[Tha Knows...]

🤣

[Western Spire]

Les Ashmore, on 12 February 2018 - 10:41 PM, said:

Please look at the comment I made, How the reply was written ie "Some will only be paid for a couple of hours a week." is an assumption

Had it been written thus "Some ARE only paid a couple of hours a week" it would be fact.

So, therefore, it was a valid question, OR can you categorically state some ARE only paid a couple of hours a week?

https://www.chesterf...on-phase-coach/

[Les Ashmore]

Western Spire, on 12 February 2018 - 11:02 PM, said:

https://www.chesterf...on-phase-coach/

Now THAT is a definitive answer, and not an assumption

[Blue5]

Les Ashmore, on 11 February 2018 - 04:29 PM, said:

By my reckoning, the move by the club to force the old directors to resign has cost the club money this year.
I believe there were debentures of circa £1.4 mill owed to them in loans, rumors are that they accepted a reduction of circa 20% which would mean £280,000 thereby reducing the loans to £1.12 Mill.
We are all aware the ex-directors agreed that they would take no interest so had the directors not been forced to resign there would be no interest payments to be met nor in actual fact ANY payments to them at all.
BUT
After they were forced to resign (According to accounts) an agreement was made with them to repay the debentures (Loans) over a 48 month period, so to me that means that the club has paid out £23,333.3333 p/m totaling £280,000 over the past 12 months to the ex-directors which had they NOT been forced to resign the club would still have in it's account.

So would someone please explain to me what benefit there was in forcing the directors to resign?

This also means that over the next 3 years (Unless sold) the loans have to be repaid thereby putting an absolutely unnecessary hardship on the club.

Les,

I think you need to make it perfectly clear for everyone on here why the former directors had to take an haircut on their loans, equal to 20%.