|
Post by donut on Jul 27, 2021 19:56:28 GMT 1
What do you think Summerwell? What is a supporter? Are we supporters? Is Scally a supporter? Is the club a supporter of itself? Is the company called Three Directors a supporter? Well they are entitled to charge the club 63000 for interest on a1.5m loan aren’t they? But would a supporter do that? What do you think?
|
|
|
Post by summerwell on Jul 28, 2021 12:06:47 GMT 1
This is, I believe, interest on the loan ( originally £1.8 million according to some sources) from the coffers of the delightful Mr Anderson, who remains, along with Scally and Quarrington, on the board of Three Directors Ltd. Clearly, as I have pointed out before, in financial terms GFC is a supporter of Scally and not the other way around.
|
|
|
Post by hessisgod on Jul 28, 2021 13:28:21 GMT 1
Scally is entitled to take what he likes out of the club. The only thing I find hard to justify this year is his renumeration going up as he led the club to a loss. It's not untypical of large companies, but hard to justify.
|
|
|
Post by summerwell on Jul 28, 2021 14:22:14 GMT 1
No-one is contesting his legal right to extract this sum, what I'm saying is that personal income is the only reason he is associated with GFC. Entitlement is not the same as justification. Just as a matter of fact, he can't take out 'what he likes' - If he started to withdraw millions he would soon be trading insolvently, which would be another criminal offence.
By the way, GFC is absolutely not a large company. Whether measured by numbers of employees or turnover of the business it is an SME ( Small/Medium size Enterprise), so there is no comparison with major corporations at all. The last business I worked in had a turnover well in excess of GFC's, with just 32 employees.
|
|
|
Accounts
Jul 28, 2021 16:27:33 GMT 1
via mobile
Post by mancunianinmedway on Jul 28, 2021 16:27:33 GMT 1
No-one is contesting his legal right to extract this sum, what I'm saying is that personal income is the only reason he is associated with GFC. Entitlement is not the same as justification. Just as a matter of fact, he can't take out 'what he likes' - If he started to withdraw millions he would soon be trading insolvently, which would be another criminal offence. By the way, GFC is absolutely not a large company. Whether measured by numbers of employees or turnover of the business it is an SME ( Small/Medium size Enterprise), so there is no comparison with major corporations at all. The last business I worked in had a turnover well in excess of GFC's, with just 32 employees. Personal income is the only reason 99% of all football club owners are involved with their respective clubs, and I don’t see why anyone would expect any different in their case. I suspect that there are very few genuine Gillingham fans that have the money to buy the club and be able to keep it going for twenty odd years. Football is littered with clubs who were left destroyed by new owners either through greed or incompetence, and for all his faults Scally has kept the club going without any serious financial difficulties, and this include the ITV digital drama which took down several clubs.
|
|
|
Post by donut on Jul 28, 2021 16:55:23 GMT 1
No-one is contesting his legal right to extract this sum, what I'm saying is that personal income is the only reason he is associated with GFC. Entitlement is not the same as justification. Just as a matter of fact, he can't take out 'what he likes' - If he started to withdraw millions he would soon be trading insolvently, which would be another criminal offence. By the way, GFC is absolutely not a large company. Whether measured by numbers of employees or turnover of the business it is an SME ( Small/Medium size Enterprise), so there is no comparison with major corporations at all. The last business I worked in had a turnover well in excess of GFC's, with just 32 employees. Personal income is the only reason 99% of all football club owners are involved with their respective clubs, and I don’t see why anyone would expect any different in their case. I suspect that there are very few genuine Gillingham fans that have the money to buy the club and be able to keep it going for twenty odd years. Football is littered with clubs who were left destroyed by new owners either through greed or incompetence, and for all his faults Scally has kept the club going without any serious financial difficulties, and this include the ITV digital drama which took down several clubs. Yes…for all his faults…..and my question was regarding whether the extracting of interest was in line with being a true supporter, Summerwell has answered that handsomely.
|
|
|
Accounts
Jul 28, 2021 19:34:16 GMT 1
via mobile
Post by mancunianinmedway on Jul 28, 2021 19:34:16 GMT 1
Personal income is the only reason 99% of all football club owners are involved with their respective clubs, and I don’t see why anyone would expect any different in their case. I suspect that there are very few genuine Gillingham fans that have the money to buy the club and be able to keep it going for twenty odd years. Football is littered with clubs who were left destroyed by new owners either through greed or incompetence, and for all his faults Scally has kept the club going without any serious financial difficulties, and this include the ITV digital drama which took down several clubs. Yes…for all his faults…..and my question was regarding whether the extracting of interest was in line with being a true supporter, Summerwell has answered that handsomely. I wasn’t answering your question though, was I. But thanks for your input.
|
|
|
Post by donut on Jul 28, 2021 20:57:47 GMT 1
Well you ought to be oughtn’t you?
|
|
|
Post by summerwell on Jul 29, 2021 6:44:13 GMT 1
So, 99% of football club owners are only involved for the money ? To quote someone else''where's your evidence"?
