie Davies (quite the opposite) but why did he allow it to happen?

 

There appears to have been little effective questioning because control rested with one individual.

 

Gudni, you don't need to show me the figures because I know them.

 

You are spinning facts to fit your agenda against the suits. The huge write offs in 2012/13 were designed to bring forward capital charges due in 13/14 onwards when FFP came in and they were absolutely the right thing to do. They are non-cash items dealing with already committed spend.

 

Duckworth got paid off, not gone well since then has it? Also you have provided no context to his remuneration in comparison to similar jobs plus it was ED's call at the end of the day.

 

A little knowledge can be more dangerous than none.

 

RoadRunnerFan MAAT, ACMA, CGMA

 

Do yourself a favour and google what those letters after my name mean.

Edited March 13, 2016 by RoadRunnerFan

[Dan.m]

Burn

[Guest GudniB]

I think we may be on the same page in some of your comments.

I hear this all the time about ED/PG and the people who say it are not numbskulls.
They find it impossible to believe that a businessman, as successful as ED, could fritter away so much money. There is also a bitter resentment about the way ED acquired his controlling interest in BWFC especially amongst those whose shareholding were rendered worthless. I was one of them but my loss was comparatively small and affordable but others lost a great deal.

I never went into it in great detail but my recollection is that it worked on the basis that, at that time, the shares weren’t worth very much. ED subscribed for a large number at a low price and this had the effect of diluting the shareholdings of all the other shareholders to the point that they were of ‘negligible value’.

ED and PG were very close and the resentment seems to have built up, partly I expect, as ED agreed to the payment of large amounts of remuneration to directors, including PG.

I have noted comments in newspapers and other publications that quite often have got most of their facts right but have misunderstood or misinterpreted some of them and it has all built up into a widespread suspicion over the loans that is deep-rooted but not well-founded.

 

I'm not sure how much the ex players know, however they say Anderson been inside, his business background and dealings very dodgy and basically they don't believe there's any decent money available, mind you one of the old pros said not been to the game for a long time because of ED and PG and I quote," that ED has lost 170 million is bollocks" and didn't like what was going on behind the scenes at the club under the old owner so stopped going to games. Also said GJ not long left cancer of the spine.????

 

[Carlos]

Fucking hell, I though top posting had died out.

[Guest GudniB]

Gudni, you don't need to show me the figures because I know them.

 

You are spinning facts to fit your agenda against the suits. The huge write offs in 2012/13 were designed to bring forward capital charges due in 13/14 onwards when FFP came in and they were absolutely the right thing to do. They are non-cash items dealing with already committed spend.

 

Duckworth got paid off, not gone well since then has it? Also you have provided no context to his remuneration in comparison to similar jobs plus it was ED's call at the end of the day.

 

A little knowledge can be more dangerous than none.

 

RoadRunnerFan MAAT, ACMA, CGMA

 

Do yourself a favour and google what those letters after my name mean.

I am sorry but you seem to be inventing agendas that don’t exist.

I’m not blaming Alan Duckworth in any way but it was, I believe, relegation that brought about the financial crisis not Duckworth’s leaving.

And as a qualified accountant you will surely acknowledge that, whether FFP applied or not, there was no accounting justification for carrying forward the values of player contracts in the balance sheet when those contracts were not remotely worth their book values.

I have no problem with qualified professional people being paid at a rate commensurate with their expertise and responsibilities. The problem arises when people don’t have sufficient expertise, don’t exercise sufficient responsibility or are remunerated excessively. As has been more than well-documented in banking failures, excessive remuneration does tend to lead to a culture of irresponsibility.

Both Phil Gartside and Alan Duckworth were experienced qualified professionals but I would be interested to know if you have any opinion as to what would be an appropriate level of remuneration for Dean Holdsworth and Ken Anderson as CEO and Chairman respectively of Burnden Leisure.

[RoadRunnerFan]

 

I am sorry but you seem to be inventing agendas that don’t exist.

I’m not blaming Alan Duckworth in any way but it was, I believe, relegation that brought about the financial crisis not Duckworth’s leaving.

And as a qualified accountant you will surely acknowledge that, whether FFP applied or not, there was no accounting justification for carrying forward the values of player contracts in the balance sheet when those contracts were not remotely worth their book values.

I have no problem with qualified professional people being paid at a rate commensurate with their expertise and responsibilities. The problem arises when people don’t have sufficient expertise, don’t exercise sufficient responsibility or are remunerated excessively. As has been more than well-documented in banking failures, excessive remuneration does tend to lead to a culture of irresponsibility.

Both Phil Gartside and Alan Duckworth were experienced qualified professionals but I would be interested to know if you have any opinion as to what would be an appropriate level of remuneration for Dean Holdsworth and Ken Anderson as CEO and Chairman respectively of Burnden Leisure.

