Bangitintrnet wrote: April 9th, 2024, 11:53 am

Taunton Iron Cider wrote: April 9th, 2024, 11:19 am

Chris Davis wrote: April 9th, 2024, 11:01 am

Amberexile wrote: April 9th, 2024, 10:53 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: April 8th, 2024, 6:57 pm

Taunton Iron Cider wrote: April 8th, 2024, 6:37 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: April 8th, 2024, 6:17 pm The 22/23 account are now online on the companies house website.

£146,000 was the extent of the clubs borrowing, all provided by the club directors as stated in the club accounts 22/23.

So the statements made here about club debt.....

https://www.southwalesargus.co.uk/sport ... m-rumours/

Are confirmed here in the last paragraph, which indicates the £146,000 provided as interest free loans by the directors have been repaid......

https://www.newport-county.co.uk/news/2 ... w-jenkins/

Everything else is due to overspend before a single large income payment after the accounting date. It's known as cash flow.

Not so quick sunshine, please explain the £500k increase in creditors, which looks on the face of it as though they are taking the cash strain?
The illiquid position has worsened by almost £1m and the Club is insolvent to the tune of £1.307m.
Apart from that it is all looking good!

I think Amberexile has explained why if you have a Guaranteed income, that you cannot be in an insolvent position. He also wanted to comment on how the debt situation could be squared, so I await his comments.

wrt insolvency and in the words of Shaggy, "It wasn't me".

On the question of the statement made by the Trust at the (not so) open meeting held on 12th June regarding debt. The statement made was as follows -

"Debt of just £61k as at 30 June 2023"

At the time I questioned how this could be true given the loss being announced for 21/22 at that time and the statement about having an ongoing structural deficit of £300k per annum. I did have a conversation with a Director querying this but he could not answer the conundrum.

Having looked at the accounts now published I cannot see how thus statement could have been true.

Is anybody can explain this, I would love to hear that explanation.

I'm not sure anyone on here can explain it. However, a £61k debt at June might have been be true and in line with a £350k loss for the year. But if there were very large and unforseen bills coming in later on in the Club's financial year e.g. a massive increase in RP rental then that would clearly have had a substantial effect on end of year indebtedness expectations.

I’m afraid such a scenario is highly unlikely as Amberexile is referring to a meeting held with supporters last June, a few days short of the financial year end. Surely the Directors would/should have known the precise financial position of the Club at that point, so it seems that in speaking to Trust members they decided to be economical with the truth. Also, once again the filing of the accounts was left to the very last minute.

As I’ve previously noted, the creditors have ballooned by a further £500k, and yet we are to believe that the Directors were unaware of this material negative change?

We can all now see why we were forced into a fire sale scenario as without urgent financial help, completing the forthcoming season was highly unlikely.

The Trust had a meeting on the 30th of June the day before the Dragon's consortium agreed terms with the WRU.

It was at that meeting that we were told that a year's agreement to stay at RP had been signed, and that the necessary finance had been put in place as part of the deal. So in between the June 12th meeting and the accounts cut off.

Bangitintrnet wrote: April 9th, 2024, 2:48 pm

Amberexile wrote: April 9th, 2024, 2:36 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: April 9th, 2024, 2:32 pm

Amberexile wrote: April 9th, 2024, 2:23 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: April 9th, 2024, 2:11 pm https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/68762322

For the benefit of Stan, HJ on RP.

The piece also confirms that finances are now stable as mentioned in the recent accounts that they would be.

The recently announced season ticket prices to me indicates that significant progress has been made on a new 10 year deal. Otherwise he wouldn't be able to work out future monetary need, or offer something he couldn't definitely provide.

According to that, the BBC reckon "Newport also owed £1.6m last summer". It would be unfair to compare the BBC's £1.6million with the just £61k but £1.3million would be more fair.

So on the one hand you say our accounts show no signs of debt, but think it is £1.3 million.

No. I haven't said that the accounts show no sign of debt. I am saying the £61k figure given to Trust members was inaccurate. I have always believed this because I believed that with a £1,2million loss the debt figure would have been much higher.

