Club Accounts
At the risk of labouring the point, the investors spent their own money, albeit on a strategy that obviously failed.
For those who comment that clubs' wage bills should be limited by reference to a percentage of their income, this rather begs the question as to what counts as income. Do we include sponsorship, for example? If yes, then what is the difference between a sponsorship deal for £1M and injecting new equity for £1M? The only difference is that the party putting in the equity will want some percentage of shares and may as a result have some say in the way the club is run. However, Ramayana already owned the club, so if they sponsored the club instead of issuing equity then there would be no difference. The point is that you can't really stop clubs coming up with high risk strategies if they continue to meet the rules of the league. A very high percentage of clubs rely on shareholder funding, all of which could stop tomorrow if the investor changes their mind. The question then is can a new strategy be put in place that allows the club to live within its means. Arguably we have done that although will need to wait until next year's accounts before knowing if that really is the case. At least the club has had the benefit of over £600,000 of investment in infrastructure which wouldn't have otherwise happened.
For those who comment that clubs' wage bills should be limited by reference to a percentage of their income, this rather begs the question as to what counts as income. Do we include sponsorship, for example? If yes, then what is the difference between a sponsorship deal for £1M and injecting new equity for £1M? The only difference is that the party putting in the equity will want some percentage of shares and may as a result have some say in the way the club is run. However, Ramayana already owned the club, so if they sponsored the club instead of issuing equity then there would be no difference. The point is that you can't really stop clubs coming up with high risk strategies if they continue to meet the rules of the league. A very high percentage of clubs rely on shareholder funding, all of which could stop tomorrow if the investor changes their mind. The question then is can a new strategy be put in place that allows the club to live within its means. Arguably we have done that although will need to wait until next year's accounts before knowing if that really is the case. At least the club has had the benefit of over £600,000 of investment in infrastructure which wouldn't have otherwise happened.
-
Lord Elpus
- Posts: 944
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2021 3:09 pm
So given all that, where do we currently stand with the brothers then? Are they even still interested?
No idea. I thought they were trying to find new investors or sell. Unless they can run the club at a profit (assuming no further investment) then any value there might be will continue to erode. Ironically they could find themselves back where we were in 2022.
-
Shepperton Supporter
- Posts: 2549
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2021 10:18 pm
I think the only person I have seen recently who was one of the investors is Scott Forbes. Don’t think he is no longer a director of the club.
I think that summarises the interest they now have. I think they have attended maybe four games this season so don't seem to have any ongoing interest in the football.
They clearly fell out with some or all of the investors who won't back them further. They handed the running of the club back to more suitable people who I guess are tasked with ensuring it breaks even now and doesn't need more funds (hopefully).
-
EastTerracer
- Posts: 519
- Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2023 8:40 am
I think all they were interested in was self publicity. The only skill they seem to have is spinning a yarn about themselves.Lord Elpus wrote: Mon Mar 03, 2025 6:26 pm So given all that, where do we currently stand with the brothers then? Are they even still interested?
-
EastTerracer
- Posts: 519
- Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2023 8:40 am
Probably why they are so invisible these days.Tony wrote: Mon Mar 03, 2025 9:41 pm A £1.1M loss is not exactly the sort of publicity I would be hoping for.
-
EastTerracer
- Posts: 519
- Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2023 8:40 am
Yesterday's edition of The Price of Football podcast gave its expert verdict on the HRBFC losses as 'Money not well spent'.EastTerracer wrote: Mon Mar 03, 2025 11:21 am I tipped off Kieran Maguire some time ago that he might want to look into HRBFC finances. I wonder if he will now do that. I can't see the comments as I deleted X. Anything interesting ?
Easiest thing in the world is to spend other people’s money with no accountability.
A lot of people were taken in by the rubbish they were spouting when they first rocked up and you have to give them credit for getting the investors to stump up the finance for their plaything. But with no credentials or track record of this sort of thing in non-league football and the ridiculous statement of EFL in x years it was only going one way and then the investors decided enough was enough and did not wish to keep funding the deluded pairs pipe dream.
A lot of people were taken in by the rubbish they were spouting when they first rocked up and you have to give them credit for getting the investors to stump up the finance for their plaything. But with no credentials or track record of this sort of thing in non-league football and the ridiculous statement of EFL in x years it was only going one way and then the investors decided enough was enough and did not wish to keep funding the deluded pairs pipe dream.