 

 

You've given your agenda away in your reply to Mounts. You clearly have a beef with ED and his lieutenants as you lost money on Burnden Leisure shares.

 

Relegation did not bring about the financial crisis as such, the response to it, most notably the transfer strategy did.

 

The value of intangible fixed assets (which is mainly player registrations as you don't own players as such) on the balance sheet at June 2012 was £19m made up of purchase price less accumulated depreciation and any impairments in accordance with standard accounting procedure. (see page 20 of the annual report for 2011-12).

 

Balance sheet values are not the same as what the player is worth on the transfer market. We reported turned down £6m for Mark Davies who would have been valued at next to nothing on the balance sheet at that date. If its is advantageous for the club to write down those values, which it was in 2012-13 for the reasons explained in my previous post, then the club are well within their rights to do so. Even so if you consider that someone was apparently willing to pay £6m for Mark Davies in 2012 then the £19m valuation was probably not far from the value on the open market in any case. The problem is we have overpaid in terms of wages so we have struggled to get the going rate for players.

 

I don't know what Holdsworth/Anderson should be paid since I cant be arsed doing a tedious benchmarking exercise on League 1 executive pay - though even that would not be representative as we are a very different  animal to most in that league. You don't know what they will be paid either. What I will say is that their pay will likely pale into insignificance compared to our high earning players -if Anderson uses his contacts to reduce these costs then I'm all for it because  it is something that we have struggled with since relegation - January 2016 most notably.

 

Apologies to readers for the length and dry content of the post but wanted to address Gudni's points.

Edited March 13, 2016 by RoadRunnerFan

[deane koontz]

Kinell, has Malc had internet babies

[Rizlar]

Please put a lid on this lets all move on ffs it's becoming boring!

[Carlos]

Becoming!

[Guest GudniB]

You've given your agenda away in your reply to Mounts. You clearly have a beef with ED and his lieutenants as you lost money on Burnden Leisure shares.

 

Relegation did not bring about the financial crisis as such, the response to it, most notably the transfer strategy did.

 

The value of intangible fixed assets (which is mainly player registrations as you don't own players as such) on the balance sheet at June 2012 was £19m made up of purchase price less accumulated depreciation and any impairments in accordance with standard accounting procedure. (see page 20 of the annual report for 2011-12).

 

Balance sheet values are not the same as what the player is worth on the transfer market. We reported turned down £6m for Mark Davies who would have been valued at next to nothing on the balance sheet at that date. If its is advantageous for the club to write down those values, which it was in 2012-13 for the reasons explained in my previous post, then the club are well within their rights to do so. Even so if you consider that someone was apparently willing to pay £6m for Mark Davies in 2012 then the £19m valuation was probably not far from the value on the open market in any case. The problem is we have overpaid in terms of wages so we have struggled to get the going rate for players.

 

I don't know what Holdsworth/Anderson should be paid since I cant be arsed doing a tedious benchmarking exercise on League 1 executive pay - though even that would not be representative as we are a very different  animal to most in that league. You don't know what they will be paid either. What I will say is that their pay will likely pale into insignificance compared to our high earning players -if Anderson uses his contacts to reduce these costs then I'm all for it because  it is something that we have struggled with since relegation - January 2016 most notably.

 

Apologies to readers for the length and dry content of the post but wanted to address Gudni's points.

As a qualified accountant you do seem to jump to the most bizarre conclusions with scarcely any thought.  I have driven Mounts (and others) to distraction explaining how ED was actually £170million out of pocket when scarcely anyone else was willing to accept it.

I am well aware of the accounting rules and that the book value on the balance sheet was £19m at 30 June2012 and £1.6m at 30 June2013.

Its not an accounting term, but you could say that ‘the proof of the pudding is in the eating’ and if we take a look at what happened after 30 June 2012, we find that player sales brought in a total of £3m over the next two years. That tends to suggest to me that the £19m might have been a bit optimistic and the £1.6m more realistic.

It would be stupid to include figures that were both unrealistic and commercially disadvantageous so I wouldn’t expect the board to do anything other than write down the values when they did. But it was really a belated recognition of the fact that some of the players we had spent money on weren’t worth what we had spent or what we were paying them.

[Take Hunt Off]

Seems like we have posters on here that might have done a better job than the previous incumbents. ....then again hindsight is a wonderful thing.

[RoadRunnerFan]

Give it a rest mate, you have no idea what you are talking about. (that's amied Gudni not Hunt).

 

I'm going to respect the wishes of most members and leave this well alone now.

Edited March 13, 2016 by RoadRunnerFan

[Carlos]

Qualified commentary always welcome pal.

 

I don't think anyone gives a fuck what the book value of players was in 2012, unless it gets us off the bottom of the table.

[stevieb]

Agreed. Let's get back to fixing the things that matter...

 

Hot dogs, butter and red sauce provisions.