|
Post by rickyotto on Aug 12, 2017 12:48:58 GMT
He states in the original post that he did
|
|
|
Post by rickyotto on Aug 12, 2017 12:52:03 GMT
So MS makes one of the best points, and raises one of the most important questions that impacts the future of our football club, and the replies are "Does it matter" and "Very very tiresome". Well, if you want your football to exist in 20 years time then yes, it does matter. There's plenty of examples of football clubs liquidating over unpaid debts and owners pulling out, that could be us one day, there's no guarantees in this industry. Asking the questions now, rather than when it's too late, is vital. Don't respect anybody with such a high level of hypocrisy no matter how valid the point made. Leneghan era he was sat in the directors box and not a murmur!! I remember Martin Luther King saying something once but I thought "f*ck that mate I remember where you sat once so your point is irrelevant to me"
|
|
|
Post by finlandia on Aug 12, 2017 13:19:46 GMT
For clarity I sent it in the week before to a member of the committee. To oxvox's credit it was actually posed to Darryl ahead of the meeting and he's responded and I believe the answer will be published to members soon. So greatful to oxvox for asking the question as due work work commitments I couldn't make it. What i stand by are these are questions that matter to me I feel they are important but that's not to say everyone will. I'd have no problem asking Darryl Anthing to his face as I did for over a year when I was chairman during his tenure. As for suggestions oxvox didn't ask questions of wpl that's comical as the meeting notes show we asked every question sent in be it as forums or oxvox meetings. I think the Lenagan's would be the first to say I asked difficult questions all the time be it financial or them actually printing my comments saying we didn't support season ticket price rises!! I have also never accepted an offer from WPL of Darryl to sit in the directors box. But that's all by the by. Looking forward to being able to comment on the reply and great work by oxvox to get it answered so thank you. Ok - so if you sent it, and knew that that were getting an answer, why post it on here in a manner that suggests you didn't know you were getting the question answered!
|
|
|
Post by Mark Sennett on Aug 12, 2017 13:25:01 GMT
Didn't get any reply until after I posted it. Found at yesterday late afternoon and was appreciative it had been asked.
|
|
|
Post by grenobleroad on Aug 12, 2017 18:31:44 GMT
Didn't get any reply until after I posted it. Found at yesterday late afternoon and was appreciative it had been asked. Happy with the answer?
|
|
|
Post by oxvox on Aug 13, 2017 10:17:40 GMT
Question raised by Mark was indeed asked to Daryl, he replied promptly in writing and we'll publish it shortly.
We also have notes to write up from the Ian Mixter meeting, which again, will be published ASAP.
Have a lovely Sunday.
|
|
|
Post by Mark Sennett on Aug 16, 2017 9:32:27 GMT
In reply to OUFCYellow's post on the other thread about management fees etc. Here's my promised reply: The last set of published accounts show a management fee to ENSCO of £100,000 (2016) and £80,000 in 2015. Accounts from 1 July 2016 to 30 June 2017 not filed yet. Debt in 2016 accounts was £12,059,892 of which £10,866,290 is owed to ensco. Admin expenses was £2,203,339 but there's no detail of what's included in that. Hope that helps.
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Aug 16, 2017 9:40:13 GMT
Not really 😂. The question was just as ensco are our holding company do they have to share their accounts publicly at the agm in the same way oufc do. If staff directors, and the cpf link is all being paid in and out of ensco, do we get to see that?
|
|
|
Post by oxfordmitch on Aug 16, 2017 10:06:46 GMT
In reply to OUFCYellow's post on the other thread about management fees etc. Here's my promised reply: The last set of published accounts show a management fee to ENSCO of £100,000 (2016) and £80,000 in 2015. Accounts from 1 July 2016 to 30 June 2017 not filed yet. Debt in 2016 accounts was £12,059,892 of which £10,866,290 is owed to ensco. Admin expenses was £2,203,339 but there's no detail of what's included in that. Hope that helps. Interesting reading, who do we owe the other 1.2 million to?
|
|
|
Post by londonroader on Aug 16, 2017 16:22:09 GMT
In reply to OUFCYellow's post on the other thread about management fees etc. Here's my promised reply: The last set of published accounts show a management fee to ENSCO of £100,000 (2016) and £80,000 in 2015. Accounts from 1 July 2016 to 30 June 2017 not filed yet. Debt in 2016 accounts was £12,059,892 of which £10,866,290 is owed to ensco. Admin expenses was £2,203,339 but there's no detail of what's included in that. Hope that helps. Interesting reading, who do we owe the other 1.2 million to? Wall's sausages....
|
|
|
Post by Paul Cannell on Aug 16, 2017 18:18:36 GMT
Absolute porkie.
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Aug 21, 2017 13:21:45 GMT
Hope Oxvox don't mind me posting this The question posed was detailed and we paraphrase as follows:
“Earlier this year you stated that you bought the club for £4m and then invested another £4.3m. Since then you have confirmed that £2m has come into the club, so your net investment stands at around £6m. Why then does the club have a debt to your company, Ensco, of £12m? Would it not be in the club’s best interests simply to owe you the money that you have invested in it?”
