[essexspireman]

Heart of a Niven, on 20 November 2016 - 10:07 AM, said:

I'm going to be very bold here - and feel free to shout me down - and say I don't believe any of this. As The Gimp mentioned, the recent chain of events have been too much of a coincidence.
The fact that year after year the club release what can best be described as 'abridged' accounts, means the fans are left none the wiser as to how the club is truly being run.
DA, and his remaining nodding dogs, have got us where they want us - in a state of panic, fretting for the very future of the club. DA is playing this Game of Board Room Chairs for his benefit alone, with the intention of gaining complete control of Chesterfield Football Club. The day that happens is the day we REALLY need to start worrying.

I wouldn't shout that down

[azul]

Torteval, on 20 November 2016 - 10:03 AM, said:

When they talk about debentures, this has always referred to the loans to the club that are secured by a charge on the ground. The concern is that "removing their debentures" may have meant removing the charge on the ground, but without the loans being repaid. The charges on the ground could give some protection should there be an attempt to move it's ownership from CFC. Of course, it could be completely innocent and DA simply wanted to stump up around £2m to repay them.

So DA position has moved from wanting the "gang of 4" to defer their interest payments to wanting them to defer their interest and leaving their money in the club but removing the pesky charge on the ground?

It is starting to look that way, sadly AC's imprecise use of the English language is just as bad as CT's and has begged more questions rather than provided answers.

[The Black Triangle]

The Gimp, on 19 November 2016 - 08:43 PM, said:

From secured against the ground to unsecured?

[Torteval]

azul, on 20 November 2016 - 10:15 AM, said:

So DA position has moved from wanting the "gang of 4" to defer their interest payments to wanting them to defer their interest and leaving their money in the club but removing the pesky charge on the ground?

It is starting to look that way, sadly AC's imprecise use of the English language is just as bad as CT's and has begged more questions rather than provided answers.

We don't know this, but it depends how likely it is that the loans were going to be repaid.

We need to know the precise details of the demands, offers and counter offers from the past week to be able to form a true opinion. In the meantime, it would be best to retain a little scepticism.

This post has been edited by Torteval: 20 November 2016 - 10:24 AM

[BigBlue]

I fear we will be worrying very soon then, as we all can probably tell he's played his hand to strengthen his grip on the club. If this is the case it would leave a bitter taste in the mouth for many. I for one wouldn't be happy, we will have been shafted. Oh and Turner will still be there too.

Heart of a Niven, on 20 November 2016 - 10:07 AM, said:

I'm going to be very bold here - and feel free to shout me down - and say I don't believe any of this. As The Gimp mentioned, the recent chain of events have been too much of a coincidence.
The fact that year after year the club release what can best be described as 'abridged' accounts, means the fans are left none the wiser as to how the club is truly being run.
DA, and his remaining nodding dogs, have got us where they want us - in a state of panic, fretting for the very future of the club. DA is playing this Game of Board Room Chairs for his benefit alone, with the intention of gaining complete control of Chesterfield Football Club. The day that happens is the day we REALLY need to start worrying.

[essexspireman]

BigBlue, on 20 November 2016 - 10:26 AM, said:

I fear we will be worrying very soon then, as we all can probably tell he's played his hand to strengthen his grip on the club. If this is the case it would leave a bitter taste in the mouth for many. I for one wouldn't be happy, we will have been shafted. Oh and Turner will still be there too.

More transparency on what the £500k is for would help. If it is to help DA take complete control, many fans wouldn't support it

[The Black Triangle]

essexspireman, on 20 November 2016 - 10:41 AM, said:

More transparency on what the £500k is for would help. If it is to help DA take complete control, many fans wouldn't support it

Month to month out goings, player wages, staff wages, electric, HMRC etc

[azul]

Torteval, on 20 November 2016 - 10:23 AM, said:

We don't know this, but it depends how likely it is that the loans were going to be repaid.

We need to know the precise details of the demands, offers and counter offers from the past week to be able to form a true opinion. In the meantime, it would be best to retain a little scepticism.

I know and that is my point about AC's language, deliberately vague and/or misleading or just plain old vague and/or misleading in a CT kind of way.

