Financially - City & Town on a par!?!?

[FramCanary 0]

A review of the most recent ITFC Accounts highlights the fact that they currently have net debt of around £36m, which is after seeing a reduction in monies due to un-secured creditors to just 5p in the £1. The remaining balances due to these unfortunate businesses are being paid off gradually on an on-going basis.

Although their Accounts make uncomfotable reading for the club & it''s supporters there must surely be a growing realisation amongst the larger creditors - Norwich Union, the Bank of Scotland and Barclays - that they are going to have to accept a substantial downwards renegotiation of the debt. The longer that Town remain outside the Premiership, the more likely it is that the capital will never be repaid, let alone the interest that the club is presently exchanging for equity.  This is the view of the ''Ipswich Town Independant Supporters Trust'' & that of their board of Directors. The club currently has a 2 year ''interest holiday'' arrangement in place with these creditors, and has recently received £1.5m of ''new investment''. They have reduced salaries down towards their £5m p.a. target (our''s was around £9m last year), and Magilton has also been handed a transfer budget.

Our net debt (per most recent Accounts) is £19.2m, but around £26m when prepaid season ticket sales are taken into account.

I suggest that in effect we are no better off than our neighbours - which is a little hard to take!.

SACK THE BOARD.

FramCanary.

[Rupethebear 0]

Well according to the league table we are worse off than the lot up the road and yes they have beaten us very easily twice running.

 

[Nerys Hughes 0]

You forget one very important thing... We own Carrow Road, the land around it and our training ground. Ipswich don''t own Portaloo Road. Their only asset is players which, when push comes to shove, they will have to sell. We have land to develop and an income stream from the hotel. So, don''t sack the board - get behind the team.

[Yellow Rose of Texas 0]

So they pay 5p in the pound to reduce their debt to 36m pounds. NCFC has debt of 19.2 (prepaid monies are still prepaid monies)

Were is the similarilty here - what has the board done exactly?

[Fat Barman 0]

Tosh! At least £15 million of our debt is on ''easy'' repayment terms that will see the debt repaid in little over a decade. We are repaying capital on a soundly-structured plan - not just struggling to cover interest payments.Large portions of the balance debt is on interest-free loans from directors - fans who aren''t about to sell their club down the river.To equate the two positions is ludicrous - after their two-year ''holiday'' Tahn will still be deep in the sticky stuff, we will be two years closer to clearing our debt. For ITIST and Directors to assume that their major creditors will write-off large portions of capital debt is naiive in the extreme. If their fan base doesn''t hold up they could well end up in admin (again!) and lose 10 points - the last debt restructure was ''secured'' against future season ticket sales - WTF! [8-|] No land assets for them to fall back on, a long lean monetary time ahead.p.s. the 5p in the pound for unsecured creditors was part of the original CVA a few years ago, nothing new there.

[nutty nigel 7,902]

Well I suggest we are considerably better off than our impoverished neighbours and in more ways than one! Despite claims to the contrary on this messageboard our Board is honest and our debt is manageable. It''s a poor state of affairs when posters use that lot as a stick to beat our great club with.

Read what the piswich Town Independent Supporters Trust have to say and the comparisons they make to their Chairman and the people on our Board:-

