Those unsure about donating to 'Pitch In'...

[Poultice]

is it me that hasn't read it correctly or are you now making it up to suit your arguement as the following is in the statement

All the annual income is spent on running the club and paying the wages. There is no reserve fund or surplus on the Balance Sheet. We survive by making prudent, advance allocations from our income but at the moment, we still need to have some “windfall” income from transfers and cup runs to make sure we remain out of debt.

No he isn't making it up, it specifically says that revenue allocation excludes "windfalls", the second paragraph, which you have quoted, is a perfect example of the lack of clarity, to me says nothing of substance, waffle I think would be the best way to describe it.

This is not a witchhunt, certainly not on my part, but if elements of the BoS are gonna tell us to shush up cos they know best, they could at least have the decency to display some very basic financial acumen.

 

[Yeovilgrecian]

No he isn't making it up, it specifically says that revenue allocation excludes "windfalls", the second paragraph, which you have quoted, is a perfect example of the lack of clarity, to me says nothing of substance, waffle I think would be the best way to describe it.

But nowhere does it say that Windfalls are not used to support the budget, it is saying that we do not include Windfalls in our income streams as quite rightly they are not a guaranteed income source, only football clubs run by idiots would include Cup runs and transfers in their budget fugures (Dorchester Town did this one year, the manager got fired for losing in the FA cup in September)

Saying that we all read these type of statements to suit our needs.

 

[Donna]

Even if we cannot get an extension to the lease then we should still get 9 years use out of a new pitch so not a total waste, unlike our top pair of suits, what do we need them for ?

If that's a cast-iron, nailed-on, 100% guaranteed minimum of 9 years use of the £150k then I'd be happier about chipping in to Pitch In. That's £16,666.66 per year, which sounds like somewhat less of a "waste" if the pitch is ploughed up after those 9 years for a new housing development. But I can't find any statement from the Club at the minute that gives me that comfort level.

Having dug into my pocket time and again for almost a decade for varying levels of Trust subscription, Last Grandstand, Red or Dead, bucket contributions, sponsorships, straight cash donations to specific workparties, and donations in kind in the aftermath of the Trust take over, and now being on a very different level of salary to that I had during those more deparate times, I want to know that my hard-earned cash is going to be worth throwing at the club, yet again.

So I say again, I can't find any statement from the Club at the minute that gives me that comfort level.

 

[buggerlugs]

is it me that hasn't read it correctly or are you now making it up to suit your arguement as the following is in the statement

All the annual income is spent on running the club and paying the wages. There is no reserve fund or surplus on the Balance Sheet. We survive by making prudent, advance allocations from our income but at the moment, we still need to have some “windfall” income from transfers and cup runs to make sure we remain out of debt.

No he isn't making it up, it specifically says that revenue allocation excludes "windfalls", the second paragraph, which you have quoted, is a perfect example of the lack of clarity, to me says nothing of substance, waffle I think would be the best way to describe it.

This is not a witchhunt, certainly not on my part, but if elements of the BoS are gonna tell us to shush up cos they know best, they could at least have the decency to display some very basic financial acumen.

As ******** says the statement is riddled with contradictions. My posts on this thread and the 'where has the money gone?' thread cover all of this so I won't regurgitate it all here, besides I'll get told off again by Exeweb's chief pedant if I do.

Although I don't doubt there are some very capable people on the BoS involved with finance, I ain't so sure they were involved in the drafting of this statement.

 

[buggerlugs]

But nowhere does it say that Windfalls are not used to support the budget

So what do you assume from the %s quoted in the financial statement? Just one of the many contradictions ...

Saying that we all read these type of statements to suit our needs.

True to a point. It's also the case that some deal with this subject day in, day out and bring an expertise that others don't. If it's any consolation I'm sh*t at DIY

 

[Oli]

If the club is asking me for cash, I want to know that it cannot afford it by itself or that it has the cash but it is saving that for another project.........

I don't think that is unreasonable.

 

[Poultice]

But nowhere does it say that Windfalls are not used to support the budget,

No it doesn't, but the issue we are struggling with is the ambiguity of the statements issued by the Trust and posts made on here by Bossers.

As BL points out the statement shows that 100% of the budgeted income didn't include windfalls, but we have been repeatedly told that there is a cash shortfall which has to be made up by these windfalls, so why make the suggestion that budgets are set carefully within achievable goals when we consistently need "a bit of luck" just to keep going ?

As many people as you like can post here stating that there is no ambiguity and everything is fine in the rose garden, but while there is a perception amongst a proportion of potential contributors, and nobody knows how large a proportion of the "silent majority" that includes, then Shirley it is valid to flag the issue as a problem.

 

[LBDN]

on the plus side people, if ever you want money "no questions asked".....go cap in hand to moxey !

 

[Poultice]

on the plus side people, if ever you want money "no questions asked".....go cap in hand to moxey !

Now that did make I larf.

 

[Martin Lawrence]

I feel that many of the questions raised by Buggerlugs and ******** could be addressed from the following part of the financial statement;

It is clear that these costs need to be paid on a regular monthly basis, but the income does not follow a regular monthly pattern so managing the cash flow needs constant attention. It is also true that profitable football clubs are as rare as “hens’ teeth” and whilst Exeter City has improved its efficiency year on year since the Trust became the majority shareholder, the club has depended on the windfalls to balance the books. The budgeting process always strives to achieve a real surplus, but without any reserves or a generous individual to bail us out, the unexpected has to be paid for out what resources we have. A little example from this season: there was no allowance in the budget for any work on the roofs to the Bastin & Flybe stands. After a loud ‘crack’ was heard at the Brentford match we had a duty to do a proper and full investigation and to undertake a full safety check of all the bolts holding the sheets in place, Hiring the appropriate equipment and qualified operatives has not been cheap and the exercise took a week to complete because there are an awful lot of bolts and every single one needed to be individually checked.

In short, such windfall revenue is not budgeted for, but it is required to underpin the budget owing to the existance of unbudgeted expenditure such as that mentioned above. This is also often exacerbated by a difficulty to manage cashflow.

The very nature of the lack of historic investment in the infrastructure does mean that such unbudgeted expenses are going to crop up and unfortunately largely can not be avoided.