• The forum upgrades are now largely complete.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

Timetable to remove chancers and KLD taking real control.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Red and white TID said:
So you are saying the chancers have put back in £22m minimum between them.
Are you still brams and lintz lad.
Click to expand...
the accounts show it...its there in black and white..they repiad the fpp loan and thats £9m in its own right...plus they put in £5m this season alone...
so there is £14m of it..
Sea to Shining Sea said:
But it’s quite different to them putting the parachute payments back in as you claimed. And it makes quite the difference when they’re valuing their share of the club to sell.
Click to expand...
its not a difference..putting it in as a loan makes no difference..as long as they write it off..how else can they put it in? clubs are legal entities and you cant gift them somehting..it goes in as loans..they could have kept the para money registered as a debt owed by them and counted these as repayments..but it would still be the same amount of money going into the club for the same reason at the same time
 
Last edited:

kildaremackem said:
the accounts show it...its there in black and white..they repiad the fpp loan and thats £9m in its own right...plus they put in £5m this season alone...
so there is £14m of it..

its not a difference..putting it in as a loan makes no difference..as long as they write it off..how else can they put it in? clubs are legal entities and you cant gift them somehting..it goes in as loans..they could have kept the para money registered as a debt owed by them and counted these as repayments..but it would still be the same amount of money going into the club for the same reason at the same time
Click to expand...

They bought the club with the clubs own money. They’ve put loans into the club and will look to reclaim those upon sale of shares. As can be seen by their supposed valuation.

The clubs parachute money will disappear into the ether and they’ll make a profit. Which is what their intention may have been from the start. Any claim that they’ve put the parachute money back in in full is for the birds
 
Fez2 said:
Charlie doesn’t have that sort of money. Christ knows how he’s cobbling together the bare minimum
Click to expand...
I have been told before, because he did obviously have 6%, that he sold 1% to but his money in for the year, not sure on that 💯 but he’s obviously lost 1% now as he has a 5% shareholding now not 6%.
kildaremackem said:
the accounts show it...its there in black and white..they repiad the fpp loan and thats £9m in its own right...plus they put in £5m this season alone...
so there is £14m of it..

its not a difference..putting it in as a loan makes no difference..as long as they write it off..how else can they put it in? clubs are legal entities and you cant gift them somehting..it goes in as loans..they could have kept the para money registered as a debt owed by them and counted these as repayments..but it would still be the same amount of money going into the club for the same reason at the same time
Click to expand...
Obviously not £22m though, so you are talking crap.
 
Last edited:
Clivewalkershair said:
A lot of Speakman fans on here now, funny what a promotion can do to peoples thoughts.
Click to expand...
There were some fuck ups mainly the one fit striker gamble but there were some much better signings than previously and evidence of a plan for recruitment but also development of the club. There are some adjustments to make and some learning but Neil will help that. It would be daft to change Speakman now and have to restart the plan, but the board need to be clear where the improvements lie. No more bizarre Defoe like decisions and enough cover and competition in key positions.
 
Red and white TID said:
I have been told before, because he did obviously have 6%, that he sold 1% to but his money in for the year, not sure on that 💯 but he’s obviously lost 1% now as he has a 5% shareholding now not 6%.

Obviously not £22m though, so you are talking crap.
Click to expand...
it is though..as of the end of this season..
Sea to Shining Sea said:
They bought the club with the clubs own money. They’ve put loans into the club and will look to reclaim those upon sale of shares. As can be seen by their supposed valuation.

The clubs parachute money will disappear into the ether and they’ll make a profit. Which is what their intention may have been from the start. Any claim that they’ve put the parachute money back in in full is for the birds
Click to expand...
they wont make a profiot and the clubs parachute money didnt dissapear...the paperwork is all in order showing where it went..ELLIS short took it and set up doanld and his mates to take the blame.
Sea to Shining Sea said:
They bought the club with the clubs own money. They’ve put loans into the club and will look to reclaim those upon sale of shares. As can be seen by their supposed valuation.

The clubs parachute money will disappear into the ether and they’ll make a profit. Which is what their intention may have been from the start. Any claim that they’ve put the parachute money back in in full is for the birds
Click to expand...
they doidnt buy the club with its own money..the accounts show the paid £12.7m from their own resources for the club..
 
Last edited:
kildaremackem said:
it is though..as of the end of this season..

they wont make a profiot and the clubs parachute money didnt dissapear...the paperwork is all in order showing where it went..ELLIS short took it and set up doanld and his mates to take the blame.

they doidnt buy the club with its own money..the accounts show the paid £12.7m from their own resources for the club..
Click to expand...

And claimed the club cost £40m. Effectively paying off Short with the parachute money. So yes, they did. They weren’t in a position to finance the full deal independently and used the clubs resources to pay off Short. This is a nonsense.
 
Why sack Durban said:
It’s not nonsense . It will probably have a break clause . In his favour
Click to expand...
its a twelve month contract..its fairly standard stuff..

