The 750k (can someone summarise)

James Cryne has probably been paid as well.

 

Laura says, "I'm taking twenty quid out of shopping money to pay for my nails and eyebrows done". "Fair enough love". She doesn't have to say anything but does because we're a family and it's the right thing to do.

I do the same on a Tuesday or Wednesday for my cans and bottles when matches are on. I put it back in the shopping money when I get paid. No harm done.

If the owners had been up front about it no doubt some would be up in arms. However, it's the sneeky way they've done it that causes unrest.

 

Director's remuneration is an entirely separate issue to that of the £750k payment, and its probably unhelpful to conflate it with the other issue. We don't know for sure which directors have been paid based on the information within the accounts, but it is a safe assumption that the CEO and FD/Operations Director are paid through the club as full-time employees. This is normal, and a genuine expense of the football club, and might reasonably include Paul Conway being paid in such a way for any time he was acting as the CEO. There's no evidence to suggest that this was the case, but that in itself wouldn't be an issue for me.

Additionally, it's normal for non-exec directors to be paid a salary/fee based on their attendance at company board meetings and carrying out other duties (e.g. being on a remuneration or an audit committee). In reality, if these individuals are directors of a parent company, then no such fee would be charged, or there might be an internal management charge made between the two companies. As Red Rain points out, there hasn't been such a charge, as this would have been disclosed as a related party transaction.

Looking at the costs charged in the accounts, even with the increase level more recently, the costs charged don't look out of line for a business of this type and I doubt that they'll be out of line with other Championship clubs (in fact, if we looked at all clubs in the division, I suspect we'd be at the low end in this regard).

All of the above, on an arms length basis, would be reasonable costs of the football club, hence they don't carry the same moral issue as the debt payment and write-off.

 

Could be, or through BFC Data Services. One of the 3 options I outlined.

Do you have to report highest paid director in medium sized accounts?

 

sadly, no.

 

Gary Neville was bemoaning how shabby Old Trafford had become when he was protesting the ESL.

 

Was just going to post similar, sure I saw videos on Twitter of a leaking roof on the oldest of the stands (the lowest side of the ground)

 

I highly doubt that this would be the case. Promotion or otherwise, there would be no realistic prospect that BFC would generate this much surplus cash to be able to sustain a financial commitment like this.

Essentially, the £6m (then £3.5m) was contingent on maintaining or regaining the league status at the time of purchase. Where would we generate £6m by doing this?

I'd find it extremely unlikely that the original or revised agreement would be with the football club, rather than the investment company.

 

This would also contradict the information given in BFCST's own update on the dispute, specifically
"BFC Investment Company are unhappy with the original deal and have stopped paying the remaining 2.75m instalments on the mutually agreed 3.5m"

https://bfcst.co.uk/bfc-courtcase-move-update/

 

This also contradicts the note in the accounts that is the cause of this issue. It clearly states that the payment was "to Oakwell Holdings Limited on behalf of BFC Investment Company Ltd" in accordance with the purchase agreement made between these parties.

My inference is therefore that Paul Conway gave you inaccurate information "a couple of times".

 

With respect, I do not think that the Barnsley FC auditor would have insisted on Note 24 in the 2020 Accounts, if that had been the case. For your information, the note says,

"During the year, payments amounting to £750,000 were made to Oakwell Holdings Ltd on behalf of BFC Investment Company Ltd, the company's parent company. Those payments were made in accordance with incentive consideration clauses within the purchase agreement made between these parties. Barnsley Football Club Limited shall not seek to recover the sums paid and has therefore recognised these costs as an expense in the profit and loss account."

You can take it from me that auditors do not insist upon a note being appended to the accounts unless they believe the transaction is extraordinary, and one that should be especially noted by readers of those accounts.

 

This is pretty standard, as it's a related party transaction. There's a much higher level of disclosure required regarding them, so it's essentially a 'non-decision' for this to be included in the accounts.

It's not forming an opinion of any kind regarding what they think of it. It's simply a matter of required disclosure.

 

Fair enough, but the note is pretty damning, even if it is a required disclosure.

 

This is a great example of why these disclosure requirements are in place. It's a purely factual statement of the particulars of this particular transaction, but as you say it is damning in what it actually tells us.

It doesn't just apply to corporate level relationships, as in this case. Any transactions involving close relatives of directors, for example, would require similar disclosure.

 

excellent post mate, cheers.

 

What would HMRC's view be on the way the £750k has been transferred?