My take on the owners at the moment... I do genuinely believe they thought they could improve the club's position and (admittedly) make a dime or two in the process. I think their intentions were of course to ultimately make money, but to do so by making Barnsley Football Club successful and self-sufficient. It makes sense. I don't have a problem with that. It's the only way we'd ever attract investment: the promise of a financial return. My honest opinion is that our new board have simply been exceptionally naïve, and are now lacking much-needed experience in the game, and skills in British PR. I don't think they take any pleasure in BFC struggling, but they don't really understand what to do about it. They saw a blueprint that was (at least to some degree) working and thought because they're experienced businessmen they could bring their knowledge and experience and improve it. They were wrong. It doesn't make them Oystons or Mike Ashleys, but it's a problem nonetheless. The biggest issue in my opinion now is the lack of communication. Mistakes can be forgiven; brushing them under the carpet can't. I hope they learn from their errors over the last 3 seasons and prove to us they can take us forward, but so far they feel very distant and impersonal, and something has to change.
I'm not sure the owners have been asst stripping - time will tell when the accounts are published - evidence will be there in the form of cash going out of the business in the form of dividends or increases of salaries on the non-playing side of affairs. What we need is a mole, sorry a fan who is one of the audit team - anyone know of anyone? Where this plan has gone wrong is that there has not been someone in the Director of Football role - someone at Board of Directors level who had the authority to curtail the excesses of the 'plan' - someone that had such knowledge in my book would have been the likes of (but not limited to) Dave Bassett , or, more to I'm sure most fans approval Eric Winstanley. I'd gladly other peoples names being proffered Now I don't know if either of the two names I've mentioned would like the role or not, but for me, this is where our 'plan' has its biggest failure.
Dunno about a fiscal definition, but our assets (footballers) have certainly deteriorated in both quality and value over the lifetime of their ownership. We, supporters, have been 'stripped' of those assets. But far more significantly, I've been stripped of any hope. Even if we have a good season in league 1 next year, it'll be difficult to enjoy because we know the owners don't want to even try to complete.
The only way of knowing would be to check the accounts, but as they've owned the club for over 2 years and accounts submitted to Companies House cover less than a quarter of that time then I don't know how anyone can say one way or the other.
And - it will be interesting to see how much league one relegation costs when the gate attendances are announced next season. I maybe naive and believe the directors got it wrong and will learn from this. But most supporters don’t have that view. The honeymoon period for these owners is well and truly over for most of the supporters - and many will just stay away from the club. It’s then difficult and a big task to get them back.
My guess is that many will be disappointed about the amount of information that will be available from the accounts this time. The accounts for season 2018/19 season are for a season in League 1. Turnover reduced by at least £6m because the distribution from the EFL reduced by that amount. That will mean that Barnsley Football Club is a 'small company' under the terms of the definition that applies to companies under company law, and the amount of information that has to be disclosed in the Annual Financial Statements for small companies is very much reduced. I believe the club will elect to take full advantage of the provisions of the companies acts and reduce the information they will declare accordingly. Before people start jumping up and down and claiming conspiracy, this is normal.
I assume player sales can increase turnover and take us above the threshold of what is/is not a small business?
A mole who is not concerned that if he is caught, he will be instantly sacked, and will be unable to find a job anywhere else in the accountancy profession.
You can add this to that figure too: Championship clubs also get paid around four times as much for hosting TV games on Sky Sports. The facility fee is £100,000 for Friday night and Saturday games, £120,000 for a Sunday game and £140,000 for a Thursday. League one get £30k for home and £10K for away.
Not arguing to the contrary, my knowledge about all this is limited at best, but can you explain to me why. I always thought turnover amounted to incomings.
Turnover is the total of sales of goods and services. The things that a business is in business to trade. Now you may think that it is a moot point that a football club is not in business to trade the contracts of its players, but those contracts are not what it is in business primarily to trade. Selling player contracts is exceptional and incidental to its main business. It exists in business to trade the service providing an entertainment through playing the game of football for the public to view (yes ,I know). The trading of Balance Sheet Fixed Assets, e.g the sale of Motor Vehicles, Land and Buildings, Player Contracts, is not part of normal trading and is not therefore part of Turnover. If you look back through the filed accounts at Companies House, you will see exactly what I mean.
Thank you for that. Although I'd argue playing football is actually secondary and we are a business that trades football players.
Imagine a company that sells office furniture. Income from sales of desks, chairs, cupboards etc is turnover. Now imagine a company that sells beer, and decides to upgrade its offices, so it sells all the old furniture and buys new stuff. Income from the sale of the old furniture is not turnover. Turnover is income from beer sales. Now back to the first company, which also decides to upgrade its offices and sells its old furniture. Even though it's in the business of selling furniture, the income from selling its old furniture is not turnover. Unless some creative accounting takes place!