BFC Accounts to 31 May 2014

The first thing to notice about this years’ accounts is that Mr Cryne has started to fund the football club in a different way. Previously, he funded the club via loans. This has now ceased and he appears to be gradually reducing the value of the loan by taking it back in loan repayments. The amount of his loan reduced by £80,871 in the year. Instead, he is funding the club through donations and he donated £840,000 in the year. This would not normally be an efficient method of funding a trading organisation, because the company would be required to pay corporation tax on any profits arising from the donation. However, since BFC has tax losses carried forward of over £9m, which it can offset against any future profits, the question of tax liability is unlikely to arise. But what other reason can there be to fund a football club in this way. My guess is that it enables the club to comply with the Financial Fair Play rules, and that we shall see much more of this in respect of the current year. We are once more indebted to our owner, because he is now funding the football club in a way that he can never be repaid, and in a way that is not even acknowledged within the accounts. The fact is recorded in a note buried under related party disclosures. When his donation is excluded from turnover, it reduced by 6.52% compared to 2013.

Wages costs increased by £973,875 and I notice that the article quoted by a BBS poster claims that this is as a result of the changes in the management team following the dismissal of David Flitcroft and Mickey Mellon. This results from a directors note to the accounts as follows, “The cost of changing the football management staff was considerable”. I would not think that the costs of settling the outstanding period on those two contracts comes anywhere near accounting for the difference. There was an increase of 8 in the number of staff and Chris O’Grady’s contract would have been a very expensive one. Given the total wages cost of £8,671,264, it is little wonder that the club instituted the clear out of players that it did following relegation. It also explains why the new players are generally younger, presumably with lower wages than seasoned professionals.

The club received transfer fees in the year amounting to £400,000 (Scott Golbourne?) and paid out fees of £606,250 (Dale Jennings and Chris O’Grady?).

The Fee paid to Oakwell Community Assets Ltd for renting Oakwell reduced from £150,000 in the previous year to £102,637. No explanation is given.

This year’s loss of £2,070,734 was broadly financed as follows:

Reducing Debtors £1,139,035 (Everton paying the balance of the Stones fee?)
Increasing Creditors £ 835,105 (Accruals and deferred income?)
Higher Bank Overdraft £ 423,205

So there we have it. We spent a fortune in an attempt to retain our Championship status, much of it fund by a donation from the owner, and in the end we went down anyway, and he has to dip into his pocket again to fund player recruitment and the loss of revenue. Contributors to the BBS moan, but compared to Mr Cryne, they have next to nothing to moan about.

 

What was the closing balance sheet position on debtors, creditors and bank overdraft then please?

 

Your e-mail still current ?

 

yeah.

 

Relatively speaking of course. 300 quid to someone disabled and on benefits is just as valuable as 710k to a multi millionaire.

 

Sent.

 

Debtors £668,916 (comprising Trade Debtors £156,709, Other Debtors £26,142 and Prepayments and accrued income £486,065)
Creditors £3,033,065 (comprising Bank Overdraft 943,187, Trade Creditors £184,856, PAYE & NIC £258,108, VAT £192,350, Other Creditors £5,174 and Accruals and deferred income £1,449,390)

 

Yeah and he part owns the land seperate to owning the football club so he's done alright for himself. Also if we are spending more than we earn by relying on donations from our kind owner, it doesn't make us any better than other clubs that spend beyond their means that always get a bashing.

 

probably best explanation of why Wilson has lasted this long.

 

Net debt increased to £4m, and bank overdraft close to doubled to nearly a million quid. Not great, eh? :-(

 

Send us a copy. Not that I can ever understand them.

 

Done.

To my un accountant eye, it's not got the look of a company that is worth buying.

 

Dunno if it's of any interest, but Mr Cryne is no longer a named shareholder or director of the club's sole owner - Oakwell Holdings. No idea what that means but seems Mr Cryne is in charge without having his name associated - maybe that's why there's a change in funding?

Also, I reckon we'll see his son formally involved soon too.

 

Was he ever?

One reading of this (including MoWat's narrative) could be...we reduced the budget to break even levels (ie lowest wage bill in the Championship) and lost the manager as a consequence, appointed a new manager and stayed up the first year, sacked that manager and stayed up by a miracle the second year, realised we didn't really have the stomach for break even if it meant relegation, abandoned it, then got relegated anyway.

For the avoidance of doubt I believe break even is what we should be doing. Not sure whether break even lite is particularly attractive though.

 

I'm not sure - I thought he was a shareholder or named Director of at least BFC though?

 

I believe that he's always used other people. Gordon shepherd used to hold the shares in trust for PC and now his lawyer (I think) friend does I think but I could have got that all wrong. Did ridsdale ever own us or was that PC as well?
And I'm almost certain he's never been a director.

 

Thanks for that RR.

Also the swing from the previous year is exacerbated by not having a £3m John Stones sale in this year.

 

Same model as Bristol City but on a different scale. Anyone seen their accounts?