[60s 70s Spireite]

dim view, on 25 October 2016 - 10:26 PM, said:

Do you know the rules for this?

Ashley sent me a post saying there was no need for his share acquisition, probably a gift, to be disclosed in the accounts. I saw it as a payment in kind which at the end of the day, is a payment.

If it was related to his employment (?) and he received them at a discount, then they would be disclosed as a benefit in kind.
I am sure he and the club will argue he either paid for them at full market value, or, if he was gifted them, that it was nothing to do with his employment but as a close friend of DA.

[calvin plummers socks]

Just put your coffee down, sit down and think long and hard about this:-

Chesterfield Football Club paid Sylvan Ebanks-Blake over a Quarter of a million pounds each year.

A quarter of a million pounds


Each year


On Ebanks-Blake


Well done
(We have been)

[danblue]

calvin plummers socks, on 26 October 2016 - 08:19 AM, said:

Just put your coffee down, sit down and think long and hard about this:-

Chesterfield Football Club paid Sylvan Ebanks-Blake over a Quarter of a million pounds each year.

A quarter of a million pounds


Each year


On Ebanks-Blake


Well done
(We have been)

If that is true, that really saddens me that something that scandalous could actually happen.
Sign on the dotted line Sylvan and put your feet up

[brianclose]

calvin plummers socks, on 26 October 2016 - 08:19 AM, said:

Just put your coffee down, sit down and think long and hard about this:-

Chesterfield Football Club paid Sylvan Ebanks-Blake over a Quarter of a million pounds each year.

A quarter of a million pounds


Each year


On Ebanks-Blake


Well done
(We have been)

Saunders said if he was a betting man he would have had a sneaky fiver on him to be L1 top scorer....

[60s 70s Spireite]

brianclose, on 26 October 2016 - 08:32 AM, said:

Saunders said if he was a betting man he would have had a sneaky fiver on him to be L1 top scorer....

If we are paying him that, Saunders must be the biggest gambler out there-his next stop should have been at Gamblers Anonymous.

How the club let this happen is way beyond me. We had brought in players of the calibre of Clucas, Morsy, Doyle- all to be sold for sizeable profit (ok Morsy not so much). Plus they had taken us to the brink of promotion. Here was some sort of template. Yet we replaced them with over paid has beens and a loanee who clearly was a stopgap.

No wonder Jimmy Ryan left for 'family reasons'.

[brianclose]

60s 70s Spireite, on 26 October 2016 - 08:50 AM, said:

If we are paying him that, Saunders must be the biggest gambler out there-his next stop should have been at Gamblers Anonymous.

How the club let this happen is way beyond me. We had brought in players of the calibre of Clucas, Morsy, Doyle- all to be sold for sizeable profit (ok Morsy not so much). Plus they had taken us to the brink of promotion. Here was some sort of template. Yet we replaced them with over paid has beens and a loanee who clearly was a stopgap.

No wonder Jimmy Ryan left for 'family reasons'.

Just don't think he wanted to be the last rat on the ship. He joined Fleetwood FFS!

[60s 70s Spireite]

60s 70s Spireite, on 26 October 2016 - 06:56 AM, said:

If it was related to his employment (?) and he received them at a discount, then they would be disclosed as a benefit in kind.
I am sure he and the club will argue he either paid for them at full market value, or, if he was gifted them, that it was nothing to do with his employment but as a close friend of DA.

AC has asked me to point out he is not an employee of the company (hence my question mark)- and he receives no remuneration or benefits. 'All he does is put money in'.

I would point out he is an officer of the company. As such any benefits etc would be disclosed in the accounts-they are not- which indeed confirms his statement.

[calvin plummers socks]

60s 70s Spireite, on 26 October 2016 - 09:09 AM, said:

AC has asked me to point out he is not an employee of the company (hence my question mark)- and he receives no remuneration or benefits. 'All he does is put money in'.

I would point out he is an officer of the company. As such any benefits etc would be disclosed in the accounts-they are not- which indeed confirms his statement.

Why has AC got you and Moondog doing his errands for him- can't he speak for himself?

