|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Feb 5, 2015 15:14:38 GMT
hhs, Gloucestershire CCC and their Bristol City Council have a 'love/hate' relationship. One remembers when the Council refused the club's initial planning application for their property development which will secure sufficient money for the Nevil ground redevelopment. Glos had a hissy fit and threatened leaving Bristol to set up a new venue elsewhere. They finally agreed terms after some changes were made to the property plans. The same, one suggests, will occur over the floodlights. A few tweaks here and there and the Council will then agree. Imho, it is more about ego than anything else. Bm suggests it is political. Perhaps, a bit of both? www.gloscricket.co.uk/membership/creating-a-world-class-destination-for-world-class-cricket/As for the broader picture, I have always believed Gloucestershire are a disaster waiting to happen. They should never have been awarded ODI status in the first place, but the ECB were keen to have international cricket in the West country at a time when neither Glamorgan or Somerset had started their ground expansion. It was a joke for the Nevil Road ground to be chosen when they only had a fixed seating capacity of 3,668 and the 7 ODIs which did occur meant hiring an additional 12,500 temporary seats. Every non-TMG could just as easily have done the same. Sussex hire 8,000 temporary seats and hey-ho, Hove is now an ODI ground. The problem being, Gloucestershire then fell into the ego-trip of believing they must continue their ODI status for the sake of the Club's name, even though they are now in direct competition with both Glamorgan and Somerset, who, imho, have grounds far better suited, plus the ECB then changed the rulings by making them far stricter for counties to attain ODI status. Once more, a similar story unfolds to Warwickshire, Durham, Yorkshire and Glamorgan where the local City Council have lent Glos a considerable sum of money, so that when this whole sorry saga blows up, Bristol will be left holding the financial burden and the curse of county cricket continues. |
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Feb 13, 2015 14:25:28 GMT
I was contacted by someone who is close to the Gloucestershire CCC treasurer. He had read my piece from Feb 5th and been told
that while 95% of it is correct, the last paragraph stating that Gloucestershire CCC are in lieu to Bristol City Council for a considerable
sum is not true. In fact, the County owe their Council no money.
The debts of £2.5m which the club hold (thank you hhs for that info), instead are from various sources including banks, individuals and
consortiums.
Therefore, one questions how the county paid off their recent loan - a sum of £400,000 - back to Bristol City Council so quickly? It seems
logical therefore, that a part of the ECB £1m money may have been used to pay this re: Kent and Yorkshire with their councils. This suggestion
is being verified.
Meanwhile, I apologise to Gloucestershire CCC for any misunderstanding.
|
|
|
|
Post by leedsgull on Feb 21, 2015 10:50:12 GMT
I am awaiting a forensic analysis of Notts recent financial figures from someone better qualified than me on this board. Also Yorkshire have safety issues over their rugby stand end which could mean it's closure for the next two years until it is redeveloped. They estimate this could cost them £130,000 a season which is money they can ill afford to lose.
I am personally annoyed as it is where I sit most times as it provides one of the few areas of cover.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2015 17:46:08 GMT
Also Yorkshire have safety issues over their rugby stand end which could mean it's closure for the next two years until it is redeveloped. They estimate this could cost them £130,000 a season which is money they can ill afford to lose. I am personally annoyed as it is where I sit most times as it provides one of the few areas of cover. I guess this relates to the discussion we had about depreciation and whether it is justifiable not to include a sum for it in the annual accounts. A number of counties, as we know, do not, and so their finances look far healthier than those counties that do. But there is, of course, a big difference between a county like Sussex listing, say, £400k a year for depreciation and actually putting that sum away in the bank each year for the rainy day in 2040 or whenever the next pavilion refurbishment is due...when I asked if Sussex was actually putting aside the sum listed for depreciation or whether it was just a paper write-down in the books, I never got an answer. I suspect the latter. Has Yorkshire been squirelling away cash into a depreciation fund every year to replace the now condemned rugby stand? I'll bet they haven't. I can see a similar scenario arising at Kent where the eyesore that is the Frank Woolley stand has barely altered since it was erected in 1928. It's probably the most decrepit stand anywhere on the county circuit right now and one of these days it's going to be condemned by the Health and Sefety Inspectorate, which will be a rude shock because no way has Kent been putting money aside to replace it. A couple of years ago they launched a campaign to raise £4 million to rebuild it and promised a raft of fund-raising events headed, I think, by Matthew Fleming. But it seemed to fizzle out as all fund-raising had to be channelled into the more immediately pressing need to pay the day-to-day bills. I doubt they've raised £40k, let alone the £4 million needed to replace it. Meanwhile, like Yorkshire, Kent won't spend money tarting up a stand that they know one day soon is going to have to come down, so it's delapidated state just gets worse. |
|
|
|
Post by coverpoint on Feb 22, 2015 7:58:37 GMT
Ultimately the reason why most businesses fail is not because of a lack of profit but a lack of cash. If the accounts are audited they will be qualified if depreciation isn't charged.
