Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Financial Results
#21
(18-02-2018, 05:46 PM)Terry Wrote: When I interviewed Norman Gascoigne, we did discuss the Club's finances in the context of Reabank's analysis, which Norman had read.

Here is what he said:

“I read the analysis by Reabank on Bearfans and thought it was very good.

However, all counties are operating in a complex environment and it’s not easy to get underneath the numbers. What it maybe misses is the interaction that we have to have with our stakeholders, such as the ECB and the City Council.

In 2008/9, when the global financial crisis hit, Birmingham City Council were incredibly supportive in helping to preserve Edgbaston as a Members Club, primarily as a facility for the city.
In the circumstances at the time, it would have been tempting either:
  • to sell out and get private investors to re-build the ground
  • to sell Edgbaston and find a place somewhere else (Coventry, maybe) to build a new little stadium
We chose instead to build a partnership with the City Council and the (then) Regional Development Authority. The Council have been very supportive in enabling us to negotiate loan repayment terrms to fit in with our own cash-flow.

Many other counties are in similar situations, except that some of them have taken out short-term funding, which exposes them to what in banking terms are known as re-financing risks, which we don’t have.

So whilst the Reabank analysis is right, over the last eight years, we have had to manage our business through our cash. We can’t afford to run out of cash, which is where Durham and Northants failed. We have succeeded through strong management and cost control whilst still investing in our prime function of playing cricket.

Overall, there are questions about how the ECB are going to spend the revenue from the 2020-2024 broadcasting deal. Is it one of their aims to address the £220 million of debt that sits within the 18 first-class counties – and predominantly within the major match venue counties?
In that context, it really doesn’t matter whether we are first or 18th in the financial league table. But we’ve never had to go knocking on the door of the ECB. They have been very pleased with how we have managed the business.

Do we know what we are doing? I think we do. Are we in a worse situation than we anticipated when we agrees to re-develop? Probably we are, a little bit, because we didn’t get any Test Matches in 2013/14. That took £5 million out of our cash flow. We’ve had to live with that.

So we can’t afford to sit back and think that we are OK but we are in a much better situation than a number of our colleague counties. There would certainbly be more than four below us who are in a worse situation. We don’t have the advantages of a Middlesex playing at Lord’s or the Surrey situation but, those counties apart, we are pretty well in there in relatively good shape.”

Norman Gascoigne is a former BANKER and his response is pure bank-speak - I think if I have read the accounts correctly that the Club has borrowed money from the ECB - I will recheck the accounts likewise.

If you read between the lines regarding Norman's statement then I think hopefully, like me, you will come to the conclusion that it doesn't matter where the Club stands in the First Class Financial League the Club is BUST - Sooner or later unless something dramatic happens it will run out of money and as I have stated on numerous occasions IN BUSINESS CASH IS KING.

I would ask all Members to take Norman's statement with a pinch of salt - I certainly will.
Reply
#22
(12-03-2018, 09:02 PM)DJL Wrote:
(18-02-2018, 05:46 PM)Terry Wrote: When I interviewed Norman Gascoigne, we did discuss the Club's finances in the context of Reabank's analysis, which Norman had read.

Here is what he said:

“I read the analysis by Reabank on Bearfans and thought it was very good.

However, all counties are operating in a complex environment and it’s not easy to get underneath the numbers. What it maybe misses is the interaction that we have to have with our stakeholders, such as the ECB and the City Council.

In 2008/9, when the global financial crisis hit, Birmingham City Council were incredibly supportive in helping to preserve Edgbaston as a Members Club, primarily as a facility for the city.
In the circumstances at the time, it would have been tempting either:
  • to sell out and get private investors to re-build the ground
  • to sell Edgbaston and find a place somewhere else (Coventry, maybe) to build a new little stadium
We chose instead to build a partnership with the City Council and the (then) Regional Development Authority. The Council have been very supportive in enabling us to negotiate loan repayment terrms to fit in with our own cash-flow.

Many other counties are in similar situations, except that some of them have taken out short-term funding, which exposes them to what in banking terms are known as re-financing risks, which we don’t have.

So whilst the Reabank analysis is right, over the last eight years, we have had to manage our business through our cash. We can’t afford to run out of cash, which is where Durham and Northants failed. We have succeeded through strong management and cost control whilst still investing in our prime function of playing cricket.