http://www.ipswichtownfirst.co.uk/viewnews.asp?id=207

Trust views ahead of Club AGM

By: Carl Day

Ahead of this Wednesday''s Annual General Meeting of the club many supporters remain angry and annoyed at the award and acceptance of a bonus to the club chairman, David Sheepshanks. This comes at a time when the club continues to lose substantial amounts of money on an annual basis and has increased its debt to around £36m, and things are not much better on the pitch where we have gone backwards over the last couple of years. When defending his bonus David Sheepshanks recently said, "I work most of the hours that God gives us. I have invested money and I continue to invest maximum time for the love of the club." In October 2003 it was reported that the chairman''s job had become a two-day-a-week part-time role. The Trust is interested to know whether this situation has now changed. Trust members are also interested in the time the chairman spends working for the FA and the Football League, and also Alexander Ross Ltd, his new football advisory venture. For whom was the chairman working at the Powerex conference in Dubai last week? In his defence, the chairman also cited the money he had put into the club in recent years: "I''m not a wealthy man of benefactor type wealth. I have, since the club got into difficulty, already invested £100,000 into the club." That figure, while laudable, is significantly below the amount he has received from the club, for example the £250,000 bonus that he was awarded in 2001. This is somewhat different from the situation at the other end of the A140 where the chairman is actually putting money into the club. Will the club reveal to shareholders the targets set to the individuals awarded bonuses during the financial year 2005/06? Will their targets for future seasons be made public? The Trust notes that in the accounts the chairman describes the £2.7m loss during 2005/06 as “In line with our expectations… and with what we advised shareholders last year." Later, on November 18th, he said: “Certain people have been bonused for an exceptional performance which has helped put the club in a better position.” We would argue that the club’s overall performance cannot be both “in line with… expectations” and “exceptional”. The chairman has also hinted that a solution to the club''s money worries is in sight: "Financially, at long last, we can see the light at the end of the tunnel and we are talking about bonuses. I just hope we can get this into perspective." We would be interested to know to what he is referring and what the club is doing to reduce the £36m debt, now the highest in the Championship. The two-to-three year ''interest holiday'' with Norwich Union and the other lenders does nothing other than delay the club making interest payments and gift Norwich Union 10-15% of the club. Town made another redundancy last week. Are we to expect news of further job cuts to filter through in the weeks to come? Over the last few years the good name of Ipswich Town has become more and more tarnished. First by administration and the walking away from our obligations to local businesses by paying them only 5p in the pound, not to mention by only paying half of what was due to the taxpayer. The Michael Anderson affair followed, where it appeared the club was willing to accept anyone''s money without doing any proper background checks. The Trust, and national newspapers, were able to discover details of Michael Anderson''s background within 24 hours. And now we have the chairman''s acceptance of a bonus in a year in which the club lost £2.7m. This shows a complete disregard for all those supporters who scrape together enough money to renew their season tickets each year, as well as the local companies which lost money through administration. We feel the key points which most need to be clarified by the club at the AGM are: Is the chairman employed on a full or part-time basis? What time does the chairman spend working for the FA, Football League and Alexander Ross Ltd? What is the financial light at the end of the tunnel that the chairman refers to? Will details of the directors'' bonus targets be revealed to shareholders for previous and future years? Can we expect further redundancies at ITFC?

 

[greenTshirt 2]

Two questions ...

How is the NCFC debt serviced compared to ITFC?

And what about a comparison of Assets?

[ricardo 8,034]

Fram Canary, there is no comparison whatever in the respective financial positions of ITFC and NCFC. We own our own ground and training ground and have a soundly based package to repay our loans from our ongoing income streams (season tickets, commercial etc). ITFC however have mortgaged their future simply to survive today. Effectively they are up * creek without a paddle. They own nothing and owe a lot.

The only correct statement you make is that they will never be able to pay off their debt without regaining Premiership status. Lets all hope that that never happens. OTBC

[mbncfc 1]

NN - excellent post. Really interesting reading.

I am assuming this thread will disappear down the board and be replaced by a new one, stating the same initial points in a different order, using different words, to make the same failed argument.

In your defence Fram, you''ve instigated the best defence of the Board''s financial management of the club for months... [;)]

[First Jedi 0]

I think this thread has served to show how well the club has been run, rather than the desired effect of the opposite... funny.

[charlies dad 0]

[quote user="ob1"]I think this thread has served to show how well the club has been run, rather than the desired effect of the opposite... funny.[/quote] HILARIOUS ISNT IT? .

[FramCanary 0]

[quote user="ob1"]I think this thread has served to show how well the club has been run, rather than the desired effect of the opposite... funny.[/quote]

You may find the state that the club is in (both on & off the pitch) acceptable - I don''t.

To use Doomcaster''s own words:

Chief executive Neil Doncaster told the club website: "It is a sobering thought that despite the millions of pounds of television money that we received during our short stay in the Premiership, the club''s overall cash position only improved by £700,000 that season."

"In the year covered by these accounts, and despite a £7m parachute payment, the club''s cash position worsened by £1.5m."

It is apparant that (given the way in which our club is run financially) we simply could''nt show any ambition to stay in the premier league. Over the past two years (despite massive income) we are now worse off than before.

We are servicing our debt - ITFC are not & will not.

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

[quote user="mbncfc"]

NN - excellent post. Really interesting reading.

I am assuming this thread will disappear down the board and be replaced by a new one, stating the same initial points in a different order, using different words, to make the same failed argument.

In your defence Fram, you''ve instigated the best defence of the Board''s financial management of the club for months... [;)]

[/quote]

what you mean authorising a 9 million wage bill for the current bunch at our club?   Be thankful they are budgeting for relegation, cos  look what happened last time they did that....

