Company of former Watford owner Laurence Bassini owes Hornets' parent company £1.5m but club accept 'possibility' of non payment
4:14pm Tuesday 27th November 2012 in Latest Sport
By Frank Smith, Deputy Group Sports Editor
Picture: Pippa Douglas
The company of former Hornets owner Laurence Bassini owes Watford FC more than £1.5m but the club accept there is “the possibility” this debt may not be paid, according to Watford Association Football Club Limited’s annual accounts.
In the report and financial statements for Watford’s parent company for the year ended June 30, it states £606,302 of Danny Graham’s transfer fee and £900,000 of Football League Award money “were borrowed in the name of the club, but the funds were never directly received by the club”.
It adds that “the amounts are provided for as potentially being due to the original lender by the club, but are also considered to therefore be owed to the club by the previous owners ultimate holding company, Watford F C Ltd.
“A provision has been entered for the possibility of non payment of this debt.”
During the year ending June 30, Bassini’s Watford FC Limited received £2.13m from WAFCL (the club). Payments “made for and on behalf of the holding company” (Watford FC Limited) totalled £50,814.
There was also a sum of £568,267 which the financial statements claim were “the total of cash amounts advances” to Bassini by the club for the renovation of the Yellow and Red Lion pub in Vicarage Road for which “no invoices were received”.
Bassini was given ownership of the Red Lion pub by the Pozzo family following their takeover of the club on June 29, which was the day before the account year ended.
However, the financial statements confirmed: “The actual transfer has not occurred and is under review but the accounts include a provision for loss on disposal of the Red Lion pub of £464,358, which represents the net book value as at 29 June 2012.”
The document also confirms that WAFCL were charged £242,000 during the financial year by Watford FC Limited for consultancy invoices. We understand that was £22,000 a month over the course of 11 months.
Watford made a pre-tax loss of £2.65m for the year ending June 30 2012 but without the £2.13m ‘Exceptional Item’ sum which was paid to Bassini’s Watford FC Limited, the loss was just £523,000.
The Hornets were able to do this because of an excellent year in terms of the amount generated through player sales. The club raised £6.4m from the disposal of player registrations for the year ending June 30, compared to just £869,000 in the last set of accounts. The majority of this year’s sum was from the sales of Danny Graham and Marvin Sordell.
These sales were crucial as Watford made an operating loss of £6.79m – which was £2.74m worse than the previous year.
Wages and salary costs were up £1.03m and there was a £1.09m increase in general operating expenses. There was also a reduction of £407,000 in other operating income.
Total turnover increased slightly by £189,000 to £11.18m, which was largely due to the FA Cup income and television money from the fourth round tie with Tottenham Hotspur.
The Spurs tie generated £130,000 in television and radio income, which contributed to media revenue increasing by £231,000 to £5.42m.
For the year ending June 30 2011, the club made a £9.65m pre-tax profit but that figure was hugely distorted because of the £13m intercompany debt waiver between the club and the former parent company Watford Leisure PLC, which needed to happen for the secured bond issue to take place in 2010. Without the £13m, WAFCL made a pre-tax loss on ordinary activities of £3.35m.
The independent auditors report, which was written by Myers Clark who replaced Chartered Accountants this year, states that as of June 30 2012, the club’s liabilities exceeded its total assets by £3.96m.
It added: "The validity of the going concern basis is dependent on the assumptions underlying the financial projections being accurate, the financial projections being substantially realised and the company’s ability to raise sufficient new capital to the extent it may be required.
"These conditions indicate the existence of a material uncertainty which may cast significant doubt about the company’s ability to continue as a going concern. The financial statements do not include the adjustments that would result if the company was unable to continue as a going concern."
More to follow.
Comments(50)
Boosey
says...
4:35pm Tue 27 Nov 12
I have a mountain of names I could call Bassini. what a tosser!
WFCinexile
says...
4:45pm Tue 27 Nov 12
cliff46
says...