Overall, there are questions about how the ECB are going to spend the revenue from the 2020-2024 broadcasting deal. Is it one of their aims to address the £220 million of debt that sits within the 18 first-class counties – and predominantly within the major match venue counties?
In that context, it really doesn’t matter whether we are first or 18th in the financial league table. But we’ve never had to go knocking on the door of the ECB. They have been very pleased with how we have managed the business.

Do we know what we are doing? I think we do. Are we in a worse situation than we anticipated when we agrees to re-develop? Probably we are, a little bit, because we didn’t get any Test Matches in 2013/14. That took £5 million out of our cash flow. We’ve had to live with that.

So we can’t afford to sit back and think that we are OK but we are in a much better situation than a number of our colleague counties. There would certainbly be more than four below us who are in a worse situation. We don’t have the advantages of a Middlesex playing at Lord’s or the Surrey situation but, those counties apart, we are pretty well in there in relatively good shape.”

Norman Gascoigne is a former BANKER and his response is pure bank-speak - I think if I have read the accounts correctly that the Club has borrowed money from the ECB - I will recheck the accounts likewise.

If you read between the lines regarding Norman's statement then I think hopefully, like me, you will come to the conclusion that it doesn't matter where the Club stands in the First Class Financial League the Club is BUST - Sooner or later unless something dramatic happens it will run out of money and as I have stated on numerous occasions IN BUSINESS CASH IS KING.

I would ask all Members to take Norman's statement with a pinch of salt - I certainly will.
I don't think the club is bust.  That would mean it couldn't pay back its debts when they fall due.  But the council seems to be prepared to let the county pay the debt back in its own good time (and the council is by far the biggest creditor.)  At the AGM Norman Gasgoine said there was plan for a £2m repayment in 2020.  It will be interesting to see if the county can make this (originally we were supposed to be paying back from 2013 but we haven't repaid a penny yet). From 2015 to 2017 the debt has been fairly constant at £22m.
Reply
#23
(18-03-2018, 05:06 PM)Reabank Wrote:
(12-03-2018, 09:02 PM)DJL Wrote:
(18-02-2018, 05:46 PM)Terry Wrote: When I interviewed Norman Gascoigne, we did discuss the Club's finances in the context of Reabank's analysis, which Norman had read.

Here is what he said:

“I read the analysis by Reabank on Bearfans and thought it was very good.

However, all counties are operating in a complex environment and it’s not easy to get underneath the numbers. What it maybe misses is the interaction that we have to have with our stakeholders, such as the ECB and the City Council.

In 2008/9, when the global financial crisis hit, Birmingham City Council were incredibly supportive in helping to preserve Edgbaston as a Members Club, primarily as a facility for the city.
In the circumstances at the time, it would have been tempting either:
  • to sell out and get private investors to re-build the ground
  • to sell Edgbaston and find a place somewhere else (Coventry, maybe) to build a new little stadium
We chose instead to build a partnership with the City Council and the (then) Regional Development Authority. The Council have been very supportive in enabling us to negotiate loan repayment terrms to fit in with our own cash-flow.

Many other counties are in similar situations, except that some of them have taken out short-term funding, which exposes them to what in banking terms are known as re-financing risks, which we don’t have.

So whilst the Reabank analysis is right, over the last eight years, we have had to manage our business through our cash. We can’t afford to run out of cash, which is where Durham and Northants failed. We have succeeded through strong management and cost control whilst still investing in our prime function of playing cricket.

Overall, there are questions about how the ECB are going to spend the revenue from the 2020-2024 broadcasting deal. Is it one of their aims to address the £220 million of debt that sits within the 18 first-class counties – and predominantly within the major match venue counties?
In that context, it really doesn’t matter whether we are first or 18th in the financial league table. But we’ve never had to go knocking on the door of the ECB. They have been very pleased with how we have managed the business.

Do we know what we are doing? I think we do. Are we in a worse situation than we anticipated when we agrees to re-develop? Probably we are, a little bit, because we didn’t get any Test Matches in 2013/14. That took £5 million out of our cash flow. We’ve had to live with that.