|
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Feb 24, 2015 7:54:13 GMT
I am awaiting a forensic analysis of Notts recent financial figures from someone better qualified than me on this board. Also Yorkshire have safety issues over their rugby stand end which could mean it's closure for the next two years until it is redeveloped. They estimate this could cost them £130,000 a season which is money they can ill afford to lose.
I am personally annoyed as it is where I sit most times as it provides one of the few areas of cover.Your Chief Executive doesn't think it is too much of a problem : Mark Arthur, Yorkshire chief executive, told the Yorkshire Post. "It's a blow, but only potentially for two days of the year, which is for the one-day international and the T20 match against Lancashire, which are the only days that we really sell out. " Rugby stand concern at Headingley |
|
|
|
Post by leedsgull on Feb 24, 2015 11:52:49 GMT
hh It begs the question,do they not expect to sell out for the Test Match v New Zealand? Also they are currently installing floodlights to improve their 20/20 attendances. Do they not want full houses for these either? I watch my cricket at Headingley as geography dictates but I am not a YCCC supporter.  |
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Feb 24, 2015 11:57:28 GMT
hh It begs the question,do they not expect to sell out for the Test Match v New Zealand? Also they are currently installing floodlights to improve their 20/20 attendances. Do they not want full houses for these either? I watch my cricket at Headingley as geography dictates but I am not a YCCC supporter. Goodness knows, the entire quote reads to me as if he's talking big and nonchalant to the press as a defence against having to really explore the details. Surprsied that the Yorkshire Post, with all their proud history, didn't pick him up on it - or perhaps they did and cricinfo has only published the juicy quotes. |
|
|
|
Post by leedsgull on Mar 2, 2015 13:32:39 GMT
I have just received the YCCC 2014 Accounts. The "highlights" are a reported loss of £326,758 and the total debt stands at £24,068,585. They also state that "the club is not expecting to generate a cash surplus in 2015 and therefore Mr C J Graves has agreed to provide a further loan". This loan is £1m at 4% interest.
The accounts do not state the number of Members but give 2014 Championship attendance figures as 38,722 as opposed to 49,988. I find that most revealing as 2014 had a Roses match(none in 2013) and the team won the Championship! Attendances for 20/20 and 50 over matches were also lower.
Michael Vaughan has left the Board and will be replaced by Martin Moxon.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2015 13:59:10 GMT
I have just received the YCCC 2014 Accounts. The "highlights" are a reported loss of £326,758 and the total debt stands at £24,068,585. They also state that "the club is not expecting to generate a cash surplus in 2015 and therefore Mr C J Graves has agreed to provide a further loan". This loan is £1m at 4% interest. The accounts do not state the number of Members but give 2014 Championship attendance figures as 38,722 as opposed to 49,988. I find that most revealing as 2014 had a Roses match(none in 2013) and the team won the Championship! Attendances for 20/20 and 50 over matches were also lower. Michael Vaughan has left the Board and will be replaced by Martin Moxon. Blimey, that takes the Graves family loan to Yorkshire to £11.1 million, I think. 4 per cent interest is a darned good rate , though - he won't get that anywhere else! Surprised that championship attendances are down in a season in which Yorks won it, as we all like to pretend that there is a direct correlation between success and the level of support. But no surprise that T20 Blast attendances are down. Bring on the EPL. Is any explanation offered as to why the Carnegie Pavilion is depreciated over a 125 years term ? Because I think Sussex depreciates its fixed assets over 40 (or may be it's 50) years and I'm arguing that the club can improve its annual accounts by the simple device of applying depreciation over 125 years, as Mr Graves does. At a stroke that would add around £250k a year to Sussex's profitablity! |
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Mar 2, 2015 15:05:43 GMT
Yorkshire suffered a hammer-blow when their biggest money-spinner of the season - the T20 home match against Lancashire - was rained off without a ball bowled. Given its financial importance to the club, no reserve day was allocated which I find bizarre, so only Yorkshire are to blame. This one match accrues more money for the club than all their home championship matches combined! I remember speaking to the club's CEO Mark Arthur, a week before the start of the T20 season, and he was full of optimism and positivity about the Friday nights and the general new look competition. He even bandied around expected attendances and how this would close to double in 2014.
