There has been confirmation from BCFC that the service agreement of Peter Pannu will not be renewed beyond 30 September 2014. The link to the BCFC website is here.
This, coupled with the release of yet another set of accounts that show significant losses, highlights concerns over the ability of BIHL to meet its financial commitments over the next 12 months.
We thought we would be pertinent to remind everyone of the significant events involving our owners since they became involved with the club. Here is a pretty exhaustive and depressing list “BIHL: The Story So Far”, that does nothing to alleviate the concerns we as supporters have.
We will update in due course on the accounts in question when we have had them analysed professionally.
Surely this shows what a poor job Pannu and others at BCFC and BIH have been doing when they have had three seasons of parachute payments to get the wage bill under control and to break even.
We had several loan players and players earning less than £5K a week last season yet they still couldn’t break even, or even get close.
What are these overpaid directors being paid for if it is not to control costs,
Surely this is neligence or incompetence?
How can the debt increase from circa £9.5 mill last season ending June 2013 to £10.5 mill ending june 2014, if they were doing their job competently?
Does this loss include any loan payments to Yeung as i thought this was converted to shares?
If Yeung is not a creditor then who do we owe this money to and how will it be paid?
With £40 million debts built up over the last four seasons (one in the prem) surely the club and BIH are bankrupt even if we remove the £15 million that was still owed to Yeung at the end of that period?
Pannu will still have control over BCFC via his seat on the board of BCFC and BIH, so what will change?
A separate question:
As we have made a £10 million plus loss and under FFP we are only allowed a loss of £3 million loss or £8 million loss if the owners pay off up to £5 million which obviously won’t happen at BCFC, what are the repercussions of this failure to meet FFP?
This is a great question and one we are currently investigating further
So with Carson gone and pannu gone who now is the fit and proper person who runs BCFC and has he the money to back a club who has been in the top division more times than not ,surely a fit and proper person to run a football club is a person that the sponsorship and money to keep a football club in an average position that its history suggests Kro
In answer to Chris’s question regarding FFP, this is a breakdown from the FFP website.
All clubs who were in the Championship during 2013/14 have to submit their accounts to the Football league for the 2013/14 season by December 1st 2014
They then calculate the total club losses after exclusions*
Losses below £3m = No sanction or fine
Losses between £3m and £8m = Owner required to inject equity to cover loss above £3m
If owner injects equity to cover loss = No sanctions
If owner cannot or refuses to inject equity = Transfer Embargo imposed commencing 1st Jan 2015.The Embargo remains in place until club can demonstrate on track to record acceptable losses (or profit)
Losses over £8m = did club gain promotion? = Yes= Club pays Fair Play tax ** (All proceeds going to charity). No = Transfer Embargo imposed commencing 1st Jan 2015.The Embargo remains in place until club can demonstrate on track to record acceptable losses (or profit)
• Impact of purchase, sale and depreciation of fixed assets excluding players (e.g. a clubs stadium)
• Youth Development costs
• Investment in a clubs community scheme
• Promotion related bonus payments
A club is also entitled to apply for the financial Fair Play Panel to have certain exceptional items excluded from the Financial Fair Play result in a particular year. Such as:
• Career ending injury costs
• Bad debts from other clubs
• Losses sustained from a major sponsor defaulting
**Fair Play Tax (FPT)
Assuming an owner injects equity to cover any loss up to £8m (which is very likely if club promoted to Premier League) the fine works as follows
• For the first £10m above the maximum permitted £8m loss, the fine is on a sliding scale with £6,681,000 paid if loss is full £10m. Fine is 100% thereafter
e.g. if loss is £25m, the calculation is £25m – £8m = £17m loss. FPT is £6,681,000 (on first £10m) plus £7m = £13,681,000
e.g. loss of £19m, the calculation is: £19m – £8m = £11m. FPT is £6,681,000 plus £1m = £7,681,000
The newly relegated clubs must comply with the FFP rules in full. During their first December in the Championship, a newly relegated club does not have to submit their accounts for the previous season (i.e. the accounts relating to the season when they were in the Premier League). However QPR, Reading and Wigan will need to submit their accounts for the 2013/14 season to the Football League (and will be hit with a sanction if their 2013/14 accounts show that losses exceeded the permitted thresholds).
Our expectation of the rules is that they would be applied purely to the accounts of the football club not the accounts of the holding company? These are the accounts of the holding company and therefore is it envisaged these are not relevant?. But we are still working to clarify this.
I agree, but as BCFC are the only asset BIHL have then I assume that BCFC audits will show a similar deficit.
There could be a couple of exclusions, David Murphy’s retirement through injury is one possibility.
In the last audit that BIHL published they stated “The Group will continue to manage the business prudently and to ensure that the BCP Group will adhere to the financial fair play rules which will be effective in the UK that requires clubs to be self sufficient in the long term.
So it is possible that BCFC are still running on an even keel.
BCFC did make HSK$253m around £20m towards BIHL’s income.