We do know that the accounts for two years previously were wrong though, because the FA football financial expert Nick Igoe told us. So how much of that £1.2 million loss related to those previous covid impacted accounts, where we supposedly made a profit despite greatly reduced income, in order to keep the vital cash pot?

Amberexile wrote: April 9th, 2024, 3:22 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: April 9th, 2024, 2:48 pm

Amberexile wrote: April 9th, 2024, 2:36 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: April 9th, 2024, 2:32 pm

Amberexile wrote: April 9th, 2024, 2:23 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: April 9th, 2024, 2:11 pm https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/68762322

For the benefit of Stan, HJ on RP.

The piece also confirms that finances are now stable as mentioned in the recent accounts that they would be.

The recently announced season ticket prices to me indicates that significant progress has been made on a new 10 year deal. Otherwise he wouldn't be able to work out future monetary need, or offer something he couldn't definitely provide.

According to that, the BBC reckon "Newport also owed £1.6m last summer". It would be unfair to compare the BBC's £1.6million with the just £61k but £1.3million would be more fair.

So on the one hand you say our accounts show no signs of debt, but think it is £1.3 million.

No. I haven't said that the accounts show no sign of debt. I am saying the £61k figure given to Trust members was inaccurate. I have always believed this because I believed that with a £1,2million loss the debt figure would have been much higher.

We do know that the accounts for two years previously were wrong though, because the FA football financial expert Nick Igoe told us. So how much of that £1.2 million loss related to those previous covid impacted accounts, where we supposedly made a profit despite greatly reduced income, in order to keep the vital cash pot?

The £61k figure and the £1,2million figure relate to different years.
The reason the £1,2million figure is relevant is that it resulted in a net debt figure of £393k.
The £393k is where we need to start.

At the same time, we were being told debt would fall to £61k we were also being told that there was a structural loss of £300k a year
The reason the £61k predicted figure was doubtful is that starting at a £393k debt figure and anticipating a £300k loss would suggest a debt figure above £700k. Hence me questioning how the £61k could be correct with a board member at the time.
At the time, my suspicions seemed to be backed up further by us also being told that in the 6 months to 31st December 2022 we made a loss of £167k. So starting £393k in debt and losing £167k in 6 months would take a remarkable turn of events to be only £61k in debt 6 months later.

However, in hindsight that £167k appears to be another figure that was inaccurate unless you believe that the stricter financial controls put in place resulted in a loss of £746k in the second half of the year compared to £167k in the first half to get to the full year loss of £913k shown in the latest accounts.

So starting with £393k of debt and losing £913k in the year, ending up with £1.2million of net debt as the accounts show makes some sense. The £61k figure predicted seems to be total nonsense

Bangitintrnet wrote: April 9th, 2024, 3:32 pm

Amberexile wrote: April 9th, 2024, 3:22 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: April 9th, 2024, 2:48 pm

Amberexile wrote: April 9th, 2024, 2:36 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: April 9th, 2024, 2:32 pm

Amberexile wrote: April 9th, 2024, 2:23 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: April 9th, 2024, 2:11 pm https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/68762322

For the benefit of Stan, HJ on RP.

The piece also confirms that finances are now stable as mentioned in the recent accounts that they would be.

The recently announced season ticket prices to me indicates that significant progress has been made on a new 10 year deal. Otherwise he wouldn't be able to work out future monetary need, or offer something he couldn't definitely provide.

According to that, the BBC reckon "Newport also owed £1.6m last summer". It would be unfair to compare the BBC's £1.6million with the just £61k but £1.3million would be more fair.

So on the one hand you say our accounts show no signs of debt, but think it is £1.3 million.

No. I haven't said that the accounts show no sign of debt. I am saying the £61k figure given to Trust members was inaccurate. I have always believed this because I believed that with a £1,2million loss the debt figure would have been much higher.

We do know that the accounts for two years previously were wrong though, because the FA football financial expert Nick Igoe told us. So how much of that £1.2 million loss related to those previous covid impacted accounts, where we supposedly made a profit despite greatly reduced income, in order to keep the vital cash pot?

