RUFC Accounts for Year Ending 30th June 2016

[millmoormagic]

Wow, come in from work, find myself getting slagged off n here again, you really do bite hard Mr Waller, to clarify, i couldn't give two hoots what you think of me, i don't really wanna get into an argument about finances of the club, because quite frankly, that's not my concern. What is my concern though is listening to and reading all the negative sheite from the usual suspects, all looking for a reason to slag players/managers/owners etc, to you all, (and if the cap fits it's you) you've never been fans, as soon as the going gets tough, and given the context of what league and what we're up against is was alwys going to be tough, you've all thrown the towel in.

I'll be there next season regardless, hope your lot arent, the club really doesn't need your crap.

[PeteWaller]

Well you can't say I didn't give you a chance. You have nothing to say ...... that's fine and as expected

[millmoormagic]

Well you can't say I didn't give you a chance. You have nothing to say ...... that's fine and as expected

You "gave me a chance" jesus christ have you heard yourself? who the fack do you think you are like? Your'e a two bit nobody full of spite and vitriol for anyone who disagrees with you, let's not forget where this started, me disagreeing with the amount of posts you spoilt slagging PW, and since then you've actively chased me around the board. You're an obsessed bullying idiot.

[PeteWaller]

Just answer the post. What's up wi ya

[kempo]

Millmoor tragic swearing and abusive......Quelle Surprise!

He is one of the lads so just let him carry on as usual.

[millmoormagic]

Millmoor tragic swearing and abusive......Quelle Surprise!

He is one of the lads so just let him carry on as usual.

Now, let me think, you use a childish misinterpretation of my username and say i'm being abusive, two faced as ever, no change then from the master of multiplicity haha

[KerrAvon]

Pete, you haven’t really got the hang of ‘starting again’ have you? You suggest it, but only after repeating your patently inaccurate characterisation of my posts. I’m up for starting again, however, and so will leave it there, lest I prompt more 'unpleasantness'

I have good news for you, which is that you are indeed wrong and have misinterpreted the accounts (I’ll give you unintentionally, but would baulk at innocently).

1. The club is not strapped with a £10 million loan to Tony Stewart. The club is Rotherham United Football Club (RUFC) Limited. The company that owns the ground is RU Estates Limited. That company, not the club, owes around £10million to ASD Lighting PLC via an unsecured loan that falls to be repaid at base rate +2%.

2. The club does not pay TS on a lease. The club makes payments to RU Estates Limited for a lease (presumably of the ground). The figure paid during the period of the accounts that have caused so much upset was just over £1.2million.

3. An increase in the base rate would affect the amount that RU Estates Limited pays to ASD Lighting PLC, but would not necessarily have any effect upon the payment due by the club under the terms of the lease. It depends upon those terms, which are, of course, not part of the accounts.

It is correct that the club (in the form of Rotherham United Football Club (RUFC) Limited) owns very few assets, but the significance of that is very limited (no pun intended). RU Estates, ASD Lighting PLC and the club (and a parent company - ASD Lighting Holdings Limited) are, for all intents and purposes, all controlled by Tony Stewart, albeit with other minority shareholders having an interest in some of the companies. It follows that a payment from one company to another simply represents a transfer of funds between one body owned by him to another.

If, say, the ground was owned by Rotherham United Football Club (RUFC) Limited as opposed to RU Estates Limited, what would you see as being the significance of that? As Tony Stewart is the majority shareholder in the club, it would mean, legal niceties aside, that he is the majority owner of the club’s assets, which would include the ground, just as he is now via RU Estates Limited.

There is no advantage in RU Estates Limited being unreasonable and seeking to extract extortionate payments from the club, because it would essentially mean one TS owned company being unreasonable towards another. It would be robbing Peter to pay Paul and senseless.

As to whether we have been here before, I can’t really comment, as I do not know what structures were used by say, the Booth family to own one of the clubs that went before the current one. What I do know is that the real problems arose when the ownership of the club was separated from the ownership of the ground which was the position when Millers05 owned the club, but CF Booth owned the ground as I understand it.

Now the payments due from the club to RU Estates Limited on the lease may sound a lot, but let’s look at the reality of that:

Firstly, I don’t think anyone could expect there to be no cost associated with NYS. It wasn’t free to build and, assuming that ASD Lighting PLC didn’t have several million pounds laying around doing nothing, it is fair to assume that money was borrowed, presumably on commercial terms and at a significant cost to that company.

Secondly, who is it that is actually paying the lease? You will recall the annual cost of around £1.2million on the accounts, but you will also see that ASD Lighting PLC paid the club £2.9 million in sponsorship during the period of the accounts. Does anyone think that was a good deal for ASD? The reality therefore is that ASD gave £2.9million to the club, which paid £1.2million on a lease to RU Estates Limited. In other words, it could be said that the club had its lease on NYS paid and was still £1.7million up on the deal.

