Town chief executive Simon Clegg says fans shouldn’t be concerned about the level of debt that the Blues have built up during their continuing push to get back into the Premier League.

The club’s inter-company debt stood at £55 million at the end of the financial year to June 2010, the most recent set of accounts.

That figure is made up of owner Marcus Evans’s annual injection to cover losses, plus his initial investment and £36 million relating to the debt purchased from financial institutions — the Norwich Union bond which built the new stands and the club’s overdraft with Barclays - when he became Town’s major shareholder in December 2007.

Clegg told TWTD: “The owner continues to back the club. He came into the club with his eyes wide open and has the resources to fund the ongoing expansion of the club and the purchase of new players.

“There is an inter-company debt and we’re well aware of that, but it is not something which is of major concern to me or the football club. There is nothing externally due to any creditors beyond the group, aside from £2 million in historic loan notes.”

Clegg says that that being the case, fears that the club might return to administration at some point in the future are misplaced: “As we are structured at the moment, I can’t see that there is any chance of re-entering administration.

“It’s a situation where one of the owner’s companies owes money to another of his companies but ultimately both are owned by him.”

Regarding plans for reducing the debt, Clegg says this would be something which would be looked at once the club is in the top flight with the specifics decided nearer the time: “This is hypothetical and it would be wrong to speculate on how future Premier League monies would or would not be used. The focus at this present time is to get ourselves into a situation where this becomes a reality.”

Town’s player wage bill was 85.3% of turnover in the year to June 2010 and Clegg confirms that this year’s figure isn’t going to be any lower.

However, the Championship recently agreed in principle to introduce UEFA’s Salary Cost Management Protocol, which would mean reducing player wages to 60% of turnover, something Clegg admits will be tough for the club to implement: “We’re all under pressure from the Football League to move towards some sort of break-even model and that will be challenging going forward. We have to adhere to whatever rules and regulations the Football League put in place.

“There was an agreement in principle at the AGM in the summer and the devil is in the detail and we are not at the detail stage yet.”

Photo: Action Images

marcus139 added 19:56 - Sep 20 Well, i stand corrected, thanks alfromcol. This is even better. I was actually standing up for the regime at portman road....surely that should shoosh the moaners?
0

alfromcol added 20:12 - Sep 20 Marcus139. Agreed. He is clearly not in it to make money although having a Premiership team and all the publicity that goes with it will be worth a lot to Marcus Evans plc.
0

HARRY10 added 21:35 - Sep 20 "How come we now owe £60 million and we only came out of administration 7 years ago. " Whilst Marcus Evans investments paid something around £6m/£8m for the £32m debt (Norwich Union/Barclays) interest has been charged and ahs accrued on the £36m NOT the lower purchase price. Of the much quoted £12m, £3.9m went to the club as a purchase price and £8.1m was a loan which again attracts interest, 7% in this case. Which from the beginning meant we owed £44m. it is not hard to see how deferred interest payments alone could have pushed that figure to over £50m It is highly unlikely that any actual money has been paid with regard to thise interest payments, they will just continue to be added to the overall debt. how much and how Marcus Evans Investments is using these losses to offset profits elsewhere is a matter for speculation. What is not speculation is that we are cutting our wage bill. The previous accounts showed that we had a wage bill over around 108% of turnover, it is now 85.3% of a lower turnover figure. Despite a good and well needed win last night we seem to be further from promotion that when MEI took over. The debt is bigger, the turnover is lower and the attendances are lower (ignoring a 'one off' last night). I don't feel we have turned the corner from a slow slide, neither do I see where it will come from.

0

PhilTWTD added 22:03 - Sep 20 Harry The 85.3% figure is player wages, the 108%-ish figure was overall wages from the same set of accounts, last year's. This year's are due in a couple of months.
0

Mutiny added 22:22 - Sep 20 Three words come to mind - Clegg, arse, elbow
0

commuterblue added 22:53 - Sep 20 philTWTD - given the various misconceptions - there might usefully be an article or blog on the detail of the arrangements. I think I've seen a blog on this before -but I suspect if you were to do one it would be somewhat more authoritative..
0

HARRY10 added 22:53 - Sep 20 "the 85.3% figure is player wages, the 108%-ish figure was overall wages from the same set of accounts, last year's" I stand corrected, apologies.... as 'During the year to June 2009, player and coaching staff costs rose from £8.34 million in 2007/08 to £11.88 million, as a percentage of turnover that's a rise from 52.7% to 81.1%. Overall staff costs are up to £15.94 million from £12.57 million, which represents 108.8% of the club's annual turnover compared with 79.5% a year ago.' What is of concern is why are we only getting accounts up to June 2010 ? Why are we a year late ? Why did the 2008/9 accounts state that we lost £10,32m in that year and “At 30 June 2009 the club had…total interest-bearing debt of £35.7 million". Yet a year later the debt is £55m ? That's quite a massive leap

0

commuterblue added 22:58 - Sep 20 philTWTD - you might also be able to predict when our £250 share will be worth millions... Harry10 - results are normally published a period of time after the year-end. So they are always "in arrears". For most companies these are published 3 months post year end - I don't why this is longer - it could be a privately owned vs publically listed thing..
0

marcus139 added 23:03 - Sep 20 3 months post year end? You are all talking as if what you say is gospel. Most is nonsense. This thread should be closed.
0

bobble added 23:05 - Sep 20 i can assure him i couldn't care less about someone elses debt
0

TractorRoyNo1 added 00:39 - Sep 21 like him or not.............we would be totally %U$£ed if he pulled the plug, remember Plymouth and Luton are both bigger places than Ipswich.
0

DiamondGezzer added 07:33 - Sep 21 If I may also offer, with regard to lower attendances. The whole world at the moment is in financial dissarray. This in turn has trickled its way down to us the bloke in the street, ie :- less money in the pocket and something has to suffer. Also with two games in a week, some people have to decide which game to attend. Just a thought, don't shoot me !
0

pmason added 18:11 - Sep 21 clegg = plank
0

Blogs 295 bloggers

Ipswich Town Polls