[Westbars Spireite]

60s 70s Spireite, on 26 October 2016 - 09:09 AM, said:

AC has asked me to point out he is not an employee of the company (hence my question mark)- and he receives no remuneration or benefits. 'All he does is put money in'.

I would point out he is an officer of the company. As such any benefits etc would be disclosed in the accounts-they are not- which indeed confirms his statement.

Tell Ashley to apologise for shambles at the club & to explain what's going to change for them to get people onside.

[h again]

calvin plummers socks, on 26 October 2016 - 08:19 AM, said:

Just put your coffee down, sit down and think long and hard about this:-

Chesterfield Football Club paid Sylvan Ebanks-Blake over a Quarter of a million pounds each year.

A quarter of a million pounds


Each year


On Ebanks-Blake


Well done
(We have been)

Assuming that's true, where's the surprise? It's obvious we've been paying over the odds for years to attempt to sign players who might get us into the Championship. It might even have worked in a parallel universe. Unfortunately no player comes with a guarantee, and Saunders' gambles went badly astray.
Surprisingly, IF it's true, it suggests DA was still supporting a high-wage attempt to get up a league into the 2015/2016 season, and was prepared to use transfer income to finance it, rather than using it to pay himself some of the debt we owe, which makes him not quite the ogre some would have us believe. The policy was seen to have PROBABLY failed about the end of November 2015, at which point drastic action had to be taken, and was.
End result is that crowds won't support a Championship place, and player sales have failed miserably to do the job, so all that's left is retrenchment - or, in English, dig in and get the wage bill down, and that means Danny has to get much more out of much less. Who'd be a football manger, or Chairman for that matter?

[Misnomer]

60s 70s Spireite, on 26 October 2016 - 08:50 AM, said:

If we are paying him that, Saunders must be the biggest gambler out there-his next stop should have been at Gamblers Anonymous.

How the club let this happen is way beyond me. We had brought in players of the calibre of Clucas, Morsy, Doyle- all to be sold for sizeable profit (ok Morsy not so much). Plus they had taken us to the brink of promotion. Here was some sort of template. Yet we replaced them with over paid has beens and a loanee who clearly was a stopgap.

No wonder Jimmy Ryan left for 'family reasons'.

Simple, it's how it works in football; it really is a case of who you know. However, how that ever got sanctioned is incomprehensible. Ched is only here because of Wilson.

[brianclose]

End result is that crowds won't support a Championship place, and player sales have failed miserably to do the job, so all that's left is retrenchment - or, in English, dig in and get the wage bill down, and that means Danny has to get much more out of much less. Who'd be a football manger, or Chairman for that matter?
[/quote]

Quite strange of you to say that it is crowds that support a Championship place (or get you to the Championship in the first place). Burton got just over 3,500 for their game against QPR the other week - a gate that we would find laughable if we were in the Championship - and are doing very nicely thank you.

[essexspireman]

h again, on 26 October 2016 - 10:04 AM, said:

Assuming that's true, where's the surprise? It's obvious we've been paying over the odds for years to attempt to sign players who might get us into the Championship. It might even have worked in a parallel universe. Unfortunately no player comes with a guarantee, and Saunders' gambles went badly astray.
Surprisingly, IF it's true, it suggests DA was still supporting a high-wage attempt to get up a league into the 2015/2016 season, and was prepared to use transfer income to finance it, rather than using it to pay himself some of the debt we owe, which makes him not quite the ogre some would have us believe. The policy was seen to have PROBABLY failed about the end of November 2015, at which point drastic action had to be taken, and was.
End result is that crowds won't support a Championship place, and player sales have failed miserably to do the job, so all that's left is retrenchment - or, in English, dig in and get the wage bill down, and that means Danny has to get much more out of much less. Who'd be a football manger, or Chairman for that matter?

If that is the case why don't they say so then folks may accept it

[60s 70s Spireite]

Misnomer, on 26 October 2016 - 10:05 AM, said:

Simple, it's how it works in football; it really is a case of who you know. However, how that ever got sanctioned is incomprehensible. Ched is only here because of Wilson.