4:49pm Tue 27 Nov 12
I hope the takes him all the way and if it ends up in court perhaps we will find out a little more.
How on earth can he have been considered a credible bidder for Portsmouth given the outstanding debt to Watford?
francowatford
says...
5:24pm Tue 27 Nov 12
CreteJoe
says...
6:05pm Tue 27 Nov 12
Bringe
says...
6:28pm Tue 27 Nov 12
francowatford wrote:Lol ... the club owner probably sanctioned them :D
Advances without invoices for the Red Lion!! This is disgraceful! Who the hell santioned this??! This is shicking theft from a Ltd company, if this is an advance and not being paid back then maybe this should be treated as wages/dividends and he should be taxed. If we do persue him maybe HMRC should do for unpaid taxes on these "advances".
Engineer1
says...
6:46pm Tue 27 Nov 12
Seriously, why is this not a criminal matter? Presumably because no one has made a formal complaint?
Feff
says...
6:50pm Tue 27 Nov 12
a1derek
says...
7:41pm Tue 27 Nov 12
Watford exile
says...
8:12pm Tue 27 Nov 12
D.unstable
says...
8:14pm Tue 27 Nov 12
KeithMercer
says...
8:56pm Tue 27 Nov 12
CreteJoe wrote:This was not a surprise to the current owners, hence the prolonged takeover !!CreteJoe keep up and are you seriously questioning the Pozzos business acumen ? tell me you are either Bassini or on a wind up .
If this is a surprise to the present owners their due diligence must have been rubbish. Let’s hope this was know to them prior to their purchase, if not one has to wonder how good their business acumen is.
I am sure we will persue this joker for every penny.
andyhooked
says...
8:56pm Tue 27 Nov 12
Jon_mk
says...
10:30pm Tue 27 Nov 12
Surely if he hasn't paid up for the Red Lion we should tell him where to go. I also hope and pray that we pursue him to the gates of hell to collect every penny that he owes, even if it costs is just as much.
We should start a sweepstake to predict when he will next file for bankruptcy and what he will change his name to this time.
dennis the menace
says...
11:29pm Tue 27 Nov 12
londomollari
says...
11:34pm Tue 27 Nov 12
The Pozzos are Italian, and they are a family.
Hope you don't own a horse.
GianlucaVialli the better italian
says...
11:41pm Tue 27 Nov 12
londomollari wrote:I'm sure his non-footballing loving daughter has been given a horse, hopefully it's head is in Baz's bed.
Watch out Baz!
The Pozzos are Italian, and they are a family.
Hope you don't own a horse.
Eastsussexhornet
says...
7:41am Wed 28 Nov 12
SAHornet
says...
7:55am Wed 28 Nov 12
The Rover
says...
7:57am Wed 28 Nov 12
SAHornet
says...
7:59am Wed 28 Nov 12
Mickey Quinn, not so thin
says...
8:05am Wed 28 Nov 12
The Rover wrote:Hopefully their due diligence will have highlighted this, and they will have set up some of their payment as deferred consideration, which they wouldn't have to pay if they fail to recover this from Bassini/his company.
Unfortunately the money is owed by a company and not by Bassini himself. I would guess they don't have the £1.5m or anywhere near that amount. Any attempt to recover the money will cost WFC a fortune in legal fees, and the likely outcome is that Bassini's company will fold, meaning there is no hope of recovering the money. The Pozzo's will have known about this. £1.5 million is too much to not notice. They will have accounted for it and it will almost certainly be written off. If the Red Lion has not been transferred to Bassini hopefully the club can stop that happening. That would be equivalent to a third of the debt.
endean2
says...
9:02am Wed 28 Nov 12
normally I am I mild mannered person
but that man is a Thief and the debt should be pursued for ever.
come on guys what can we dream up to make that pile of sh-- pay up!!
right rant over
pete50
says...
9:25am Wed 28 Nov 12
buckler
says...
9:44am Wed 28 Nov 12
Chris the Vic
says...
