|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Nov 4, 2023 11:21:31 GMT
A New and Exciting Business Model Opens Up For County Cricket
_________________________________________________________________________________It is confirmed. Former Newcastle FC owner and Sports Direct Founder, Mike Ashley, is buying Headingley for £23 million with an understanding that the county can buy back the ground at a given, not yet known, future date. Tagged “the most hated man in football” by the tabloid press, Ashley is creating a new financial business model in football and now cricket, by buying up clubs in financial trouble, then leasing out the ground, with a clause that states, the said club can buy back their ground after a number of years for an agreed sum. So what does Ashley gain for his buck?  A Face Once Used as a Dart Board by Newcastle FC SupportersYorkshire will pay him £1 million a year rent to use the ground, while Ashley has sole Headingley stadium naming rights for 10 years, but will allow the name to remain. i.e Sports Direct Headingley. Meanwhile, Yorkshire pays off its primary albatross, Colin Graves loan of £15.9 million. The interest payment is at a rate of 5% or more (in the past when the public were lucky to gain 1% interest from a building society, Yorkshire were paying Graves over 5%), as well as recoup the £3.5 million worth of legal costs during the Azeem Rafiq racism trial plus, no doubt, other monies that were also incurred. The 160 year-old county retain control of the Headingley shop and other retail and commercial elements, with Ashley limited to just the stadium naming rights. Presumably, the club also retain revenues from international matches and home games which may help towards paying the £1 million a year rent? In a nutshell, Yorkshire can start again with an unburdened spread sheet of debt. This looks a strong deal for both parties. The new and exciting business model Ashley is creating in sport, began after he took over Coventry City’s CBS Arena, last December, before finalising a five-year deal for the cash-strapped club to return as tenants. It was widely reported that Ashley has expressed an interest in Derby County during their financial struggles, while Reading, recently given a League One points deduction, are also on his hit list. Dare I now suggest that Sussex could go down a similar route? Some Club fans might wince, but let us take a careful look. First, Sussex are not in debt, say the hierarchy. The reason for the mass exodus of top players to other clubs was primarily down to slashing the Club’s salaries by half, to stop the Club from going into debt or “bankruptcy” as our Chairman recently warned to Adrian Harms. To use that fear-ridden excuse to cover up Andrew’s failure is not acceptable. What Sussex now lack is money to build again from the ruins and player destruction due to the extreme past financial measures. How else can the Club move forward without increasing the players salaries again to attract top cricketers to the South Coast and keep the best of the youngsters from moving to other counties, after their present contract is up, with the carrot of higher wages and the prospect of winning trophies. Compared to football, £23 million is a piddly amount. Manchester United may well be sold soon for £5 billion. Chelsea was disposed for £4.25 billion in May 2022, to American Todd Boehly and his Associates. John Henry has alleged a £4 billion price tag for Liverpool. Recent research suggests that topflight Premier League football clubs, would cost a buyer between £3 and £4 billion. In February, it was reported that Iranian-American billionaire Jahm Najafi was preparing an offer of £3.1billion to take over Spurs, but the sum was snubbed as too little.  Both Hampshire and Middlesex Pay Rent For Their Grounds So, £23 million, to repeat, is a piddly amount in comparison. If a wealthy benefactor offered Sussex, say just £20 million, where the Club could buy back the ground at a later date, and the primary onus might be, say, £500,000 rent a year, if just £10 million was placed in a building society long term account at a realistic 5%, given the present high rates not seen since 2007 and 2008, the interest amount gained would pay off the annual ground rent, while the remaining £10 million might be employed to increase player salaries and attract top cricketers. Andrew’s “youngster experiment” has been a destructive failure, so let us once and for all, move on and become a normal county again, where the best of the younger Sussex cricketers are blended with older and more experienced ones. The problem being, given the old guard mentality at Sussex, such a radical suggestion to attract a buyer for the Club is highly unlikely. Members, naturally, would be wary and so they should be, but Ashley’s business model, at present, looks a fair deal for both parties. The one hitch might be, the financial amount decided upon for a county to buy back the ground in the future. That would need to be finalised before any purchase took place. If Ashley's new business model is successful, then other business people using a similar method will follow. Eastleigh Borough Council rents out the Ageas Bowl ground to Hampshire; Middlesex has been renting from the MCC for decades. This is not a new idea and one which has proven highly successful. As for giving away the ground naming rights, who gives a damn. How many different ones has Sussex had in the last 10 years alone? It is time now for a new, refreshing and radical approach to be taken by the Sussex hierarchy, but given the old guard mentality that presently resides in the top echelons, it is unlikely to be taken seriously, let alone taken up.