First let's deal again with the tired old nonsense about affording to buy the club. Scally paid £1 and that's all he has ever paid. The issue with most football clubs is much more to do with accepting debt and running costs.
Then the assertion about 99% of owners. I had a look at the three nearest league clubs to me . At Norwich, none of the directors takes a salary ( or consultancy fees !), down the road at Ipswich they have secured investment from an American organisation and the four directors, including the Chairman's salaries combined were £81k, that's half of Scally's. Moving south to Colchester, Chairman and local multi-millionaire businessman Robbie Cowling bought the club in 2006 for an undisclosed sum and has no salary shown in the accounts ( a legal requirement by the way).,
All three clubs have filed their accounts on time.
So far then Ref, your case seems to be a little less than watertight. Then there are well publicised names like the great Dave Whelan ( Wigan) and the truly obnoxious Mike Ashley ( Newcastle). Quite opposite characters but both put a great deal of money into their clubs.
As always MM, your devotion to our esteemed ship's captain is quite remarkable, even if hard to understand, keep up the good work.
|
|
|
Post by summerwell on Jul 29, 2021 7:28:26 GMT 1
A little more evidence, again using geography to determine which clubs I look at;
Peterborough...5 Directors, total salaries £144k Lincoln City 12 directors, declared total salaries on accounts...Zero Cambridge...Paul Barry, boyhood fam and owner bought the club for £2 million, last FY shown put in another £1.5 million and has also found two US investors who have become minority shareholders. His chairman and 7 other directors have no salary shown in the accounts.
So far, at none of the clubs can you say that the owner(s) only interest is in extracting money. In fact 0 from 6, small sample but not quite that 99%
|
|
|
Accounts
Jul 29, 2021 8:24:28 GMT 1
via mobile
Post by mancunianinmedway on Jul 29, 2021 8:24:28 GMT 1
Well you ought to be oughtn’t you? Why?
|
|
|
Accounts
Jul 29, 2021 8:30:35 GMT 1
via mobile
Post by mancunianinmedway on Jul 29, 2021 8:30:35 GMT 1
A little more evidence, again using geography to determine which clubs I look at; Peterborough...5 Directors, total salaries £144k Lincoln City 12 directors, declared total salaries on accounts...Zero Cambridge...Paul Barry, boyhood fam and owner bought the club for £2 million, last FY shown put in another £1.5 million and has also found two US investors who have become minority shareholders. His chairman and 7 other directors have no salary shown in the accounts. So far, at none of the clubs can you say that the owner(s) only interest is in extracting money. In fact 0 from 6, small sample but not quite that 99% So you found 6 clubs out of 92 teams in the top 4 leagues in English football where chairmen either take no or little salary. Well done you. The figure of 99% was obviously not meant to be taken literally, but it’s irrelevant you don’t have to be a “fan” to own a club. And Scally is allowed to take whatever he is legally entitled too out of the club. If you don’t like it, but the club, or find a person or people with the means to do so. Crying about it on the internet and repeating the same tired old lines like a stuck record won’t change anything.
|
|
|
Post by summerwell on Jul 29, 2021 9:28:52 GMT 1
No, I just went to the nearest 6 clubs, so a completely random sample. If you know anything about sampling validity you'll recognise that a 7.5% sample size is reasonably reliable. I didn't cherry pick them to suit my case. Your problem is that you are beyond reason, beyond hope and now that you've conceded your posts are not meant to be taken literally we can pretty much discount anything that you say.
|
|
|
Post by donut on Jul 29, 2021 9:39:43 GMT 1
Well you ought to be oughtn’t you? Why? Because that was what the post is about my contrary friend.
|
|
|
Accounts
Jul 29, 2021 9:41:39 GMT 1
via mobile
Post by mancunianinmedway on Jul 29, 2021 9:41:39 GMT 1
No, I just went to the nearest 6 clubs, so a completely random sample. If you know anything about sampling validity you'll recognise that a 7.5% sample size is reasonably reliable. I didn't cherry pick them to suit my case. Your problem is that you are beyond reason, beyond hope and now that you've conceded your posts are not meant to be taken literally we can pretty much discount anything that you say. I didn’t say the post wasn’t meant to be taken literally, I said the figure of 99% wasn’t meant to be taken literally, it was obviously hyperbolic, which anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of the English language would have picked up on. Perhaps, if you are so wise and all knowing you could explain why I am “beyond reason” and “beyond hope”?
|
|