I wish Saunders had known Alfie Mawson then..
Although if he had read any press, the information was out there about the young Brentford loanee at Wycombe after the 2014-15 season:

'Supporters’ and Players’ Player of the Year awards, in addition to the Official Wycombe Wanderers Supporters Association's Player, Young Player and Away Travel Player of the Year awards. He also won the Wycombe Wanderers Independent Supporters' Club Player of the Year award. He finished third in the running for the League Two Player of the Year award'

[kopblue]

calvin plummers socks, on 26 October 2016 - 08:19 AM, said:

Just put your coffee down, sit down and think long and hard about this:-

Chesterfield Football Club paid Sylvan Ebanks-Blake over a Quarter of a million pounds each year.

A quarter of a million pounds


Each year


On Ebanks-Blake


Well done
(We have been)

we had Craig Davies for a year only maybe that was going through the mind of those in charge when they signed him, some you win some you lose! Think we lost.

[dim view]

60s 70s Spireite, on 26 October 2016 - 09:09 AM, said:

AC has asked me to point out he is not an employee of the company (hence my question mark)- and he receives no remuneration or benefits. 'All he does is put money in'.

I would point out he is an officer of the company. As such any benefits etc would be disclosed in the accounts-they are not- which indeed confirms his statement.

So, his shares are not benefits. That means he's paid for them. Would the transaction be listed somewhere in the public domain? Can other shareholders have a similar deal? Why was he given preference over me for their purchase?

[Jbspire]

freelander2, on 25 October 2016 - 05:44 PM, said:

I think it's important to compare the latest figures with the last full season that BH & AW had full control over club finances, that being year end 30/06/12.

Looking at some of the overheads:

1) Wages, national insurance and staff pension contributions increased from £3,483,833 (06/12) to £4,643,328 (06/16).

2) Legal & professional fees including agent fees increased from £38,960 (06/12) to £269,614 (06/16).

3) Rent increased from £0 (06/12) to £29,139 (06/16). I wonder what this relates to?

4) Sundry establishment expenses increased from £42,578 (06/12) to £89,366 (06/16).

5) Centre of excellence expenses increased from £102,076 (06/12) to £227,390 (06/16).

6) Our administration expenses are £1,448,869 greater than what they were four years ago.


Another interesting one, £4,965 interest was charged to the P&L account relating to overdue tax. I suspect this relates to where tax had been deducted at source on directors' loan interest but not paid to HMRC. If it does, a note was included in the accounts for Y/E 30/06/14 stating that £103,775 of income tax payable to HMRC, a significant portion of which has been outstanding for over 2 years. This is being settled after the year end. Can we assume that this liability to HMRC has still not been settled?

Hubbard & Co managed to generate twice as much profit without selling any player.

img hosting

Do you have the balance sheet also?

[Rudeboy spireite]

I am pretty sure that the rent will be for a property at Belmont Hollymoorside that PC used a bit and then DS was put in. They also had a top of the range TV Sky etc put in. But DS didn't stop in it because he didn't want to cook his own food so he was moved into a hotel

[CFC91]

Rudeboy spireite, on 26 October 2016 - 11:44 AM, said:

I am pretty sure that the rent will be for a property at Belmont Hollymoorside that PC used a bit and then DS was put in. They also had a top of the range TV Sky etc put in. But DS didn't stop in it because he didn't want to cook his own food so he was moved into a hotel

Jesus wept

[dim view]

dim view, on 26 October 2016 - 11:11 AM, said:

So, his shares are not benefits. That means he's paid for them. Would the transaction be listed somewhere in the public domain? Can other shareholders have a similar deal? Why was he given preference over me for their purchase?

Update folks....
acarson 

Sent Today, 12:15 PM
I don't know what the big deal is here. These are Dave Allen's personnel shares owned by him.
He has given them to me for nothing. !!
He transferred some to his daughter and was left with 63%. He passed on the 3% to me.
Of course you don't get a similar deal.

Hope this helps, happy for you to post this


I thank Ashley for taking part in the dialogue. I does seem to me though that as an officer and director of CFC he has received a benefit. We'll have to beg to differ. He's the expert.