Cricinfo"Yorkshire chief executive Mark Arthur is so excited by this regular Friday slot that he predicts an initial average crowd of
10,000, up from 6,500, and an additional £200,000 revenue."Sadly, it all fell horribly short and Arthur was made to look a bit of a fool. As to Graves regular loans to keep Yorkshire afloat, he is the best man to create an EPL. Without such a tournament, it is unlikely he will even see a fraction of the loans back in his lifetime, so his determination to push through such proposals are more about a personal vested interest. |
|
|
|
Post by leedsgull on Mar 2, 2015 15:40:10 GMT
S&F No 20/20 league match has a reserve day so nothing could be done about the loss to the weather. Amongst Graves proposals for English cricket are a reduction in Test Matches from 7 to 5 per season I believe. If that happens Headingley will have little chance of being allocated a match so the debt will grow even bigger.
|
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Mar 2, 2015 15:40:53 GMT
I have just received the YCCC 2014 Accounts. The "highlights" are a reported loss of £326,758 and the total debt stands at £24,068,585. They also state that "the club is not expecting to generate a cash surplus in 2015 and therefore Mr C J Graves has agreed to provide a further loan". This loan is £1m at 4% interest. The accounts do not state the number of Members but give 2014 Championship attendance figures as 38,722 as opposed to 49,988. I find that most revealing as 2014 had a Roses match(none in 2013) and the team won the Championship! Attendances for 20/20 and 50 over matches were also lower. Michael Vaughan has left the Board and will be replaced by Martin Moxon. Blimey, that takes the Graves family loan to Yorkshire to £11.1 million, I think. 4 per cent interest is a darned good rate , though - he won't get that anywhere else!
But it's not a bank deposit. It could be regarded as a high risk investment, thus justifying 4% - at least!Surprised that championship attendances are down in a season in which Yorks won it, as we all like to pretend that there is a direct correlation between success and the level of support. But no surprise that T20 Blast attendances are down. Bring on the EPL. Is any explanation offered as to why the Carnegie Pavilion is depreciated over a 125 years term ? Because I think Sussex depreciates its fixed assets over 40 (or may be it's 50) years and I'm arguing that the club can improve its annual accounts by the simple device of applying depreciation over 125 years, as Mr Graves does. At a stroke that would add around £250k a year to Sussex's profitablity! If any self-respecting accountant suggested that, he'd be shot down in flames - quite rightly! I think you still believe depreciation is just an accounting 'technicality'! BTW, does the Yorkshire audit report draw attention to the 125 year depreciation period? |
|
|
|
Post by leedsgull on Mar 2, 2015 15:48:14 GMT
Flashblade In the notes to the Accounts it states the depreciation periods as Carnegie Pavilion 125 years, other buildings 50 years, Fixtures 4 years, Plant & Equipment between 4 and 10 years, Office equipment Telephones 4 years Computer equipment 2 years, Freehold Land is not depreciated. Whether the above is reasonable or not I have no idea |
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Mar 2, 2015 16:02:59 GMT
Flashblade In the notes to the Accounts it states the depreciation periods as Carnegie Pavilion 125 years, other buildings 50 years, Fixtures 4 years, Plant & Equipment between 4 and 10 years, Office equipment Telephones 4 years Computer equipment 2 years, Freehold Land is not depreciated. Whether the above is reasonable or not I have no idea That all sounds very reasonable, except for the 125 years. If you look at the Auditor's Report (should be one of the pages in the Annual Report and Accounts), I wondered if they'd expressed any reservations about the 125 years. Can you post a link to the Annual Report and Accounts, please, leedsgull. Thanks. |
|
