Strange goings on at Chester City

A rather strange and unexpected thing happened today; strange because of the way it happened, and unexpected because it even happened at all.

Keen Chester City watchers will know that the Club nearly didn't compete in the Conference National this season (though 'compete' only if that means actually being on the pitch at the same time as another 11 players; their 25 point deficit is only down to 14, leading to the inevitable departure today of manager Mick Wadsworth - revealed as a ‘report from BBC Merseyside'; and this is supposed to be the official website?).

The whole mess they now find themselves in followed Stephen Vaughan's failed attempt to get the Club out of administration, which led to weeks of uncertainty and indecision, finally resulting in The FA allowing the Conference to break its own rules (apparently under intense Football League pressure), to permit the Club a place in the competition.

All that aside, I found a story today on the web entitled 'Blues reveal profit and loss accounts'. I took a trip over to the Club's official website, usually populated by cyber tumbleweed and the same glimpse of last season's League Two table, to find these accounts posted online, with the accompanying story 'As recently discussed with and promised to Tom Jones chairman of the supporters trust, as an initiative to keep the fans up to date with the clubs financial affairs, please view the disclosure of the 09/10 Profit and Loss account for Chester City Football Club 2004 Ltd.'

I bet I'm not the only one who thinks that doesn't read like a story about the release of some very important financial information. But I suppose we shouldn't complain; it's a pretty forward thinking move for a Club with the history of Chester City in the finances department to publish their profit and loss account for the year...

And what a profit and loss account! I won't provide a lengthy commentary to the spreadsheet, but it makes alarming reading, showing as it does a projected loss of an eye-watering £660,000. But then quite how a column of 'general overheads' can show a figure of nearly £136,000 I don't know. That must be some stationery bill they've got.



« back | ^ top

Comments

Be the first to comment on this item.

 

Leave a comment

About you










Your comment




We take no responsibility for the content of comments posted on this website, which represent the views of their authors alone.