Too many issues all wrapped into one else nombre. It’s why he keeps winning the publicity battles because fans fire off in too many directions instead of concentrating solely on the big issue.
Re the loan repayments, unless we think he’s a generous benefactor (answers on a postcard…), then he’s entitled to repay the money he loaned to the club to, in his words, ensure it didn’t go to the wall earlier and to fund previous promotions etc
In terms of amount invested in the team, it’s commensurate with the income generated, as demonstrated by turning a small profit each year.
There is only one issue to press home and generate publicity about - how did we go from owning a ground to not owning a ground and, taking into account that whole story, why does the owner consider it ok to still be receiving hundreds of thousands of pounds a year in rent all this time later, albeit he transferred it into a SIPP so that he can claim it’s arm’s length?
All other issues and complaints are superfluous and distract from the point.
2 Likes
What do you mean too many issues? I have one issue (here, let’s not get into the fans exeprience and facilities). Budget. There’s a clear outline of all the issues in one place, on this very site. Nobody is heading off in different directions.
They have a very clear policy. 50 percent is reinvested. That isn’t enough. Simples.
And I can’t even see where 50 percent of it has been reinvested to be honest.
Complete ■■■■■■■■. Unless you think wading through ■■■■ is a “superfluous” issue.
1 Like
Bonser’s relentless pragmatism might be good for the accounts in the short term but it is killing any ambition and making even diehard fans think: What’s the point when come January every season all we have to look forward to is yet another relegation battle.
I’m sure it’s been mentioned on a few occasions from Bonser and Mole / Gamble that the loans are interest free. Usually when they’re trying to distract away from the subject of where the £450k a year rent goes.
Other attempted distractions include “Bonser doesn’t take a wage from the club in his role as chairman” and “the rent is paid to Suffolk Life.” 
2 Likes
In fact you can see the distraction techniques littered through the letter response!
Never mind the Boxing Day attendance because the next game was higher than the previous year.
Never mind the ticket pricing because we offer other discounts.
Never mind the puss poor interaction with fans because we have a matchday programme and a few meetings with select people.
Never mind our wage budget because other clubs are richer than us.
Never mind wading in ■■■■ in the bogs because we gave them a lick of paint a year ago.
You fans have never had it so good… getting just the basics we can provide… be grateful or go and support Luton, Rotherham or Bournemouth.
1 Like
El Nombre, I think it’s been said on several occasions that the personal loans from Bonser are interest free. Last time I paid attention I think we still owed him around £1-2 million. He is the main creditor.
But I seem to remember several other directors have loaned the club money (lower amounts) and they do charge us interest. Wasn’t Pomlett only allowed on the board once he’d put up some cash too? And I’m sure when the Trust have enquires about a board position it’s been stated it’ll only be available to people wanting to invest?
We could also owe interest on other things though.
Things like the big advertising sign we’re out in place and I’m sure when questions were asked before it was stated they were paid for by loans from the pension fund with the club getting money from the advertising but also paying back what was loaned as a percentage. Is it possible the interest is also from things like that.
The whole thing is a quite complicated web.
This is the problem.
Bonsers pragmatism isn’t that great or that bad for the accounts. It keeps them just breaking even and the club stagnating… all whilst his loans are slowly put back in the black and the pension fund is topped up every season.
Maybe it is a compelcated web but my issue isn’t.
Whatever the loans are and wherever they have come from, the playing budget isn’t big enough. How Bonser tosses money from one hand to the other or how it’s presented in the accounts doesn’t change that.
5 Likes
I’d agree with that.
There are lots of different entities and ways money is going out of the club (and away from the playing budget) and they all point to the Bonser brothers.
You don’t have that quite right. The pension fund paid for the signs and any income which they generate comes to the club. However the pension fund benefits from the deal because the rent is adjusted upwards to take account of the new asset. The same model has been used for other upgrades hence the big increases in rent since Suffolk Life took over the ownership of the land. JB would argue that this arrangement is of great benefit to the Club as it gains income from the assets without any capital outlay. Problem for us is that we do not know where the balance of advantage lies but from the annual accounts we can guess!!!
2 Likes