Highest paid director at NCFC

[PurpleCanary 5,592]

[quote user="shefcanary"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]

[quote user="shefcanary"]I''ve not seen the accounts yet, but I would expect that there is some discussion about the provision for payments to former manager in there, particularly given impending employment tribunal, any resolution of which would be a post balance sheet event.  However none of my fellow fag packet accountants have commented yet.  Is there any discussion of the Lambert compensation situation? [/quote]

 

Not sure if that includes me[8-|][;)] but the accounts haven''t reached me yet. Previously you could print them out from a pdf but the club doesn''t seem to have provided that this year, unless I just can''t see the link.

[/quote]

 

I really do have to start using emoticons more regularly Purple.  I was just preparing myself for the usual insults.  [;)]  Anyway, I am as always waiting with baited breath for your analysis, which as usual I am sure will be both insightful and cut through the hyperbole. 

[/quote]

 

shef, when my analysis does appear (bearing in mind that I haven''t actually seen the accounts yet...) watch out - in terms of cutting through the management hyperbole - for the WOW! factor...

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="Tangible Fixed Assets anyone"][quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="Tangible Fixed Assets anyone"]I would tell you where to look in the Annual Report but I remember the last time I made a post for public information purposes (i.e re. the new extension at Colney) I got flamed by you!

Have a nice day![/quote]

Surely that''s worth it''s own thread Tangy, just like the one you started when you told us about your meeting with Bowkett but couldn''t discuss what you''d talked about.

[/quote]

But following that meeting I did answer two questions that people wanted answered. That was a greater contribution than you have made to this thread! 

[/quote]

And exactly what have you contributed to this thread except for a dig at another poster?

[/quote]

Thats a bit rich coming from you!

 

[TIL 1010 4,815]

I won''t be offended Tangy if you tell me i am wrong about The Kerrison Hotel venture that Bedford Clanger was on about.I just tried to put it in simple talk as i really have no idea about business you must understand but i think i was about right with our involvement and financial risk.

I await your response so thanks in anticipation.

[shefcanary 2,496]

shefcanary wrote: I''ve not seen the accounts yet, but I would expect that there is some discussion about the provision for payments to former manager in there, particularly given impending employment tribunal, any resolution of which would be a post balance sheet event. However none of my fellow fag packet accountants have commented yet. Is there any discussion of the Lambert compensation situation? I would tell you where to look in the Annual Report but I remember the last time I made a post for public information purposes (i.e re. the new extension at Colney) I got flamed by you! Have a nice day!   Tangy, forgive me if I have read "flamed" wrong but it is very unusual for me to stifle debate over financial matters because I have provided a cast iron argument that could not be argued against.  With all things financial there is always more than one way of reading a set of figures.  If I offended you I apologise but really I cannot recall anything offensive in what I said.  I quite enjoy your reading of things financial at the club!

[shefcanary 2,496]

Nutty, thanks for your note on the date of departure of Lambert. 

 

I have researched the date of departure and it raises quite a conundrum for conspiracy theorists!  The redtops reported that Lambert quit at a meeting on 30 May in their paper editions of 31 May, but the club did not report formally that ties had effectively been severed until 1 June 2012.  Why the 36 hour delay then?  One reason may indeed have been due to consideration being given to the publication of financial information within the financial statements that have just been released.  Without a formal severing of ties until 1 June, NCFC plc can argue the departure of Lambert was not until the year ending 31 May 2013, thus any detailed discussion of the financial position would not have to be released until the accounts for that year is published.  In effect this buys another 12 months to conduct business in private.  A happy coincidence or a good enough reason to delay things for 36 hours? 

 

I''ll leave that to the paranoid amongst you, but if the latter, why did Bowkett feel obliged to announce figures that were beign argued over at the recent Fans Forum?  I originally surmised it was because the issue was about to be publicised in the financial statements, but that appears now not to be the case.  So removing the heat from the Board and Hughton over pitch matters may have been the reason?

 

Who says financial statements are boring?