I'm sure he'll be on later to clarify what is meant by "removing their debentures"

[azul]

The Gimp, on 20 November 2016 - 10:44 AM, said:

Month to month out goings, player wages, staff wages, electric, HMRC etc

If that figure is accurate, you would have to assume there is a big one off payement in there, otherwise if to extrapolate over one year that is circa £5M.

From memory the financial statement contained a six figure sum in the creditor coumn for HMRC. Hopefully that has been paid off since the end of June. I know £50K has been mentioned but the way we are with figures that might just be £50K more

[Torteval]

azul, on 20 November 2016 - 10:57 AM, said:

If that figure is accurate, you would have to assume there is a big one off payement in there, otherwise if to extrapolate over one year that is circa £5M.

From memory the financial statement contained a six figure sum in the creditor coumn for HMRC. Hopefully that has been paid off since the end of June. I know £50K has been mentioned but the way we are with figures that might just be £50K more

Wage connected expenses are almost £400k per month, with presumably 2 of these payments before the end of the year. Only 2 home league games before then so £500k doesn't look far off.

[spireitetoo]

Would that mean that any unsecured loans would be a total loss if the club did enter administration, and that da would retain ownership and full return on his money if/when he sold the club on??

[Tylerdurdencfc]

I think what is needed is a statement from one of the four directors who resigned telling us their side etc.

[The Black Triangle]

Tylerdurdencfc, on 20 November 2016 - 11:34 AM, said:

I think what is needed is a statement from one of the four directors who resigned telling us their side etc.

You have to feel for them, genuine fans who have put money into the club in good faith, and are now being well and truly shafted from behind

[Spireite-Karl]

Misnomer, on 20 November 2016 - 09:09 AM, said:

Well said, DV. I'm not remotely surprised by any of this. I have never wavered in my distrust of DA (as folk are aware) and I'd rather us fold and start again than have anything to do with him and his cronies.

Spot on! If we are going down though, it's a massive sense of injustice that we can't take him with us

[Westbars Spireite]

Did I imagine Carson's tweet earlier about a Q&A?

Deleted along with a raft of others?

[azul]

spireitetoo, on 20 November 2016 - 11:22 AM, said:

Would that mean that any unsecured loans would be a total loss if the club did enter administration, and that da would retain ownership and full return on his money if/when he sold the club on??

If your loan is unsecured it means you'll be in the queue of creditors picking over the bones after the administrators and football creditors have taken their share. DA will be controlling the CVA that is required to exit admin as he is the biggest creditor.

Westbars Spireite, on 20 November 2016 - 11:44 AM, said:

Did I imagine Carson's tweet earlier about a Q&A?

Deleted along with a raft of others?

You seem to be the only person who saw it. Perhaps it was quickley removed after a word from the boss

[Goku]

The Gimp, on 20 November 2016 - 11:36 AM, said:

You have to feel for them, genuine fans who have put money into the club in good faith, and are now being well and truly shafted from behind

yeah but being shafted from behind can feel good sometimes (so I'm told). nothing about this feels good

[ELTON 2020]

azul, on 20 November 2016 - 10:50 AM, said:

I know and that is my point about AC's language, deliberately vague and/or misleading or just plain old vague and/or misleading in a CT kind of way.

I'm sure he'll be on later to clarify what is meant by "removing their debentures"

Wouldn't it be writing off their loans? Enter fans?

[spireitenag]

Westbars Spireite, on 20 November 2016 - 11:44 AM, said:

Did I imagine Carson's tweet earlier about a Q&A?

Deleted along with a raft of others?

No you didn't imagine it.

[Billy Bob]

Rather than us fans contemplating chucking in money to "rescue" the club...wouldn't it be nice if some of the players getting paid decent money for doing sweet fa this season and last actually came forward and said " you know what...I'm doing nothing for my wages at the moment, I know the club is in dire straits so I'll forfeit so much of my wages to help out" I'm not talking about those playing but playing crap, just referring to those getting paid but doing "nothing" might make me feel a bit more inclined to chuck some of my money in if this was the case.