So we can’t afford to sit back and think that we are OK but we are in a much better situation than a number of our colleague counties. There would certainbly be more than four below us who are in a worse situation. We don’t have the advantages of a Middlesex playing at Lord’s or the Surrey situation but, those counties apart, we are pretty well in there in relatively good shape.”

Norman Gascoigne is a former BANKER and his response is pure bank-speak - I think if I have read the accounts correctly that the Club has borrowed money from the ECB - I will recheck the accounts likewise.

If you read between the lines regarding Norman's statement then I think hopefully, like me, you will come to the conclusion that it doesn't matter where the Club stands in the First Class Financial League the Club is BUST - Sooner or later unless something dramatic happens it will run out of money and as I have stated on numerous occasions IN BUSINESS CASH IS KING.

I would ask all Members to take Norman's statement with a pinch of salt - I certainly will.
I don't think the club is bust.  That would mean it couldn't pay back its debts when they fall due.  But the council seems to be prepared to let the county pay the debt back in its own good time (and the council is by far the biggest creditor.)  At the AGM Norman Gasgoine said there was plan for a £2m repayment in 2020.  It will be interesting to see if the county can make this (originally we were supposed to be paying back from 2013 but we haven't repaid a penny yet). From 2015 to 2017 the debt has been fairly constant at £22m.

The Club is BUST as it cannot meet its obligations on demand - There may well be a plan to repay £2m in 2020 BUT .......
If you read the Annual Accounts for 30 September 2017 you will see that LIABILITIES exceed ASSETS by over £5m - That means the Club at that time was INSOLVENT and could not pay its DEBTS on demand (nothing has changed very much since then) - In business CASH IS KING - If the business has no CASH it will eventually go into liquidation unless it can organise additional funding (Perhaps the Club's Governance Re-Structure is a prelude to borrowing/raising more money?) - The only ASSET the Club has (or does not have) is the GROUND itself and I am not sure that the CLUB owns it - I think it is owned by WARWICKSHIRE GROUND LIMITED? I believe that BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL has first call on the land by way of a DEBENTURE?

Have you got a copy of the Club Accounts - I would be happy to supply you with a copy highlighting the appropriate items/figures etc.

Like Warwickshire I have my own plans - Infact I have a plan to buy Buckingham Palace in 2020 but I don't think its realistic do you? Apologies for being facetious but the Club's Business Plan isn't worth the paper its printed on - It's PIE IN THE SKY!!! Time will tell eh?

Whichever way you read the figures at this time The Club is BUST and that's FACT!
Reply
#24
The accounts of every successful company will show they would be unable to pay their debts if demanded so I would not worry about that in respect of the club. What is the worry is the size of the debt compared to the realistic annual trading profit. It could be argued the gap is too wide leaving the club very vulnerable. I do hope safeguards are in place.
LE - aka John
Reply
#25
In 2 years when we have more of the great God that is the T20 slog that will supposedly bring in mega bucks, all will be fine, the fact that some of us proper fans will no longer be members apparently won't matter
Reply
#26
It seems to me that the key to it all is the loan from the City Council and how it is regarded by the Council.  Would they ever risk putting the Club out of business by recalling the loan or insisting on an impossible repayment schedule?
The history so far suggests that they regard the money as more like an investment than a loan, though it might be politically foolish for them to come out and say so.  Whilst I mistrust some of the figures that get bandied about, there is no doubt that when a big match comes to Edgbaston, it brings millions of pounds of spending with it as well as some welcome positive publicity for a city that gets its share of negative press. 
So whilst I think it suits both the Council and the Club to accept that the money is owed and will eventually be paid back, that is very different from how it would be if a bank or other financial institution had loaned the money.
Even if it did come down to the crunch, I think the reality would be that each party could do harm to the other - possible ruin for the Club but at the cost of a  terrible PR disaster for the Council.  I am reminded of the story of the nervous woman who goes to the dentist. She gets in the chair and he prepares his drill. She reaches over and takes a firm grip on his private parts, saying: "Now, we're not going to hurt each other, are we?"
Keep up-to-date with County Cricket at http://deepextracover.com/
Reply
#27
(19-03-2018, 09:52 AM)Terry Wrote: It seems to me that the key to it all is the loan from the City Council and how it is regarded by the Council.  Would they ever risk putting the Club out of business by recalling the loan or insisting on an impossible repayment schedule?
The history so far suggests that they regard the money as more like an investment than a loan, though it might be politically foolish for them to come out and say so.  Whilst I mistrust some of the figures that get bandied about, there is no doubt that when a big match comes to Edgbaston, it brings millions of pounds of spending with it as well as some welcome positive publicity for a city that gets its share of negative press. 
So whilst I think it suits both the Council and the Club to accept that the money is owed and will eventually be paid back, that is very different from how it would be if a bank or other financial institution had loaned the money.
Even if it did come down to the crunch, I think the reality would be that each party could do harm to the other - possible ruin for the Club but at the cost of a  terrible PR disaster for the Council.  I am reminded of the story of the nervous woman who goes to the dentist. She gets in the chair and he prepares his drill. She reaches over and takes a firm grip on his private parts, saying: "Now, we're not going to hurt each other, are we?"