Our board are well meaning but totally inept at running a FOOTBALL CLUB.

[Fat Barman 0]

[quote user="FramCanary"]

We are servicing our debt - ITFC are not & will not.

[/quote]Surely then, they will go into receivership and - potentially - fold! The only positive I can see in this for the binners is the dubious priveledge of becoming the highest placed English club ever to go out of existence.We can dream...

[Jerzy Krukowski 5]

[quote user="FramCanary"]

We are servicing our debt - ITFC are not & will not.

[/quote]

Thereby proving the complete opposite of the point you''re attempting to make. Well done.

[mbncfc 1]

[quote user="Citizen Journalist Foghorn"][quote user="mbncfc"]

NN - excellent post. Really interesting reading.

I am assuming this thread will disappear down the board and be replaced by a new one, stating the same initial points in a different order, using different words, to make the same failed argument.

In your defence Fram, you''ve instigated the best defence of the Board''s financial management of the club for months... [;)]

[/quote]

what you mean authorising a 9 million wage bill for the current bunch at our club?   Be thankful they are budgeting for relegation, cos  look what happened last time they did that....

Our board are well meaning but totally inept at running a FOOTBALL CLUB.

[/quote]

Agreed that we never should have allowed that large a wage bill with the quality of player we had by the end of that season.

But I think my point still stands on Ipswich (as thus FC''s thread) making our board''s business acumen look reasonable, if only by reading the other posts above [:D]

[FramCanary 0]

[quote user="SPat"][quote user="FramCanary"]

We are servicing our debt - ITFC are not & will not.

[/quote]

Thereby proving the complete opposite of the point you''re attempting to make. Well done.
[/quote]

To explain - we are incurring the true cost of all our borrowing, ITFC are having this written-off. Indeed, it is now likely that a substantial proportion of the capital is to be written off  by our beloved NU. Hence, our neighbours (having already written off several millions due to un-secured creditors) gain an unfair advantage over most clubs with whom they compete. Bear in mind that a club such as WBA were relegated from the premier league with not one penny of debt (referred to by ''Doomcaster'' recently). How can a club financing £20m of debt compete with clubs in the chumpionship in such a climate?. Thankfully, the club has enjoyed the benefit of £4.8m of share issue money, the £1.5m Whatling legacy & the ''Chase'' land legacy. Without this, we would be finished.

FramCanary.

[FramCanary 0]

[quote user="Fat Barman"][quote user="FramCanary"]

We are servicing our debt - ITFC are not & will not.

[/quote]

Surely then, they will go into receivership and - potentially - fold! The only positive I can see in this for the binners is the dubious priveledge of becoming the highest placed English club ever to go out of existence.

We can dream...

Although it would be fantastic if it happened - it is highly unlikely. No high value sellable assets (players or otherwise) = no point. We (of course) have such value in assets, although not on the pitch - unfortunately!.
[/quote]

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

[quote user="mbncfc"]

Agreed that we never should have allowed that large a wage bill with the quality of player we had by the end of that season.

But I think my point still stands on Ipswich (as thus FC''s thread) making our board''s business acumen look reasonable, if only by reading the other posts above [:D]

[/quote]

Very true mbnfc!! It doesnt compare to the mismanagement by the ipshit board.  How much was their wage bill!!  Counago on 25,000 a week !!  lol  [:D]

[GJD 0]

I assume most Town fans would rather have our financial position, than what they are currently lumbered with. Therefore I believe our boards financial planning is better than the beloved Sheepshanks down the road. How he dares to take a bonus payment is beyond me and at least Delia and the board to my knowledge have never done that.

[Branston Pickle 4,149]

It does seem that the whole idea of this thread has imploded around his ears. 

The simple fact is that the Board is, if anything, almost "too" financially aware for a football club, which makes it unwilling to take the chances that we would like them to take with transfers and so on.  They have budgets which appear to be rather set rather than allowing them to run away from them, they try to attract as many season ticket holders as possible so as to have a good idea of their finances, they look to get a good return on land that we own and even do such things as scenario planning - which shows more forethought than most would give credit for.

It is the last of these which is something they were, imo rather oddly, slated for this time last week, merely because their planning included the possibility of relegation - even though this is something that some people on other threads seem to think is currently a cast iron certainty.  The comments that appeared in response would have been more at home if Munby had said "holy crap, we might get relegated, if we do we are well and truly screwed", rather than, "we have planned for the possibility".  I thought that was just a bit weird.