Golden Share Could Be In Holdings After All (1 Viewer)

inside track · May 4, 2013

Poor confused Mr Smith and others will be pleased to know that my boyfriend has just said "enough is enough" on here for tonight.

Match Of The Day has nearly finished and we have other things to occupy our time apart from me arguing with men with closed minds and, quite probably, other little problems.

Goodnight all.

James Smith · May 4, 2013

inside track said:
I was referring to CCFC. I know it's complicated but do try to keep up,

Hold on I'm still going through the charity balance sheet trying to work it out. What PWKH said was that they're keen to sell to who they want to, as is their right. Just sounds like the definition of their preferred buyers doesn't match the description of SISU.

RPHunt · May 4, 2013

James Smith said:
Yeah but Hull didn't mean to do that did they. The council were supposed to get a share of the profits from the stadium management company only it hasn't made enough to give them any real money. Doncaster stadium wasn't making any money and was actually costing the council almost £300k a year despite having multiple tenants because these tenants weren't paying market rates. Haven't looked at Swansea yet.

James, you are quite right about Doncaster council losing over £300k per year on the Keepmoat stadium and this was despite a contribution of £281k per year from Rovers and all income from naming rights, catering, advertising etc. So without the contribution from Rovers, the losses would have been about £600k per year.

Under the terms of the new agreement, Rovers have to fund these losses and pay £100k per year rent. The council are paying the club £90k per year that was paid to the council for naming rights, but this figure was already included as income so it doesn't do anything to offset the £600k loss.

The club obviously has a great incentive to reduce these costs, but they must do so while providing the community facilities that the council demand.

To sum up, if Rovers can halve the losses that the stadium has been incurring, playing there will cost them £300k per year to fund the loss plus £100k per year rent - i.e. £400k per year for a 15,000 seat stadium.

James Smith · May 4, 2013

RPHunt said:
James, you are quite right about Doncaster council losing over £300k per year on the Keepmoat stadium and this was despite a contribution of £281k per year from Rovers and all income from naming rights, catering, advertising etc. So without the contribution from Rovers, the losses would have been about £600k per year.

Under the terms of the new agreement, Rovers have to fund these losses and pay £100k per year rent. The council are paying the club £90k per year that was paid to the council for naming rights, but this figure was already included as income so it doesn't do anything to offset the £600k loss.

The club obviously has a great incentive to reduce these costs, but they must do so while providing the community facilities that the council demand.

To sum up, if Rovers can halve the losses that the stadium has been incurring, playing there will cost them £300k per year to fund the loss plus £100k per year rent - i.e. £400k per year for a 15,000 seat stadium.

Thanks that's very concise and better than I could have put it, and I had missed the fact that they would be funding £600k if they couldn't lower the losses.

Delboycov · May 4, 2013

inside track said:
Gossip, I'll admit, which is why I said "it's said...", but that is as reliable as many of the posts I've seen that claim to be "facts". It would be interesting to test a denial of that against the charity's next published accounts.

So what is your connection to all this? Proclaiming yourself to have the 'inside track' and then within a couple of days of signing up you're getting exclusive sensitive information from a "journalist friend" which they seem happy for you to leak on a supporters messageboard. Why would you be getting so wound up by things when all you claim to have heard is "gossip"? Were you as wound up when we plummeted to our lowest league position in generations? When Richardson sold Highfield Road? When Eric Black was replaced by Peter Reid? I personally strongly believe...and I'm entitled to my opinion...that you have an agenda here as of course does PKWH but at least we know what his angle is as he's not hiding behind some ridiculous 'insider' mask.

dongonzalos · May 5, 2013

inside track said:
Hot air and nonsense. Higgs has no right to call the shots over who owns a privately owned company. As for the Ricoh, I wonder why it missed out on the Rugby World Cup to Villa Park.

Nonsense? As in not true?

James Smith · May 5, 2013

inside track said:
Poor confused Mr Smith and others will be pleased to know that my boyfriend has just said "enough is enough" on here for tonight.

Match Of The Day has nearly finished and we have other things to occupy our time apart from me arguing with men with closed minds and, quite probably, other little problems.

Goodnight all.

