EdinburghBlue

The size of that fine for Dundee

I assure you we don’t want to be coming to Boness next season

Not necessarily a panacea, as different models have pros and cons. A potential advantage of the share model might be that people who don't live in the immediate area and who can't/see no point in becoming a member see this as a way of putting some money into the club. (Fans, descendants of people who have emigrated from the area, or even people who just fancy having a small stake in a football club.) You are correct about the dilution point on issuing more shares, but if you look at the information on the Companies House website there are clearly a lot of clubs doing this. But two points. First, this need not necessarily be difficult, if with your example you say that the Board has the right to issue up to 200,000 shares or even more when there's demand. Second, it's normal when issuing additional shares that existing shareholders get so-called pre-emption rights, allowing them to invest more if they don't want their share of the business diluted.

The obvious thing would be that the Club would be owned by shareholders rather than in trust by those who pay an annual membership fee. It would also provide an opportunity to recapitalise the Club, although given the nature of football that would depend on finding enough people willing to put insufficient funds to generate a reasonable amount. But people can put in different amounts – for example look at Spartans' information at Companies House showing the different amounts of shares bought by different individuals when it was set up as a company at the beginning of the decade. Recapitalisation isn't just a one off event. There are a number of clubs (companies) that have had money dripped into them in small or large amounts in recent years (Alloa as an example). If set up as an ordinary company, the shareholders could choose to sell in future to address financial problems (Edinburgh City recently, and happens often south of the border.) And if the worst comes to the worst, shareholders aren't liable for the debts of the company, losing only their investment. (This is why when shareholders' funds go negative – the company being 'technically insolvent' – this should be a red flag to anyone thinking about doing business with that company. Look at the long list of people left owed money in previous instances of clubs going bust or into administration.) I said "ordinary company" because there is another type – a Community Interest Company (CIC). I believe this is the structure at Stenhousemuir. Unlike ordinary companies, whose primary purpose is to make profits to distribute to their shareholders, CICs: are designed to benefit the community or pursue social and environmental goals. Their primary purpose is to provide benefits to the community they serve, rather than solely generating profits for shareholders. are required to have an "asset lock," which means that their assets and profits must be used for the benefit of the community. This prevents the assets from being distributed to shareholders. must submit annual Community Interest Company Reports, detailing how they have benefited the community. must reinvest profits in the company's social objectives or use them to benefit the community. There are limitations on the dividends that can be paid to shareholders. A structure worth thinking about? You will probably laugh at the stuff about ordinary companies making money to redistribute to the shareholders. As I've said earlier in this thread there are quite a number of these in Scotland that burn through their shareholders' funds, and then sometimes follow with a cycle of recapitalisation to give them more money to burn through. We either need proper financial fair play rules in Scotland or shareholders willing to hold directors to account for how they run the company, but that almost never happens in football. P.S. to be promoted to the top leagues in Spain it's now a requirement to be a company, although special exemptions were given to long-standing members' clubs that had good financial management - including Barcelona and Real Madrid.

This failure should be relatively easy to sort out. The required form should take no more than five minutes to fill in. But it does suggest that the Board isn't fully on top of things. Dumbarton's accounts aren't due at Companies House until the end of next month.

I see that Companies House have now published an initial notice proposing to strike Clyde of the Register of companies, because of its annual confirmation statement now being months overdue.

