Club Accounts

Who was it?

Snitches get stitches.

 

Except that I don't represent the club and have no formal connection. I am an independent supporter but I won't deny the fact that I don't suffer fools.

 

A defamation lawyer probably.

 

You're lying. There's nobody clever enough to be a lawyer on here.

Except Fordy but he washes cars or summat.

 

I don't think that the club has done itself any favours with the lack of communication and by not responding to some of the concerns expressed by supporters. My motivation for undertaking this review was pretty much with that in mind because I am fed up with the conspiracy theories and wild claims that are being made about the club, a lot of which lack credibility (and you don't need to know the content of the accounts to know that that is the case). The fundamental issue is a lack of trust and confidence arising from doubts in the minds of supporters and from speaking to Ryan he knows that comms have to be improved. By the same token it works both ways and just as supporters can expect the club to be transparent etc, the club can rightly expect that its representatives are not abused on social media and subjected to constant attack which in recent months has become toxic.

From my own experience, analysis of cash is more useful to understand what is going on in a business than the trading accounts per se. Furthermore, to know that the club produces monthly accounts should be comfort enough given that Herr Rahic fell behind with their production in 2018. Ryan is genuinely committed to transparency but so too I have found that if people ring Julian Rhodes he tends to be pretty open in terms of answering questions. He might not be a front man and prefer to be invisible but he will disclose information when asked.

As regards 'the accounts' there are different levels of information and I genuinely believe that the analysis I provided was sufficient to deal with the key questions of supporters as well as my own. Frankly we don't really need to know the profit of the commercial department on a month by month basis nor at the next level, the cost of the paperclips. Any organisation has to strike a balance with the level of information it discloses and the risk of disclosing too much is that quite often it can be misinterpreted or misunderstood. Furthermore, you can't have 10,000 non-executive directors to challenge the way a £6m business is run.

There has been a positive response to the analysis and I hope that it does put minds at rest and answer questions. I have responded to queries on WOAP so I won't repeat here. From a glass half-empty perspective the club has a weak balance sheet but I was genuinely encouraged that there are some positives and that it is possible to look at the club from a glass half-full perspective. Having been familiar with the desperate circumstances in 2004 I can assure you that we have been in a much worse position and I am encouraged that we can become stronger.

 

John, I found your piece very interesting. Thank you for taking the time to research it.

One piece of feedback though, if I may..... Its "football" not "soccer"

 

Thanks. I agree but I use the term in historical context - pre WW1 in West Yorkshire a rugby club was known as a 'football club' and hence Bradford FC at Park Avenue and Manningham FC at Valley Parade who played rugby. It explains why Bradford City were known as AFC.

 

Ah.... You were clearly too nuanced/clever for me!

 

Me too! We should form a group.

 

Defence doesn't involve attack unless your scoring points.

 

I can't see a reason why Gibb a trustee ? of the Flamong Land Pension fund would ever contemplate selling the ground back.
In the present climate could they get a better return on their asset, I doubt it, and certainly not if the Rhodes family were involved.

 

I believe the trustees have a legal responsibility to get the best deal for the pension fund. At current rates there is £3-4m of income before the lease runs out. It’s a decaying ground these days and will need some money spending in the next lease period, but the alternative for City is surely £20-30m on a new ground or refurbishing Odsal. So the Trustees can gamble on the near certainty of a new 10 year lease and another £5m of income. Unless they can get a better return with the money they would get from selling the stadium that’s what they have to do.

Maybe Dennis can tell me otherwise but that’s my understanding, ignore the figures but the principle stands.

 

What's the alternative?