Okay so I admit that I know bugger all about balance sheets (but I'm going to learn) however from what I can see the Charity had £18-19m in the 2011 accounts and they don't seem to spend much so how anyone could claim that they're short of a few bob is beyond me. I don't suspect that it all went on a horse in the National at Aintree.

Do you ever actually check anything out before you post it to see if there is any chance it is correct?

quinn1971 · May 5, 2013

inside track said:
Hot air and nonsense. Higgs has no right to call the shots over who owns a privately owned company. As for the Ricoh, I wonder why it missed out on the Rugby World Cup to Villa Park.

Would i be right in thinking that money from the games would go to acl.Surely it wouldn't have been a spanner in the works from sisu would it.It would put a stop to income that acl desperately need.?

Grendel · May 5, 2013

RPHunt said:
James, you are quite right about Doncaster council losing over £300k per year on the Keepmoat stadium and this was despite a contribution of £281k per year from Rovers and all income from naming rights, catering, advertising etc. So without the contribution from Rovers, the losses would have been about £600k per year.

Under the terms of the new agreement, Rovers have to fund these losses and pay £100k per year rent. The council are paying the club £90k per year that was paid to the council for naming rights, but this figure was already included as income so it doesn't do anything to offset the £600k loss.

The club obviously has a great incentive to reduce these costs, but they must do so while providing the community facilities that the council demand.

To sum up, if Rovers can halve the losses that the stadium has been incurring, playing there will cost them £300k per year to fund the loss plus £100k per year rent - i.e. £400k per year for a 15,000 seat stadium.

I have already detailed all of the Doncaster rental arrangements. What about the £500,000 cheque they received?

A curious post really. Consider that we have been charged £1.3 million per season with no access to match day revenues. The only way this was lowered was a rent strike. So what is the point you are making?

I assume you along with all fans of the club want the lowest rent and maximum benefit possible? Agreed?

Grendel · May 5, 2013

Delboycov said:
So what is your connection to all this? Proclaiming yourself to have the 'inside track' and then within a couple of days of signing up you're getting exclusive sensitive information from a "journalist friend" which they seem happy for you to leak on a supporters messageboard. Why would you be getting so wound up by things when all you claim to have heard is "gossip"? Were you as wound up when we plummeted to our lowest league position in generations? When Richardson sold Highfield Road? When Eric Black was replaced by Peter Reid? I personally strongly believe...and I'm entitled to my opinion...that you have an agenda here as of course does PKWH but at least we know what his angle is as he's not hiding behind some ridiculous 'insider' mask.

Perhaps she is a fan and wants the best possible deal for the club? A curious notion on here I accept but there are a couple of us who want that you know.

Brighton Sky Blue · May 5, 2013

inside track said:
Poor confused Mr Smith and others will be pleased to know that my boyfriend has just said "enough is enough" on here for tonight.

Match Of The Day has nearly finished and we have other things to occupy our time apart from me arguing with men with closed minds and, quite probably, other little problems.

Goodnight all.

Was Tim using it to scout out the Hawthorns for an upcoming groundshare?

Delboycov · May 5, 2013

Grendel said:
Perhaps she is a fan and wants the best possible deal for the club? A curious notion on here I accept but there are a couple of us who want that you know.

Fair point and you could be right Grendel..and so could she be with what she's saying. Don't tell me that you're not a teeny bit suspicious that there could be ulterior motives at work here ;-) The whole 'insider' thing with mentions of journalist friend feeding her some pretty juicy exclusives just sets a few alarm bells off for me. I certainly would think the same if there was someone claiming to have an 'inside track' which painted SISU in such a poor light...

Brighton Sky Blue · May 5, 2013

Grendel said:
Perhaps she is a fan and wants the best possible deal for the club? A curious notion on here I accept but there are a couple of us who want that you know.

If she posts about feeding her cat tuna should I expect to see a million likes?

oldskyblue58 · May 5, 2013

wasnt going to comment but ......

PWKH is clerk to the Trustees of the Charity so to rely on gossip instead and dismiss his comment as hot air and nonsense I find strange.

The arrangement for ownership of ACL works both ways, the charity can block a sale by the Council just as much as the Council can block a sale by the charity. That is the shareholders agreement they have. The Charity is closely involved in the ACL operation so you would expect them to be closely involved in any decisions and yes that may well relate to decisions involving CCFC. Why would anyone expect under the current set up otherwise?