9:58am Wed 28 Nov 12
If the money went into the then holding company, how was it shown as a loan or a management charge and equally how was this shown in the books of the club. From the very imprecise article it could be a loan, but
Are the auditors stating that they do not know, have they been refused co-operation by Bas and his advisers.
It is not uncommon for club advisers like Barrea and other legal advisers to be paid through the holding company rather than by the trading company.
If there have been dodgy dealings going on one can only be certain by knowing what Bas's company has done with the money.
It is certainly something he should want to clarify not only to back up his earlier statements that he has not taken monies out but also if his company does go bust it is quite likely that if the liquidator and Department of Business look into this and find fraudulent behaviour he may well be disqualified as a Director for up to ten years given that he was declared bankrupt only a few years ago.
If people feel strongly perhaps they should pressurise their local MP and perhaps the WO need to do some investigative journalism along with the FA demanding a lot more information.
Harrydownunder
says...
10:34am Wed 28 Nov 12
Always knew he was not genuine, along with the vast majority of hornets.
Like everyone else here, I would dearly love to see him pay for his actions and not just financially!
Harrydownunder
says...
10:35am Wed 28 Nov 12
Feff
says...
10:44am Wed 28 Nov 12
DuffmanWFC
says...
11:17am Wed 28 Nov 12
Baz should have to face criminal charges if it is proven he has taken money on false pretences!
N Joydegame
says...
11:20am Wed 28 Nov 12
Chris the Vic wrote:Chris the Vic. Excellent post.
Well at last a hard fact or is it?
If the money went into the then holding company, how was it shown as a loan or a management charge and equally how was this shown in the books of the club. From the very imprecise article it could be a loan, but
Are the auditors stating that they do not know, have they been refused co-operation by Bas and his advisers.
It is not uncommon for club advisers like Barrea and other legal advisers to be paid through the holding company rather than by the trading company.
If there have been dodgy dealings going on one can only be certain by knowing what Bas's company has done with the money.
It is certainly something he should want to clarify not only to back up his earlier statements that he has not taken monies out but also if his company does go bust it is quite likely that if the liquidator and Department of Business look into this and find fraudulent behaviour he may well be disqualified as a Director for up to ten years given that he was declared bankrupt only a few years ago.
If people feel strongly perhaps they should pressurise their local MP and perhaps the WO need to do some investigative journalism along with the FA demanding a lot more information.
When the Bankrupt took control of the club, I made a formal complaint to the FA that he was not a fit and proper person to take control. All I got back from their Compliance dept was that he had followed due process, so there was no case to answer!!
Like many other small shareholders, he got my shares for nothing (I refused to cash his £1.40 cheque), and thereafter it was clear from stories coming out of the club that the bankrupt had his hand in the till. New Bentley arriving when no bills were being paid, the refusal to give him the safe keys, work done on the Vic, the refusal to give GT latest accounts etc etc.
I have been in contact with the MP but he can't raise personal tax issues with HMRC. Complaints to the Dept of BIS may work, and direct complaints to HMRC may work, but this man has a long history of ducking and diving, and getting away with financial skulldugery.
However it should be the new club owners to take this thief to court, and expose him for what he is. A deceiptful, lying chancer who should never, ever be allowed to get near a football club or another business again. I truly hope they do, and they would have the support and thanks from me and the thousands of other small shareholders who were ripped off.
lutondown
says...
12:13pm Wed 28 Nov 12
SAHornet wrote:Hung By her pantyhose. Dirty filthy rotten nutjob
Move on. We'll never get the money even if we get judgement. Courts and other enforcers have no teeth. Hope he gets kneecapped or worse. Where's I love baz till i'm moist and her rotten followers now?
lutondown
says...
12:17pm Wed 28 Nov 12
Chris the Vic wrote:Rubbish post. He was a charlatan and a good few of us knew it. Don't need to lobby anyone the facts speak for them selves.
Well at last a hard fact or is it?