I don’t know where else you can say that TS is maximising a business opportunity out of his involvement with Rotherham United. The accounts confirm that Rotherham United Football Club (RUFC) Limited did not pay a dividend to Tony Stewart or the other three minority shareholders.

Finally, the accounts showed that Rotherham United Football Club (RUFC) Limited owed £1,334,808 to ASD Lighting PLC. That’s how the clubs losses are being covered – a soft loan from ASD with no repayment date and, as far as I can tell, no interest. It’s another way that a Tony Stewart owned company is subsidising the club. To put that figure into context, the latest Barnsley accounts shows that club owed Patrick Cryne over £7 million

If you can tell me where there is even a hint of evidence to suggest that Tony Stewart is doing anything other than spending money to keep the club running, I’d be impressed. He’s running a tight ship and avoiding the kind of debt that is crippling some other Championship clubs and is doing it out of his pocket

[KerrAvon]

Kerravon...

I would make some changes as an urgent priority.

I would appoint a manager and a director of football as soon as possible.

The recruitment position is a good idea and assuming that I thought the Brighton bloke was ok then I would keep him.

I would find money for a state of the art gym that is in keeping with a Championship football club.

I would set up a modern dedicated physiotherapy/ medical department.

As well as the obvious practical/functional benefits it would give the club a professional look that would be attractive.

I would look at the fitness set up and make sure that this also is in keeping with what is expected and needed for an ambitious professional football club.

I would scrap the Technical Commitee certainly in the form it is now as it has been a total failure and is embarrassing.

I would take a look at some of the personnel outside the playing staff and make sure they are the right people for the jobs they do.

In particular I would take a close look at the job PD does as he has a lot of criticism,maybe unfounded I'm not sure.

I would need to look at his background,qualifications and past performance as it seems to be such an important job.

If he is not the right person then he would need moving on...Obviously I am not in a position to know.

I would be concerned about the make up of the present board as it seems to be oversubscribed by members of the same family.

It may be better to get some expert outside input and opinion...I would have to look closely at that situation and then decide.

I would sit down with the relevant people and look at a simple and well tested plan.

Where are we now....Where do we want to get to.....How are we going to do it.

I would discuss this basic plan with supporter with special attention give to the middle bit as the action part of the planning would be very dependant on the ..where do we want to get to bit.

If we want to be an established Championship club then obviously increased financial backing would be needed.

Finding this backing is outside my personal expertise so I cannot advise on this but if it means selling the club to someone more capable of delivering then so be it...Maybe financial backing can be attracted in other ways...I don't know.

It can of course be done as every club above us have done it better than us.

Thinking plans out can sometimes be time consuming,expensive and unproductive and a solution often not looked at is simply copy someone's tried and tested formula.

With mind to the above then several clubs should be studied in detail such as Barnsly,Huddersfield and others and just see if there is a formula that can be simply copied.

I would ensure that there is better communication with supporters and there are a number of means to implement this which we could look at.

I would try and give the club a more modern image with how everyone presents themselves and the club and how they communicate with the outside world.

I would want it less 1960s to put it simply.

The above would be a start and a general blueprint for our future success.

Of course if we decided to be little old Rotherham who's default position always returned to failure and we were happy with that then I would follow the plan of the present board.

There are some good ideas there and some that I think a little irrelevant.

I love how you slip 'If we want to be an established Championship club then obviously increased financial backing would be needed' into the middle. How much are planning to put in? What sort of increase in season ticket prices are you proposing?

Interestingly, you don't mention recruiting new players, but when that subject comes up on other threads, you invariably make - always fresh and exciting - jokes concerning peanuts. Don't you think it may be a problem that the nuts are going to have to stretch a bit further if we are also paying for a director of football, a state of the art gym and a modern dedicated physiotherapy/ medical department? Perhaps they could double up? A twenty goal a season director of football and a box to box physiotherapist with a mean left foot at set pieces?

[PeteWaller]

Pete, you haven’t really got the hang of ‘starting again’ have you? You suggest it, but only after repeating your patently inaccurate characterisation of my posts. I’m up for starting again, however, and so will leave it there, lest I prompt more 'unpleasantness'

I have good news for you, which is that you are indeed wrong and have misinterpreted the accounts (I’ll give you unintentionally, but would baulk at innocently).

1. The club is not strapped with a £10 million loan to Tony Stewart. The club is Rotherham United Football Club (RUFC) Limited. The company that owns the ground is RU Estates Limited. That company, not the club, owes around £10million to ASD Lighting PLC via an unsecured loan that falls to be repaid at base rate +2%.

