[Skywalker]

freelander2, on 25 October 2016 - 06:18 AM, said:

Correct.

The annual capital repayment to A & S is £222,222. So we at least need to generate that amount of net profit after tax to cover it.

Given that we have got nowhere near that figure having sold £2M worth of players tells it's own story. Our overheads, specifically the wage bill is unsustainable and that's been the case now for at least 3 seasons.

Reading back through last years threads regarding accounts, AC mentioned that a 400k payment for Doyle hadn't been included and we were due an additional payment in January 2016.

[meowdmucker]

At %5 interest it seems quite obvious why DA is not too bothered if the debt is reduced. If the profits can be skimmed off by paying bonuses etc then that will suit him fine.
The 70/30 debt payment/player fund ratio he talked about following player sales was never going to happen when we are clearly struggling just to clear everyday running costs.
This club is rotten to the core. Next year could be a disastrous one.

[60s 70s Spireite]

Skywalker, on 25 October 2016 - 06:56 AM, said:

Reading back through last years threads regarding accounts, AC mentioned that a 400k payment for Doyle hadn't been included and we were due an additional payment in January 2016.

He didn't actually say it hadn't been included. It would have been, but was in debtors, that is the income was recorded in the profit and loss account, but the cash hadn't been received and therefore the recorded asset was a debtor rather than cash.

[Skywalker]

60s 70s Spireite, on 25 October 2016 - 07:17 AM, said:

He didn't actually say it hadn't been included. It would have been, but was in debtors, that is the income was recorded in the profit and loss account, but the cash hadn't been received and therefore the recorded asset was a debtor rather than cash.

Ok thanks.

[60s 70s Spireite]

meowdmucker, on 25 October 2016 - 07:12 AM, said:

At %5 interest it seems quite obvious why DA is not too bothered if the debt is reduced. If the profits can be skimmed off by paying bonuses etc then that will suit him fine.
The 70/30 debt payment/player fund ratio he talked about following player sales was never going to happen when we are clearly struggling just to clear everyday running costs.
This club is rotten to the core. Next year could be a disastrous one.

Keep saying it. No profit means DA is unlikely to get all his investment back. Moreover he gets no bonus, if anyone does it will be CT.
With underlying losses at approaching £2M, I am glad I haven't any money invested in the club (apart for a handful of shares), 5% interest or not.

Why DA feels it is a good idea to pay interest at such a rate, thereby increasing losses incurred (of which around are 80% impacting on him) is beyond me.

[Westbars Spireite]

60s 70s Spireite, on 25 October 2016 - 07:24 AM, said:

Keep saying it. No profit means DA is unlikely to get all his investment back. Moreover he gets no bonus, if anyone does it will be CT.
With underlying losses at approaching £2M, I am glad I haven't any money invested in the club (apart for a handful of shares), 5% interest or not.

Why DA feels it is a good idea to pay interest at such a rate, thereby increasing losses incurred (of which around are 80% impacting on him) is beyond me.

It can't even be for tax reasons as potentially it increases rather than reduces any potential liabilities (you are better placed to say whether that is nonsense or not).

This post has been edited by Westbars Spireite: 25 October 2016 - 07:39 AM

[azul]

freelander2, on 24 October 2016 - 09:53 PM, said:

Allen & Carson have absolutely zero desire to get the debt down, if they had, Turner would have been long gone. Given that Turner remains in office, with their full support tells us that he's doing exactly the job they have asked him to do.

I've heard the tittle-tattle about Alan Walters, but how the hell do you replace him and Barrie Hubbard with Chris Turner? It's a bit like replacing Alan Sykes with Kaven Walker...

I've long been suspicious of Turner's continued employment at our club, though never more so when fans (Moondog, Spireitenag, BennoSpire, Dim View, MDCCCLXVI & myself) sat down with former employees of CFCFDS to listen to their allegations and the club's reluctance to sit down with us and investigate the claims.

They're taking the urine and laughing at us.

With all the manoeuvrings, such as transferring a proportion of shares to other 'friendly" parties, transferring the council debt and trust debt to himself, thereby securing his hold on the stadium aid in the splitting of the stadium and football club. Could he then proportion the debt between the stadium company and football club prior to selling the football side.

[The Black Triangle]

freelander2, on 24 October 2016 - 09:53 PM, said:

Allen & Carson have absolutely zero desire to get the debt down, if they had, Turner would have been long gone. Given that Turner remains in office, with their full support tells us that he's doing exactly the job they have asked him to do.

I've heard the tittle-tattle about Alan Walters, but how the hell do you replace him and Barrie Hubbard with Chris Turner? It's a bit like replacing Alan Sykes with Kaven Walker...

I've long been suspicious of Turner's continued employment at our club, though never more so when fans (Moondog, Spireitenag, BennoSpire, Dim View, MDCCCLXVI & myself) sat down with former employees of CFCFDS to listen to their allegations and the club's reluctance to sit down with us and investigate the claims.

They're taking the urine and laughing at us.