Here is the reply from Darryl Eales in full:
“The answer to the question is multi layered as there is a big difference, as you will know, between cash and profit.
For example, in the year to 30 June 2017, when the club is expected to declare a profit, I had to invest further funds in excess of £1m during the season.
This, in summary, arises from there being an underlying operating loss, driven mainly by increase in playing budget but offset by cup receipts, which is also offset by transfer fees received net of transfer fees paid. As you know, last summer we paid out slightly more in fees than we received in cash terms. Each transfer deal has different deferral elements so the overall picture will reflect the aggregation of the individual deals. Also remember that in each deal, particularly Roofe, there may be a significant sell on fee payable.
As of the year end, in summary, my cash investment (including the £4m paid to Ian) is £10.38m - I have just had this confirmed by Tom so it is hopefully correct!
The loans to me reflect the history of the club - when I bought the club, I took over Ian's loans and paid £1 for the equity as it is of no value, unless and until the club is worth more than the value of the loans.
That is why the loans are higher than my cash investment but this should not be a concern. The key point is that the club has no external debt.
As said before the club is fully funded for the coming season based on the receipts over this summer which cover the underlying operating loss and have enabled a further 20% increase in the playing budget.
We also have a pot for transfer fees, which are not included in the playing budget.
Hope this helps." ----------------------- A couple of points of interest. The initial assumption that transfer fees into the club were then used to repay Eales doesn't appear correct, in fact Eales has put more cash in than the £8.3 million.
He sidesteps the question of why the balance of the WPL debt written off by Lenagan is still owed by the club. This could have been written off by Ensco, but does it actually make any difference?
The funds that came in effectively bankroll this coming season (on top of normal revenues), plus there is still a transfer pot.
So at what stage does Eales actually start having some of his investment repaid? I doubt he ever thought he would have had to put in £10million in three years so perhaps he might want to clear off some of that if we get a decent transfer fee for Johnson. But does this then jeapordise the saleability of the club, if we are not adequately reinvesting profits in the team?
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Aug 21, 2017 15:58:40 GMT
So basically the debt is all owed to ensco, but isn't a debt a such, just if he does sell that money gets paid back as well. So say £5m to de to buy the club and £10m to ensco to clear the "debt" Is that right ?
|
|
|
Post by Junior on Aug 21, 2017 16:47:26 GMT
Didn't Eales say no matter what happens, he won't leave Oufc with any debt which has occurred during his tenure?
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Aug 21, 2017 16:53:31 GMT
He did, which I think if what I've said above is correct that's exactly what would happen. Don't quite get why u would move £4.5m written off debt over, rather than just ask for more for the club and less to clear the debt. Tax purposes maybe. But certainly seems not to unreasonable that he's making sure he will be due his investment back should he sell. Which is exactly what il did. Until in the end writing it off
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Aug 21, 2017 17:36:30 GMT
Didn't Eales say no matter what happens, he won't leave Oufc with any debt which has occurred during his tenure? No. It was I think a question of what would happen if he ran out money and couldn't afford to run the club anymore, then he'd pass it on debt free (to him). I think the situation now is that the club isn't 'up for sale' but I'm sure he'd want some return as the club seeing as he paid Lenagan 4 million for a L2 club and it's now a L1 club with funding for this season sorted and hopefully play-off challenging.
|
|
|
Post by foley on Aug 21, 2017 19:04:28 GMT
Didn't Eales say no matter what happens, he won't leave Oufc with any debt which has occurred during his tenure? No. It was I think a question of what would happen if he ran out money and couldn't afford to run the club anymore, then he'd pass it on debt free (to him). I think the situation now is that the club isn't 'up for sale' but I'm sure he'd want some return as the club seeing as he paid Lenagan 4 million for a L2 club and it's now a L1 club with funding for this season sorted and hopefully play-off challenging. I seem to remember DE clearly stating a number of times that the club would NOT be left with ant debt under his tenure.
|
|
|
Post by manorlounger on Aug 21, 2017 19:07:25 GMT
To be honest, I am still none the wiser. I do not understand how these sums of money are moving around and certainly don't understand the maths behind it all. There is a debt, yes? but OUFC will make a profit? so not a debt? And IL wrote off his loan/debt but now it is owned by Ensco so it is a debt/loan again? And DE owns Ensco who lend him money to run OUFC which he also owns? And where does the money in Ensco come from? Is there any real money?