I think an opportunity was missed when the West was set up, but I hope in time that this can be addressed. However, I think this would require regionalisation at the very bottom, something we are told that the SFA is against. Teams that are run on a shoestring wouldn't be able to afford to travel between the far reaches of the expanded West footprint, adding even further to the disadvantage that teams based outwith the central belt have in recruiting players from the sparse populations in their localities. This could provide an opportunity to structure around travel time rather than local government boundaries. (From Stranraer, by road it's as quick to travel to Kilmarnock as it is to Dumfries, and faster to Glasgow than to travel to many of the South of Scotland grounds in Dumfriesshire. And even faster for the north Dumfriesshire teams to travel to Lanarkshire and parts of Ayrshire.) In practice this restructuring might be achieved by slotting the top licensed South teams into the top three divisions in the West (and evening of numbers in the leagues over time as has been done in the first few years of the new East/West structures), with the remaining teams slotted into a regionalised structure (for example with the remaining teams from the west of the South competing with teams from Ayrshire). If Stranraer were to end up in the South it would require a massive effort to get back into the Lowland, something which I doubt the club could afford as a member-based club. We are already at a real disadvantage compared to those clubs which can burn through shareholders' funds and then look to sell more shares when money is tight. I wonder also if in due course the pyramid structure is going to lead to the SPFL (and possibly also the Lowland) consisting entirely of clubs in and around the cities.

Something to do with Bob Geldof’s band?

They risk the wrath of HMRC: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/aug/19/football-clubs-minimum-wage-hmrc

Extract from SPFL rules: As at 31 January in each calendar year a Club and the Candidate Club must be, as regards all of its employees, in compliance with the National Minimum Wage Regulations 2015 and/or any supplementary, variation or replacement regulations or other provisions in force from time to time

Hope you’re not suggesting paying players less than the minimum wage

Playoffs can be strange. Saw both Albion Rovers and Spartans a few times before last season's playoffs and Rovers were the better side by a mile. But they froze in the playoffs. I suspect in some cases this was because players knew they were on their way out and had no real loyalty to the club, in contrast to many in the Spartans side.

Williams' display was an absolute master class in incompetence. A few people round me were discussing whether this was the worst refereeing display they had seen in their 30, 40, 50, 60 years at football. But funniest comment was from a nearby ~5 year old asking parent whether referees need good eyesight and the deadpan reply 'obviously not this one.' Agree with the arrogance comment. We've had other referees who've apologised after the game for getting decisions wrong. If a ref can't do this you wonder whether they should be in this role. But hopefully with Crawford Allan going the SFA will do something to address the fact that refereeing standards are at their lowest in living memory.

Yes, but… £1M cash in the bank and loss of £190k and there are no immediate liquidity/solvency concerns. £100k in the bank and a loss of £190k and you have problems. There are too many clubs in Scotland relying on directors putting in more money, and quite a number where shareholders funds are less than the value of the club's ground (if they actually own this). And I've seen at least one set of accounts where it is explicit that the value of the ground in the accounts is based on an assumption about selling it for non-football purposes.

Alloa's accounts are a bit difficult to understand. The bottom line was a loss of £190k, and this appears to make the company technically insolvent with net current assets of (£153k). However, these include a loan from the owner of £240k, which was converted into shares after the date of the balance sheet, along with another £160k investment. So the owner has shoved in £400k to prop the company up. In the face of it the company appears wealthy, with shareholders' funds of £1060k, but much of this is the revaluation reserve, leaving net shareholder funds of about £120k. The company values the ground at £1.4M, but I doubt it would be worthless unless it came with planning permission for redevelopment. But this sort of analysis is probably meaningless for a club owned by one individual who has the wherewithal to put in whatever is necessary to cover ongoing losses.

Some more updates: Clyde lost £98k in the last financial year. Net assets are down to £69k, so unless their financial position improves this year – which seems unlikely given their relegation undercurrent position – there's the potential for net assets to go negative in the next accounts. Share capital is £1608k, so the club has gone through £1548k of this. And while there has been a lot of talk on here about additional investments in the club, nothing has been reported to Companies House. Montrose lost £114k in the last financial year. They report shareholder funds of only £28k, but this would have been negative (i.e. technically insolvent) without an additional £44.2k of investment in the club. Net current liabilities are £131k, suggesting potential liquidity problems, and the club also has longer-term debt of £240k. The stadium is essentially mortgaged. Another year of losses at this level would lead to technical insolvency unless there were further investments in the club. Stirling Albion lost £181k. They reported £260k cash, so no immediate liquidity problems, but the club has essentially no assets. They have gone through £880k shareholders funds over the years.

