|
Post by hartlyhare on Apr 8, 2012 9:15:56 GMT
?
|
|
|
Post by Maurice Earp on Apr 8, 2012 13:24:39 GMT
OUFC pay far too much, as per the agreement drawn up with the former chairman Nick (no socks) Merry.
Scoob or Slappy will probably be able to give you the amount.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2012 16:20:10 GMT
It is probably the reason why we might not get any bidders coming in for the club. It has hampered the club from progressing as we should have done
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Apr 8, 2012 17:20:01 GMT
HardlyAllThere - go to the Companies House website, go to web access, look up Oxford United Football Club, download the latest accounts for £1, and the information is there on pages 10 and 14.
|
|
|
Post by helsinkiyellow on Apr 8, 2012 19:34:48 GMT
I think the figure is somewhere between £1 - £1m, but don't quote me on that
|
|
|
Post by superox on Apr 9, 2012 7:06:56 GMT
It's what ever Firoz says.
|
|
|
Post by scoob on Apr 9, 2012 8:57:48 GMT
The 2011 accounts show Operating Lease Rentals - Land and Buildings of £342,980 (2010 £311k & 2009 £330k).
The accounts also show Operating Lease Commitments of £522,000 (2010 £467k & 2009 £439k). However, the figure does not include £82,611 for the year in respect of the settlement of the dispute with Firoka so that takes the figure up to £604k. I have always assumed that this figure includes the rent and the service charges. If this is the case then it is likely to increase to around £650-700k in the next accounts.
Personally I don't think that the rent in itself is excessive. The service charges cover audited costs that are passed on by Firoka.
|
|
|
Post by scoob on Apr 9, 2012 8:59:33 GMT
It is probably the reason why we might not get any bidders coming in for the club. It has hampered the club from progressing as we should have done I think Herds botched attempt at building the stadium has hampered us far more and we will be paying for it for many years to come.
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Apr 9, 2012 10:18:24 GMT
The 2011 accounts show Operating Lease Rentals - Land and Buildings of £342,980 (2010 £311k & 2009 £330k). The accounts also show Operating Lease Commitments of £522,000 (2010 £467k & 2009 £439k). However, the figure does not include £82,611 for the year in respect of the settlement of the dispute with Firoka so that takes the figure up to £604k. I have always assumed that this figure includes the rent and the service charges. If this is the case then it is likely to increase to around £650-700k in the next accounts. Personally I don't think that the rent in itself is excessive. The service charges cover audited costs that are passed on by Firoka. I would expect the forecast cost for 2012 to include the new service charge. Although the increase in the commitment is less than the 2011 charge, at the forum there did seem to have been an implication that the two sides had met halfway (or some other arrangement) on this.
|
|
|
Post by scoob on Apr 9, 2012 10:34:52 GMT
The 2011 accounts show Operating Lease Rentals - Land and Buildings of £342,980 (2010 £311k & 2009 £330k). The accounts also show Operating Lease Commitments of £522,000 (2010 £467k & 2009 £439k). However, the figure does not include £82,611 for the year in respect of the settlement of the dispute with Firoka so that takes the figure up to £604k. I have always assumed that this figure includes the rent and the service charges. If this is the case then it is likely to increase to around £650-700k in the next accounts. Personally I don't think that the rent in itself is excessive. The service charges cover audited costs that are passed on by Firoka. I would expect the forecast cost for 2012 to include the new service charge. Although the increase in the commitment is less than the 2011 charge, at the forum there did seem to have been an implication that the two sides had met halfway (or some other arrangement) on this. I agree. An increase of £100k was mentioned at the forum and this is roughly in line with the £83k charged in the 2011 accounts. I don't think it was made clear at the forum that the dispute had been settled during the 2010/2011 financial year so some of the increased costs have effectively been included in the losses for that year. It appears that the figures were agreed in 2010/2011 but not paid until the current year so presumably are shown withing the creditors on the latest accounts. I now do not expect the current year accounts to be as bad as I first thought.
