Moff
Well-Known Member
Well from my knowledge of the good Lord Summerisle on this site I would say he has several perversions, and these are a lot more perverse than his logic.
It doesnt make him a bad person though
I don't think you actually answered where these projections of extra income were coming from yesterday?
I don't have to. Delivery is following projections from ACL. Surely, if you disbelieve them, it's for you to prove why the current situation will change; not for me to tell you why they'll continue 'as are'?!?
What perverse logic.....
I don't have to. Delivery is following projections from ACL. Surely, if you disbelieve them, it's for you to prove why the current situation will change; not for me to tell you why they'll continue 'as are'?!?
What perverse logic.....
Olympics though good also restricted normal trading for 3 months
Well from my knowledge of the good Lord Summerisle on this site I would say he has several perversions, and these are a lot more perverse than his logic.
It doesnt make him a bad person though
There is no way in the World that your projections(not theirs by the way) has any basis during any kind of factual analysis.
You could not explain how a doubled income during the Olympics year over the previous year(with reduced profits, but that's by the by), with a note saying that the Olympics actually affected trading during the three months of the Olympics could actually make any sense?
Turnover ACL
2007 £6.4 million
2008 £7.3 million
2009 £6.8 million
2010 £6.6 million
2011 £6.7 million
2012 £7.8 million
2013 £14.5 million(Including year of the Olympics).
I merely pointed out that it was absurd to have a note in the accounts to say,
when their turnover had doubled over all previous years based on it.
I asked why on earth they weren't pulling in more than that on previous years which would have also have been football free months if the Olympics had so badly affected it.
Depite your blathering about "horizontal growth" from whichever self-help book you're reading this week, do you still believe that the turnover for 2013/14 year will be the same, if not more than the most recent published set of accounts?
Which they should be based on the statement raised above.
costs also went up by 7.5million which is more than double the previous year, you need more information than you have to make conclusions.
Can't you guys start your own thread where you can argue over the same shit like you always do without ruining other threads going over the same old crap. This thread would have been quite interesting but so far I can only actually see three answers to the question and as a stay away fan I'm interested in what the Shitfields 1000 think.
I will go . I don't think that SiSU are going. The more they put in out of their pockets, the more debt is loaded against the club and no one will ever buy us while we are down in the depths. We need some relative success so they can sell and move on. I fear that starving the club of cash might just bite us in the arse. And by he way I am in no way advocating that we should all rock up to sixfields, each to their own and I respect your choice. My boycott lasted two weeks
Can't you guys start your own thread where you can argue over the same shit like you always do without ruining other threads going over the same old crap. This thread would have been quite interesting but so far I can only actually see three answers to the question and as a stay away fan I'm interested in what the Shitfields 1000 think.
Can't you guys start your own thread where you can argue over the same shit like you always do without ruining other threads going over the same old crap. This thread would have been quite interesting but so far I can only actually see three answers to the question and as a stay away fan I'm interested in what the Shitfields 1000 think.
Were you really expecting any sensible replies, we have to read the drivel from the SISU apologists on a daily basis, the ONLY people they are fooling is themselves !
Ok I'll answer the question. Of we are still there I'm going to attend. Satisfied?
Is it just cause you can't do without watching the team or have your views regarding the reasons you didn't attend originally changed?
There is no point in not attending. It achieved nothing. Its inconvenient do I will probably only attend around 10 games but non attendance I have concluded is a waste of time.
There is no point in not attending. It achieved nothing. Its inconvenient do I will probably only attend around 10 games but non attendance I have concluded is a waste of time.
Would you like to elaborate ...... you clownOh dear..
Any chance people could just answer the original question ?
It was an interesting thread to start with.
I d be interested in what Sixfielders will do next season.
Would you like to elaborate ...... you clown
Would you like to elaborate ...... you clown
There is no way in the World that your projections(not theirs by the way) has any basis during any kind of factual analysis.
You could not explain how a doubled income during the Olympics year over the previous year(with reduced profits, but that's by the by), with a note saying that the Olympics actually affected trading during the three months of the Olympics could actually make any sense?
Turnover ACL
2007 £6.4 million
2008 £7.3 million
2009 £6.8 million
2010 £6.6 million
2011 £6.7 million
2012 £7.8 million
2013 £14.5 million(Including year of the Olympics).