 

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,459]

[quote user="Herman "][quote user="morty"][quote user="Herman "][quote user="Graham Paddons Beard"]

Whilst on the subject on the Report and Accounts here are two questions.

1. Who gets the 65k dividends on the B preference shares?

2. Which players lead to us getting £1.13m for "appearance related receipts for former players"?

 

 

[/quote]

Hmmm,interesting.Who could that be?Cody?Crofts would be too soon.

[/quote]Maybe we have had add ons with every player we have released, and its a sum of a few players. As for who, no idea lol.[/quote]

Just had a look at the report ([|-)]) and it''s only 113k so that would make sense.

[/quote]

 

Apologies all, it is £113,000 not £1.13m so much less exciting! Herman has better eyesight than me.

Purple...any idea on who gets paid dividends on B preference shares?

[shefcanary 2,496]

GPB - these shares were issued at the same time as the Ordinary Share issue in 2003-04 when the club were pushing for promotion and was aimed at raising funding for what eventually was used to buy Huckerby.  At the time I bought 4 ordinary shares and 1 B Preference share (£100 in both cases), and so would assume many others did similarly.  So most holders I would assume are "rank and file" supporters at the time.  Not saying that there aren''t high profile people who have them, but that share issue was aimed at ordinary fans rather than an attempt to sell the club! 

 

The shares hold no voting rights, but rank over ordinary shares on winding up.  Holders are also entitled to a dividend every year.  I''m still waiting for the dividends from last year but I assume they are discussed in the accounts and hence the reason for your question.  The dividend is fixed at £4.70 - so small that I would expect many don''t even bother to cash them ''cos parking to go to the bank to cash them probably costs more than that!!  So ultimately although there is a cost to them, in real terms that cost is decreasing as shares are sold back to the club and holders move and forget to update records with the club.

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="TIL 1010"]

I won''t be offended Tangy if you tell me i am wrong about The Kerrison Hotel venture that Bedford Clanger was on about.[/quote]

 

From page 5 of the NCFC. Plc. 2012 Annual Report:

Share of operating profit in joint venture (i.e. the hotel JV.)            £226k

Interest payable and similar charges - Share of joint venture         (£123k)

k=£''000s

 

[Big Vince 324]

[quote user="Wiz"]And how much did Fry get?............he''s never here!...........hell, I''m here more than him![/quote]

Fry doesn''t get anything as he is a non-executive director. The executives are McNasty and Bowkett, but it is not clear from the accounts if the latter draws a salary. Looks like it all goes to McNasty.

[TIL 1010 4,815]

[quote user="Tangible Fixed Assets anyone"][quote user="TIL 1010"]

I won''t be offended Tangy if you tell me i am wrong about The Kerrison Hotel venture that Bedford Clanger was on about.[/quote]

 

From page 5 of the NCFC. Plc. 2012 Annual Report:

Share of operating profit in joint venture (i.e. the hotel JV.)            £226k

Interest payable and similar charges - Share of joint venture         (£123k)

k=£''000s

 

[/quote]

Thankyou for answering my question Tangible and i hope this clarifies the position for Bedfordshire Clanger who said that the hotel was running at a loss so just the one more question for you.......How much did Watling wallet ?

[norfolkbroadslim 223]

Tangy back in the good books then?[;)]

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="TIL 1010"]

Thankyou for answering my question Tangible and i hope this clarifies the position for Bedfordshire Clanger who said that the hotel was running at a loss [/quote]

and you said: ''The Kerrison Hotel venture as described in the accounts does indeed show a loss''

I knew your friendly approach wouldn''t last long!

 

[TIL 1010 4,815]

[quote user="Tangible Fixed Assets anyone"]

[quote user="TIL 1010"]

Thankyou for answering my question Tangible and i hope this clarifies the position for Bedfordshire Clanger who said that the hotel was running at a loss [/quote]

and you said: ''The Kerrison Hotel venture as described in the accounts does indeed show a loss''

I knew your friendly approach wouldn''t last long!

