Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Financial Results
#41
(23-03-2018, 12:28 PM)Terry Wrote:
(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.
Well I'm certainly guilty on 2 out of three counts.  I hope not stale but I guess one never knows.
RB
Reply
#42
(26-03-2018, 07:32 PM)Reabank Wrote:
(23-03-2018, 12:28 PM)Terry Wrote:
(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.
Well I'm certainly guilty on 2 out of three counts.  I hope not stale but I guess one never knows.
RB

Same here!
Keep up-to-date with County Cricket at http://deepextracover.com/
Reply
#43
Here we are again with last year's results:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/47028547
Keep up-to-date with County Cricket at http://deepextracover.com/
Reply
#44
(28-01-2019, 03:55 PM)Terry Wrote: Here we are again with last year's results:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/47028547

What's the current state of the loan from the city council? Are we paying that back at the minute?
Proud to be a Bear
Reply
#45
(26-03-2018, 07:32 PM)Reabank Wrote:
(23-03-2018, 12:28 PM)Terry Wrote:
(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.
Well I'm certainly guilty on 2 out of three counts.  I hope not stale but I guess one never knows.
RB

I have been interviewed for one of the committee slots and subject to ratification at the AGM would be very happy and honoured to provide a link between members and the club. I can be a bit pale in the winter but I’m not stale or male!
Reply
#46
(28-01-2019, 09:38 PM)stingray Wrote:
(26-03-2018, 07:32 PM)Reabank Wrote:
(23-03-2018, 12:28 PM)Terry Wrote:
(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.
Well I'm certainly guilty on 2 out of three counts.  I hope not stale but I guess one never knows.
RB

I have been interviewed for one of the committee slots and subject to ratification at the AGM would be very happy and honoured to provide a link between members and the club. I can be a bit pale in the winter but I’m not stale or male!

I think that's very good news
Keep up-to-date with County Cricket at http://deepextracover.com/
Reply
#47
(28-01-2019, 09:44 PM)Terry Wrote:
(28-01-2019, 09:38 PM)stingray Wrote:
(26-03-2018, 07:32 PM)Reabank Wrote:
(23-03-2018, 12:28 PM)Terry Wrote:
(22-03-2018, 09:54 PM)Reabank Wrote: 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.
Well I'm certainly guilty on 2 out of three counts.  I hope not stale but I guess one never knows.
RB

I have been interviewed for one of the committee slots and subject to ratification at the AGM would be very happy and honoured to provide a link between members and the club. I can be a bit pale in the winter but I’m not stale or male!

I think that's very good news
Thank you Terry, that’s very kind of you. I’m passionate about the club having started as a junior bear but I’m also not afraid to challenge when appropriate.
Reply
#48
(28-01-2019, 09:49 PM)stingray Wrote:
(28-01-2019, 09:44 PM)Terry Wrote:
(28-01-2019, 09:38 PM)stingray Wrote:
(26-03-2018, 07:32 PM)Reabank Wrote:
(23-03-2018, 12:28 PM)Terry Wrote: 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.
Well I'm certainly guilty on 2 out of three counts.  I hope not stale but I guess one never knows.
RB

I have been interviewed for one of the committee slots and subject to ratification at the AGM would be very happy and honoured to provide a link between members and the club. I can be a bit pale in the winter but I’m not stale or male!

I think that's very good news
Thank you Terry, that’s very kind of you. I’m passionate about the club having started as a junior bear but I’m also not afraid to challenge when appropriate.
Will your new role qualify you to get Trotty canonised?
Keep up-to-date with County Cricket at http://deepextracover.com/
Reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes Terry's post:
Leicester Exile
#49
That is the best news of the close season. You must get selected. As you say, you are passionate about the club - almost as much as for Trotty - and will be a great asset on the committee.
LE - aka John
Reply
#50
Don't know if Reabank still has a look on here, but would be nice to get his take on the accounts. £1.5M loss not good
Reply
#51
(31-01-2019, 05:15 PM)rednalbear Wrote: Don't know if Reabank still has a look on here, but would be nice to get his take on the accounts. £1.5M loss not good

I haven't taken a detailed look at the accounts but where does it say a £1.5m loss?
Proud to be a Bear
Reply
#52
In the report by Craig Flindell.
Reply
#53
(30-01-2019, 01:37 AM)Leicester Exile Wrote: That is the best news of the close season. You must get selected. As you say, you are passionate about the club - almost as much as for Trotty - and will be a great asset on the committee.