2. The club does not pay TS on a lease. The club makes payments to RU Estates Limited for a lease (presumably of the ground). The figure paid during the period of the accounts that have caused so much upset was just over £1.2million.

3. An increase in the base rate would affect the amount that RU Estates Limited pays to ASD Lighting PLC, but would not necessarily have any effect upon the payment due by the club under the terms of the lease. It depends upon those terms, which are, of course, not part of the accounts.

It is correct that the club (in the form of Rotherham United Football Club (RUFC) Limited) owns very few assets, but the significance of that is very limited (no pun intended). RU Estates, ASD Lighting PLC and the club (and a parent company - ASD Lighting Holdings Limited) are, for all intents and purposes, all controlled by Tony Stewart, albeit with other minority shareholders having an interest in some of the companies. It follows that a payment from one company to another simply represents a transfer of funds between one body owned by him to another.

If, say, the ground was owned by Rotherham United Football Club (RUFC) Limited as opposed to RU Estates Limited, what would you see as being the significance of that? As Tony Stewart is the majority shareholder in the club, it would mean, legal niceties aside, that he is the majority owner of the club’s assets, which would include the ground, just as he is now via RU Estates Limited.

There is no advantage in RU Estates Limited being unreasonable and seeking to extract extortionate payments from the club, because it would essentially mean one TS owned company being unreasonable towards another. It would be robbing Peter to pay Paul and senseless.

As to whether we have been here before, I can’t really comment, as I do not know what structures were used by say, the Booth family to own one of the clubs that went before the current one. What I do know is that the real problems arose when the ownership of the club was separated from the ownership of the ground which was the position when Millers05 owned the club, but CF Booth owned the ground as I understand it.

Now the payments due from the club to RU Estates Limited on the lease may sound a lot, but let’s look at the reality of that:

Firstly, I don’t think anyone could expect there to be no cost associated with NYS. It wasn’t free to build and, assuming that ASD Lighting PLC didn’t have several million pounds laying around doing nothing, it is fair to assume that money was borrowed, presumably on commercial terms and at a significant cost to that company.

Secondly, who is it that is actually paying the lease? You will recall the annual cost of around £1.2million on the accounts, but you will also see that ASD Lighting PLC paid the club £2.9 million in sponsorship during the period of the accounts. Does anyone think that was a good deal for ASD? The reality therefore is that ASD gave £2.9million to the club, which paid £1.2million on a lease to RU Estates Limited. In other words, it could be said that the club had its lease on NYS paid and was still £1.7million up on the deal.

I don’t know where else you can say that TS is maximising a business opportunity out of his involvement with Rotherham United. The accounts confirm that Rotherham United Football Club (RUFC) Limited did not pay a dividend to Tony Stewart or the other three minority shareholders.

Finally, the accounts showed that Rotherham United Football Club (RUFC) Limited owed £1,334,808 to ASD Lighting PLC. That’s how the clubs losses are being covered – a soft loan from ASD with no repayment date and, as far as I can tell, no interest. It’s another way that a Tony Stewart owned company is subsidising the club. To put that figure into context, the latest Barnsley accounts shows that club owed Patrick Cryne over £7 million

If you can tell me where there is even a hint of evidence to suggest that Tony Stewart is doing anything other than spending money to keep the club running, I’d be impressed. He’s running a tight ship and avoiding the kind of debt that is crippling some other Championship clubs and is doing it out of his pocket

Thank you very much. Your reply is extensive and having read it once I will have to read it several times again to fully understand the position. Fascinating.

I have never really understood the connection between RU Estates and the club. I do now thanks. I thought RUFC owed the £10 million. I understood that the club paid £1.2 million p.a. on the lease. I understood the club made a loss of £1.46 million and that ASD lighting sponsors to the tune of £2.9 million. Looking at the ASD Lighting accounts, is it reasonable to ask a question or two?

1. Having made a loss of £1.46 million and given he sponsors to the tune of £2.9 million, has the project of RUFC become too expensive for him (TS) to carry on in the same vein and is this perhaps the reason for the turn of events following Kenny Jackett's departure?

2. If, next season our turnover falls substantially as a result of lower gates, merchandising, commercial sponsorships etc. and given what we think may have been a disastrous 2016/17 season (Albeit we shall have the additional TV revenue which will not be inconsiderable in relative terms) do you think it is way out to think our dependence on TS (Via his companies) will become even greater?

3. My worry is that he cannot sustain covering the widening losses, has to cut sponsorship, which increases the losses further and calls it a day. If that were to happen, where would the club be? I can see that RU Estates would have a chunky loan still to pay but what would be the position of the club RUFC - it would still be tied to a £1.2 million lease rental?

