2008 - 2009 Accounts Now Available

[Brahma Bull]

So good to see that our INDEPENDENT supporters trust is making sure that the football club passes and signs off their meeting reports.

I'll make a note to bookmark this thread and take a look a year from now to see what the accounts actually say.

Football supporters generally and a supporters trust in particular should never take as gospel anything that a club chairman says as gospel truth, particularly when they are discussing a future event.

Kelvin Thomas seems to be doing a good job and certainly a lot better than his immediate predecessor but the only real evidence of this is in the accounts and the ones just published tell a different story. Bigger losses more debts and more dangerous creditors is what they say at the moment.

Firstly, we are independent, always have been. However, when we raise notes, and this has been criticised before, we have a responsibility to build good relations and we feel that our meeting notes should have the courtesy to be seen by those in attendance.

As for your third para, what are you actually saying then, Mally? Are you actually suggesting Thomas is being creative or god forbid lying about the current state of the club?

The accounts we all refer, do say Bigger Debts, Bigger Losses and Dangerous Creditors but these are out of date, as we all acknowledge. It seems common knowledge that in October 2008, this club was on the brink, therefore that is what one would expect in those set of accounts.

However, 15 months in a long time and the club, I doubt, are anywhere near as bad as those accounts illustrate.

[Mally]

Meeting notes - By all means circulate the notes ahead of going public but giving power of veto is going too far.

Trusting chairmen - Experience should teach us all not to believe anything until you see the proof when it comes to football club chairmen. All of them. That is the only way you can't get conned. It's a shame if Kelvin Thomas is the first really open and honest stright up bloke we've had in that role but his predecessors have set the scene right back to Maxwell.

There's a whole spectrum of potential spin between telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and telling a lie. Hopefully KT is nearer the truth end of that spectrum but it would pay an organisation such as OxVox to err on the side of caution. We probably are going to break even this year but the detail of the accounts and how this was achieved are still unknown and it's almost certain the debt mountain remains just as high.

OxVox's role should be to ask difficult questions and challenge what they are told rather than just being a mouthpiece for the club. I see no evidence of asking the questions or challenging and asking for evidence to back up the club's statements.

[Kernow Yellow]

I think you're being a bit harsh re meeting notes, Mally. It is surely perfectly reasonable for minutes of any meeting to be circulated to all attendees, so that they can be checked for accuracy before being released. Especially when the minutes have been taken by one of the interested parties. I assume that is all that is meant here.

I completely agree with your other point though. We've had far too much in the past of Chairmen being implicitly trusted by fans, simply because they're not the previous incumbent who couldn't be trusted. Every Chairman since Maxwell, in fact. And look what they've done to the club, both collectively and individually.

Asking difficult questions is not the same thing at all as suggesting that someone is lying or not doing a good job, and it's a shame (as an OxVox member) to see Brahma Bull being so defensive about it. Nothing in football is black and white, and it is perfectly possible to be supportive while also wanting to dig a little under the surface and make sure things really are rosy in the garden (or at least less shitty than they were). I would hope that is how OxVox sees its function.

For example, one question I would like answered as a matter of urgency, is 'what is our current debt to HMRC?', given that other clubs have faced court petitions for debts similar to those detailed in our last set of accounts.

[GodalmingYellow]

Meeting notes - By all means circulate the notes ahead of going public but giving power of veto is going too far.

Trusting chairmen - Experience should teach us all not to believe anything until you see the proof when it comes to football club chairmen. All of them. That is the only way you can't get conned. It's a shame if Kelvin Thomas is the first really open and honest stright up bloke we've had in that role but his predecessors have set the scene right back to Maxwell.

There's a whole spectrum of potential spin between telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and telling a lie. Hopefully KT is nearer the truth end of that spectrum but it would pay an organisation such as OxVox to err on the side of caution. We probably are going to break even this year but the detail of the accounts and how this was achieved are still unknown and it's almost certain the debt mountain remains just as high.

OxVox's role should be to ask difficult questions and challenge what they are told rather than just being a mouthpiece for the club. I see no evidence of asking the questions or challenging and asking for evidence to back up the club's statements.