Strichener is basically spot-on. Over the years shareholders have put £665k into the club, but it's now worth only £161k. So the club has "burned through" £504k of shareholders funds. To put this another way it looks as if on average shareholders have paid about £4.15 per share and these are now worth £0.81 – assuming that the company could sell the ground for the amount shown in the accounts. Auditors don't refer to "material uncertainty… significant doubt about the company's ability to continue as a going concern" without reason. Although shareholders' funds are positive, the company's net current assets are very low indicating potential liquidity problems. On the issue of loans being from local businessmen who are unlikely to call them in, if these are personal loans they would likely be called in by the individual's estate on death, and if they have been made by a company if that were to fold the administrators/liquidators would almost certainly seek the money back. Of course it would be possible for the creditors to convert the amounts owed into equity in the company, but I would expect this would be at the low current value per share, so significantly diluting current ownership. Since one shareholder owns 52% of the company not sure that they would be happy with this. As I've said before, I'm not trying to get at one club in particular – although I really don't like the model of additional funds being pumped in by rich individuals every time a club is in financial difficulties – but rather the fact that there is a systemic financial problem for lower league clubs in Scotland.

Poor second half from Stranraer there. Missed an opportunity to really improve their goal difference.

Reminds me of those games in the 60s/70s where by this time in the season you couldn’t see a single blade of grass.

As expected. Refs use Bonnyrigg games as practice for ‘penalty for Rangers*!’

Stranraer at last have a striker!

Sounds as if he'll fit right in.

The two Edinburgh clubs have now lodged their accounts at Companies House. Spartans lost £101k to May 2023, a slight improvement on the previous year. They have burned through £209k of shareholders' funds in the last two years, and their accounts state that "the directors anticipate another funding round from the shareholders which has already been notified to the shareholders." On the face of it, Edinburgh City appear to have had a good year, with shareholders funds improving by £122k, actually moving £19k into the black and hence the company is no longer technically insolvent. But it's impossible to tell from the accounts they publish whether this is because of running a profit or more money being pumped in. Based on everything that happened to them in the last 12 months the latter seems much more likely.

Look back at the 1980s. The worrying thing is that its generally been the teams with the lowest crowds that have been relegated from the SPFL. And as a members' club we can't just create lots of new shares to entice in someone who fancies running a football club. The positive thing for me is that this squad is playing far better football than Hamill's did last year. I cannot see them shipping eight as we did to East Fife last year. Defeats have been narrow, and sometimes in games where we were the better team. But we do need to win more games, starting with the next couple of home games. And we need to stop shooting ourselves in the foot e.g. with post-match red cards.

Good spot. I have amended my original post to refer to "technical insolvency" rather than "solvency". (For the uninitiated, insolvency is when a company can't meet its debts and either goes into administration or is liquidated. Technical insolvency is when the shareholder funds go negative, but the directors may decide that they can continue to trade their way out of the problem without the company going insolvent.) But even with this correction I don't think Peterhead's accounts look good. The club's cash balances have fallen from £86k to £13k. I think it starts to become uncomfortable for a business if they have less than three months cash on hand. And creditors (potentially) due within 12 months have risen from £587k to £766k. I think these are flashing red signs. But I'm not trying to get at individual clubs. The general point I'm trying to make is that running a team in SPFL 1/2 is unaffordable for most clubs with the cost base imposed on them by SPFL rules/government regulation and the income they get from gates and SPFL prize money. The problems would go away if the SPFL directed enough of its sponsorship income to supporting teams' basic costs rather than distributing it as prize money, prize money which is hugely skewed towards the top league and the top two. I think the challenges are particularly hard for member-owned clubs, whether there are a members' club or a company. The approaches of dealing with financial pressures by issuing new shares or selling a stake/majority stake to a new owner who is willing to put money in (sometimes several times) isn't available to them. I wouldn't be surprised if over the next few years we see some clubs starting to offer some players amateur terms.