Yes I would agree with that sublect to the caveat that politics is a changeable business.  I think the partnership between club and council covers: the loan, the ground at Portland Road and possibly the land we agreed to sell last year. Certainly the financial statements refer to no repayments until 2020 when we, hopefully, have some cash coming in from the ECB. My concern is that the club was lucky, it didn't know the council would be prepared to reschedule loan repayments and defer interest payments or that a new 20/20 might bring additional revenue.  But often the talk from the Board is haven't we done a great job.  People who get lucky can be dangerous when they assume their good fortune is down to skill and I worry we will end up taking on more debt.
RB
Reply
#28
(19-03-2018, 09:29 PM)Reabank Wrote:
(19-03-2018, 09:52 AM)Terry Wrote: It seems to me that the key to it all is the loan from the City Council and how it is regarded by the Council.  Would they ever risk putting the Club out of business by recalling the loan or insisting on an impossible repayment schedule?
The history so far suggests that they regard the money as more like an investment than a loan, though it might be politically foolish for them to come out and say so.  Whilst I mistrust some of the figures that get bandied about, there is no doubt that when a big match comes to Edgbaston, it brings millions of pounds of spending with it as well as some welcome positive publicity for a city that gets its share of negative press. 
So whilst I think it suits both the Council and the Club to accept that the money is owed and will eventually be paid back, that is very different from how it would be if a bank or other financial institution had loaned the money.
Even if it did come down to the crunch, I think the reality would be that each party could do harm to the other - possible ruin for the Club but at the cost of a  terrible PR disaster for the Council.  I am reminded of the story of the nervous woman who goes to the dentist. She gets in the chair and he prepares his drill. She reaches over and takes a firm grip on his private parts, saying: "Now, we're not going to hurt each other, are we?"

Yes I would agree with that sublect to the caveat that politics is a changeable business.  I think the partnership between club and council covers: the loan, the ground at Portland Road and possibly the land we agreed to sell last year. Certainly the financial statements refer to no repayments until 2020 when we, hopefully, have some cash coming in from the ECB. My concern is that the club was lucky, it didn't know the council would be prepared to reschedule loan repayments and defer interest payments or that a new 20/20 might bring additional revenue.  But often the talk from the Board is haven't we done a great job.  People who get lucky can be dangerous when they assume their good fortune is down to skill and I worry we will end up taking on more debt.
RB

Equally though, you could argue that the club was unfortunate with the previous allocation of international cricket (or was it the one before?) that saw very little awarded to Edgbaston. With a better package awarded we'd probably be in more of a position to start repaying the loan.
Proud to be a Bear
Reply
#29
(20-03-2018, 01:17 AM)Exiled Bear Wrote:
(19-03-2018, 09:29 PM)Reabank Wrote:
(19-03-2018, 09:52 AM)Terry Wrote: It seems to me that the key to it all is the loan from the City Council and how it is regarded by the Council.  Would they ever risk putting the Club out of business by recalling the loan or insisting on an impossible repayment schedule?
The history so far suggests that they regard the money as more like an investment than a loan, though it might be politically foolish for them to come out and say so.  Whilst I mistrust some of the figures that get bandied about, there is no doubt that when a big match comes to Edgbaston, it brings millions of pounds of spending with it as well as some welcome positive publicity for a city that gets its share of negative press. 
So whilst I think it suits both the Council and the Club to accept that the money is owed and will eventually be paid back, that is very different from how it would be if a bank or other financial institution had loaned the money.
Even if it did come down to the crunch, I think the reality would be that each party could do harm to the other - possible ruin for the Club but at the cost of a  terrible PR disaster for the Council.  I am reminded of the story of the nervous woman who goes to the dentist. She gets in the chair and he prepares his drill. She reaches over and takes a firm grip on his private parts, saying: "Now, we're not going to hurt each other, are we?"