No the 2012 accounts have not been filed by the Charity. Hardly alone in that are they (CCFC Ltd CCFCH Otium SBS&L etc for example). Within the Charity accounts are details of an 6.5m investment in ACL which the Charity Trustees have to assess for value and its auditors sign off which because of what is going on is difficult. I also think you will find that SISU are challenging the value of 6.5m (TF has challenged the investment in the past). Those two issues alone could form much of the reason the accounts are not filed.

As for running short of cash well 05/04/11 the charity had over £1m in the bank. That will have been affected by what has gone. In particular by CCFCH, SISU ARVO and SBS&L joining the Charity into the judicial review action. To say that CCFC has not affected the charity is wide of the mark. However it is up to the Charity Trustees to manage their cash flow and there is no evidence they are short of funds ...... only gossip...... where would that gossip originate i wonder...... and for what purpose :thinking about:

Entitled to your own opinion inside track which should be respected...... you weaken if you get involved in the name calling etc of some.

However there are a number of areas you need to revisit to get the facts not gossip

dongonzalos · May 5, 2013

RPHunt said:
James, you are quite right about Doncaster council losing over £300k per year on the Keepmoat stadium and this was despite a contribution of £281k per year from Rovers and all income from naming rights, catering, advertising etc. So without the contribution from Rovers, the losses would have been about £600k per year.

Under the terms of the new agreement, Rovers have to fund these losses and pay £100k per year rent. The council are paying the club £90k per year that was paid to the council for naming rights, but this figure was already included as income so it doesn't do anything to offset the £600k loss.

The club obviously has a great incentive to reduce these costs, but they must do so while providing the community facilities that the council demand.

To sum up, if Rovers can halve the losses that the stadium has been incurring, playing there will cost them £300k per year to fund the loss plus £100k per year rent - i.e. £400k per year for a 15,000 seat stadium.

So can we drop the boring Doncaster comparison now?

dongonzalos · May 5, 2013

oldskyblue58 said:
wasnt going to comment but ......

PWKH is clerk to the Trustees of the Charity so to rely on gossip instead and dismiss his comment as hot air and nonsense I find strange.

The arrangement for ownership of ACL works both ways, the charity can block a sale by the Council just as much as the Council can block a sale by the charity. That is the shareholders agreement they have. The Charity is closely involved in the ACL operation so you would expect them to be closely involved in any decisions and yes that may well relate to decisions involving CCFC. Why would anyone expect under the current set up otherwise?

No the 2012 accounts have not been filed by the Charity. Hardly alone in that are they (CCFC Ltd CCFCH Otium SBS&L etc for example). Within the Charity accounts are details of an 6.5m investment in ACL which the Charity Trustees have to assess for value and its auditors sign off which because of what is going on is difficult. I also think you will find that SISU are challenging the value of 6.5m (TF has challenged the investment in the past). Those two issues alone could form much of the reason the accounts are not filed.

As for running short of cash well 05/04/11 the charity had over £1m in the bank. That will have been affected by what has gone. In particular by CCFCH, SISU ARVO and SBS&L joining the Charity into the judicial review action. To say that CCFC has not affected the charity is wide of the mark. However it is up to the Charity Trustees to manage their cash flow and there is no evidence they are short of funds ...... only gossip...... where would that gossip originate i wonder...... and for what purpose :thinking about:

Entitled to your own opinion inside track which should be respected...... you weaken if you get involved in the name calling etc of some.

However there are a number of areas you need to revisit to get the facts not gossip

Facts don't seem to be playing a role unfortunately
However it does seem to make it easy for you guys to pick it apart.

dongonzalos · May 5, 2013

Grendel said:
Perhaps she is a fan and wants the best possible deal for the club? A curious notion on here I accept but there are a couple of us who want that you know.

I would hazard a guess that a fan who only wants the best for the club, would want someone to buy the club who can pair ACL and CCFC together.

I would also hazard a guess that someone who proclaims that they support SISU's stance and does so as they are purely a fan of the club.