I merely pointed out that it was absurd to have a note in the accounts to say,
when their turnover had doubled over all previous years based on it.
I asked why on earth they weren't pulling in more than that on previous years which would have also have been football free months if the Olympics had so badly affected it.
Depite your blathering about "horizontal growth" from whichever self-help book you're reading this week, do you still believe that the turnover for 2013/14 year will be the same, if not more than the most recent published set of accounts?
Which they should be based on the statement raised above.
Clown? What's with the abuse?
That list of yearly incomes shows that the income without our club has gone up a fair bit recently. For instance the income went up 1.1m in 2012. How much of that was rent or lack of it? The lack of rent paid doesn't even register on that list. So the longer the business grows the more our club isn't being missed.
Margins tight though arent they - profits down even in an Olympic year.
There is no way in the World that your projections(not theirs by the way) has any basis during any kind of factual analysis.
You could not explain how a doubled income during the Olympics year over the previous year(with reduced profits, but that's by the by), with a note saying that the Olympics actually affected trading during the three months of the Olympics could actually make any sense?
Turnover ACL
2007 £6.4 million
2008 £7.3 million
2009 £6.8 million
2010 £6.6 million
2011 £6.7 million
2012 £7.8 million
2013 £14.5 million(Including year of the Olympics).
I merely pointed out that it was absurd to have a note in the accounts to say,
when their turnover had doubled over all previous years based on it.
I asked why on earth they weren't pulling in more than that on previous years which would have also have been football free months if the Olympics had so badly affected it.
Depite your blathering about "horizontal growth" from whichever self-help book you're reading this week, do you still believe that the turnover for 2013/14 year will be the same, if not more than the most recent published set of accounts?
Which they should be based on the statement raised above.
You're trying - badly - to argue in a Grendelesque fashion. My point, if you care to go back to it, is that ACL is a proposition that's gaining in value. In broad terms, turnover is going up year on year, they're inherently profitable, and have moved on from losing their anchor tenant - with increased turnover and retained profitability.
Whichever way you try and deny it, the central point remains that same; that is, they are more attractive now than they were at the SISU flunked the chance to buy a share - and, that they have a set of accounts that might make them able to secure third party financing if CCC are compelled to roll back the loan after a JV hearing.
I have never stated that turnover will continue at it's current level, or at it's current trajectory. Have I?
That list of yearly incomes shows that the income without our club has gone up a fair bit recently. For instance the income went up 1.1m in 2012. How much of that was rent or lack of it? The lack of rent paid doesn't even register on that list. So the longer the business grows the more our club isn't being missed.
More floundering with no substance. Whenever summerisle presents facts you present waffle, opinion and empty rhetoric.
Worth more? Proof and evidence please.
Moving on from the tenant? These accounts show when they were the tenant.
Since then what's happened?
Bid for rugby World Cup - failed
Bid for uk snooker championship - failed
Concerts - are there any?
How will revenue increase over the same period when the Olympics is not there - again MMM squirms, slithers and fails to answer.
Not going well is it? Perhaps you need another briefing from PWKH before you return?
With the greatest of respect, LS made an allegation that I'm awaiting he substantiate. Namely I made any claim turnover would continue at this level, or follow the current trend.
Why don't you wait until he can rise to the challenge before dancing round like Rumplestiltskin. As when he can't, you're liable to look foolish. Again
Increasing in value - facts please
Will have greater turnover in the period without Olympics - facts please
Diversification into new ventures - facts please
Survive without the club with no view of the accounts without the club - facts please
I know when you do present facts such as championship wages they end up being the wrong year but your not doing well are you?
The accounts just produced reflected the position ACL's management projected some time ago. What basis do you have for doubting their projections now? I am not saying they have always acted perfectly, but I can't see why you would cast aspersions upon their projections?
They claim an element of swings and roundabouts with the issue of the accounts: 'Whilst the 2012 Olympics raised the profile of the Arena, city and region, it restricted normal trading for the three months between June and August 2012 significantly. Trading would have been even stronger if not for this constraint.'
Really? Then surely in previous years(noting that no football between mid-May and Mid-August) the turnover should have been even higher than it was in the Olympic years accounts?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?