Yes I would agree with that sublect to the caveat that politics is a changeable business.  I think the partnership between club and council covers: the loan, the ground at Portland Road and possibly the land we agreed to sell last year. Certainly the financial statements refer to no repayments until 2020 when we, hopefully, have some cash coming in from the ECB. My concern is that the club was lucky, it didn't know the council would be prepared to reschedule loan repayments and defer interest payments or that a new 20/20 might bring additional revenue.  But often the talk from the Board is haven't we done a great job.  People who get lucky can be dangerous when they assume their good fortune is down to skill and I worry we will end up taking on more debt.
RB

Equally though, you could argue that the club was unfortunate with the previous allocation of international cricket (or was it the one before?) that saw very little awarded to Edgbaston. With a better package awarded we'd probably be in more of a position to start repaying the loan.

I can accept that there was an element of luck (both good and bad) in how the Club arrived at its present position.  But I also think it is true that, in recent times, Neil Snowball has been assiduous in building up good relationships with key people (officers and members) within the Council, as evidenced, for example, by the fact that he was asked to be part of the Commonwealth Games bid team.  I suspect (but don't know for sure) that Colin Povey either did less of this or was less skilled in building these kinds of useful relationships.
Keep up-to-date with County Cricket at http://deepextracover.com/
Reply
#30
(20-03-2018, 01:17 AM)Exiled Bear Wrote:
(19-03-2018, 09:29 PM)Reabank Wrote:
(19-03-2018, 09:52 AM)Terry Wrote: It seems to me that the key to it all is the loan from the City Council and how it is regarded by the Council.  Would they ever risk putting the Club out of business by recalling the loan or insisting on an impossible repayment schedule?
The history so far suggests that they regard the money as more like an investment than a loan, though it might be politically foolish for them to come out and say so.  Whilst I mistrust some of the figures that get bandied about, there is no doubt that when a big match comes to Edgbaston, it brings millions of pounds of spending with it as well as some welcome positive publicity for a city that gets its share of negative press. 
So whilst I think it suits both the Council and the Club to accept that the money is owed and will eventually be paid back, that is very different from how it would be if a bank or other financial institution had loaned the money.
Even if it did come down to the crunch, I think the reality would be that each party could do harm to the other - possible ruin for the Club but at the cost of a  terrible PR disaster for the Council.  I am reminded of the story of the nervous woman who goes to the dentist. She gets in the chair and he prepares his drill. She reaches over and takes a firm grip on his private parts, saying: "Now, we're not going to hurt each other, are we?"

Yes I would agree with that sublect to the caveat that politics is a changeable business.  I think the partnership between club and council covers: the loan, the ground at Portland Road and possibly the land we agreed to sell last year. Certainly the financial statements refer to no repayments until 2020 when we, hopefully, have some cash coming in from the ECB. My concern is that the club was lucky, it didn't know the council would be prepared to reschedule loan repayments and defer interest payments or that a new 20/20 might bring additional revenue.  But often the talk from the Board is haven't we done a great job.  People who get lucky can be dangerous when they assume their good fortune is down to skill and I worry we will end up taking on more debt.
RB