|
|
|
|
Post by therealab1 on Nov 4, 2023 13:37:33 GMT
A New and Exciting Business Model Opens Up For County Cricket
_________________________________________________________________________________It is confirmed. Former Newcastle FC owner and Sports Direct Founder, Mike Ashley, is buying Headingley for £23 million with an understanding that the county can buy back the ground at a given, not yet known, future date. Tagged “the most hated man in football” by the tabloid press, Ashley is creating a new financial business model in football and now cricket, by buying up clubs in financial trouble, then leasing out the ground, with a clause that states, the said club can buy back their ground after a number of years for an agreed sum. So what does Ashley gain for his buck? A Face Once Used as a Dart Board by Newcastle FC SupportersYorkshire will pay him £1 million a year rent to use the ground, while Ashley has sole Headingley stadium naming rights for 10 years, but will allow the name to remain. i.e Sports Direct Headingley. Meanwhile, Yorkshire pays off its primary albatross, Colin Graves loan of £15.9 million. The interest payment is at a rate of 5% or more (in the past when the public were lucky to gain 1% interest from a building society, Yorkshire were paying Graves over 5%), as well as recoup the £3.5 million worth of legal costs during the Azeem Rafiq racism trial plus, no doubt, other monies that were also incurred. The 160 year-old county retain control of the Headingley shop and other retail and commercial elements, with Ashley limited to just the stadium naming rights. Presumably, the club also retain revenues from international matches and home games which may help towards paying the £1 million a year rent? In a nutshell, Yorkshire can start again with an unburdened spread sheet of debt. This looks a strong deal for both parties. The new and exciting business model Ashley is creating in sport, began after he took over Coventry City’s CBS Arena, last December, before finalising a five-year deal for the cash-strapped club to return as tenants. It was widely reported that Ashley has expressed an interest in Derby County during their financial struggles, while Reading, recently given a League One points deduction, are also on his hit list. Dare I now suggest that Sussex could go down a similar route? Some Club fans might wince, but let us take a careful look. First, Sussex are not in debt, say the hierarchy. The reason for the mass exodus of top players to other clubs was primarily down to slashing the Club’s salaries by half, to stop the Club from going into debt or “bankruptcy” as our Chairman recently warned to Adrian Harms. To use that fear-ridden excuse to cover up Andrew’s failure is not acceptable. What Sussex now lack is money to build again from the ruins and player destruction due to the extreme past financial measures. How else can the Club move forward without increasing the players salaries again to attract top cricketers to the South Coast and keep the best of the youngsters from moving to other counties, after their present contract is up, with the carrot of higher wages and the prospect of winning trophies. Compared to football, £23 million is a piddly amount. Manchester United may well be sold soon for £5 billion. Chelsea was disposed for £4.25 billion in May 2022, to American Todd Boehly and his Associates. John Henry has alleged a £4 billion price tag for Liverpool. Recent research suggests that topflight Premier League football clubs, would cost a buyer between £3 and £4 billion. In February, it was reported that Iranian-American billionaire Jahm Najafi was preparing an offer of £3.1billion to take over Spurs, but the sum was snubbed as too little. Both Hampshire and Middlesex Pay Rent For Their Grounds So, £23 million, to repeat, is a piddly amount in comparison. If a wealthy benefactor offered Sussex, say just £20 million, where the Club could buy back the ground at a later date, and the primary onus might be, say, £500,000 rent a year, if just £10 million was placed in a building society long term account at a realistic 5%, given the present high rates not seen since 2007 and early 2008, the interest amount gained would pay off the annual ground rent, while the remaining £10 million might be employed to increase player salaries and attract top cricketers. Andrew’s “youngster experiment” has been a destructive failure, so let us once and for all, move on and become a normal county again, where the best of the younger Sussex cricketers are blended with older and more experienced ones. The problem being, given the old guard mentality at Sussex, such a radical suggestion to attract a buyer for the Club is highly unlikely. Members, naturally, would be wary and so they should be, but Ashley’s business model, at present, looks a fair deal for both parties. The one hitch might be, the financial amount decided upon for a county to buy back the ground in the future. That would need to be finalised before any purchase took place. If Ashley's new business model is successful, then other business people using a similar method will follow. Rod Bransgrove rents out the Ageas Bowl ground to Hampshire; Middlesex has been renting from the MCC for decades. This is not a new idea and one which has proven highly successful. As for giving away the ground naming rights, who gives a damn. How many different ones has Sussex had in the last 10 years alone? It is time now for a new, refreshing and radical approach to be taken by the Sussex hierarchy, but given the old guard mentality that presently resides in the top echelons, it is unlikely to be taken seriously, let alone taken up. Your price comparisons to Football are slightly misleading as Ashley hasnt bought Yorkshire CCC he has just bought the ground. Id not be opposed to someone coming in and buying out the County Ground to generate millions of pounds but id be totally against 1 owner of the entire cricket club. I would like answers from May, Brooks and Toumazi as to why the Spen Cama millions was so loosely spent. That should serve as an example that even 10 million cannot guarantee sustained success. Interesting article but i want members to remain in control of the County game, |
|
|
|
Post by joe on Nov 4, 2023 14:15:04 GMT
I have to agree with Andy for the reasons he’s given.