And I would have thought by now that everyone would realise contracts, of any lentgh in football are uttelry meaningless..Moyes got a six year contract at man utd but had managed two or three other clubs before the six years were out..pardew got a seven year contract and didnt see it out..
Alex Neil's managerial career indicates he starts well and does less well..so a shorter contract is in the clubs interests
Sea to Shining Sea said:
And claimed the club cost £40m. Effectively paying off Short with the parachute money. So yes, they did. They weren’t in a position to finance the full deal independently and used the clubs resources to pay off Short. This is a nonsense.
Click to expand...
your telling me sartori couldnt have paid £40m? he is qealtheir than shirt and KLD..
tSartotri paid £3m for his share iof what wa soriginally a £15m deal..when te purchse price was cut..they had cahs left over from sartoris contribution..that cash funded the signing of will grigg..
 
Last edited:
kildaremackem said:
its a twelve month contract..its fairly standard stuff..

And I would have thought by now that everyone would realise contracts, of any lentgh in football are uttelry meaningless..Moyes got a six year contract at man utd but had managed two or three other clubs before the six years were out..pardew got a seven year contract and didnt see it out..
Alex Neil's managerial career indicates he starts well and does less well..so a shorter contract is in the clubs interests

your telling me sartori couldnt have paid £40m? he is qealtheir than shirt and KLD..
tSartotri paid £3m for his share iof what wa soriginally a £15m deal..when te purchse price was cut..they had cahs left over from sartoris contribution..that cash funded the signing of will grigg..
Click to expand...

At time of transaction Sartori wasn’t involved. He didn’t pass fit and proper test til weeks, possibly even months after. And if he could afford it, he chose not to and has continued to put minimal sums in whilst club infrastructure has been decimated. Which is also part of the unease about the whole arrangement.
 
kildaremackem said:
its a twelve month contract..its fairly standard stuff..

And I would have thought by now that everyone would realise contracts, of any lentgh in football are uttelry meaningless..Moyes got a six year contract at man utd but had managed two or three other clubs before the six years were out..pardew got a seven year contract and didnt see it out..
Alex Neil's managerial career indicates he starts well and does less well..so a shorter contract is in the clubs interests

your telling me sartori couldnt have paid £40m? he is qealtheir than shirt and KLD..
tSartotri paid £3m for his share iof what wa soriginally a £15m deal..when te purchse price was cut..they had cahs left over from sartoris contribution..that cash funded the signing of will grigg..
Click to expand...
Just this weekend leave it to the folk who really care
 
All i know is whoever owns us or is in charge of the purse strings

if they cant see that if they do things right and put there money where there mouth is after this weekend

They will never see a good thing because something feels special about this win that ive not felt for a long time and you could feel that at Wembley and in the pubs

So come on do the right thing and back the club and you will get the fans right behind you and more every week
 
The soap powder said:
All i know is whoever owns us or is in charge of the purse strings

if they cant see that if they do things right and put there money where there mouth is after this weekend

They will never see a good thing because something feels special about this win that ive not felt for a long time and you could feel that at Wembley and in the pubs

So come on do the right thing and back the club and you will get the fans right behind you and more every week
Click to expand...
they are backing the club...the league rules in the championship will determine how mcuh is spent next year..nothing to do with the owenr at all..
and thats a good thing because the stoke owners for example..could blow everyoine else out the water if they were allowed.
 
kildaremackem said:
they are backing the club...the league rules in the championship will determine how mcuh is spent next year..nothing to do with the owenr at all..
and thats a good thing because the stoke owners for example..could blow everyoine else out the water if they were allowed.
Click to expand...
Oh im not denying that, Im just saying this is a great chance to live of this positivity that we havnt had for a long time
 
kildaremackem said:
it is though..as of the end of this season..

they wont make a profiot and the clubs parachute money didnt dissapear...the paperwork is all in order showing where it went..ELLIS short took it and set up doanld and his mates to take the blame.

they doidnt buy the club with its own money..the accounts show the paid £12.7m from their own resources for the club..
Click to expand...
Show me where it says chancers have put £22m back into the club total bullshit
 
Sea to Shining Sea said:
And claimed the club cost £40m. Effectively paying off Short with the parachute money. So yes, they did. They weren’t in a position to finance the full deal independently and used the clubs resources to pay off Short. This is a nonsense.
Click to expand...
Yup. Either it’s a £40m club and they owe the balance of the parachute payments or it’s a £13m club and they don’t have to pay it back. Madrox wanted both in their favour. The parachute payments of itself wasn’t the problem. It was their insistence that they owned a £40m asset that is the real shithouse trick. Can’t wait till they’re gone.
 
Clivewalkershair said:
A lot of Speakman fans on here now, funny what a promotion can do to peoples thoughts.
Click to expand...

My opinion on him has been he’s done some good things and made some mistakes

We tried something different. Signed some interesting players and eventually got the right manager

He has done ok
The Cabbage said:
Yup. Either it’s a £40m club and they owe the balance of the parachute payments or it’s a £13m club and they don’t have to pay it back. Madrox wanted both in their favour. The parachute payments of itself wasn’t the problem. It was their insistence that they owned a £40m asset that is the real shithouse trick. Can’t wait till they’re gone.
Click to expand...

It’s going to annoy the hell out of me that they will make a big profit
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top