PitYacker
Striker
No it’s not. I’ve not said anything illegal has gone on at all and I’m sure there won’t have been bar some occasional cases.That itself is an assertion of illegal activities.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No it’s not. I’ve not said anything illegal has gone on at all and I’m sure there won’t have been bar some occasional cases.That itself is an assertion of illegal activities.
PM by all means, but start ups aren't my forte. I'm pretty much a straight down the line financial management orientated FC.
Wait till he starts selling our assets. Stadium, hotel, aquatics centre, academy, ticket office.... we aint seen nothing yet.Shirley?
Wait till he starts selling our assets. Stadium, hotel, aquatics centre, academy, ticket office.... we aint seen nothing yet.
Cowie is the worst we've ever had ,at least shithouse Short tried at first . Cowie lied to us right from the start of his tenure .There's some stiff competition, but he is right up there.
A set of abbreviated accounts which I’m expecting will showWhen will you know more about the current state of clubs finances then? April?
I’ve read about half of this thread and can’t be bothered to read the rest.
I can’t see anyone having mentioned the actual worst event in our history (to date) - the 1950s illegal payments scandal which resulted in our first ever relegation from the top flight and loss of status from “Bank of England” club/“Arsenal of the North” to the yo yo club we’ve been since.
Bank Of England Club: The Perils Of Big Spending
A set of abbreviated accounts which I’m expecting will show
1) the wage bill never got smaller
2) the debt never got smaller
3) we’ve paid another 10m on someone else we’ve never heard of who never actually made it to the club
I’m then expecting the usual suspects to blame Roy Keane whilst at the same time telling us to take our medicine, stating that if the fans shouted louder the debt would go down faster.
Ah well that’s good then, the accounts not the situation.Given that the accounts cover 2016/17, you're probably right, as the wage bill will be a PL one. I said months ago that the debt may have gone up because of the timing of transfer instalments. And, yes, the Alvarez situation may have been resolved during that time. What the accounts won't be are abbreviated - SAFC are required to file full statutory accounts.
If he has made money out of the club, it's not gone through the books... Even if he had done that, anything he could have got from that is dwarfed by the £100m or so he's put in. No, he's well out of pocket from meeting the Big Man at the races that day.
I may have missed this in previous threads. Are you stating that he gave us £100m as a gift? Or are we talking about a loan (interest free, or otherwise)?
When he bought Drumaville, the club owed it £96m. He turned half of that into shares the day he bought the club. Since then he's turned another £53m into shares. He can only get that £101m back if he sells the shares for at least that. On top of that, the club still owes Drumaville £69m. Theoretically, he could have that repaid. In practice, as the club is technically insolvent, he can't, as this would constitute something called fraudulent preference. What the means, is that where there are limited funds, you can't favour one class of creditor over any other (and especially not if the creditor is a shareholder/owner). If he did, if the event of an insolvency event, he would be liable to (a) having to put the money back into the club and (b)criminal prosecution. Under the circumstances, the loan might as well be a gift.
not even close
Ok... (And please excuse my stupidity).. But he HASN'T, as yet, gifted the football club £110m? He purchased shares for the equivalent of £101m; and there's a debt, owned by the club, of £69m. At this moment in time, he still owns the club and only loses the money if he sells for less than £101m? Sorry if I've misunderstood.
Care to elaborate?
@Grumpy Old Man you may be able to shed some light on this?
We were in the Premier League for a decade so probably averaged around £70m TV money per season? So, we made £700m give or take, without any commercial revenue.
Of that, our wage bill was generally around the 80% our income so, say £56m per year and £560m over the course of our stay.
Our average net spend (I know) was around £20-30m so, let's say £250m
We have borrowed £70m externally and owe Short £100m.
Therefore, how, as he claims, has he been putting £30m of his own money into the club to keep us afloat?
By my very amateur calculations, we have brought in not much short of £900m (including borrowing) with an outlay of £810m. Where has that additional £300, he claims to have pumped in gone? I'm fairly sure the gas, leccy and copper bills won't amount to that.
As I say, I have no idea with regards to finances but it just doesn't seem to add up.
We were a financial time bomb for at least the last 4 premier league seasons and possibly from the very start.
I posted this summary on another thread earlier today: Once the transfer window closes could the chairman
The numbers sadly, do add up. The Drumaville debt is £69m, not £100m, by the way. He hasn't been putting in £30m a year because profit/loss and cash flow are two different things. It's more accurate to say that he's been putting cash in as and when needed to shore up the cash flow.
Ever since Murray sold, to be honest. What was done under the Irish was just as unsustainable as under Short.