|
|
|
|
Post by squarepoint on Nov 4, 2023 17:11:58 GMT
Mike Ashley won’t be doing this for philanthropic reasons, he’ll view it as an investment (as he did at Newcastle Utd). So he expects this deal to give a better return than investing his money elsewhere.
There’s no clever financial engineering available that can help a sports club to live beyond its means consistently, although a deal like this one can help to buy time while a club gets on a firmer footing. You have to be very sure that you can improve your underlying financial position though, otherwise you can end in a terrible mess.
|
|
|
|
Post by sussexman on Nov 4, 2023 17:31:08 GMT
You have created an interesting debate Wicked. I agree with Squarepoint that Ashley sees this as a commercial decision. He will receive nearly 5% in rent, plus naming rights, which at a test ground could be worth around £1m pa. Given their difficulties with the Graves, this is probably a trade off Yorkshire needed to accept.
Naming rights at Sussex not significant in these terms, and unlikely anyone could make a commercial return. So as you say, Sussex would need a benefactor if private money is to be attracted. Under acceptable terms I am all for this. But it does not need to have a complicated structure. It may be easier to attract a benefactor willing to underwrite a significant annual addition to the cricket budget for say five years, than seeking a large capital sum.
Many arts organisations, such as orchestras, theatres and art galleries are heavily reliant on benefactors. The Bournemouth Symphony Orchestra lists over 100 individuals in their concert programme who provide funding (they are listed in bands with the highest those providing over £20,000 a year). I would guess the total generated is around £500k per year. No idea whether there are individuals willing to make additional contributions to Sussex.
|
|
j
2nd XI player
Posts: 107
|
Post by j on Nov 5, 2023 11:26:37 GMT
A New and Exciting Business Model Opens Up For County Cricket
_________________________________________________________________________________It is confirmed. Former Newcastle FC owner and Sports Direct Founder, Mike Ashley, is buying Headingley for £23 million with an understanding that the county can buy back the ground at a given, not yet known, future date. Tagged “the most hated man in football” by the tabloid press, Ashley is creating a new financial business model in football and now cricket, by buying up clubs in financial trouble, then leasing out the ground, with a clause that states, the said club can buy back their ground after a number of years for an agreed sum. So what does Ashley gain for his buck? A Face Once Used as a Dart Board by Newcastle FC SupportersYorkshire will pay him £1 million a year rent to use the ground, while Ashley has sole Headingley stadium naming rights for 10 years, but will allow the name to remain. i.e Sports Direct Headingley. Meanwhile, Yorkshire pays off its primary albatross, Colin Graves loan of £15.9 million. The interest payment is at a rate of 5% or more (in the past when the public were lucky to gain 1% interest from a building society, Yorkshire were paying Graves over 5%), as well as recoup the £3.5 million worth of legal costs during the Azeem Rafiq racism trial plus, no doubt, other monies that were also incurred. The 160 year-old county retain control of the Headingley shop and other retail and commercial elements, with Ashley limited to just the stadium naming rights. Presumably, the club also retain revenues from international matches and home games which may help towards paying the £1 million a year rent? In a nutshell, Yorkshire can start again with an unburdened spread sheet of debt. This looks a strong deal for both parties. The new and exciting business model Ashley is creating in sport, began after he took over Coventry City’s CBS Arena, last December, before finalising a five-year deal for the cash-strapped club to return as tenants. It was widely reported that Ashley has expressed an interest in Derby County during their financial struggles, while Reading, recently given a League One points deduction, are also on his hit list. Dare I now suggest that Sussex could go down a similar route? Some Club fans might wince, but let us take a careful look. First, Sussex are not in debt, say the hierarchy. The reason for the mass exodus of top players to other clubs was primarily down to slashing the Club’s salaries by half, to stop the Club from going into debt or “bankruptcy” as our Chairman recently warned to Adrian Harms. To use that fear-ridden excuse to cover up Andrew’s failure is not acceptable. What Sussex now lack is money to build again from the ruins