|
Post by technical on Aug 20, 2014 21:01:05 GMT 1
Yes but how??? :-D
|
|
|
Post by gillsjan on Aug 20, 2014 21:18:31 GMT 1
Your being very persistent tonight technical!!
|
|
|
Post by muppet on Aug 20, 2014 23:51:36 GMT 1
I remember many years ago seeing priestfield valued in the audited account at £11m, how I do not know! At the same time debts were substantial too. Over recent years banks have accepted partial debt clearance and do agree with Hess that lloyds as others couldn't take the bad publicity that may have followed in they formally demanded repayment. However, what I also do see technics view that ps seems to have negotiated one of the best deals of all time.
|
|
|
Post by technical on Aug 21, 2014 16:08:53 GMT 1
Yes, sorry gillsjan - i can't stand it when i don't know stuff. Why is definitely my favourite word but it can get me in to terrible trouble. Mind you it's only the inquiring minds and challenges of ordinary people that keep "them" in line. We need more of it imo!
That all makes sense muppet but it doesn't explain how the "community asset" ended up in the hands of a private individual, or why that was a good thing for the taxpayer - if that was part of the bank's reason for accepting the deal.
|
|
|
Post by gillsjan on Aug 21, 2014 16:25:02 GMT 1
I always thought it was 3 year olds that said " why " who and what! Haha
|
|
|
Post by technical on Aug 21, 2014 16:57:28 GMT 1
Yes, thanks for that gillsjan, I realised as I pressed send that I'd set that one up nicely for you!
|
|
|
Post by lincolngills on Aug 21, 2014 17:02:02 GMT 1
Yes, sorry gillsjan - i can't stand it when i don't know stuff. Why is definitely my favourite word but it can get me in to terrible trouble. Mind you it's only the inquiring minds and challenges of ordinary people that keep "them" in line. We need more of it imo! That all makes sense muppet but it doesn't explain how the "community asset" ended up in the hands of a private individual, or why that was a good thing for the taxpayer - if that was part of the bank's reason for accepting the deal. Perhaps you can now understand technical why Mr Scally was so keen to scrap any future GFC shareholder AGM's
|
|
|
Post by technical on Aug 21, 2014 17:57:58 GMT 1
Well quite Lincolngills. Another reason he appears shady. No idea if he is but does a good impression of someone with things to hide
|
|
|
Post by durhamgills on Aug 21, 2014 18:41:31 GMT 1
The club has to satisfy auditors and the tax man every year - of course they may miss the odd million pound
|
|
|
Post by gillsjan on Aug 21, 2014 18:57:41 GMT 1
I don't see him like that at all. He is a businessman who over the years has had to struggle to keep the club going. He has probably had to wheel and deal to keep the books balanced but let's remember that the club will still have to produce accounts and these have obviously been signed off by the accountants and in turn the Inland Revenue. I am sure that if there had been anything really suspect the IR would have been over the club like a rash. As a private company he really does not have to make all this information available to the supporters and we do seem to be in better state than many other similar clubs. Should we not accept this fact without finding reasons to question how and why? Over the years there have been many rumours circulating about the financial state of the club and Mr Scullys methods, but to date we appear to be in a sound financial situation and although it's an old chestnut with a strong desire to build a bigger stadium in the Medway Towns. Of course Mr Scully will be taking his " consultants fees" from the club he would not have purchased the club in the first place if he did not think he could make it a viable concern and have a good lifestyle from the investment. I suspect there was some consideration from the banks and that some of the debt was written off and with the other business partners now in tow some additional investment. During the recession companies were going bankcrupt and millions was being written off the books. It may well have been in their interest to structure a deal.Let's just accept what we have and enjoy the football for the season.........god did I say all that.....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2014 19:55:22 GMT 1
Well stated ,Gillsjan. Let's hope this will put the subject to bed.
|
|
|
Post by technical on Aug 21, 2014 21:09:49 GMT 1
Thats just it! The company don't produce account - not meaningful ones that actually tell you anything. If they did details of the transaction would be clear.
Im sure much of what you say is true but i really don't think it's unreasonable for shareholders to expect details of the transaction that saw the primary asset (and yes, the debts) disposed of.
|
|
|
Post by durhamgills on Aug 21, 2014 21:58:08 GMT 1
Thats just it! The company don't produce account - not meaningful ones that actually tell you anything. If they did details of the transaction would be clear. Im sure much of what you say is true but i really don't think it's unreasonable for shareholders to expect details of the transaction that saw the primary asset (and yes, the debts) disposed of. Shareholders own a share and have certain voting rights but have no say in how the company is run. The company accountants produce the data and the club sign them off, these then have to be audited by external auditors and then published as a public document. Shareholders are not entitled to any more detail than a member of the public. As I have said before it may well be the bank who want details of this deal kept confidential
|
|
|
Post by muppet on Aug 21, 2014 22:29:56 GMT 1
Agree Cossack its happened we still have a football club that is in good shape so lets get behind the football and stop looking for a conspiracy.
|
|