If the money went into the then holding company, how was it shown as a loan or a management charge and equally how was this shown in the books of the club. From the very imprecise article it could be a loan, but
Are the auditors stating that they do not know, have they been refused co-operation by Bas and his advisers.
It is not uncommon for club advisers like Barrea and other legal advisers to be paid through the holding company rather than by the trading company.
If there have been dodgy dealings going on one can only be certain by knowing what Bas's company has done with the money.
It is certainly something he should want to clarify not only to back up his earlier statements that he has not taken monies out but also if his company does go bust it is quite likely that if the liquidator and Department of Business look into this and find fraudulent behaviour he may well be disqualified as a Director for up to ten years given that he was declared bankrupt only a few years ago.
If people feel strongly perhaps they should pressurise their local MP and perhaps the WO need to do some investigative journalism along with the FA demanding a lot more information.
Andrew1963
says...
12:19pm Wed 28 Nov 12
Holly68
says...
3:32pm Wed 28 Nov 12
stevyweavy
says...
3:38pm Wed 28 Nov 12
The Rover wrote:Well actually if the company is less than two years old the Director's cannot hide behind the corporate veil and become personally liable.
Unfortunately the money is owed by a company and not by Bassini himself. I would guess they don't have the £1.5m or anywhere near that amount. Any attempt to recover the money will cost WFC a fortune in legal fees, and the likely outcome is that Bassini's company will fold, meaning there is no hope of recovering the money. The Pozzo's will have known about this. £1.5 million is too much to not notice. They will have accounted for it and it will almost certainly be written off. If the Red Lion has not been transferred to Bassini hopefully the club can stop that happening. That would be equivalent to a third of the debt.
grahamwfc
says...
6:27pm Wed 28 Nov 12
stevyweavy wrote:What section of the Company Act is that then??
The Rover wrote:Well actually if the company is less than two years old the Director's cannot hide behind the corporate veil and become personally liable.
Unfortunately the money is owed by a company and not by Bassini himself. I would guess they don't have the £1.5m or anywhere near that amount. Any attempt to recover the money will cost WFC a fortune in legal fees, and the likely outcome is that Bassini's company will fold, meaning there is no hope of recovering the money. The Pozzo's will have known about this. £1.5 million is too much to not notice. They will have accounted for it and it will almost certainly be written off. If the Red Lion has not been transferred to Bassini hopefully the club can stop that happening. That would be equivalent to a third of the debt.
Once a company has been ordered to be wound up by the court, the appointed liquidator must investigate the activities of the company directors to ensure that they have acted properly and according to their legal duties. If the liquidator believes that the directors are guilty of wrongful trading they may recommend that the directors are banned from all current and future directorships for a period of time. This is commonly known as striking off.
Not aware of any timescales applying - only the above & where personal guarantee given
Directors personal liability for company debts
If company directors are found guilty of continuing to allow a business to trade while insolvent, they may become personally liable for the debts incurred by the company from the time they knew the business was insolvent.
garston tony
says...
2:08pm Thu 29 Nov 12
lutondown wrote:Lutondown, you never got it did you. Those of us refusing to jump on the bandwagon against LB did so because there was no actual evidence at the time just hearsay and gossip. That did not equate to us 'loving' him, we just didn’t want to join a lynch mob preferring the tried and tested system of people being innocent till PROVEN guilty.
SAHornet wrote: Move on. We'll never get the money even if we get judgement. Courts and other enforcers have no teeth. Hope he gets kneecapped or worse. Where's I love baz till i'm moist and her rotten followers now?Hung By her pantyhose. Dirty filthy rotten nutjob
I said it then show me actual evidence. That is now being revealed for part of the claims made against him.
garston tony
says...