and player destruction due to the extreme past financial measures. How else can the Club move forward without increasing the players salaries again to attract top cricketers to the South Coast and keep the best of the youngsters from moving to other counties, after their present contract is up, with the carrot of higher wages and the prospect of winning trophies. Compared to football, £23 million is a piddly amount. Manchester United may well be sold soon for £5 billion. Chelsea was disposed for £4.25 billion in May 2022, to American Todd Boehly and his Associates. John Henry has alleged a £4 billion price tag for Liverpool. Recent research suggests that topflight Premier League football clubs, would cost a buyer between £3 and £4 billion. In February, it was reported that Iranian-American billionaire Jahm Najafi was preparing an offer of £3.1billion to take over Spurs, but the sum was snubbed as too little. Both Hampshire and Middlesex Pay Rent For Their Grounds So, £23 million, to repeat, is a piddly amount in comparison. If a wealthy benefactor offered Sussex, say just £20 million, where the Club could buy back the ground at a later date, and the primary onus might be, say, £500,000 rent a year, if just £10 million was placed in a building society long term account at a realistic 5%, given the present high rates not seen since 2007 and early 2008, the interest amount gained would pay off the annual ground rent, while the remaining £10 million might be employed to increase player salaries and attract top cricketers. Andrew’s “youngster experiment” has been a destructive failure, so let us once and for all, move on and become a normal county again, where the best of the younger Sussex cricketers are blended with older and more experienced ones. The problem being, given the old guard mentality at Sussex, such a radical suggestion to attract a buyer for the Club is highly unlikely. Members, naturally, would be wary and so they should be, but Ashley’s business model, at present, looks a fair deal for both parties. The one hitch might be, the financial amount decided upon for a county to buy back the ground in the future. That would need to be finalised before any purchase took place. If Ashley's new business model is successful, then other business people using a similar method will follow. Rod Bransgrove rents out the Ageas Bowl ground to Hampshire; Middlesex has been renting from the MCC for decades. This is not a new idea and one which has proven highly successful. As for giving away the ground naming rights, who gives a damn. How many different ones has Sussex had in the last 10 years alone? It is time now for a new, refreshing and radical approach to be taken by the Sussex hierarchy, but given the old guard mentality that presently resides in the top echelons, it is unlikely to be taken seriously, let alone taken up. Your price comparisons to Football are slightly misleading as Ashley hasnt bought Yorkshire CCC he has just bought the ground. Id not be opposed to someone coming in and buying out the County Ground to generate millions of pounds but id be totally against 1 owner of the entire cricket club. I would like answers from May, Brooks and Toumazi as to why the Spen Cama millions was so loosely spent. That should serve as an example that even 10 million cannot guarantee sustained success. Interesting article but i want members to remain in control of the County game, I'm not sure if Yorkshire would retain all of the revenues from home matches and internationals staged at Headingley. Middlesex don't get all of the money made from home matches and internationals because the MCC own Lord's. I assume the ECB takes a cut of revenue from internationals as well. It's not a great situation for YCCC, but it's a much better option than surrendering to Rajasthan Royals who were rumoured to be wanting a stake in their club. That would be the beginning of the end for domestic cricket in this country. |
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Nov 6, 2023 10:23:56 GMT
Thank you to those posters who responded to my article.
I agree. Sussex should retain control, where only the ground and naming rights are used as collateral. I wonder whether Mike Ashley with the tabloid tag of "the most hated man in football" is looking to become the "patron saint of sporting lost causes", in a bid to become more popular with the public? Of course, this new business model will make him money, but one wonders whether there are less risky and easier ways of making a buck on the £300 million he made from selling Newcastle to the Saudis. Perhaps, it is a tax dodge. Who knows? Allegedly, his shares in Sports Direct are worth around £1.5 billion.
