Debt

[Congy Red]

Quote:
Originally Posted by TREVPRIT View Post
What debt do we have to the WST?
Wrexham FC aren't in debt. We only spend what we have.
If we don't have it, we fundraise or Go without
Posted via mobile theme

In the accounts just like FGR and Fleetwood owe their owners then WAFC owe the WST. Just answering the point about them racking up debt as its not real debt its just debt on the books. Its a technicality but then so are the debts to the sugar daddies at those clubs.(Posted by PAGL)

I wanted to react to this post from the closed Ferdinand Takyi thread as it is quite important people realise the difference between WST debt and debts of other clubs.

Its true WAFC accounts show debt owed to the WST, but if you look at debt shown in a similar way from 'Sugar Daddies' you might find some unpleasant differences.

A common trick of unscrupulous owners is to give money to their clubs as a 'conditional gift'. This means it looks like they have generously given money to a club. It has two downsides ; Firstly its potentially a tax dodge, so the owners true intention is to hide assets from the taxman, and secondly it can be converted to a loan to the club if the owner wants their money back (Very very bad news if your club is struggling with an unhappy owner) . I have never seen a full analysis of Geoff Moss's generosity to the club, (but he certainly didn't walk away for a pound) and I would love to see it.

When PAGL compares the debt owed to WST with the debt owed to some Sugar Daddies it isn't entirely accurate.

[pagl]

Originally Posted by Congy Red

A common trick of unscrupulous owners is to give money to their clubs as a 'conditional gift'. This means it looks like they have generously given money to a club. It has two downsides ; Firstly its potentially a tax dodge, so the owners true intention is to hide assets from the taxman, and secondly it can be converted to a loan to the club if the owner wants their money back (Very very bad news if your club is struggling with an unhappy owner) . I have never seen a full analysis of Geoff Moss's generosity to the club, (but he certainly didn't walk away for a pound) and I would love to see it.

When PAGL compares the debt owed to WST with the debt owed to some Sugar Daddies it isn't entirely accurate.

The only issue that matters with any debt on the books is whether its going to be repayable. The showing of debt is accurate and my comparison is accurate despite your allegations and protestations to the contrary.

Whether the money is given as a tax dodge isn't something that can be measured or known in the accounts of the football team. Both FGR and Fleetwood owners are simply propping up the clubs. The WST have also had to put money into WAFC to cover losses and this is why there is a debt on the books. The amounts are totally different but the details are the same.

FGR and Fleetwood are not really racking up debt - i.e. to the banks or other lenders as its money that will never have to be repaid. Just like WST will never need to be repaid by WAFC.

[Quay Red]

Originally Posted by pagl

The only issue that matters with any debt on the books is whether its going to be repayable. The showing of debt is accurate and my comparison is accurate despite your allegations and protestations to the contrary.

Whether the money is given as a tax dodge isn't something that can be measured or known in the accounts of the football team. Both FGR and Fleetwood owners are simply propping up the clubs. The WST have also had to put money into WAFC to cover losses and this is why there is a debt on the books. The amounts are totally different but the details are the same.

FGR and Fleetwood are not really racking up debt - i.e. to the banks or other lenders as its money that will never have to be repaid. Just like WST will never need to be repaid by WAFC.

The football club owe the trust nothing. it's just the way the accounts are presented to show the financial side of things. The trust own the football club.
It's very different at Fleetwood and FGR. The owners are not allowed to loan the clubs money in the Football League and I understand that monies originally loaned have to be gifted or converted into shares. I'm sure someone will be able to confirm this or correct me.

[RemovedUser]

Originally Posted by Congy Red

In the accounts just like FGR and Fleetwood owe their owners then WAFC owe the WST.

Can you provide a link to the line in the Accounts where the WST are shown as a creditor?
Is it in the under or over 1 year? For example.

[pagl]

Originally Posted by [Removed User

;2094197]Never? Really? Fleetwood owner has already threatened to walk away once after abuse from fans and at that point he made it very clear he would want his loans back. Backed off from the language as soon as things calmed down but there we,LG is no such thing as “never”.

The Fleetwood owner is the club. Very doubtful he would ever get his money back as without him the club wouldnt last very long.

He wanted to invest in Blackpool but even the Oystens didnt want his money.

Anyway not sure what Congys point is or where he is going with this thread as we all know the sugar daddy model and the difference in the trust ownership. Seems some want to bang on about the debt being racked up but pumping money in purely on the vanity to take these clubs into the league is what it is.

[HugoMontenegro]

WST owns Wrexhamafc
There is not any debt!!!!

[davewilli]

The only debt is Trust is owed is saving the club.

[billybersham]

Originally Posted by davewilli

The only debt is Trust is owed is saving the club.

It might of saved it,but am i correct in thinking most our £700.000 loss was that Roberts/moss and DICKENS(who gets away with flipin murder) sold season tickets for £200 for the season fans bought them because for some reason they trusted them,then pocketed the money and sold the club,and our income then was next to nothing for 12 months,so that is why we say the trust took a £700.000 loss to a profit in 2 years!!!!!

[swanseared]

I thought the Trust bought shares in the club, which isn't debt.