Equally though, you could argue that the club was unfortunate with the previous allocation of international cricket (or was it the one before?) that saw very little awarded to Edgbaston. With a better package awarded we'd probably be in more of a position to start repaying the loan.
My point is a bit different.  If you are in charge of a commercial business it may, in some circumstances, be acceptable to take a risk that might send you bust but might make a fortune.  But Warwickshire isn't a commercial business it is registered under the Cooperative and Community Benefit Societies Act, it is a community.  And you shouldn't mess with that that by taking financial decisions which could collapse the community.  But that is what The Committee did when they signed a loan with the council, the terms of which they weren't able to meet.  So it's not a question of lucky or unlucky, it's was the decision taken, appropriate.  I don't think it was.  
RB 
http://sideoncricket.blogspot.co.uk/
Reply
#31
(21-03-2018, 09:26 PM)Reabank Wrote:
(20-03-2018, 01:17 AM)Exiled Bear Wrote:
(19-03-2018, 09:29 PM)Reabank Wrote:
(19-03-2018, 09:52 AM)Terry Wrote: It seems to me that the key to it all is the loan from the City Council and how it is regarded by the Council.  Would they ever risk putting the Club out of business by recalling the loan or insisting on an impossible repayment schedule?
The history so far suggests that they regard the money as more like an investment than a loan, though it might be politically foolish for them to come out and say so.  Whilst I mistrust some of the figures that get bandied about, there is no doubt that when a big match comes to Edgbaston, it brings millions of pounds of spending with it as well as some welcome positive publicity for a city that gets its share of negative press. 
So whilst I think it suits both the Council and the Club to accept that the money is owed and will eventually be paid back, that is very different from how it would be if a bank or other financial institution had loaned the money.
Even if it did come down to the crunch, I think the reality would be that each party could do harm to the other - possible ruin for the Club but at the cost of a  terrible PR disaster for the Council.  I am reminded of the story of the nervous woman who goes to the dentist. She gets in the chair and he prepares his drill. She reaches over and takes a firm grip on his private parts, saying: "Now, we're not going to hurt each other, are we?"

Yes I would agree with that sublect to the caveat that politics is a changeable business.  I think the partnership between club and council covers: the loan, the ground at Portland Road and possibly the land we agreed to sell last year. Certainly the financial statements refer to no repayments until 2020 when we, hopefully, have some cash coming in from the ECB. My concern is that the club was lucky, it didn't know the council would be prepared to reschedule loan repayments and defer interest payments or that a new 20/20 might bring additional revenue.  But often the talk from the Board is haven't we done a great job.  People who get lucky can be dangerous when they assume their good fortune is down to skill and I worry we will end up taking on more debt.
RB

Equally though, you could argue that the club was unfortunate with the previous allocation of international cricket (or was it the one before?) that saw very little awarded to Edgbaston. With a better package awarded we'd probably be in more of a position to start repaying the loan.
My point is a bit different.  If you are in charge of a commercial business it may, in some circumstances, be acceptable to take a risk that might send you bust but might make a fortune.  But Warwickshire isn't a commercial business it is registered under the Cooperative and Community Benefit Societies Act, it is a community.  And you shouldn't mess with that that by taking financial decisions which could collapse the community.  But that is what The Committee did when they signed a loan with the council, the terms of which they weren't able to meet.  So it's not a question of lucky or unlucky, it's was the decision taken, appropriate.  I don't think it was.  
RB 
http://sideoncricket.blogspot.co.uk/

Against this, you could argue that not going ahead with the ground development would have been not just risky but disastrous with Edgbaston becoming not for purpose as a major match venue.  Would there have been a less risky way of raising the money for the development?
There would have been an option, as I think the Chairman mentioned in his interview with me, for the Club to retrench, sell Edgbaston and move to a smaller ground. But there would be a lot of risk in that, as well as the loss of an iconic Test match venue.  I think there would have been more than a slight kerfuffle on this Board if that had been the proposed approach.
Keep up-to-date with County Cricket at http://deepextracover.com/
Reply
#32
Absolutely right, Terry. The ground had been allowed to deteriorate to a dreadful level. However, I do think the finished product has been a big disappointment from a spectator point of view. There is high praise for the facilities for the players and the media. But these are comments made in hindsight. We all had plenty of opportunity to see the plans before it went ahead.
LE - aka John
Reply
#33
(22-03-2018, 11:31 AM)Leicester Exile Wrote: Absolutely right, Terry. The ground had been allowed to deteriorate to a dreadful level. However, I do think the finished product has been a big disappointment from a spectator point of view. There is high praise for the facilities for the players and the media. But these are comments made in hindsight. We all had plenty of opportunity to see the plans before it went ahead.