To answer another question: Before the 2008 banking crisis, Sussex CCC was earning an excellent interest rate from the £10 million Spen Cama legacy. Perhaps, £500,000 or more a year? This greatly helped the club’s finances, in particular, being able to offer competitive salaries to their best players to keep them at Hove. These were the good ol’ days when the Icelandic banks, Landsbanki and Icesave, were offering between 6% and 7%. Then the banks crashed and everything changed. A year later UK rates had plummeted to 0.5%. The club decided it was time to reinvest the Cama money by using it to redevelop the ground. Recently appointed CEO, Dave Brooks, was put in charge.
Brooks chose Gatwick-based Farnrise, a reputable local construction company of 20 years experience that unbeknown to anyone, some years down the road led, so I was told, but not confirmed, to one of the Club’s biggest ever financial disasters. For while rumours suggested that Farnrise may have overcharged on the construction work, choosing them as the Club’s biggest ever sponsor over a four-year period, came back to bite them.
The company went into administration in April 2014 owing, it is alleged, hundreds of thousands of pounds to Sussex. Money which I was told, but not confirmed, was never retrieved. Understandably, this major misfortune, if it occurred, was kept quiet. While it is not uncommon for building companies to go bankrupt, it was alleged by some, again not confirmed, that there were signs of Farnrise’s plight several years before and not enough was done to protect the county ground from the later heavy losses.
In hindsight, it is difficult to blame Brooks, Toumazi or May. How would you know a reputable company was in financial trouble. Maybe not sufficient due diligence was carried out? It is easy to criticise.
Meanwhile, the redevelopment was a success leading to and including an excellent new media centre, the Sharks Stand, an improved Member’s pavilion and conference facilities, as well as a better location for the Sussex museum. Should all the work have cost £8 million? I have no knowledge of construction costs. Perhaps, the club might have allotted less money for the redevelopment and kept more in reserve? Yet, interest rates were then so low, what was the point of holding on to it? The hope was that a redeveloped ground would attract new business opportunities and more people through the gate and to some extent that occurred. The 1,700 seat Sharks Stand became popular with supporters and increased the attendance figures for T20 home games, while the general development attracted new business revenue streams.
|
|
|
|
Post by therealab1 on Nov 6, 2023 11:24:29 GMT
In hindsight, it is difficult to blame Brooks, Toumazi or May. How would you know a reputable company was in financial trouble. Maybe not sufficient due diligence was carried out? It is easy to criticise. Some good insightful knowledge there and i can well believe it. Either way it is down to them to manage costs of these projects. I find you easy to criticise comment interesting. Why are these 3 allowed to escape criticism surely any financial disasters for the club on their watch ultimately the buck stops with them if its a decision theyve made in the same way it should and has for Rob Andrew. |
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Nov 6, 2023 12:27:27 GMT
I am cautious because the information has never been confirmed by the Sussex hierarchy. What we do know is that Farnrise signed an initial three-year sponsorship deal starting in 2010 and then the Club extended this for another year ie. 2013, just when the construction company’s financial problems began to surface. It was Dave Brooks who initiated the deal and after stepping down in 2012 when the ground building work was complete, passed it over to the new CEO, Zac Toumazi, to manage. Should Toumazi have been more diligent?
Louisa Morgan, operations manager at debt recovery agency Top Service, commented at the time, “In May 2013 we began alerting our members to the potential risks of dealing with Farnrise Construction due to the increased volume of negative reports. With over 165 adverse trading experiences being reported to us within the past 12 months this led to us last year, removing their credit limit to safeguard our members.” She added, “This advanced intelligence enabled us via our debt recovery service and chasing Letter Service to recover over £400,000 of debt from Farnrise.”
One presumes the £400,000, perhaps, was all that was ever recovered and given the number of creditors, probably Sussex ended up with very little, after a meeting took place on November 13th, 2014 at the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division. One suspects the sponsorship money was paid for the first two years (2010 and 2011), but the 2012 and 2013 revenue, perhaps, was not?
I repeat this is speculation as none of this has been ever confirmed by the Club.
|
|
|
|
Post by therealab1 on Nov 6, 2023 12:33:22 GMT
This adds up, and if true probably should alleviate some of the criticism aimed at Rob Andrew and maybe this was where the dreaded 'NDA' originated from after all.
Fascinating stuff.
Interestingly Mark Judges would have been favourite for CEO had he not moved on to Portsmouth FC. Whoever is the next one will need to be commerically sound, thats why i hope we dont go for an ex player.
|
|
|
|
Post by northfan on Nov 6, 2023 23:15:03 GMT
I am cautious because the information has never been confirmed by the Sussex hierarchy. What we do know is that Farnrise signed an initial three-year sponsorship deal starting in 2010 and then the Club extended this for another year ie. 2013, just when the construction company’s financial problems began to surface. It was Dave Brooks who initiated the deal and after stepping down in 2012 when the ground building work was complete, passed it over to the new CEO, Zac Toumazi, to manage. Should Toumazi have been more diligent? Louisa Morgan, operations manager at debt recovery agency Top Service, commented at the time, “In May 2013 we began alerting our members to the potential risks of dealing with Farnrise Construction due to the increased volume of negative reports. With over 165 adverse trading experiences being reported to us within the past 12 months this led to us last year, removing their credit limit to safeguard our members.” She added, “This advanced intelligence enabled us via our debt recovery service and chasing Letter Service to recover over £400,000 of debt from Farnrise.” One presumes the £400,000, perhaps, was all that was ever recovered and given the number of creditors, probably Sussex ended up with very little, after a meeting took place on November 13th, 2014 at the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division. One suspects the sponsorship money was paid for the first two years (2010 and 2011), but the 2012 and 2013 revenue, perhaps, was not? I repeat this is speculation as none of this has been ever confirmed by the Club. The Sussex accounts for 2013, show “ provisions for £87K, re sponsorships and other commercial payments in default at year end” , so I presume that the Farnrise debt is included in that sum. The Farnrise list of creditors does not show any monies owing to Sussex Cricket Ltd at the time the company went into administration in 2014. |
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Nov 7, 2023 9:00:47 GMT
northfan,
I am surprised by the low amount of £87,000. I was told it was
a lot higher.
I will attempt to locate the 2014 accounts and see what
is stated. The term "smoke and mirrors" has been mentioned
many times on this Forum to describe county cricket financial
accounts.
|
|
|
|
Post by northfan on Nov 7, 2023 9:34:05 GMT
northfan, I am surprised by the low amount of £87,000. I was told it was a lot higher. I will attempt to locate the 2014 accounts and see what is stated. The term "smoke and mirrors" has been mentioned many times on this Forum to describe county cricket financial accounts. There is no mention of bad debts in the 2014 accounts, other than ‘Commercial: saw a 38% increase in income on the prior year. Although the previous year figure was impacted by significant adverse items, 2014 was a strong year in its own right- credit to Toney Cottey and his team’ So it would appear that any write offs occurred in the 2013 accounting year. The auditors would have required proof of any debt that was to be written off. |
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Nov 7, 2023 10:42:41 GMT
northfan,
Well, I am stupefied.
While, the debt collector managed to recover around £400,000 and given there must have been well over 100
creditors, Sussex must have pulled off a miracle.
I have no idea what the sponsorship deal with Farnrise would have been. Surely, a minimum of £250,000 a
year? Who knows? Perhaps, Farnrise was written off after 2012 and, in effect, gained free sponsorship for
2013, where the £87,000 only covered losses from 2012?
In these accounts, is there any mention of specific sponsorship money gained from Farnrise for 2012
and 2013 or, for that matter, from anyone else?
Various media articles state, "Sussex CCC have announced that major sponsor Farnrise Construction
have agreed to extend their sponsorship for another 12 months, until at least the end of the 2013
season."
Farnrise was close to bankruptcy by early 2013, so how could they have paid Sussex the
sponsorship money for that season?
BTW, how did you find these past financial accounts? My Google search was in vain.
|
|
|
|
Post by northfan on Nov 7, 2023 10:45:47 GMT
northfan, Well, I am stupefied. While, the debt collector managed to recover around £400,000 and given there must have been well over 100 creditors, Sussex must have pulled off a miracle. I have no idea what the sponsorship deal with Farnrise would have been. Surely, a minimum of £250,000 a year? Who knows? Perhaps, Farnrise was written off after 2012 and, in effect, gained free sponsorship for 2013, where the £87,000 only covered losses from 2012? In these accounts, is there any mention of specific sponsorship money gained from Farnrise for 2012 and 2013 or, for that matter, from anyone else? BTW, how did you find these past financial accounts? My Google search was in vain. Companies House is your friend! |
|