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Apr 9, 2012 10:39:25 GMT
It would have been an adjusting Post Balance Sheet Event - although the settlement was in 2012, it was in relation to a situation that was in existence at the Balance Sheet date. ie arrears of service charge to June 2011, so was quite rightly put through the June 2011 accounts (although there is perhaps some argument that it should have been a prior year adjustment to the 2010 accounts as well). I was slightly surprised they hadn't disclosed it as a contingent liability in previous years' accounts.
|
|
|
Post by hartlyhare on Apr 9, 2012 11:33:48 GMT
so if the club borrowed £13m over 20 years they'd have to pay £650k plus interest per year
|
|
|
Post by scoob on Apr 9, 2012 11:45:29 GMT
so if the club borrowed £13m over 20 years they'd have to pay £650k plus interest per year If the club paid interest at 5% on £13M that would cost £650k per year but they would also have to pay costs equivallent to the service charges as these will be ongoing costs.They may be able to reduce some of those costs as they would have control rather than Firoka having no incentive to control those costs. However, the cash generated by the Stadco would be used to cover some of the interest but there would also be a significant risk that interest rates could increase in the future too. It is not just a simple case of comparing rent with interest/repayments as there are many other factors to take into account.
|
|
|
Post by scoob on Apr 9, 2012 11:46:04 GMT
It would have been an adjusting Post Balance Sheet Event - although the settlement was in 2012, it was in relation to a situation that was in existence at the Balance Sheet date. ie arrears of service charge to June 2011, so was quite rightly put through the June 2011 accounts (although there is perhaps some argument that it should have been a prior year adjustment to the 2010 accounts as well). I was slightly surprised they hadn't disclosed it as a contingent liability in previous years' accounts. OK that makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2012 6:50:56 GMT
|
|
|
Post by scoob on Apr 25, 2012 8:57:31 GMT
A chap I work with bought a lifetime Season Ticket at Coventry a few years ago. That cost him £1200 which is less than 6 years early bird STs in the East Stand at the Kassam. If a lot of fans took up this offer then it will compound their financial woes. Short term gain for long term pain.
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Apr 25, 2012 9:46:26 GMT
Life time season tickets are always a sign the cash has run out. Bradford did them, Leeds did them. AFC wimbledon have a 5 year season ticket. Barnet are doing an offer that if you have been a ST holder for 5 years, next season BOGOF.
Perhaps the only way they can be justified is if it is to finance actually building a new stand, but even then, it means no ST income in future years to go towards the playing squad.
|
|
|
Post by mintyshoe on Apr 25, 2012 12:31:11 GMT
Perhaps the only way they can be justified is if it is to finance actually building a new stand, but even then, it means no ST income in future years to go towards the playing squad. I guess in this instance it would be when a stadium is reaching its capacity at most games. Financing a new stand/expansion would be financially viable since the club would get all the extra ticket revenues from the new areas...This could only be the case at a very specific kind of club - A small club which is growing fast (If AFC Wimbledon were promoted a few divisions) or a large club with a relatively small stadium (If we were promoted a few divisions). Definitely not something that OUFC should be considering though, since cash flow is relatively okay and we're generally 5,000 under capacity.
|
|
|
Post by scoob on Apr 25, 2012 22:06:52 GMT
A normal ST is already heavily discounted so to sell a lifetime ST at a Championship club for the same price as just five years for the cheapest annual ST at a L2 club shows that the club is in a desperate state. If OUFC ever offered a similar scheme then we should be asking questions about what is going wrong at the club rather than taking up the cheap offer. If the club ever becomes that desperate then the likelyhood of the club still existing for the period of the ST is very low. A five year ST with the appropriate level of discount may be justifiable but its no good if all of the revenue is spent in the first year or two.
|
|
|
Post by foghornleghorn on May 3, 2012 9:40:25 GMT
I think a 5 year or even 10 year season ticket is fine in principle if the funds are used to make a capital purchase as it is just an alternative way of borrowing money but a lifetime season tick is just daft. The problem is the discount incentive has to be enough to to encourage the purchase but not more than you could reasonably borrow from more traditional sources. I doubt the figures would ever be attractive enough.
|
|