Finally published. No real surprises

18months to 30 June 2016 i.e. 6 months of IOR and 12 months of JPNG.
IOR wrote off their £14m loan which was an artificial management charge to avoid tax.
We lost about £50k last season under JPNG, had £100k in the bank and owed almost £300k more than we have current assets. Credit rating zero.
No movement on player assets, in books at around £100k. As expected IOR kept all of the transfer proceeds for the sale of James and Baldwin. Cannot tell how much VAT and PAYE/NI we owed or if any short term loans from JPNG included in £600k of current liabilities. We spent £100k on ground improvements and other assets. Over the years we have spent nearly £5m on the ground and of course have it all mortgaged to Sage Finance. It's current value after depreciation £250,000 but in reality not owning the ground is worth nothing.

Thanks for that Mr Eventhorse.

Losing £50k in a full season is a long way short of the amount IOR said it was costing them to keep the club afloat! What was it? £500k?

I'm not going to say everything in the financial garden would still be rosy if only IOR hadn't bogged off with what was left of the proceeds of the sale of Jack Baldwin (in January 2014) and Luke James (in September 2014). Just goes to show, they were always a business, never a charidy. Same as the current owners.

Actually sounds better than I anticipated however numbers on paper are simply that, we all know there is so much skullduggery in preparing accounts for any organisation.

Next season will be interesting on so many levels, regardless of which division we are in, and of course assuming we exist.

The accounts also say that the business is insolvent without a letter of guarantee from Sage.

Does that make Gary Coxall a Socialist?

Which means what exactly for the thickos?

Gary is skint and will never pay you back but he has a note from Mammy Pammy saying that she'll cover his debts so it is OK to lend him his bus fare or chip money?

It means that they don't have to call in the administrators because they can demonstrate an ability to trade solvently. Without the Sage guarantee this would not be the the case and we would be in administration.

I wonder what Sage's half of the deal is.

I was having a good look at the accounts last night and there important thing is not so much these particular numbers it's the timing. These are only up to mid 2016 remember which predates the unpaid tax bills, the winding up petitions, the wonga loans and the involvement with Access finance and Sage.

If things are that bad he can't have bus fare and chip money.

Why do we have to pay for chip now? He talks sense sometimes but not enough to warrant a salary for it.

Absolutely not Snowy. I'd lend him his bus fare first and then see if Pam paid it back before entering any negotiations about chips. I'd also buy him the bag of chips because I think he'd spend the cash on some loosies. Not that I don't trust him, I'm just careful.

Maybe I'm being thick here but aren't letters of guarantee usually made by parent/holding companies to make it clear that they'll back the subsidiary with funds if necessary? Why would Sage do that for an independent company it had loaned money to? Have we actually got new owners?

I imagine they 'loaned' us the money and in return took a stake in the club. How much would be nice to know along with why a company who predominately deal with Property Development want to start running a football club.

Its on the accounts, public domain jnfo.

Interesting that the auditor felt no need to mention this in his report. It is clearly mentioned in the accounting policy note, but I'd have expected most registered auditors to emphasise this matter in their report - perhaps without qualification.

I think you are referring to a parent company guarantee. I suspect this is a guarantee sage gave to cover the previous loan until they got their loan sorted.

All I see here is one grade A mess.

But apparently some are happy.

Weird eh?