The £61k figure and the £1,2million figure relate to different years.
The reason the £1,2million figure is relevant is that it resulted in a net debt figure of £393k.
The £393k is where we need to start.

At the same time, we were being told debt would fall to £61k we were also being told that there was a structural loss of £300k a year
The reason the £61k predicted figure was doubtful is that starting at a £393k debt figure and anticipating a £300k loss would suggest a debt figure above £700k. Hence me questioning how the £61k could be correct with a board member at the time.
At the time, my suspicions seemed to be backed up further by us also being told that in the 6 months to 31st December 2022 we made a loss of £167k. So starting £393k in debt and losing £167k in 6 months would take a remarkable turn of events to be only £61k in debt 6 months later.

However, in hindsight that £167k appears to be another figure that was inaccurate unless you believe that the stricter financial controls put in place resulted in a loss of £746k in the second half of the year compared to £167k in the first half to get to the full year loss of £913k shown in the latest accounts.

So starting with £393k of debt and losing £913k in the year, ending up with £1.2million of net debt as the accounts show makes some sense. The £61k figure predicted seems to be total nonsense

All of which ignores that the debt built up in covid seasons didn't just vanish into thin air.

Add to that HJ pointing out that any debt related to RP quite rightly sits with RP. Why say that when mentioning our accounts?

We can understand a change of management is expensive, and we know that utility costs etc have risen at RP, along with wages generally. However he seems content to continue with largely the same season ticket income that was originally put in place 4 seasons ago, despite losses over the last 2 of those seasons.

wattsville_boy wrote: April 9th, 2024, 5:16 pm It appears to me that figures are just put into the accounts to muddy the waters.

It just illustrates to me that we need to vote out everyone involved in the Trust board at the earliest opportunity....

wattsville_boy wrote: April 9th, 2024, 5:16 pm It appears to me that figures are just put into the accounts to muddy the waters.

It just illustrates to me that we need to vote out everyone involved in the Trust board at the earliest opportunity....

Chris Davis wrote: April 9th, 2024, 6:12 pm

wattsville_boy wrote: April 9th, 2024, 5:16 pm It appears to me that figures are just put into the accounts to muddy the waters.

It just illustrates to me that we need to vote out everyone involved in the Trust board at the earliest opportunity....

If they don't resign or they resign and stand for reelection and there are insufficient candidates for places, then, provided at least one Trust member votes for them, then they are back on the Board.

OLDCROMWELLIAN wrote: April 9th, 2024, 6:16 pm

Chris Davis wrote: April 9th, 2024, 6:12 pm

wattsville_boy wrote: April 9th, 2024, 5:16 pm It appears to me that figures are just put into the accounts to muddy the waters.

It just illustrates to me that we need to vote out everyone involved in the Trust board at the earliest opportunity....

If they don't resign or they resign and stand for reelection and there are insufficient candidates for places, then, provided at least one Trust member votes for them, then they are back on the Board.

A little off track I know Chris; but do you know how many Trust Directors positions will form the new Trust Board?

Chris Davis wrote: April 9th, 2024, 6:42 pm

OLDCROMWELLIAN wrote: April 9th, 2024, 6:16 pm

Chris Davis wrote: April 9th, 2024, 6:12 pm

wattsville_boy wrote: April 9th, 2024, 5:16 pm It appears to me that figures are just put into the accounts to muddy the waters.

It just illustrates to me that we need to vote out everyone involved in the Trust board at the earliest opportunity....

If they don't resign or they resign and stand for reelection and there are insufficient candidates for places, then, provided at least one Trust member votes for them, then they are back on the Board.

A little off track I know Chris; but do you know how many Trust Directors positions will form the new Trust Board?

Between 6 and 12 but it is unclear if that includes all types of directors. I think it does but coopted cannot exceed one third.

Amberexile wrote: April 9th, 2024, 7:32 pm

Chris Davis wrote: April 9th, 2024, 6:42 pm

OLDCROMWELLIAN wrote: April 9th, 2024, 6:16 pm

Chris Davis wrote: April 9th, 2024, 6:12 pm

wattsville_boy wrote: April 9th, 2024, 5:16 pm It appears to me that figures are just put into the accounts to muddy the waters.