Your a bright chap, so can you fathom what they actually want Turner to achieve, and what they want CFC to achieve? What are the objectives? It makes no sense to me at all to run a business at a loss.

[Skywalker]

Just to clarify - is the C&B now a seperate entity and is the profits from it not included in this years accounts?

[azul]

Skywalker, on 25 October 2016 - 08:14 AM, said:

Just to clarify - is the C&B now a seperate entity and is the profits from it not included in this years accounts?

There is no mention of it and no indication that it is has from the published accounts. It would need forensic examination by one of our accountants on this messageboard to confirm. My guess would be NO as they'd surely mention it on the summary and Carson is on record as saying NO

PS: In his statement the chairman is baffled about the reduced attendance due the attractive brand of football we are playing.

The breakdown of expenses is interesting, all wages £4,178,566 + pension and NI (another £500K). Up £200K from last year

Headline debt hasn't changed much, interest payments hasn't either, just a slight increase

Reduced gate receipts has been compensated by increased transfer revenue

Just noticed DA has had a go at one or two "so called fans" and the Derbyshire Times but also looks forward to the AGM. That lad knows how to provoke

This post has been edited by azul: 25 October 2016 - 08:50 AM

[Phil V 72]

"And he dubbed ‘pathetic’ a number of supporters he believes take a negative view on everything the club does, while also taking aim at the Derbyshire Times.

The club’s debt stands at £8,581,018, compared to £8,568,966 as per last year’s accounts."

Just, wow

[60s 70s Spireite]

Skywalker, on 25 October 2016 - 08:14 AM, said:

Just to clarify - is the C&B now a seperate entity and is the profits from it not included in this years accounts?

Not a separate entity.

[azul]

Phil V 72, on 25 October 2016 - 08:50 AM, said:

"And he dubbed ‘pathetic’ a number of supporters he believes take a negative view on everything the club does, while also taking aim at the Derbyshire Times.

The club’s debt stands at £8,581,018, compared to £8,568,966 as per last year’s accounts."

Just, wow

Status quo has been achieved

[Humpalumpa]

AFC Chesterfield

[AllTownArentWe]

Debts up, profits down, calls us pathetic.


F**k off Dave you fool.

This post has been edited by Angel Is A Spireite: 25 October 2016 - 09:04 AM

[DIFH]

Phil V 72, on 25 October 2016 - 08:50 AM, said:

"And he dubbed ‘pathetic’ a number of supporters he believes take a negative view on everything the club does, while also taking aim at the Derbyshire Times.

The club’s debt stands at £8,581,018, compared to £8,568,966 as per last year’s accounts."

Just, wow

How realistic is the business plan - some might say what business plan.

[valemadness]

Phil V 72, on 25 October 2016 - 08:50 AM, said:

"And he dubbed ‘pathetic’ a number of supporters he believes take a negative view on everything the club does, while also taking aim at the Derbyshire Times.

The club’s debt stands at £8,581,018, compared to £8,568,966 as per last year’s accounts."

Just, wow

Thought last years debt was around £8.1m

[Rudeboy spireite]

It really is a them and us situation as in they have their views on the club and we have ours and the two views are miles apart and getting bigger. I will always support this club and I am not even going to get into a battle of words with the owner's as a believe that they are not doing anything nasty or vindictive. Which ever way you look at it DA has put millions into the club and therefore he can do as he likes. I really do think that he should stop having a go at the fans though as this naturally gets everyone's back up. Next season I think will be the same as this with us in division 2 and the sale of Ched balancing the books for another year.

[SpireiteFitzy]

Phil V 72, on 25 October 2016 - 08:50 AM, said:

"And he dubbed ‘pathetic’ a number of supporters he believes take a negative view on everything the club does, while also taking aim at the Derbyshire Times.

The club’s debt stands at £8,581,018, compared to £8,568,966 as per last year’s accounts."

Just, wow

Good reason for that Dave, this club has been sent to the brink of extinction before due to money issues, so supporters are naturally a lot more interested and concerned about what goes on now, especially when the debt has not gone down a penny despite the club raking in more money that it ever has done.

Also there has been very little to be optimistic about the last 18 months, the club has made one shambolic decision after another and Town fans won't he mugged off forever. Now there is no product on the pitch either, it's so bad it's putting even long term fans off going.

Town fans aren't mugs, they wont just keep going blindly to watch dross all the time, it's not been pathetic, it's making a statement

[Phil V 72]

h again, on 24 October 2016 - 07:19 PM, said:

Unless of course some of the money from player sales was used to reduce the debt - 70% of it should have been according to the word from on high.
As usual the reaction here is long on whinge and short on thought. Like WHERE is all that money going? Last time it could only have been on inflated payments to players - surely we can't have fallen into that particular trap again. But assuming DA took his 70%, that leaves round about 600 grand which should have gone on the playing side. Reduced to 50 grand profit? Nah, doesn't stack up at all - perhaps the full accounts will clear it up, but I'm not holding my breath.

Debt hasn't shifted, are we OK to whinge now?