Yes you're both right, of course.  The county faced a crisis in about 2010 and whichever way it went there would have been angst.  I have the advantage of hindsight and not having to make real world decisions so should be kinder.  Having said that I think the membership is, generally, far too reticent in questioning the Board.  I do a bit of work with mutual companies and the prospect of being asked a few searching questions at the AGM really does concentrate minds.  Warwickshire members just seem to go along with whatever is proposed.

Interesting point about the "big disappointment" of the ground from a spectator's point of view.  I'd say it works for internationals but is poor for county cricket.  But I do have some sympathy for the club there, building a ground that works for all of its functions (county, international, conference business) is tricky and I think we'd all agree the county couldn't have borrowed any more money.  The whole rebuilding exercise of the early 21st century was a botch by the ECB, counties were encouraged to compete against each other but that has seen Hampshire (I think), Glamorgan, Yorkshire and Durham bailed out and us the subject of a slow motion mini bail out.  And there seems to be disatisfaction at Old Trafford and the Rose Bowl about the facilities provided.

RB
http://sideoncricket.blogspot.co.uk/
Reply
#34
(22-03-2018, 09:54 PM)Reabank Wrote:
(22-03-2018, 11:31 AM)Leicester Exile Wrote: Absolutely right, Terry. The ground had been allowed to deteriorate to a dreadful level. However, I do think the finished product has been a big disappointment from a spectator point of view. There is high praise for the facilities for the players and the media. But these are comments made in hindsight. We all had plenty of opportunity to see the plans before it went ahead.

Yes you're both right, of course.  The county faced a crisis in about 2010 and whichever way it went there would have been angst.  I have the advantage of hindsight and not having to make real world decisions so should be kinder.  Having said that I think the membership is, generally, far too reticent in questioning the Board.  I do a bit of work with mutual companies and the prospect of being asked a few searching questions at the AGM really does concentrate minds.  Warwickshire members just seem to go along with whatever is proposed.

Interesting point about the "big disappointment" of the ground from a spectator's point of view.  I'd say it works for internationals but is poor for county cricket.  But I do have some sympathy for the club there, building a ground that works for all of its functions (county, international, conference business) is tricky and I think we'd all agree the county couldn't have borrowed any more money.  The whole rebuilding exercise of the early 21st century was a botch by the ECB, counties were encouraged to compete against each other but that has seen Hampshire (I think), Glamorgan, Yorkshire and Durham bailed out and us the subject of a slow motion mini bail out.  And there seems to be disatisfaction at Old Trafford and the Rose Bowl about the facilities provided.

RB
http://sideoncricket.blogspot.co.uk/

I agree with all of the above.
Although members ultimately went along with the proposed constitutional changes, the fact that there was so much concern, especially on this Board, did stir the Club into responding in greater detail than might have otherwise been the case.
At the risk of repeating myself, I just hope that, when elections to the Members Committee are pending, there will be at least a few candidates who are young and full of ideas - not just more pale,stale males.  That, of course, rules out most (but not all) of us on this Board.
Keep up-to-date with County Cricket at http://deepextracover.com/
Reply
#35
(18-03-2018, 11:54 PM)Leicester Exile Wrote: The accounts of every successful company will show they would be unable to pay their debts if demanded so I would not worry about that in respect of the club. What is the worry is the size of the debt compared to the realistic annual trading profit. It could be argued the gap is too wide leaving the club very vulnerable. I do hope safeguards are in place.

May I take issue with your view that successful companies would be unable to pay their debts if demanded so we should not worry in that respect - That is just not the case!

May I set the record straight as covered by the updated Companies Act of 2005. "Companies that are unable to meet their indebtedness on demand are deemed to be insolvent and should they continue to trade the officers of that company shall be deemed to be acting in a criminal manner and are subject to prosecution in law."

As regards your second point regarding the size of debt in relation to realistic annual trading profits. Warwickshire County Cricket Club have, year on year since the ill advised borrowing of £32 million pounds to build 'An Office Block With Seats' made LOSSES - Cash has dissipated one way or the other in an effort to offset this unrealistic project/loan. 

