Barnsley FC Account to 31 May 2016

What is being put up as security for the borrowing that we have been making? And isn't the borrowing from Patrick cryne?

 

One of the major issues with saying we are/were a well supported club is the number of reduced/free tickets we 'sell'. I was told by ******** Ben that as a percentage of sales we are one of the highest in the league which tallies with what others have told me over the years.

 

To deal with your questions one by one. If the club had bought the land and buildings from the Administrator, it would have needed another £6m. If it had got this from a bank, it would have had to pay interest. At say 5% interest rate, that would have cost the club £300k per year. In effect, the council and Mr Cryne are subsidising the club by this amount minus the rent that they charge. I wonder if the none attending rate payers of Barnsley think that this is a good use of their rates.

The notes in the accounts say that Patrick Cryne guarantees the loan. There is no loan at the year end, but my guess is that this is because of cash owed to the League/FA in respect of the sale of Wembley tickets.

 

Basic summaries from recent years:

2015: - £3,004,116
2014: - £2,070,734
2013: + £1,919,321
2012: + £30,246
2011: - £257,295
2010: - £1,020,726
2009: - £3,640,450
2008: + £3,847,393

 

I have to bring that first assertion into question RR.

Why would it have cost £6 million to buy the land from the Administrator?

Unless I'm very much mistaken, the reason it cost PC so much is because Doyle bought it before him and then proceeded to borrow money from Sterling to finance both the ongoing running of the club AND the CVA.

When it became clear than Doyle could not carry on, PC bought the club from him, with Ridsdale as the front man.

 

Keep in mind the few million quid extra cash the club get just for being in the championship and not league 1. With that additional cash we would have been living within our means and made a comfortable profit last season. What it shows is that this club with its current structure could not survive below championship level. Something around the clubs operating model would have to change significantly.

 

As said elsewhere, either our turnover was much less than theirs which would be surprising or they have done much better with the resources they have in that they won automatic promotion.

There should be a full and frank discussion of how we lose the money we do on a consistent basis.

I can't see it like.

 

Granted last year we got to Wembley twice, but let's not forget that due to poor form and consequently poor attendances especially in the first half of the season, it's not massively surprising we made a loss. I may be missing something so correct me if I'm wrong, but next year's accounts should look much healthier given promotion and player sales

Obviously it's not good to be losing money, but Villa lost £81 million in the same period. Puts things into proportion really

 

Surely we'd have to chalk **** on the academy, assuming that that is where the overspend goes.

 

For many years I have questioned whether the academy is worth the money that we spend on it. Of course, the club keeps the actual cost very much under its hat, and when we make a large profit on the sale of a player who graduated from the academy, everyone tends to say that the academy is a sound investment. However, in years when we have not sold an academy graduate, and the cost is reflected as a loss in the accounts, some accuse the club of flagrantly wasting money. I remember years ago, someone quoted £1m for the cost of the academy. We now also support an U23 team, which is not full of U18 academy players like the reserves used to be, and it has a management and development structure. When the club gives jobs to the likes of Bobby Hassell and Martin Devaney, it takes on more cost. You cannot have your cake and eat it. We either have all that structure, pay the cost involved and hope for the occasional windfall (John Stones), on we cut our overheads to the barest minimum and rely on others to foot the training bill for youngsters.

 

That was the cost of the land and Buildings. It is on public record.

 

But ONLY as a consequence of paying off Doyle/Sterling not to buy the assets from the administrator?

Unless that is why he borrowed the money he did?

 

Why don't you get off Hecky's back?

 

The administrator sold the club to Doyle, but Doyle could not afford the ground, so the Administrator held on to it. When the Doyle bubble burst, Cryne bought the club from Doyle, paying off Doyle's debts in the process, but he and Barnsley MBC bought the ground from the Administrator.

 

The poor form wouldn't explain the loss in the slightest. Regardless of our form in October and November we finished the season with the fourth highest average attendance. How did Burton manage to make a profit on gates of less than 4,000?

 

So the Barnsley demographic means that we have a significantly higher proportion of under 12 or OAP tickets? Sounds a bit convenient to me Jim.

 

I would question that, re the ground and the administrator. Without wishing to get into detail about Doyle's relationship with, and how he raised finance from The Sterling Consortium.

I have access to the administrator's report from the time of Mr Doyle's purchase.

 

Does it say how much Doyle paid for the club?

 

You have to look at that from the flip side - not what it saves the club - but whether it's a good investment for the council.

Barnsley council and Patrick Cryne have invested £6million in some land on which they get £100,000 rent. (1.7% interest)

Plus the land is an appreciating assett which the council now values at house building prices rather than what it paid for it.(and won't sell it back to the club for any less)

It's not the best investment in the world, but with interest rates as low as they are - it's fairly safe and could well come good in the long term. However - how many people who pay their rates would understand that is a mute point

 

Also ,this arrangement was brought about because of the actions that the previous owners were trying so they could strip the assets.