Does so because they are desperate to win an argument that us clearly un winnable

cloughie · May 5, 2013

Grendel said:
I have already detailed all of the Doncaster rental arrangements. What about the £500,000 cheque they received?

A curious post really. Consider that we have been charged £1.3 million per season with no access to match day revenues. The only way this was lowered was a rent strike. So what is the point you are making?

I assume you along with all fans of the club want the lowest rent and maximum benefit possible? Agreed?

Some on here keep going on about being ripped off by ACL yet are quite happy to be scewed for millions on management fees and high interest on loans that are charged by their beloved sisu

James Smith · May 5, 2013

oldskyblue58 said:
wasnt going to comment but ......

PWKH is clerk to the Trustees of the Charity so to rely on gossip instead and dismiss his comment as hot air and nonsense I find strange.

The arrangement for ownership of ACL works both ways, the charity can block a sale by the Council just as much as the Council can block a sale by the charity. That is the shareholders agreement they have. The Charity is closely involved in the ACL operation so you would expect them to be closely involved in any decisions and yes that may well relate to decisions involving CCFC. Why would anyone expect under the current set up otherwise?

No the 2012 accounts have not been filed by the Charity. Hardly alone in that are they (CCFC Ltd CCFCH Otium SBS&L etc for example). Within the Charity accounts are details of an 6.5m investment in ACL which the Charity Trustees have to assess for value and its auditors sign off which because of what is going on is difficult. I also think you will find that SISU are challenging the value of 6.5m (TF has challenged the investment in the past). Those two issues alone could form much of the reason the accounts are not filed.

As for running short of cash well 05/04/11 the charity had over £1m in the bank. That will have been affected by what has gone. In particular by CCFCH, SISU ARVO and SBS&L joining the Charity into the judicial review action. To say that CCFC has not affected the charity is wide of the mark. However it is up to the Charity Trustees to manage their cash flow and there is no evidence they are short of funds ...... only gossip...... where would that gossip originate i wonder...... and for what purpose :thinking about:

Entitled to your own opinion inside track which should be respected...... you weaken if you get involved in the name calling etc of some.

However there are a number of areas you need to revisit to get the facts not gossip

Your knowledge of balance sheets is far in excess of mine, thanks for the summary.

Grendel · May 5, 2013

cloughie said:
Some on here keep going on about being ripped off by ACL yet are quite happy to be scewed for millions on management fees and high interest on loans that are charged by their beloved sisu

Really this is playground stuff. The arguments are separate. Why is it not possible to raise issues and concerns on both sides?

Sisu one would have hoped would have bought some professionalism, budgetary controls and discipline in place. In truth they have been just as poor and profligate as their hapless predecessors.

Why therefore raising concerns about the rental arrangements and how this is punitive and unfair makes one a sisu lover, rent boy etc. is beyond me.

It is a very juvenile and ultimately illogical argument. Every time legitimate concerns are raised about the landlord and their arrangements and the competitive restrictions it places on the club whoever owns it the same claptrap emerges.

It's becoming tiresome.

cloughie · May 5, 2013

Grendel said:
Really this is playground stuff. The arguments are separate. Why is it not possible to raise issues and concerns on both sides?

Sisu one would have hoped would have bought some professionalism, budgetary controls and discipline in place. In truth they have been just as poor and profligate as their hapless predecessors.

Why therefore raising concerns about the rental arrangements and how this is punitive and unfair makes one a sisu lover, rent boy etc. is beyond me.

It is a very juvenile and ultimately illogical argument. Every time legitimate concerns are raised about the landlord and their arrangements and the competitive restrictions it places on the club whoever owns it the same claptrap emerges.

It's becoming tiresome.

What is becoming tiresome is that some constantly go on about ACL whilst hardly mention the millions being heaped upon the club by sisu

Deleted member 5849 · May 5, 2013

cloughie said:
Some on here keep going on about being ripped off by ACL yet are quite happy to be scewed for millions on management fees and high interest on loans that are charged by their beloved sisu

It doesn't have to be an either/or.

cloughie · May 5, 2013

Deleted member 5849 said:
It doesn't have to be an either/or.

correct but with some its non stop ACL bashing

Grendel · May 5, 2013

cloughie said:
correct but with some its non stop ACL bashing

I cannot recall one negative comment from you regarding ACL or the council, not one.