 

[/quote]

Indeed Tangible i did say that on page 2 of this thread but i meant to say may well show a loss not indeed show a loss as at that stage i had not seen the new accounts but i was attempting to tell Bedfordshire Clanger that the Hotel finances was not the responsibility of NCFC. Thankyou for pointing that out but you have forgotten my second question regarding Watlings wallet.

[norfolkbroadslim 223]

But wasn''t poor old Watling tricked by doorstep conmen into selling his ''premium bonds'' for a pittance?[:^)]

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="TIL 1010"][quote user="Tangible Fixed Assets anyone"]

[quote user="TIL 1010"]

Thankyou for answering my question Tangible and i hope this clarifies the position for Bedfordshire Clanger who said that the hotel was running at a loss [/quote]

and you said: ''The Kerrison Hotel venture as described in the accounts does indeed show a loss''

I knew your friendly approach wouldn''t last long!

 

[/quote]

Indeed Tangible i did say that on page 2 of this thread [/quote]

 

[TIL 1010 4,815]

[quote user="Tangible Fixed Assets anyone"][quote user="TIL 1010"][quote user="Tangible Fixed Assets anyone"]

[quote user="TIL 1010"]

Thankyou for answering my question Tangible and i hope this clarifies the position for Bedfordshire Clanger who said that the hotel was running at a loss [/quote]

and you said: ''The Kerrison Hotel venture as described in the accounts does indeed show a loss''

I knew your friendly approach wouldn''t last long!

 

[/quote]

Indeed Tangible i did say that on page 2 of this thread [/quote]

 

[/quote]

But how much did Watling wallet ?

[nutty nigel 7,653]

[quote user="norfolkbroadslim"]But wasn''t poor old Watling tricked by doorstep conmen into selling his ''premium bonds'' for a pittance?[:^)][/quote]

 

There are some who claim on here that poor old Watling was not the kindly old statue material benefactor that we like to remember. This anti Watling brigade, otherwise know as pueriles or purists(I can''t remember which) believe that he was involved with Smith and Barclays Bank in a conspiracy to get Chase out and take control of the club. Which is, according to them, how Watling got the shares in the first place.

 

 

[Smudger 0]

In this life, one thing counts,In the bank, large amounts,I''m afraid these don''t grow on trees,You''ve got to pick a pocket or twoooo...You''ve got to pick a pocket or two!

[Highland Canary 76]

The claim and counter claim relating to Lambert and Villa are described in Note 30 Contingent Assets. No names or amounts are mentioned. Hence, I suppose Bowkett''s disclosures at the Fans'' Forum.

From a financial reporting perspective a contingent asset is a gain which is uncertain as at the balance sheet date. Thus, both the claims against Villa and against Lambert are both contingent gains.

Within the same note Lambert''s counter claim is also disclosed. This might have been discussed under Note 29 Contingent Liabilities as it represents a potential future liability as at the balance sheet.

Disclosures such as these are always worded very carefully in financial statements so as not to provide credibility to a claim against a company by unfortunate disclosues in accounts. This can apply, for example, in circumstances such as these where a company faces a legal challenge, but also if a company is undertaking for example a capital reconstruction scheme and wants to avoid challenge by the tax authorities.

[lappinitup 629]

Blimey! It seems the fag packets have got competition with real accountants these days. [:D]

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="TIL 1010"][quote user="Tangible Fixed Assets anyone"][quote user="TIL 1010"][quote user="Tangible Fixed Assets anyone"]

[quote user="TIL 1010"]

Thankyou for answering my question Tangible and i hope this clarifies the position for Bedfordshire Clanger who said that the hotel was running at a loss [/quote]

and you said: ''The Kerrison Hotel venture as described in the accounts does indeed show a loss''

I knew your friendly approach wouldn''t last long!

 

[/quote]

Indeed Tangible i did say that on page 2 of this thread [/quote]

 

[/quote]

But how much did Watling wallet ?

[/quote]

 

Plod, I bet you didn''t ask him this whilst he was alive.