Thank you!
Reply
#54
(28-01-2019, 06:23 PM)Exiled Bear Wrote:
(28-01-2019, 03:55 PM)Terry Wrote: Here we are again with last year's results:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/47028547

What's the current state of the loan from the city council? Are we paying that back at the minute?

Regarding the loan, Craig Flindall's report says "£1.15m paid to Birmingham City Council to service the secured loan."
In the accounts, it says "the loan of £21,822,555 from Birmingham City Council is repayable in quarterly instalments over 23 years and 3 months from March 2020 at a fixed interest rate of 5.00%."
This is where we could do with someone who is a bit more numerate than me; but it would seem to me that the £1.15m paid last year only covers the interest and is not actually reducing the amount owed.  If the plan is to start repaying the actual loan (plus the interest) from March 2020, that seems a pretty tall order. 
It's a bit like having a mortgage on your house - everything is fine until you can't pay; and then suddenly the bank (or in this case the Council) owns your home.
Keep up-to-date with County Cricket at http://deepextracover.com/
Reply
#55
(01-02-2019, 10:04 AM)Terry Wrote:
(28-01-2019, 06:23 PM)Exiled Bear Wrote:
(28-01-2019, 03:55 PM)Terry Wrote: Here we are again with last year's results:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/47028547

What's the current state of the loan from the city council? Are we paying that back at the minute?

Regarding the loan, Craig Flindall's report says "£1.15m paid to Birmingham City Council to service the secured loan."
In the accounts, it says "the loan of £21,822,555 from Birmingham City Council is repayable in quarterly instalments over 23 years and 3 months from March 2020 at a fixed interest rate of 5.00%."
This is where we could do with someone who is a bit more numerate than me; but it would seem to me that the £1.15m paid last year only covers the interest and is not actually reducing the amount owed.  If the plan is to start repaying the actual loan (plus the interest) from March 2020, that seems a pretty tall order. 
It's a bit like having a mortgage on your house - everything is fine until you can't pay; and then suddenly the bank (or in this case the Council) owns your home.

Just been looking at the accounts.  You are quite right Terry we did pay back £300k to, I think, the ECB in the period but nothing to the council.  Indeed I think the total amount paid off on the council loan since we borrowed the money is £0.00 although a payment of £2.4m is due in 2020.  But the terms of the loan mean that £18m is due to be outstanding in 5 years time.  My, more detailed, comments are at http://sideoncricket.blogspot.com/2019/0...-club.html 
RB
Reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes Reabank's post:
parkfield bear
#56
(01-02-2019, 12:06 PM)Reabank Wrote:
(01-02-2019, 10:04 AM)Terry Wrote:
(28-01-2019, 06:23 PM)Exiled Bear Wrote:
(28-01-2019, 03:55 PM)Terry Wrote: Here we are again with last year's results:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/47028547

What's the current state of the loan from the city council? Are we paying that back at the minute?

Regarding the loan, Craig Flindall's report says "£1.15m paid to Birmingham City Council to service the secured loan."
In the accounts, it says "the loan of £21,822,555 from Birmingham City Council is repayable in quarterly instalments over 23 years and 3 months from March 2020 at a fixed interest rate of 5.00%."
This is where we could do with someone who is a bit more numerate than me; but it would seem to me that the £1.15m paid last year only covers the interest and is not actually reducing the amount owed.  If the plan is to start repaying the actual loan (plus the interest) from March 2020, that seems a pretty tall order. 
It's a bit like having a mortgage on your house - everything is fine until you can't pay; and then suddenly the bank (or in this case the Council) owns your home.

