Although these are only basic figures, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to spot the problem. Massive drop in turnover and no reduction in costs, however as with all accounts, these are 12 months out of date and they dont show the figures for 2011.
Over half the turnover reduction reflects the ending of the release of deferred income from the Odsal settlement in 2002. No cash effect. Most of the rest WAS reflected in reduced costs. And try reducing fixed costs in a hurry when income falls quickly, as was the problem for most clubs when the Great Recession hit. Try looking at the cash flow statement and net cash position instead. it was actually far less dire than I expected.
It sounds lke the real damage was done in 2011, and the 2011 accounts will show a massive collapse in income, if the leaked numbers are to be believed. Hood said 1/4m profit, I am assumingly highly-disingenuously overlooking the presumed profit of 1 1/4m on the lease sale, giving an operating loss of around £1m in 2011. If one of the club people who I know read these forums can refute that, I beg you to do so please. I am bloody sick and tired of half-truths. THAT will have created the massive cash shortfall. No surprises now why we sold Lynch, eh?
I would like all the directors or or former directors who were owed interest dating back to over a decade previously, which interest remained unpaid the last time it was disclosed in the accounts, to state whether they waived it, or it remains outstanding, or they received repayment of it. I would also like to know whether there is any truth in what I have read on here and elsewhere, regarding one of them resorting to winding up action to obtain repayment. I doubt we will ever know except maybe if the administrator chooses to make any reference in his report to creditors, but that does not stop me wanting to know as someone who chucked nearly a grand in total into the pledge pot.
As I have kept saying, and as I think most people can now see, the future club will either have to find a shed load more enduring income than now, or find a way to slash costs very considerably. Not just one-off donations to plug the immediate gap. Slashing the playing staff costs and maybe moving to VP would seem the only realistic big-number options for the latter; hiking the season ticket prices and consumating these new sources of income Caisley suggested although in all fairness never promised were there would be for the latter.
But quite how you increase income if we have to field a far thinner and weaker squad, and especially if it means playing at VP, would seem to be the massive challenge facing the new lot. Catch-22, and they have doubtless found the same as the last lot, that it is much harder than many appreciate from outside. The prospective administrator looks to have effectively admitted that without a sugar daddy the future is bleak. I continue to hold that belief.