It just illustrates to me that we need to vote out everyone involved in the Trust board at the earliest opportunity....

If they don't resign or they resign and stand for reelection and there are insufficient candidates for places, then, provided at least one Trust member votes for them, then they are back on the Board.

A little off track I know Chris; but do you know how many Trust Directors positions will form the new Trust Board?

Between 6 and 12 but it is unclear if that includes all types of directors. I think it does but coopted cannot exceed one third.

I don't see any reason for co-opted directors now that the Trust does not own the Club.

Chris Davis wrote: April 9th, 2024, 7:41 pm

Amberexile wrote: April 9th, 2024, 7:32 pm

Chris Davis wrote: April 9th, 2024, 6:42 pm

OLDCROMWELLIAN wrote: April 9th, 2024, 6:16 pm

Chris Davis wrote: April 9th, 2024, 6:12 pm

wattsville_boy wrote: April 9th, 2024, 5:16 pm It appears to me that figures are just put into the accounts to muddy the waters.

It just illustrates to me that we need to vote out everyone involved in the Trust board at the earliest opportunity....

If they don't resign or they resign and stand for reelection and there are insufficient candidates for places, then, provided at least one Trust member votes for them, then they are back on the Board.

A little off track I know Chris; but do you know how many Trust Directors positions will form the new Trust Board?

Between 6 and 12 but it is unclear if that includes all types of directors. I think it does but coopted cannot exceed one third.

I don't see any reason for co-opted directors now that the Trust does not own the Club.

If there are less than 6 elected directors then coopted will be necessary to make the minimum number of 6.

wattsville_boy wrote: April 9th, 2024, 8:06 pm

Chris Davis wrote: April 9th, 2024, 7:41 pm

Amberexile wrote: April 9th, 2024, 7:32 pm

Chris Davis wrote: April 9th, 2024, 6:42 pm

OLDCROMWELLIAN wrote: April 9th, 2024, 6:16 pm

Chris Davis wrote: April 9th, 2024, 6:12 pm

wattsville_boy wrote: April 9th, 2024, 5:16 pm It appears to me that figures are just put into the accounts to muddy the waters.

It just illustrates to me that we need to vote out everyone involved in the Trust board at the earliest opportunity....

If they don't resign or they resign and stand for reelection and there are insufficient candidates for places, then, provided at least one Trust member votes for them, then they are back on the Board.

A little off track I know Chris; but do you know how many Trust Directors positions will form the new Trust Board?

Between 6 and 12 but it is unclear if that includes all types of directors. I think it does but coopted cannot exceed one third.

I don't see any reason for co-opted directors now that the Trust does not own the Club.

If there are less than 6 elected directors then coopted will be necessary to make the minimum number of 6.

Is there any need for more than six anymore?

Chris Davis wrote: April 9th, 2024, 8:40 pm

wattsville_boy wrote: April 9th, 2024, 8:06 pm

Chris Davis wrote: April 9th, 2024, 7:41 pm

Amberexile wrote: April 9th, 2024, 7:32 pm

Chris Davis wrote: April 9th, 2024, 6:42 pm

OLDCROMWELLIAN wrote: April 9th, 2024, 6:16 pm

Chris Davis wrote: April 9th, 2024, 6:12 pm

wattsville_boy wrote: April 9th, 2024, 5:16 pm It appears to me that figures are just put into the accounts to muddy the waters.

It just illustrates to me that we need to vote out everyone involved in the Trust board at the earliest opportunity....

If they don't resign or they resign and stand for reelection and there are insufficient candidates for places, then, provided at least one Trust member votes for them, then they are back on the Board.

A little off track I know Chris; but do you know how many Trust Directors positions will form the new Trust Board?

Between 6 and 12 but it is unclear if that includes all types of directors. I think it does but coopted cannot exceed one third.

I don't see any reason for co-opted directors now that the Trust does not own the Club.

If there are less than 6 elected directors then coopted will be necessary to make the minimum number of 6.

Is there any need for more than six anymore?

The Model Rules require a minimum of six. The Trust has to follow its rules.