The gap is too wide - The Club is not only very vulnerable but are BUST (It is only the inclusion of Consolidated Financials that indicate otherwise) - The only realistic way out of this MESS is for Birmingham City Council to write off the debt and the only way they would do that is if they acquired the Ground as covered by the underpinning Debenture as agreed at the time the loan was negotiated/agreed which provided for the inclusion of Birmingham City Council Officers on the Club Committee. Those Officers, at this time, are still WCCC Committee Members, which suggests to me that there is no way that BCC would write off the debt without appropriate recompense.

The bottom line is that The Club is BUST - That ain't gonna change!!!
Reply
#36
Indebtedness does not include sums owed in agreement where there is dates set out in the future for repayment.
Otherwise everyone who buys a house on a mortgage would be able to immediately file for bankruptcy as they would not be able to pay their debts if demanded!

Most people when they buy a car on credit would also be bankrupt for the same reason
LE - aka John
Reply
#37
(24-03-2018, 07:02 PM)Leicester Exile Wrote: Indebtedness does not include sums owed in agreement where there is dates set out in the future for repayment.
Otherwise everyone who buys a house on a mortgage would be able to immediately file for bankruptcy as they would not be able to pay their debts if demanded!

Most people when they buy a car on credit would also be bankrupt for the same reason

Agreed.  Also, putting something in capitals and in bold doesn't make it true.
Keep up-to-date with County Cricket at http://deepextracover.com/
Reply
#38
(24-03-2018, 08:17 PM)Terry Wrote:
(24-03-2018, 07:02 PM)Leicester Exile Wrote: Indebtedness does not include sums owed in agreement where there is dates set out in the future for repayment.
Otherwise everyone who buys a house on a mortgage would be able to immediately file for bankruptcy as they would not be able to pay their debts if demanded!

Most people when they buy a car on credit would also be bankrupt for the same reason

Agreed.  Also, putting something in capitals and in bold doesn't make it true.

So If I put things in CAPITAL LETTERS AND BOLD I am not telling the truth eh? What a shortsighted response - Putting items in CAPITALS and BOLD doesn't make them UNTRUE either does it?

Indebtedness does include sums owed in agreement viz. If you cannot afford to make repayments on your mortgage the lender has the legal power to foreclose/take possession of the asset in question after due process - Remember 2008? Birmingham City Council have such a clause in their agreement with WCCC by way of DEBENTURE should they chose to enforce it.

Please feel free to cast aspersions on my CAPITALS and BOLD highlights BUT as I say TIME WILL TELL eh?

What was that old saying - "There are non so blind as those that cannot see." - If the cap fits wear it eh? 

"I wear a cap from time to time - I was wondering if it fitted or not" Perhaps I am out of step? Perhaps its me that's got it wrong? WOW what do you know eh?
Reply
#39
(24-03-2018, 09:35 PM)DJL Wrote:
(24-03-2018, 08:17 PM)Terry Wrote:
(24-03-2018, 07:02 PM)Leicester Exile Wrote: Indebtedness does not include sums owed in agreement where there is dates set out in the future for repayment.
Otherwise everyone who buys a house on a mortgage would be able to immediately file for bankruptcy as they would not be able to pay their debts if demanded!

Most people when they buy a car on credit would also be bankrupt for the same reason

Agreed.  Also, putting something in capitals and in bold doesn't make it true.

So If I put things in CAPITAL LETTERS AND BOLD I am not telling the truth eh? What a shortsighted response - Putting items in CAPITALS and BOLD doesn't make them UNTRUE either does it?

Indebtedness does include sums owed in agreement viz. If you cannot afford to make repayments on your mortgage the lender has the legal power to foreclose/take possession of the asset in question after due process - Remember 2008? Birmingham City Council have such a clause in their agreement with WCCC by way of DEBENTURE should they chose to enforce it.

Please feel free to cast aspersions on my CAPITALS and BOLD highlights BUT as I say TIME WILL TELL eh?

What was that old saying - "There are non so blind as those that cannot see." - If the cap fits wear it eh? 

"I wear a cap from time to time - I was wondering if it fitted or not" Perhaps I am out of step? Perhaps its me that's got it wrong? WOW what do you know eh?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2SEfqgxug4
Keep up-to-date with County Cricket at http://deepextracover.com/
Reply
#40
But until BCC enforce any such agreement that may be there WCCC are NOT bust. In the same way a mortgage defaulter is not bankrupt until the bank foreclose.
LE - aka John
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)