Brighton Sky Blue · May 5, 2013

Grendel said:
Really this is playground stuff. The arguments are separate. Why is it not possible to raise issues and concerns on both sides?

Sisu one would have hoped would have bought some professionalism, budgetary controls and discipline in place. In truth they have been just as poor and profligate as their hapless predecessors.

Why therefore raising concerns about the rental arrangements and how this is punitive and unfair makes one a sisu lover, rent boy etc. is beyond me.

It is a very juvenile and ultimately illogical argument. Every time legitimate concerns are raised about the landlord and their arrangements and the competitive restrictions it places on the club whoever owns it the same claptrap emerges.

It's becoming tiresome.

The council bail-out enabled ACL to offer vastly improved terms on the current agreement. Substantial concessions were made, even to the arrears Timmy racked up-yet rather than accept the offer even as a measure of goodwill, he has taken the club down this path of self destruction out of nothing more than spite.

Now that really is tiresome. If we can afford to build a new ground we can afford to buy the Higgs share-if only the actions of the past year hadn't destroyed trust between both parties.

Chipfat · May 5, 2013

This site might as well close until the court case has brought some clarity about who owns what and who has the power determine the future of CCFC.. I m so bored of reading every post being brought back to the same issue, whos to blame?. The only fact at the moment is not one person on here as the answer, just an opinion, for, against, right or wrong it doesn't matter,,,,,, its like groundhog day.... I wish and hope the courts give us long suffering fans a clear road to get talking about football and some long lost hope.....Until then im going to stop posting or adding to the mad merry go round...

cloughie · May 5, 2013

Grendel said:
I cannot recall one negative comment from you regarding ACL or the council, not one.

Well I think yuou need only look in the llast week to see your recollection is selective

by cloughie
Replies42Views4,194

Nobody can deny that there has been fault on both...

Nobody can deny that there has been fault on both sides yet I think more so from sisu

James Smith · May 5, 2013

cloughie said:
Well I think yuou need only look in the llast week to see your recollection is selective

by cloughie
Replies42Views4,194

Nobody can deny that there has been fault on both...

Nobody can deny that there has been fault on both sides yet I think more so from sisu

Please stop bringing facts into Grendels arguments.

Grendel · May 5, 2013

cloughie said:
Well I think yuou need only look in the llast week to see your recollection is selective

by cloughie
Replies42Views4,194

Nobody can deny that there has been fault on both...

Nobody can deny that there has been fault on both sides yet I think more so from sisu

Wow how many hours did it take to find that killer? I'd imagine they are battering down the hatches as we speak.

cloughie · May 5, 2013

Grendel said:
Wow how many hours did it take to find that killer? I'd imagine they are battering down the hatches as we speak.

You really are childish when shown to be wrong

All rather sad really

James Smith · May 5, 2013

Grendel said:
Wow how many hours did it take to find that killer? I'd imagine they are battering down the hatches as we speak.

Found one though didn't he.

cloughie · May 5, 2013

James Smith said:
Found one though didn't he.

yep and only last week it took all of 30 seconds

but grenduffy has never been one to let facts get in the way of his tirade of rubbish, he's now altering time (30 seconds becomes hours)

Grendel · May 5, 2013

cloughie said:
yep and only last week it took all of 30 seconds

but grenduffy has never been one to let facts get in the way of his tirade of rubbish, he's now altering time (30 seconds becomes hours)

There were 7 hours between your two posts. Never mind I am compiling a list of some of your other quotes about ACL and the Council to really llustrate your balanced view.

davebart · May 5, 2013

Sick Boy said:
I hope this is sarcasm.

No its not sarcasm. I hanker for the days when all I had to worry about was whether Robbie Keane would score 0ne or two goals today and not think it was some kind of a victory because the owners of my club had successfully abused contract law to stay in business and f*ck over a local council.

Brighton Sky Blue · May 5, 2013

Grendel said:
There were 7 hours between your two posts. Never mind I am compiling a list of some of your other quotes about ACL and the Council to really llustrate your balanced view.

PWKH's cat prefers salmon to tuna.

Golden Share Could Be In Holdings After All (1 Viewer)

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

CCFC Finance Director

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency