|
|
Post by davef on Jun 24, 2021 7:30:07 GMT
The bitter and twisted drivel you refer to is actually a pretty sound assessment of the situation.
Others can be the judge of who the bitter and twisted one is but could Ron be back again with a bit of 777 jealousy? NDA is an American term after all….
|
|
|
|
Post by leamrider2 on Jun 24, 2021 7:47:22 GMT
... If they can't make it work then it surely means others are very vulnerable as well. That must be true. If anything, the sitation clubs face right now is possibly worse than it was a year ago. Income down for quite a while now, and continued uncertainty about what next season will look like. Unless there's an arena that can generate some non-basketball income and/or an investor with deep pockets, the financial numbers can't look too encouraging. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2021 8:19:25 GMT
Sporty, I hope ranting at me makes you feel a bit better. I'm not the one who closed your club down without only the most vague of reasons.
I'm not doubting there are plenty of people hurt by yesterday's announcement, but you need to be pointing the finger of blame at the people who've made the decision to close down this apparently well-supported club who have security of a venue that will now sit empty on what would have been game nights.
I don't know why you've personalised this. If you don't agree with some of my points (and noticeably you haven't decided to rant at Dave F who's made some similar points) either argue against them or ignore them. But I absolutely stick to my comments about the DCMS money. It was given to enable clubs to survive and continue, Wolves have made no obvious effort to do so. You seem like a spokesman for the club with your claims that we'll never know and details due to NDAs etc. Why would they need them if it's simply a case that the numbers don't add up. Your claims of a vibrant club with a loyal 2000 fan-base suggest otherwise. When the going got tough, no effort was made to tap into that support, no appeals for sponsorship or pleas for people to buy season tickets ASAP.
I don't know what you think I'm jealous of. My Wolves exist, yours don't (at least outside rec league level), but if ranting at me makes you feel better, fill your boots. But the tired old "you stop people posting on here" doesn't rally add up when you've just spent a long post slagging me off.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2021 8:45:57 GMT
Last years Wolves accountsThere is an interesting section in the Wolves last accounts headed "Going concerns basis". It gives a different view on their latest statement. Going concern basis At the year end the company had net current assets of £47,000 (2019: £21,000), net liabilities of £144,000 (2019: £165,000) and cash at bank and in hand of £100,000 (2019: £157,000}. The year ending 31st July 2020 has seen the company produce a reasonable and sustainable profit due to the continued support of its parent entity, the University of Worcester ("University''), and local external sponsors. This is the fourth consecutive year for which the company has produced a profit and in light of the financial implications arising from the COVID-19 pandemic, which resulted in the 2019-20 season being cut short, the Directors feel that the Company adapted well to the unexpected challenges that they faced during the year. · The 2020-21 season will bring about new challenges for the Company, in relation to social distancing at public sporting events, along with a more difficult environment to obtain sponsorship income. At the date of approval of these financial statements, the Board has prepared cash flow forecasts to 31 July 2022 and performed an assessment which considers a period of at least 12 months from this date of approval. The forecasts have been modelled based on a number of scenarios for both the current 2020-21 and 2021-22 seasons. The scenarios factor in that Government funding will be provided to all British Basketball League ("BBL") clubs based on ongoing discussions that are being held by the BBL with the Government. However, at the time of signing these financial statements this funding is not committed. The forecasts also assume continued support from the University to continue to provide financial support to the company in the form of its sponsorship agreement. The forecasts assume that the sponsorship income will be at the same level as received in 2019-20, but the sponsorship contracts for the next 2 seasons have not yet been drawn up or signed due to the University wanting to understand the level of Government funding that may be forthcoming before confirming the level of sponsorship income to be funded. In 2014, the University granted a loan of £500,000 to support the company to provide the initial necessary financial support. The company has continued to meet its obligations in relation to the loan repayments and the next loan instalment is not due for payment until 31 July 2022. In addition, the Directors have received confirmation in the current year that the University intends to support the company for at least one year after these financial statements are signed. At the date of approval of these financial statements, the Directors are reasonably certain that Government funding will be forthcoming for all BBL clubs, but acknowledge that this is not yet confirmed or committed
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2021 9:12:51 GMT
Seems a smart decision faced with highly uncertain ticket revenue, severely impacted sponsorship money and facing costs of operating a team. Why is this a surprise? Wouldn’t be surprised if a few more teams press the pause button or withdraw. Simple economics. What a surprise you're back. Your first post for six months. Talk us through how last season didn't happen. Because you promised us it wasn't going to happen. Some thoughts. My good friend Mr Hershey! Dude, you are right, I did say there would be no basketball, because the thought of using government money to continue a season without the prospect of ticket, TV or sponsorship revenue was just not prudent and the BBL would have done better to sit the season out like Ice Hockey did. The fundamentals are even worse now and there will be no additional bailout, either government or 777. The fact that a club that has been in the league for 15 years, decides all of a sudden to chuck it all is telling. No other way to look at it. If there were a real prospect of a rebound on the business side and some money from 777, they would've stayed. But they haven't. It will be very interesting to see how this next season will pan out. Consumer behaviour will dictate if it really makes sense to factor in a rebound in attendance. I can't imagine families will feel safe in indoor venues when Covid and its awful variants are still in circulation. I do remember saying that it would be the end of this year when things begin to return to normal. However, I now think it will be another lost year revenue wise for indoor events. There will be more fallout, you can count on that. |
|
Hearsay247
Rookie
Posts: 39 
Favourite Team: Worcester Wolves
|
Post by Hearsay247 on Jun 24, 2021 10:09:32 GMT
The bitter and twisted drivel you refer to is actually a pretty sound assessment of the situation. Others can be the judge of who the bitter and twisted one is but could Ron be back again with a bit of 777 jealousy? NDA is an American term after all…. NDA (non disclosure agreement) is a term used worldwide and its use is also extremely common in this country, it is not exclusively American, but I’m sure you already knew that. Also, I am not Ron, nor am I jealous of 777 - I really do hope the BBL survives and that Worcester is the only club which chooses to head in this direction. Do you honestly believe this has been a long thought out plan? It doesn’t add up, unless the Uni has managed to extract its cash (if there is any) from the league - hence why a NDA would be useful to prevent the beans being spilled. I am actually agreeing that the financial argument does not hold water - there must be more to it, but for people to be suggesting that the DCMS money has been obtained via deception as part of a long term plan is a very serious allegation and I hope, for their sakes, those repeating it can back it up if things should ever go legal. I suspect this is more likely to be a disagreement with the direction in which the league is heading, given that there were reports of “Surrey Scorchers and Worcester Wolves” being the obstacle to the 777 deal, but I have no evidence to prove it, it is pure speculation. www.mvp247.com/2021/02/777-talks-step/Just to be clear, I am not connected to the club in any way, other than supporting it via having four season tickets and following them home and away when fans are allowed. I accept that I am clearly not one of the cool kids in the WhatsBev echo chamber (I have never encountered a less welcoming “forum” - although that is mainly down to one person), so I will try to keep my thoughts to myself in future - like most BBL supporters do these days (I know I am no longer a supporter of a BBL team, before anyone feels the need to point that out). Off I trot with my tail between my legs… |
|
|
|
Post by interestedridersfan on Jun 24, 2021 10:22:09 GMT
Last years Wolves accountsThere is an interesting section in the Wolves last accounts headed "Going concerns basis". It gives a different view on their latest statement. Going concern basis At the year end the company had net current assets of £47,000 (2019: £21,000), net liabilities of £144,000 (2019: £165,000) and cash at bank and in hand of £100,000 (2019: £157,000}. The year ending 31st July 2020 has seen the company produce a reasonable and sustainable profit due to the continued support of its parent entity, the University of Worcester ("University''), and local external sponsors. This is the fourth consecutive year for which the company has produced a profit and in light of the financial implications arising from the COVID-19 pandemic, which resulted in the 2019-20 season being cut short, the Directors feel that the Company adapted well to the unexpected challenges that they faced during the year. · The 2020-21 season will bring about new challenges for the Company, in relation to social distancing at public sporting events, along with a more difficult environment to obtain sponsorship income. At the date of approval of these financial statements, the Board has prepared cash flow forecasts to 31 July 2022 and performed an assessment which considers a period of at least 12 months from this date of approval. The forecasts have been modelled based on a number of scenarios for both the current 2020-21 and 2021-22 seasons. The scenarios factor in that Government funding will be provided to all British Basketball League ("BBL") clubs based on ongoing discussions that are being held by the BBL with the Government. However, at the time of signing these financial statements this funding is not committed. The forecasts also assume continued support from the University to continue to provide financial support to the company in the form of its sponsorship agreement. The forecasts assume that the sponsorship income will be at the same level as received in 2019-20, but the sponsorship contracts for the next 2 seasons have not yet been drawn up or signed due to the University wanting to understand the level of Government funding that may be forthcoming before confirming the level of sponsorship income to be funded. In 2014, the University granted a loan of £500,000 to support the company to provide the initial necessary financial support. The company has continued to meet its obligations in relation to the loan repayments and the next loan instalment is not due for payment until 31 July 2022. In addition, the Directors have received confirmation in the current year that the University intends to support the company for at least one year after these financial statements are signed. At the date of approval of these financial statements, the Directors are reasonably certain that Government funding will be forthcoming for all BBL clubs, but acknowledge that this is not yet confirmed or committed The above is a very interesting post The importance of showing in your accounts that you believe your business to be a going concern is crucial for the directors of ANY business to avoid those directors being held liable personally for any debts the business may incur should their business fail If you continue to take money from sponsors or supporters etc when you are NOT a going concern then you are breaking the rules of being a director and can then be held personally liable When Covid lockdowns first began a new law came in for a short period which allowed limited companies to continue to take income even if they were not a going concern. That is no longer the case At the time Wolves filed their accounts above they have shown good accounting practise by looking at best and worst case cash flow scenarios to be able to meet their financial obligations ongoing They have done this with caveats at the time and made it clear there are some unknowns that could make them no longer a going concern. Particularly the amount of funding from Uni sponsorship. They were barely a going concern regardless as would be the case with most BBL clubs So if they now know they aren't going to receive the same level of sponsorship as hoped and have concerns over other income as well then they will have moved to no longer being a going concern Which means they can no longer take income from fans or remaining sponsors without being personally liable etc Many directors continue to operate without cash flow forecasts and with their heads in the sand so to speak Above its clear wolves aren't like that and are diligent The alternative would be to take season ticket and sponsorship money etc and fail At which stage the supporters and sponsors lose but also once the business is proven to have taken that money knowing they are no longer a going concern then the directors are personally liable for that money and lose the safety that a limited company gives to them I suspect that now wolves might know the actual amount of sponsorship they know they are no longer viable Whereas at the time they filed their accounts they were hoping they would be It's one thing losing your job/livelihood as many directors sadly will do due to the impact of Covid on their business It's another thing incurring large personal debt and potential to be banned from being directors in the future by continuing to take income when you know your business is no longer a going concern All the directors at all the BBL clubs should be looking at similar cash flow forecasts etc as wolves and making sure their business is viable before taking any money from sponsors or supporters Or else number one they are failing their supporters and sponsors and number two they are potentially putting themselves in deep shxt personally financially longer term They can't rely on ongoing Govt bailouts to pay the bills I sympathize with all the owners but I wouldn't castigate wolves directors without knowing all the details They could easily have taken more sponsorship money and a load of season ticket money and THEN pulled the plug! Which others in sport have done before These guys at least know the going concern rules At the same time all Universities and many sponsors will have been badly hit financially by Covid etc and will be going through the same cashflow forecasts. If they don't have their heads in the sand of course. So I wouldn't castigate the Uni or any othet sponsor who has to withdraw or lower their support It's very sad to lose one of the best run and supported clubs in the league. But don't assume they are bad guys making these decisions. They may just actually care more about doing the right thing financially than others in sport |
|
|
|
Post by saintpat on Jun 24, 2021 10:31:55 GMT
When I 1st read they were pulling out, I did wonder if the possible 777 deal was a major issue in the decision making.
I'm guessing both Wolves & Scorchers directors have to answer to more people/organisations than other clubs & perhaps the pressure for a positive decision from other clubs had forced their hand.
Like others, I'm struggling to understand the financial side as being a solely legitimate reason
|
|
|
|
Post by davef on Jun 24, 2021 10:47:24 GMT
I don’t think anyone has accused anyone of fraud. Mischaracterising other posters does no-one any credit.
The Wolves will have virtually no ongoing staff/player costs. They could comfortably cut their cloth to go along with reduced income predictions if they wanted to.
As Pat says this is more likely due to other factors linked to the universitys place within the league than simple finances.
|
|
|
|
Post by interestedridersfan on Jun 24, 2021 11:04:27 GMT
I don’t think anyone has accused anyone of fraud. Mischaracterising other posters does no-one any credit. The Wolves will have virtually no ongoing staff/player costs. They could comfortably cut their cloth to go along with reduced income predictions if they wanted to. As Pat says this is more likely due to other factors linked to the universitys place within the league than simple finances. edit-maybe that's directedat someone else. Personally im just putting myself in the shoes of the owners As a director and business owner myself I know first hand how challenging Covid is to some industries It's going to be a very hard couple of years ahead for many in the sports industry What I read from that post about their notes to the accounts was very honest and detailed The money theyve received from the Govt was to fund last season and not to fund this season onwards? For them to have "taken money and run" they would have not fulfilled last season Or have I missed something there? I will hazard a guess many sports clubs with less diligent owners will recklessly take money from fans and sponsors this year knowing they likely will not last the season without some miracle upturn So who are the bad guys then? We don't know the detail What we do know is that they were a well organised club who paid their bills for many years and lived within their means. A sad sad loss |
|
|
|
Post by borthwick on Jun 24, 2021 11:14:45 GMT
Who knows the truth but as the university is the major backer I would suspect their disposable income has been reduced and hence the ability to fund the club. The issue I would have is the government cash was supposed to support businesses so they could carry on. It really ought to be paid back.
|
|
|
|
Post by interestedridersfan on Jun 24, 2021 11:28:49 GMT
Who knows the truth but as the university is the major backer I would suspect their disposable income has been reduced and hence the ability to fund the club. The issue I would have is the government cash was supposed to support businesses so they could carry on. It really ought to be paid back. The club's were asked to send in figures they would lose last season werent they? Which they all did? The money they received wasnt for now? Unless I'm mistaken? They completed the season? Yes every club will need to cut its cloth different this season you would expect but there are limits |
|
|
|
Post by interestedridersfan on Jun 24, 2021 11:31:27 GMT
Who knows the truth but as the university is the major backer I would suspect their disposable income has been reduced and hence the ability to fund the club. The issue I would have is the government cash was supposed to support businesses so they could carry on. It really ought to be paid back. In the accounts the total income for wolves was 542k for the year Of which 325k came as sponsorship from the Uni And only a further 27k from other sponsors They had player wages of 140k total Out of total operating costs of 520k The made 20k profit with the above figures Who knows on the Uni income for the future but they were so heavily reliant on that above that there would be a limit to what cloth cutting they could do even if you stopped paying player wages full stop It's a huge part of their income at risk And check the notes to the accounts. The Uni were only able to commit to sponsorship until July this year Take away that and they don't have a chance I was surprised how big the sponsorship was tbh |
|
|
|
Post by interestedridersfan on Jun 24, 2021 11:54:48 GMT
If there is criticism to be made (in hindsight) it's not developing other income better
But then again they got big crowds
Income from other sponsors was low though
Maybe they were complacent with whay they had
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2021 12:37:06 GMT
The bitter and twisted drivel you refer to is actually a pretty sound assessment of the situation. Others can be the judge of who the bitter and twisted one is but could Ron be back again with a bit of 777 jealousy? NDA is an American term after all…. ....but for people to be suggesting that the DCMS money has been obtained via deception as part of a long term plan is a very serious allegation and I hope, for their sakes, those repeating it can back it up if things should ever go legal. I suspect this is more likely to be a disagreement with the direction in which the league is heading, given that there were reports of “Surrey Scorchers and Worcester Wolves” being the obstacle to the 777 deal, but I have no evidence to prove it, it is pure speculation. I accept that I am clearly not one of the cool kids in the WhatsBev echo chamber (I have never encountered a less welcoming “forum” - although that is mainly down to one person), so I will try to keep my thoughts to myself in future - like most BBL supporters do these days (I know I am no longer a supporter of a BBL team, before anyone feels the need to point that out). Off I trot with my tail between my legs… Cool new name, dude. You know what they say about imitation.... No one has said that the DCMS has been obtained via deception but, whether it suits your argument or not, Worcester did receive it and the aim of it was to keep clubs afloat in the long run & ensure that the 2020/21 season went ahead. Having accepted it, Worcester are morally obliged to at least try to play this season. Things won't go legal, the BBL side of the organisation will be wound up. It's over. And as for your final paragraph, don't you think it's a bit pathetic that having slagged me off in your post, you're now taking a leaf out of IRF's book by whining that people are answering you? You should save your anger for the people who've killed your basketball club |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2021 15:14:18 GMT
Dunkster and irf both back, great to see.
Dubkster have you paid hersey the £1000 yet?
|
|
|
|
Post by interestedridersfan on Jun 24, 2021 15:17:29 GMT
....but for people to be suggesting that the DCMS money has been obtained via deception as part of a long term plan is a very serious allegation and I hope, for their sakes, those repeating it can back it up if things should ever go legal. I suspect this is more likely to be a disagreement with the direction in which the league is heading, given that there were reports of “Surrey Scorchers and Worcester Wolves” being the obstacle to the 777 deal, but I have no evidence to prove it, it is pure speculation. I accept that I am clearly not one of the cool kids in the WhatsBev echo chamber (I have never encountered a less welcoming “forum” - although that is mainly down to one person), so I will try to keep my thoughts to myself in future - like most BBL supporters do these days (I know I am no longer a supporter of a BBL team, before anyone feels the need to point that out). Off I trot with my tail between my legs… Cool new name, dude. You know what they say about imitation.... No one has said that the DCMS has been obtained via deception but, whether it suits your argument or not, Worcester did receive it and the aim of it was to keep clubs afloat in the long run & ensure that the 2020/21 season went ahead. Having accepted it, Worcester are morally obliged to at least try to play this season. Things won't go legal, the BBL side of the organisation will be wound up. It's over. And as for your final paragraph, don't you think it's a bit pathetic that having slagged me off in your post, you're now taking a leaf out of IRF's book by whining that people are answering you? You should save your anger for the people who've killed your basketball club The specific aim of DCMS was to cover the missing income from fans for last season to allow a season that was in place to happen. I've not seen anything to show income was given for any longer than that? So you are choosing yourself to spin a moral obligation on the owners for anything longer than that as far as I can see. I would have agreed with you if they hadnt completed last season. Regardless "Moral obligation" won't be any defence for any directors of ANY limited company to continue trading if insolvent just because they received Govt support to help them survive to date. Whether that's basketball, any othet sports club or your local pub "Moral obligation" won't pay suppliers or employees from now on If the money isn't there to commit to a BBL season then the owners have done the prudent thing at the right time before they put themselves in danger of wrongful trading Simple as that They have cut their cloth accordingly and reined in their operation Do you think it's a decision they will have taken lightly? |
|
|
|
Post by interestedridersfan on Jun 24, 2021 15:30:08 GMT
In the event you are concerned about your company’s solvency, below are a few practical steps that you should take to mitigate the risks you face as a director:
Hold regular board meetings and consider whether it is still appropriate for your company to continue trade in light of the financial resources available to it and the prognosis for the future. Minute the consideration by the board of all such information in light of their duties.
Ensure the board is maintaining a detailed financial forecast outlining any potential liquidity issues and have regular discussions with your creditors if you are concerned with any repayment obligations.
If insolvency becomes a real prospect for your company, ensure you carry out contingency planning with the assistance of a licenced insolvency practitioner to prepare for this eventuality.
As it stands, the suspension of the wrongful trading provisions will end on 30 April 2021 and boards will need to be fully alive and prepared for this if they think they may be wrongfully trading at this point.
(Nothing in there about moral obligations to carry on trading unfortunately)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2021 15:35:07 GMT
Dunkster and irf both back, great to see. Dubkster have you paid hersey the £1000 yet? I'd forgotten that. I'll spend the money on spam for tea. |
|
|
|
Post by mickizza on Jun 24, 2021 21:59:48 GMT
It’s a mistake to try to read anything into the going concern paragraph of the Wolves accounts - it’s pretty standard fare that any company accounts showing net liabilities has to include if it wants to prepare unmodified accounts. Other than the COVID related comments the paragraph is repeated virtually verbatim in the previous years accounts
In layman’s terms - we are technically insolvent, but our owners have agreed to support us for at least a year from the date these accounts are signed so we’ll assume everything is ok.
All very standard.
|
|
|
|
Post by interestedridersfan on Jun 25, 2021 4:53:23 GMT
It’s a mistake to try to read anything into the going concern paragraph of the Wolves accounts - it’s pretty standard fare that any company accounts showing net liabilities has to include if it wants to prepare unmodified accounts. Other than the COVID related comments the paragraph is repeated virtually verbatim in the previous years accounts In layman’s terms - we are technically insolvent, but our owners have agreed to support us for at least a year from the date these accounts are signed so we’ll assume everything is ok. All very standard. Those notes were made last year and warned that the University had only committed to sponsor until July this year. Not only that the Uni had not confirmed the amount they could sponsor when those notes were made That's why it's actually very relevant to the fact the club this week has withdrawn from BBL In due course when future accounts are filed we will learn to what extent the Uni are now able to sponsor Wolves I think it's safe to assume it's not going to be at the 325k level of before the impact of Covid The year the Uni had committed to support the club to allow them to say they believed they were a going concern has now passed And no doubt the club have had to create new cash flow forecasts to show what they can viably afford to do ongoing Reminder the below was part of the club statement earlier in the week "Several potential sponsors have also been badly affected by the pandemic and there is no realistic prospect of the essential income from sponsors meeting pre-pandemic levels." |
|
|
|
Post by interestedridersfan on Jun 25, 2021 5:03:28 GMT
It will be interesting to see what level of fan support the club will retain playing in the NBL with a less expensive squad
And also whether Newby remains in charge
Potentially he could stay as he does a lot more than just coach the BBL Team
|
|
|
|
Post by sporty on Jun 25, 2021 7:51:20 GMT
The problem for me is that it is in the third division of the NBL. Not that attractive as a spectator tbh. basketball will still be played and taught but at grass root abd academy level
|
|
|
|
Post by interestedridersfan on Jun 25, 2021 9:13:40 GMT
The problem for me is that it is in the third division of the NBL. Not that attractive as a spectator tbh. basketball will still be played and taught but at grass root abd academy level Could they play higher in NBL? |
|
|
|
Post by sporty on Jun 25, 2021 10:28:53 GMT
Just quoting from the M D on a radio interview
|
|