2:10pm Thu 29 Nov 12
Saddly I would imagine that as owner of the club the financial rules allowed him to do what he's done so those calling for prosecution/retribut
ion you're being wide of the mark. And unless he deliberately hid this from the Pozzo's during the take over negotiations they either new about this before they bought the club or it was missed. If it was deliberately hidden from them then the Pozzo's may have recourse in the courts against him personally, otherwise they can pursue a claim for an un repaid debt against the company at which point it'll probably declare itself bankrupt.
What happens next is however down to the Pozzo's, not us and it seems they are willing to let it go if they have already made provision for the debt to be written off. Who knows, maybe that was part of the deal they may with LB?
lutondown
says...
3:15pm Thu 29 Nov 12
garston tony wrote:I think the author of that post was SAH
lutondown wrote:Lutondown, you never got it did you. Those of us refusing to jump on the bandwagon against LB did so because there was no actual evidence at the time just hearsay and gossip. That did not equate to us 'loving' him, we just didn’t want to join a lynch mob preferring the tried and tested system of people being innocent till PROVEN guilty.
SAHornet wrote: Move on. We'll never get the money even if we get judgement. Courts and other enforcers have no teeth. Hope he gets kneecapped or worse. Where's I love baz till i'm moist and her rotten followers now?Hung By her pantyhose. Dirty filthy rotten nutjob
I said it then show me actual evidence. That is now being revealed for part of the claims made against him.
I just replied to him. But my stance Towards you has not changed. Go do one.
Oracledave
says...
3:48pm Thu 29 Nov 12
Reginald Dwight
says...
4:07pm Thu 29 Nov 12
Oracledave wrote:Shouldn't take the fraud squad long to work out that wasn't the amount spent - have you seen it!! Makes a student house look well fitted out. I think Holly's 108k estimate (unpaid) is about right if a little heavy for what has been done there.
Possibly the most likely area for criminal investigation would be the Red Lion refurbishment. Clearly, this occurred and presumably all the contractors have been paid, so tracing those invoices should be possible. If the total cost falls short of the £568,267 claimed then we are looking at potential fraud !
Jokes apart - the club MUST take this asset back and in the meantime us fans MUST not put another penny into bassinis till
the sniper
says...
4:25pm Thu 29 Nov 12
even just to prove what a fraud he is
lutondown
says...
4:30pm Thu 29 Nov 12
the sniper wrote:And save other clubs from this chancer.
If I owed the club £40 for missing my season ticket direct debit they would chase me for the money, so chase Bassini all the way for the £1,500,000
even just to prove what a fraud he is
Holly68
says...
7:01pm Thu 29 Nov 12
You can't possibly put the two in the same bracket. One loved the club and were forced out, the other wanted to sell and make gains from day one
Reginald Dwight
says...
9:36pm Thu 29 Nov 12
Holly68 wrote:I get what you are saying Holly but 'if' as you say the Russo's lent him the money in a business transaction then that just clarifies what poor business acumen they must have! No point being naive here - the fraudulent one may have conned them along with everyone else 'if' he hasn't paid them back either but 'if' they did lend him the money they should be judged alongside Bassini and Barreua.
If the Russo's lent Bassini the money, to buy the club, and I say if, then this was a loan one company to another. This sort of transaction goes on all the time. It is alledged that Bassini has not paid back the loaned money either, so at no point did anyone outside of Bassini gain out of Bassini ownership alledgedly.
You can't possibly put the two in the same bracket. One loved the club and were forced out, the other wanted to sell and make gains from day one
What a horrific mess and now we see the club is being charged following the Bassini & co ownership. All of these men should be hounded out of town if they ever step foot near our club.
The very least we can do is make sure the pub is empty each week until it is back in he hands of the club. Why should that man be allowed to get away with this and still have people funding his illgotten lifestyle
lutondown
says...
10:12pm Thu 29 Nov 12
Holly68
says...
11:04pm Thu 29 Nov 12
lutondown wrote:The warnings were ALL THERE at the beginning !!!
How was this man allowed to run a football club?
Holly68
says...
11:08pm Thu 29 Nov 12
mooneysmagic says...
4:27pm Tue 27 Nov 12