So, do the accounts show a loss then? I have never bothered to look so I don't know. What I do gather is that PAFC yes along with loads of others show very little of anything. How do we know who gets paid what from where as the accounts are not shown in any detail from what I can gather. Did Brent pay himself a sum of money for this or that or was any profit ploughed back into the playing staff? Were loans being repayed at x rate or were they not? Who knows. I do find it hard to believe that with our extra income. and it is there for people to see compared with other clubs, that we struggle for finance compared to a load of other clubs. It makes no sense unless somewhere the money or at least some of it is being side tracked elsewhere. I just don't buy this James Brent is a saviour thing. We doubtless will never know.
Location Argyle
- Thread starter sensiblegreeny
- Start date
I can only repeat what I've read. The accounts are required to be lodged with Companies House which are accessible by the public but only on payment of a fee.
They are however widely reported and analysed in the press and the majority of clubs outside the PL make a loss.
The P&L shows what are called revenue items and do not include loan inflows or outflows. Those would be in the cash flow statement but private companies are not required to publish a cash flow unfortunately.
In defence of PAFC, the recent loan by Simon Hallet was clearly explained when he made it. It's on very favourable terms for the club. Certainly Brent's share dealings were similarly well explained at the time but I do agree the emergence from receivership was difficult to understand. My feeling is that it was conducted in a normal and business like way and that Brent did put cash in to keep the club afloat although he may well have got it back now. What's wrong with that?
Sent from my mobile phone - E&OE
They are however widely reported and analysed in the press and the majority of clubs outside the PL make a loss.
The P&L shows what are called revenue items and do not include loan inflows or outflows. Those would be in the cash flow statement but private companies are not required to publish a cash flow unfortunately.
In defence of PAFC, the recent loan by Simon Hallet was clearly explained when he made it. It's on very favourable terms for the club. Certainly Brent's share dealings were similarly well explained at the time but I do agree the emergence from receivership was difficult to understand. My feeling is that it was conducted in a normal and business like way and that Brent did put cash in to keep the club afloat although he may well have got it back now. What's wrong with that?
Sent from my mobile phone - E&OE
Oh and PS, a relevant detail, normally speaking, if a company makes a loss, it would be illegal to pay a dividend to ordinary shareholders.
Therefore, the only way an owner could extract cash would be to pay himself a salary above the line or via a loan account or similar.
Sent from my mobile phone - E&OE
Therefore, the only way an owner could extract cash would be to pay himself a salary above the line or via a loan account or similar.
Sent from my mobile phone - E&OE
You see that is my problem with it all notdistant. Could be, maybe, was/wasn't, required to divulge this but not that. Might have put in but then again........... It's a load of smoke and mirrors and the ordinary folk have little option but to go along with it and take a person's word. Either that or become a doubting Thomas with no evidence as such to back up a suspicion. I see a load of other stuff he was involved with that either didn't happen or hasn't happened yet. Hardly inspirational stuff to give you confidence. Ice Rink anyone? I trusted Stapleton and Co to do the right thing by Argyle and the rest of that is now history. I refuse to just blindly believe everything I'm fed again because I'm being told I should be grateful.
No no, rules are quite clear and accounts are audited and used by HMRC as the basis for tax, so you'd better get it right.
The numbers are real but I agree the disclosure - which applies to all private companies mot just football clubs - is too little.
We've done the construction project thing to death. I'm sticking to 9 out of 10 mooted fail - and so they should as there's something wrong with the ideas behind them.
The numbers are real but I agree the disclosure - which applies to all private companies mot just football clubs - is too little.
We've done the construction project thing to death. I'm sticking to 9 out of 10 mooted fail - and so they should as there's something wrong with the ideas behind them.