[Westbars Spireite]

Zorro, on 02 December 2016 - 01:17 PM, said:

Do you know where all the player sales income falls into as there appears to be a serious loss in turnover if we received over £4 million pounds.
AC gave figures stating that attendances & season tickets were slightly down during the year and I thought he was talking about the end of December, yet your figures give a different story unless we were inundated with school tickets given out.

You don't need to be an accountant or seek advice from outside looking at these figures, the turnover does not cover the wages. They have to either increase turnover or decrease wages. They're living on a prayer if they think the answer to all the problems is to create player's with a saleable value year after year then they are seriously deluded.

Your figures show outgoings of 11,442,059 (wages & admin expenses), yet only show a turnover of 7,529,488. Can you explain please? - are the players sales not included in turnover?

Rob

That, in essence, is the problem.

[The Black Triangle]

freelander2, on 02 December 2016 - 06:12 PM, said:

If he's referring to me, he's bull sh1tting. I never made the promise of saving the club £1M nor at any point have I discussed stewarding costs with him.

I wonder who it was then. If indeed it was anyone at all, and he is, as you say, bullting

[azul]

MDCCCLXVI, on 02 December 2016 - 06:41 PM, said:

I'm working from memory, here, but I'm pretty sure the late Chairman revealed a contract signed by a buyer had proven not worth the paper on which it was written at an AGM prior to Allen's arrival.

The difference between the original and later offer being around one point eight million.

I think the point here is no matter what the timeline is, or the figures, or the macro economics, all blame resides with DA and his merry band of men for not doing due diligence.

I bet we can agree on that

[valemadness]

freelander2, on 02 December 2016 - 06:49 PM, said:

Marcia,

Re. The approach to Rangers, I got a message three weeks ago from someone who is a regular at the Speakeasy events, stating that Rangers had been approached many months ago and it was knocked on the head because they wanted too much money.

As someone that also attends the Speakeasy sessions, what is your understanding on the subject?

As I understood it, Turner approached Rangers last season about a pre season friendly this season. The price quoted was very fair. From what I was told, we got back to Rangers too late.

[dim view]

Zorro, on 02 December 2016 - 01:17 PM, said:

You don't need to be an accountant or seek advice from outside looking at these figures, the turnover does not cover the wages. They have to either increase turnover or decrease wages. They're living on a prayer if they think the answer to all the problems is to create player's with a saleable value year after year then they are seriously deluded.

Rob

We have Board members on the live link arguing that we cannot reduce wages. DA's idea to wipe out debentures will not reduce costs by anything approaching a significant amount. So, what is his master plan in the unlikely event of all the directors agreeing to wave their debentures goodbye?

A question about the Trust....My understanding of the original plan was that CFC would pay for the build and that the Trust would then become independent, generate their own funds, and have a simple mortgage with CFC. How has it panned out and where are they in terms of servicing the debt and thriving?

[The Rec]

valemadness, on 03 December 2016 - 09:56 AM, said:

As I understood it, Turner approached Rangers last season about a pre season friendly this season. The price quoted was very fair. From what I was told, we got back to Rangers too late.

What a surprise!