 

OTBC

[nutty nigel 7,653]

Thank you Highland. Now could you point me to where I can find Hughton''s compensation to Brum because it''s not in note 29 Contingent liabilities.

 

 

[nutty nigel 7,653]

[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"][quote user="TIL 1010"][quote user="Tangible Fixed Assets anyone"][quote user="TIL 1010"][quote user="Tangible Fixed Assets anyone"]

[quote user="TIL 1010"]

Thankyou for answering my question Tangible and i hope this clarifies the position for Bedfordshire Clanger who said that the hotel was running at a loss [/quote]

and you said: ''The Kerrison Hotel venture as described in the accounts does indeed show a loss''

I knew your friendly approach wouldn''t last long!

 

[/quote]

Indeed Tangible i did say that on page 2 of this thread [/quote]

 

[/quote]

But how much did Watling wallet ?

[/quote]

 

Plod, I bet you didn''t ask him this whilst he was alive.

 

OTBC

[/quote]

 

And I never heard him accused of conspiracy with Barclays Bank and Smith&Jones to oust Chase when he was alive.

 

 

[TIL 1010 4,815]

[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"][quote user="TIL 1010"][quote user="Tangible Fixed Assets anyone"][quote user="TIL 1010"][quote user="Tangible Fixed Assets anyone"]

[quote user="TIL 1010"]

Thankyou for answering my question Tangible and i hope this clarifies the position for Bedfordshire Clanger who said that the hotel was running at a loss [/quote]

and you said: ''The Kerrison Hotel venture as described in the accounts does indeed show a loss''

I knew your friendly approach wouldn''t last long!

 

[/quote]

Indeed Tangible i did say that on page 2 of this thread [/quote]

 

[/quote]

But how much did Watling wallet ?

[/quote]

 

Plod, I bet you didn''t ask him this whilst he was alive.

 

OTBC

[/quote]

Do you mean that Tangible has just died Bly ?

[Highland Canary 76]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

Thank you Highland. Now could you point me to where I can find Hughton''s compensation to Brum because it''s not in note 29 Contingent liabilities.

 

 

[/quote]

Nutty - Hughton was appointed in June so any compensation would relate to the next accounting period. It probably won''t be separately disclosed as Hughton is not a director. I guess we''ll have to wait and see next year. I accept the point that we might have expected this to be disclosed as a post-balance sheet event. I wonder if the distinction is that the disclosures made represent the transfer of players registrations which are capitalised as intangible assets in the balance sheet. I suspect that football managers even on 3 year contracts are not treated in the same way?

As regards Lambert he resigned during this accounting period and the claim/counter claim relate to last season when he was employed by the club - hence the contingent asset note.

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="TIL 1010"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"][quote user="TIL 1010"][quote user="Tangible Fixed Assets anyone"][quote user="TIL 1010"][quote user="Tangible Fixed Assets anyone"]

[quote user="TIL 1010"]

Thankyou for answering my question Tangible and i hope this clarifies the position for Bedfordshire Clanger who said that the hotel was running at a loss [/quote]

and you said: ''The Kerrison Hotel venture as described in the accounts does indeed show a loss''

I knew your friendly approach wouldn''t last long!

 

[/quote]

Indeed Tangible i did say that on page 2 of this thread [/quote]

 

[/quote]

But how much did Watling wallet ?

[/quote]

 

Plod, I bet you didn''t ask him this whilst he was alive.

 

OTBC

[/quote]

Do you mean that Tangible has just died Bly ?

[/quote]

 

You wouldn''t even get away with that in Petty Sessions.

 

Did you ask Watling himself that question? And if not why not?