4. Is our prospective financial position now a concern to TS perhaps and is that is a possible reason why we have seen the turn of events this season? Not asking you to give answers you can't from your take on the accounts and knowledge of the club but can you hazard an opinion, even if it is your best guess?

Thank you once again Kerravon. I am very grateful for the time you have taken to attempt to unravel a situation I have never really understood. I apologise for my insulting behaviour which was unwarranted and undeserved. I blew my gasket it is true and it blew not because of you or what you had said. It was extremely unprofessional.

[legs11]

Pete, you haven’t really got the hang of ‘starting again’ have you? You suggest it, but only after repeating your patently inaccurate characterisation of my posts. I’m up for starting again, however, and so will leave it there, lest I prompt more 'unpleasantness'

I have good news for you, which is that you are indeed wrong and have misinterpreted the accounts (I’ll give you unintentionally, but would baulk at innocently).

1. The club is not strapped with a £10 million loan to Tony Stewart. The club is Rotherham United Football Club (RUFC) Limited. The company that owns the ground is RU Estates Limited. That company, not the club, owes around £10million to ASD Lighting PLC via an unsecured loan that falls to be repaid at base rate +2%.

2. The club does not pay TS on a lease. The club makes payments to RU Estates Limited for a lease (presumably of the ground). The figure paid during the period of the accounts that have caused so much upset was just over £1.2million.

3. An increase in the base rate would affect the amount that RU Estates Limited pays to ASD Lighting PLC, but would not necessarily have any effect upon the payment due by the club under the terms of the lease. It depends upon those terms, which are, of course, not part of the accounts.

It is correct that the club (in the form of Rotherham United Football Club (RUFC) Limited) owns very few assets, but the significance of that is very limited (no pun intended). RU Estates, ASD Lighting PLC and the club (and a parent company - ASD Lighting Holdings Limited) are, for all intents and purposes, all controlled by Tony Stewart, albeit with other minority shareholders having an interest in some of the companies. It follows that a payment from one company to another simply represents a transfer of funds between one body owned by him to another.

If, say, the ground was owned by Rotherham United Football Club (RUFC) Limited as opposed to RU Estates Limited, what would you see as being the significance of that? As Tony Stewart is the majority shareholder in the club, it would mean, legal niceties aside, that he is the majority owner of the club’s assets, which would include the ground, just as he is now via RU Estates Limited.

There is no advantage in RU Estates Limited being unreasonable and seeking to extract extortionate payments from the club, because it would essentially mean one TS owned company being unreasonable towards another. It would be robbing Peter to pay Paul and senseless.

As to whether we have been here before, I can’t really comment, as I do not know what structures were used by say, the Booth family to own one of the clubs that went before the current one. What I do know is that the real problems arose when the ownership of the club was separated from the ownership of the ground which was the position when Millers05 owned the club, but CF Booth owned the ground as I understand it.

Now the payments due from the club to RU Estates Limited on the lease may sound a lot, but let’s look at the reality of that:

Firstly, I don’t think anyone could expect there to be no cost associated with NYS. It wasn’t free to build and, assuming that ASD Lighting PLC didn’t have several million pounds laying around doing nothing, it is fair to assume that money was borrowed, presumably on commercial terms and at a significant cost to that company.

Secondly, who is it that is actually paying the lease? You will recall the annual cost of around £1.2million on the accounts, but you will also see that ASD Lighting PLC paid the club £2.9 million in sponsorship during the period of the accounts. Does anyone think that was a good deal for ASD? The reality therefore is that ASD gave £2.9million to the club, which paid £1.2million on a lease to RU Estates Limited. In other words, it could be said that the club had its lease on NYS paid and was still £1.7million up on the deal.

I don’t know where else you can say that TS is maximising a business opportunity out of his involvement with Rotherham United. The accounts confirm that Rotherham United Football Club (RUFC) Limited did not pay a dividend to Tony Stewart or the other three minority shareholders.

Finally, the accounts showed that Rotherham United Football Club (RUFC) Limited owed £1,334,808 to ASD Lighting PLC. That’s how the clubs losses are being covered – a soft loan from ASD with no repayment date and, as far as I can tell, no interest. It’s another way that a Tony Stewart owned company is subsidising the club. To put that figure into context, the latest Barnsley accounts shows that club owed Patrick Cryne over £7 million

If you can tell me where there is even a hint of evidence to suggest that Tony Stewart is doing anything other than spending money to keep the club running, I’d be impressed. He’s running a tight ship and avoiding the kind of debt that is crippling some other Championship clubs and is doing it out of his pocket

So to keep it simple its set up as a tax dodge/loss relief for ASD lighting, the lease also goes to ASD lighting eventually to try & pay back the cost of building NYS.

Sounds lots like the previous booth family set up dont you think ?

Nice little earner if Tony decides to sell up in 10 yrs time... his perogative of course.