Another nice positive article in the CT (5 Viewers)

Forums New posts
stupot07

stupot07

Well-Known Member
Just flicking through Twitter and kieran Crowley's answered a load of questions, etc and gave him grief about his back of a fag packet maths.... Well worth a read

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
 
hill83

hill83

Well-Known Member
But my precious opinions

mzvE3.gif
 
Brylowes

Brylowes

Well-Known Member
Did anyone else notice,
This thread completely lost it's way at 1-47 this afternoon.
The same time OSB58 pointed out an anomaly in the accounts.
Funny that,
Two days of posts about the accounts, and then it's Juggy's a Lemo bootboy.
:angelic:
 
Brylowes

Brylowes

Well-Known Member
Brylowes said:
Did anyone else notice,
This thread completely lost it's way at 1-47 this afternoon.
The same time OSB58 pointed out an anomaly in the accounts.
Funny that,
Two days of posts about the accounts, and then it's Juggy's a Lemo bootboy.
:angelic:
Click to expand...
I mean about what I said above, would you not agree the thread changed tack after that post.
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Brylowes said:
I mean about what I said above, would you not agree the thread changed tack after that post.
Click to expand...
The op is about Juggy and his article so that's on topic.
 
Brylowes

Brylowes

Well-Known Member
chiefdave said:
Didn't notice anything different to usual to be honest.
Click to expand...
Posters who are always quick to point out why people are wrong to not trust SISUs accounting,
Then have no opinion at all about what OSB58 pointed out., just sailed on by like he never said it.
 
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
Brylowes said:
Posters who are always quick to point out why people are wrong to not trust SISUs accounting,
Then have no opinion at all about what OSB58 pointed out., just sailed on by like he never said it.
Click to expand...

I'm sure OSB can speak for himself, but he hasn't pointed anything out, just asked a question.

As I'm not an accountant, I'm not able to answer that question. I'll stick to where I *do* have some skills... ;)
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Brylowes said:
It didn't follow the line of discussion the thread was on .
Click to expand...

It's a nice try council boy but you look even more of a moron than you usually do
 
stupot07

stupot07

Well-Known Member
Brylowes said:
Posters who are always quick to point out why people are wrong to not trust SISUs accounting,
Then have no opinion at all about what OSB58 pointed out., just sailed on by like he never said it.
Click to expand...
Not really, I read it. OSB said he cant work out what the accounts mean but is sure there is an explanation for it. I'm sure if he said "look sisu are syphoning off money here's the proof" then we would be discussing that, not Juggys back of a fag packet maths that have absolutely no merit.

Did you comment on osbs post other then the "look no ones noticed"? If you have bi opinion about what OSB has posted why do you expect everyone to?

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
 
S

sticker

Member
End of the day, i disagree with Juggy on a lot of topics, i know him quit well, hes the only one who actually asks questions, he goes home and away and is as passionate as anyone who watches them. If your happy with everything the owners have done to the club i would question your loyalty, end of the day hes asking questions the coventry evening telegraph wont
 
Brylowes

Brylowes

Well-Known Member
stupot07 said:
Not really, I read it. OSB said he cant work out what the accounts mean but is sure there is an explanation for it. I'm sure if he said "look sisu are syphoning off money here's the proof" then we would be discussing that, not Juggys back of a fag packet maths that have absolutely no merit.

Did you comment on osbs post other then the "look no ones noticed"? If you have bi opinion about what OSB has posted why do you expect everyone to?

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
No he said he can't account for that 1 anomaly in the accounts, stressed there's probably an
explanation for it ( could well be ) I just wondered why people who are normally so diligent
Completely glossed over it . That's all
 
Brylowes

Brylowes

Well-Known Member
oldskyblue58 said:
So here is the anomaly
Cash flow statements indicate how actual cash has been utilised in the business - ie non cash accounting adjustments like depreciation are excluded

Player calculated sales total 15.9m. The profit on those sales as declared in the accounts 13.72m. The entries on the cash flow statements 2008 to 2015 total 12.76m actually received. Difference Calculated sales to cash flow total is 3.15m
(calculated sale price is original cost less accumulated amortisation plus the profit)
Player purchases 7.86m. The entries on the cash flow statements actually paid out 7.26m

Shouldn't the cost on the balance sheet of players bought equal the figure on the cash flow statement (some years it did) ?
Shouldn't, even allowing for staged payments and add ons cash received even out to pretty much the same figure as sales value?
2012 calculated value of Player sales 3.19m figure on cash flow statement 935K
Some years there was no difference


I cant explain it but sure there will be a reason. Perhaps I am looking at it wrongly. No I am not saying anything is wrong only that I do not understand the entries
Click to expand...
Discus.
Or not as the case may be !
 
chiefdave

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
Brylowes said:
No he said he can't account for that 1 anomaly in the accounts, stressed there's probably an
explanation for it ( could well be ) I just wondered why people who are normally so diligent
Completely glossed over it . That's all
Click to expand...
If OSB, who has studied the accounts in great detail, doesn't know how is anyone else going to know?
You could flip your question round and ask why OSB raised it now (not suggesting anything to be clear just saying its not a big deal).
 
ccfc92

ccfc92

Well-Known Member
chiefdave said:
If OSB, who has studied the accounts in great detail, doesn't know how is anyone else going to know?
You could flip your question round and ask why OSB raised it now (not suggesting anything to be clear just saying its not a big deal).
Click to expand...

One poster seems to believe he's a financial whizz, why doesn't he tell OSB.
 
Brylowes

Brylowes

Well-Known Member
chiefdave said:
If OSB, who has studied the accounts in great detail, doesn't know how is anyone else going to know?
You could flip your question round and ask why OSB raised it now (not suggesting anything to be clear just saying its not a big deal).
Click to expand...
I'm not an acountant so I'm probably wrong , but doesn't that look like money is unaccounted for
Like I say I'm probably wrong, would be handy if OSB 58 came on to explain what it means.
It's just the sort of thing people on here usually discuss.
 
ccfc92

ccfc92

Well-Known Member
Brylowes said:
I'm not an acountant so I'm probably wrong , but doesn't that look like money is unaccounted for
Like I say I'm probably wrong, would be handy if OSB 58 came on to explain what it means.
It's just the sort of thing people on here usually discuss.
Click to expand...

Discuss? HA! :D
 
stupot07

stupot07

Well-Known Member
Brylowes said:
I'm not an acountant so I'm probably wrong , but doesn't that look like money is unaccounted for
Like I say I'm probably wrong, would be handy if OSB 58 came on to explain what it means.
It's just the sort of thing people on here usually discuss.
Click to expand...
And we will do when he works it out what it means and explains it to us. Otherwise some will go "look it proves they take money out", some will say " look I told you we were paying for court costs" with no actual proof that's what's happened.

What do you think it means?

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 6 (members: 0, guests: 6)
Top