He may be surprised, but I tend to agree with most of Mally's last posting.

I'm not convinced that hard questions are asked, and there is certainly no evidence of the answers to such questions.

The only bit I would differ slightly on, is that allowing one party in attendance to commnent that one or more of the minutes is inaccurate, isn't the same as giving a veto. I would be very disappointed if I went into a business meeting and wasn't given an opportunity to review and correct minutes, as people taking minutes often mis-hear or mis-interpretwhat has actually been said. The caveat with that is that if the party taking the minutes is certain they are correct, allowing subsequent changes is also a no go area.

[Mally]

Brahma Bull said the minutes were &quotpassed and signed off&quot by Kelvin Thomas. Perhaps I'm reading too much into that but I get the feeling that OxVox committee members are far too cautious about their relationship with the club and KT in particular. If the minutes have to be signed off and passed by the club how could they ever say anything critical or even slightly contentious.

We don't know whether more questions were asked and the club refused to answer, whether they answered but asked OxVox not to report the answer or whether they didn't ask any questions at all.

[Snake]

Brahma Bull said the minutes were &quotpassed and signed off&quot by Kelvin Thomas. Perhaps I'm reading too much into that but I get the feeling that OxVox committee members are far too cautious about their relationship with the club and KT in particular. If the minutes have to be signed off and passed by the club how could they ever say anything critical or even slightly contentious.

We don't know whether more questions were asked and the club refused to answer, whether they answered but asked OxVox not to report the answer or whether they didn't ask any questions at all.

This is an old chestnut that needs cracking. The previous supporter's group certainly didn't do this so it suggests a degree of mistrust between the two parties, or even secrecy.

In fact I do recall a time when OxVox did go ahead and put their own spin on things (as an addition to the minutes) but got bollocked by the club for it.

At the heart of the issue is just why the club insist on vetting the minutes.

[Matt D]

The previous supporters' group was a different beast in a different situation.

The club doesn't have a right of veto over any notes put out. They are shown the notes as a courtesy, and to ensure that both parties agree that they are a fair record of what was discussed. If the club were to put notes together of our meetings that it published, we would expect the same. The last time we were unable to agree that this was a fair record of the discussion, we didn't roll over and have our tummies tickled, so could we have less of the suggestion that we're some kind of club lap dog please?

Mally, Snake, and others on this board are, of course, better versed in the myriad ways in which club chairmen can prove themselves unworthy of trust, but it comes down to taking a judgement at any time I think. I think the difficult questions have been asked, but there has to be a pragmatic approach adopted to the questions we ask and the way that we deal with the answers we're given. There's a point at which you have to decide whether someone is basically being straight up with you or not - short of asking to see the books. As a Trust we take this aspect of our role seriously. But equally, these have to be information-based judgements, and information that comes from the club, parti pris as it may on occasion be, is an important part of that, and to jeopardise the opportunity to obtain it for the sake of an answer that wouldn't be forthcoming anyway seems like the action of last resort.

If people really think we're getting this wrong, committee members aren't hard to find or contact, and would welcome informed views.

[Snake]

If you want my view, then let the club put out their own version, and you yours, so then we can make our own minds up.

Just a suggestion.

p.s. “The previous supporters' group was a different beast in a different situation.

[Ascension Ox]

Brahma Bull said the minutes were &quotpassed and signed off&quot by Kelvin Thomas. Perhaps I'm reading too much into that but I get the feeling that OxVox committee members are far too cautious about their relationship with the club and KT in particular. If the minutes have to be signed off and passed by the club how could they ever say anything critical or even slightly contentious.

We don't know whether more questions were asked and the club refused to answer, whether they answered but asked OxVox not to report the answer or whether they didn't ask any questions at all.

This is an old chestnut that needs cracking. The previous supporter's group certainly didn't do this so it suggests a degree of mistrust between the two parties, or even secrecy.

In fact I do recall a time when OxVox did go ahead and put their own spin on things (as an addition to the minutes) but got bollocked by the club for it.