 

OTBC

 

 

[shefcanary 2,496]

[quote user="Highland Canary"]The claim and counter claim relating to Lambert and Villa are described in Note 30 Contingent Assets. No names or amounts are mentioned. Hence, I suppose Bowkett''s disclosures at the Fans'' Forum. From a financial reporting perspective a contingent asset is a gain which is uncertain as at the balance sheet date. Thus, both the claims against Villa and against Lambert are both contingent gains. Within the same note Lambert''s counter claim is also disclosed. This might have been discussed under Note 29 Contingent Liabilities as it represents a potential future liability as at the balance sheet. Disclosures such as these are always worded very carefully in financial statements so as not to provide credibility to a claim against a company by unfortunate disclosues in accounts. This can apply, for example, in circumstances such as these where a company faces a legal challenge, but also if a company is undertaking for example a capital reconstruction scheme and wants to avoid challenge by the tax authorities.[/quote]

 

Ta for this Highland - my accounts still haven''t arrived, but this is indeed a fascinating accounting problem.  I would have been very surprised of no mention of the claim and counter claim given the large amount reported as being at stake by both Bowkett & Lambert.  Your note obviously confirms the trouble that has been taken to draft an evenly balanced discussion of the current situation without giving too much away.  

 

The timing of Lambert''s official departure is very important.  As it was deemed to be 1 June (after the year-end), the potential asset and liability do not need to be accrued within the results recently published, but as the financial impact could be significant the note is required as a guide to future financial performance.   

 

If the departure had been just a matter of hours earlier on 31 May it would have been a real headache trying to account for it at this point in time given that the outcome is still not known.  Do you assume the worst outcome (Lambert wins), the best (the club wins hands down) or most likely some kind of compromise is reached?  The most likely treatment would have been to assume the Club had lost for the sake of prudence; however the accounts could have been delayed a little until the matter was resolved, or expensive legal opinion taken to persuade the auditors of the likely outcome, or a deal could have been done more quickly. 

 

Overall though you can see now why Bowkett has forced the issue into the press in order to get the story of a successful financial year out there without question marks over the Lambert issue taking some of the gloss off of a very good news story.

[TIL 1010 4,815]

[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

Did you ask Watling himself that question? And if not why not?

[/quote]

I don''t suppose the answer will suit but it is simples....never met the gentleman.

[nutty nigel 7,653]

[quote user="Highland Canary"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

Thank you Highland. Now could you point me to where I can find Hughton''s compensation to Brum because it''s not in note 29 Contingent liabilities.

 

 

[/quote]

Nutty - Hughton was appointed in June so any compensation would relate to the next accounting period. It probably won''t be separately disclosed as Hughton is not a director. I guess we''ll have to wait and see next year. I accept the point that we might have expected this to be disclosed as a post-balance sheet event. I wonder if the distinction is that the disclosures made represent the transfer of players registrations which are capitalised as intangible assets in the balance sheet. I suspect that football managers even on 3 year contracts are not treated in the same way?

As regards Lambert he resigned during this accounting period and the claim/counter claim relate to last season when he was employed by the club - hence the contingent asset note.

[/quote]

 

As a bog cleaning bingo caller I know I''m out of my depth in this exalted company but I''m sure I remember that the cost of terminating Gunny''s contract (£100,000) was included in post balance sheet events 2009.

 

 

 

[Timmah 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Highland Canary"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

Thank you Highland. Now could you point me to where I can find Hughton''s compensation to Brum because it''s not in note 29 Contingent liabilities.

 

 

[/quote]

Nutty - Hughton was appointed in June so any compensation would relate to the next accounting period. It probably won''t be separately disclosed as Hughton is not a director. I guess we''ll have to wait and see next year. I accept the point that we might have expected this to be disclosed as a post-balance sheet event. I wonder if the distinction is that the disclosures made represent the transfer of players registrations which are capitalised as intangible assets in the balance sheet. I suspect that football managers even on 3 year contracts are not treated in the same way?

As regards Lambert he resigned during this accounting period and the claim/counter claim relate to last season when he was employed by the club - hence the contingent asset note.

[/quote]

 

As a bog cleaning bingo caller I know I''m out of my depth in this exalted company but I''m sure I remember that the cost of terminating Gunny''s contract (£100,000) was included in post balance sheet events 2009.

 

 

 

[/quote]

Nigel, why do you try and have your say about things you clearly do not understand.

It''s like reading a Smudgy ramble about football. Utterly clueless. At least you know your place I suppose bog cleaner.