Just been looking at the accounts.  You are quite right Terry we did pay back £300k to, I think, the ECB in the period but nothing to the council.  Indeed I think the total amount paid off on the council loan since we borrowed the money is £0.00 although a payment of £2.4m is due in 2020.  But the terms of the loan mean that £18m is due to be outstanding in 5 years time.  My, more detailed, comments are at http://sideoncricket.blogspot.com/2019/0...-club.html 
RB

A very interesting read.  But you say that the club didn't pay anything back to the council whereas Craig Flindall says in his report: "Below operating profit, our interest charge in 2018 was £1.32m (2017: £1.16m), with £1.15m of this paid to Birmingham City Council to service the secured loan." 
Keep up-to-date with County Cricket at http://deepextracover.com/
Reply
#57
(01-02-2019, 10:02 PM)Terry Wrote:
(01-02-2019, 12:06 PM)Reabank Wrote:
(01-02-2019, 10:04 AM)Terry Wrote:
(28-01-2019, 06:23 PM)Exiled Bear Wrote:
(28-01-2019, 03:55 PM)Terry Wrote: Here we are again with last year's results:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/47028547

What's the current state of the loan from the city council? Are we paying that back at the minute?

Regarding the loan, Craig Flindall's report says "£1.15m paid to Birmingham City Council to service the secured loan."
In the accounts, it says "the loan of £21,822,555 from Birmingham City Council is repayable in quarterly instalments over 23 years and 3 months from March 2020 at a fixed interest rate of 5.00%."
This is where we could do with someone who is a bit more numerate than me; but it would seem to me that the £1.15m paid last year only covers the interest and is not actually reducing the amount owed.  If the plan is to start repaying the actual loan (plus the interest) from March 2020, that seems a pretty tall order. 
It's a bit like having a mortgage on your house - everything is fine until you can't pay; and then suddenly the bank (or in this case the Council) owns your home.

Just been looking at the accounts.  You are quite right Terry we did pay back £300k to, I think, the ECB in the period but nothing to the council.  Indeed I think the total amount paid off on the council loan since we borrowed the money is £0.00 although a payment of £2.4m is due in 2020.  But the terms of the loan mean that £18m is due to be outstanding in 5 years time.  My, more detailed, comments are at http://sideoncricket.blogspot.com/2019/0...-club.html 
RB

A very interesting read.  But you say that the club didn't pay anything back to the council whereas Craig Flindall says in his report: "Below operating profit, our interest charge in 2018 was £1.32m (2017: £1.16m), with £1.15m of this paid to Birmingham City Council to service the secured loan." 
Hello Terry
Service the secured loan is convoluted language for paid the interest.  There has been no repayment of the Council loan (although £300k or so of ECB loan was paid off in the period.)  So your mortgage simile is correct, Warwickshire currently have an interest only mortgage, converting to a repayment mortgage in 2020.
RB
Reply
#58
Can someone who understands the financing of big business please explain something for me? If the amounts WCCC are paying the council only amounts to the interest charged just where is the club going to find the money to pay the capital off or are they hoping the effects of inflation means the sum will be easily found when the deadline arrives.
LE - aka John
Reply
#59
(04-02-2019, 12:09 PM)Leicester Exile Wrote: Can someone who understands the financing of big business please explain something for me? If the amounts WCCC are paying the council only amounts to the interest charged just where is the club going to find the money to pay the capital off or are they hoping the effects of inflation means the sum will be easily found when the deadline arrives.

You obviously don't believe in the loan fairy.
Keep up-to-date with County Cricket at http://deepextracover.com/
Reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes Terry's post:
Leicester Exile


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)