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Aug 21, 2017 19:33:04 GMT
To be honest, I am still none the wiser. I do not understand how these sums of money are moving around and certainly don't understand the maths behind it all. There is a debt, yes? but OUFC will make a profit? so not a debt? And IL wrote off his loan/debt but now it is owned by Ensco so it is a debt/loan again? And DE owns Ensco who lend him money to run OUFC which he also owns? And where does the money in Ensco come from? Is there any real money? 26
|
|
|
Post by daveoufc on Aug 21, 2017 19:57:09 GMT
The way I understood DE s response is that he bought £4m of IL debts for £1
So IL hasnt written any amount off he just transfered his debt to DE/Ensco.
|
|
|
Post by manorlounger on Aug 21, 2017 20:09:28 GMT
The way I understood DE s response is that he bought £4m of IL debts for £1 So IL hasnt written any amount off he just transfered his debt to DE/Ensco. Now, to me, that reads that he paid a £1.00 and then owed £4 million?
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Aug 21, 2017 20:19:29 GMT
The way I understood DE s response is that he bought £4m of IL debts for £1 So IL hasnt written any amount off he just transfered his debt to DE/Ensco. So ur saying oufc owed il £4m . Darryl said if I give u £1 cAn ensco owe it u rather than the club ?
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Aug 21, 2017 20:21:39 GMT
The way I understood DE s response is that he bought £4m of IL debts for £1 So IL hasnt written any amount off he just transfered his debt to DE/Ensco. No. Lenagan has written off £4million debt owed by WPL to himself . Because why would any take over oufc with debt owed to a previous owner that they had no control over ? So Lenagan has got around half his money back but won't get any more.
|
|
|
Post by manorlounger on Aug 21, 2017 20:25:02 GMT
The way I understood DE s response is that he bought £4m of IL debts for £1 So IL hasnt written any amount off he just transfered his debt to DE/Ensco. No. Lenagan has written off £4million debt owed by WPL to himself . Because why would any take over oufc with debt owed to a previous owner that they had no control over ? So Lenagan has got around half his money back but won't get any more. So what is all this "porting" of debt that gets mentioned?
|
|
|
Post by daveoufc on Aug 21, 2017 21:15:45 GMT
The way I understood DE s response is that he bought £4m of IL debts for £1 So IL hasnt written any amount off he just transfered his debt to DE/Ensco. So ur saying oufc owed il £4m . Darryl said if I give u £1 cAn ensco owe it u rather than the club ? Well yeah that is my understanding of what Daryl is telling us.
|
|
|
Post by daveoufc on Aug 21, 2017 21:27:08 GMT
The way I understood DE s response is that he bought £4m of IL debts for £1 So IL hasnt written any amount off he just transfered his debt to DE/Ensco. No. Lenagan has written off £4million debt owed by WPL to himself . Because why would any take over oufc with debt owed to a previous owner that they had no control over ? So Lenagan has got around half his money back but won't get any more. Well Daryl was saying he has bought that debt. I assume the club wasnt worth £8m at the time. He mentioned there being no equity in the other £4m. So from what DE is saying ensco owe ILs £4m back to him if and when the clubs value rise enough. Thats my take on it anyways believing DE and giving him benifit of doubt in what he says. Ìf you know different well then yeah that sounds bad news and we are £4m down.
|
|
|
Post by rickyotto on Aug 22, 2017 3:17:58 GMT
Didn't Eales say no matter what happens, he won't leave Oufc with any debt which has occurred during his tenure? Anyone can make promises. They're not worth diddly squat See FKs cinema and bowling complex ....the profits of which I believe are now all channeled into the football club as he promised??
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Aug 22, 2017 5:51:28 GMT
No. Lenagan has written off £4million debt owed by WPL to himself . Because why would any take over oufc with debt owed to a previous owner that they had no control over ? So Lenagan has got around half his money back but won't get any more. Well Daryl was saying he has bought that debt. I assume the club wasnt worth £8m at the time. He mentioned there being no equity in the other £4m. So from what DE is saying ensco owe ILs £4m back to him if and when the clubs value rise enough. Thats my take on it anyways believing DE and giving him benifit of doubt in what he says. Ìf you know different well then yeah that sounds bad news and we are £4m down. Surely that doesn't work though. As the key point is the club has no "external debt". Still owing il £4m would be external debt wouldn't it?
|
|
|
Post by manorlounger on Aug 22, 2017 6:41:55 GMT
I can see a light going on! So, if I have understood this, OUFC owed IL £4 million. DE bought that debt for £1.00 as in he gave IL a quid and was then owed £4 million by OUFC. (sounds like a good deal to me) Ensco 1070 then lent DE enough money to run the club. (DE owns Ensco 1070 so he lent himself his own money - sounds a bit dodgy to me, but what do I know!)
Accountant types, how am I doing?
|
|
|
Post by daveoufc on Aug 22, 2017 9:21:56 GMT
Well Daryl was saying he has bought that debt. I assume the club wasnt worth £8m at the time. He mentioned there being no equity in the other £4m. So from what DE is saying ensco owe ILs £4m back to him if and when the clubs value rise enough. Thats my take on it anyways believing DE and giving him benifit of doubt in what he says. Ìf you know different well then yeah that sounds bad news and we are £4m down. Surely that doesn't work though. As the key point is the club has no "external debt". Still owing il £4m would be external debt wouldn't it? Well maybe not as its Ensco s debt now according to DE.
|
|