At the heart of the issue is just why the club insist on vetting the minutes.

If OxVox commitee members just gushed out every iota of information discussed at such meetings on say this forum, the relationship with the club, which is generally good, would cease to exist. C'mon on Snake, you , Mally, Steve Hanks and Trevor had to keep lots under your hat back in the day when Kassam came in.

GY, I'm surprised at you seemingoly inferring i'm a club lap dog. I thought you knew me better than that.

[Baboo]

[
The accounts we all refer, do say Bigger Debts, Bigger Losses and Dangerous Creditors but these are out of date, as we all acknowledge. It seems common knowledge that in October 2008, this club was on the brink, therefore that is what one would expect in those set of accounts.

However, 15 months in a long time and the club, I doubt, are anywhere near as bad as those accounts illustrate.

But published accounts are always out date. So what do we do - for the most part ignore them and say things are probably better now &amp never get a meaningful picture?

And all this talk about hopefully possibly breaking even for this financial year really worries me. If I recall the breakeven (ish) budget was based on gates of approx 4700. And given that they are substantially higher we should be quids in. Where has the extra gone. To pay off HMRC ? Wasted on loan players we didn't need / got no value from?

[Snake]

C'mon on Snake, you , Mally, Steve Hanks and Trevor had to keep lots under your hat back in the day when Kassam came in.

Complete bollocks, we were always open.

[GodalmingYellow]

Brahma Bull said the minutes were &quotpassed and signed off&quot by Kelvin Thomas. Perhaps I'm reading too much into that but I get the feeling that OxVox committee members are far too cautious about their relationship with the club and KT in particular. If the minutes have to be signed off and passed by the club how could they ever say anything critical or even slightly contentious.

We don't know whether more questions were asked and the club refused to answer, whether they answered but asked OxVox not to report the answer or whether they didn't ask any questions at all.

This is an old chestnut that needs cracking. The previous supporter's group certainly didn't do this so it suggests a degree of mistrust between the two parties, or even secrecy.

In fact I do recall a time when OxVox did go ahead and put their own spin on things (as an addition to the minutes) but got bollocked by the club for it.

At the heart of the issue is just why the club insist on vetting the minutes.

If OxVox commitee members just gushed out every iota of information discussed at such meetings on say this forum, the relationship with the club, which is generally good, would cease to exist. C'mon on Snake, you , Mally, Steve Hanks and Trevor had to keep lots under your hat back in the day when Kassam came in.

GY, I'm surprised at you seemingoly inferring i'm a club lap dog. I thought you knew me better than that.

Would you like to point out where I referred to you or indeed anyone ele as a club lapdog?

[Paul Cooper]

But published accounts are always out date. So what do we do - for the most part ignore them and say things are probably better now &amp never get a meaningful picture?

And all this talk about hopefully possibly breaking even for this financial year really worries me. If I recall the breakeven (ish) budget was based on gates of approx 4700. And given that they are substantially higher we should be quids in. Where has the extra gone. To pay off HMRC ? Wasted on loan players we didn't need / got no value from?

Tend to agree with this. Crowds up substantially, executive boxes full up for the last few games, hopefully a decent crowd in the play offs (and a couple of Cup runs thta were apparently not included in the budget). The Satanta problem made breaking even more difficult but I would have thought that the club should have made a decent profit thia year after the break even projections at the start of the season.

[Snake]

Just had a quick flick through this set of financial details, which makes our problems seem trivial.

It's from Pompey, and they are (get this) £120,000,000 in debt.

http://www.uhy-uk.com/media/news/PFC%20 ... be%207.pdf

[Paul Cooper]

Just had a quick flick through this set of financial details, which makes our problems seem trivial.

It's from Pompey, and they are (get this) £120,000,000 in debt.

http://www.uhy-uk.com/media/news/PFC%20 ... be%207.pdf

Yes and yesterday on 5 LIve they were quoting how the current Chairman at Hull City was slating his predecessor. Salaries of £40M in the top 12 in the Premiership and 80% of their turnover.

The Chairman was suggesting how all business sense seemed to have gone out of the window.