|
Post by uptheus on Aug 26, 2017 10:45:08 GMT
Look, I'm getting f**king sick of this now. Are we, or aren't we, getting any more free sausages? That will depend if we send another player out on loan or not!
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Aug 26, 2017 10:50:50 GMT
Learn the difference between cash flow and profits and losses. Or get an accountant to explain it to you.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Baldi on Aug 26, 2017 11:03:53 GMT
I believe DE didn't know the level of debt when the initial question was asked but instead asked the Financial Director/AN Other who gave him that figure of 10.38 million (?).
|
|
|
Post by Paul Cannell on Aug 26, 2017 11:03:55 GMT
Indeed Darryl does confirm the loans point and all financial details are listed in the accounts. I only mentioned Charlie as you lumped us together it was a joke! I'm glad you share my concerns at least i'm not alone then!! Ah, so I did. Getting old.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Cannell on Aug 26, 2017 11:05:00 GMT
Are you really only on this forum to be Sennett & Methven's rapid rebuttal boy? And here was me thinking that you were better than that, but then again I remember you being a fan of Kassam, so I guess not. Not me, guv.
|
|
|
Post by eighteen93 on Aug 26, 2017 19:05:20 GMT
Learn the difference between cash flow and profits and losses. Or get an accountant to explain it to you. Spot on. Darryl also makes the most salient point that's got missed in all this the.club.has.no.external.debt.
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Aug 26, 2017 19:06:56 GMT
Learn the difference between cash flow and profits and losses. Or get an accountant to explain it to you. Spot on. Darryl also makes the most salient point that's got missed in all this the.club.has.no.external.debt. Because it's better to owe Darryl £14m than it is ian lenagan ?
|
|
|
Post by eighteen93 on Aug 26, 2017 19:17:01 GMT
No. It means that if Darryl cannot fund the club and sells he will be writing off a very large portion of his loans or the whole lot, possibly.
If we had external financing from banks and owed monies for VAT, PAYE and rent arrears we would be rightly worried.
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Aug 26, 2017 19:21:01 GMT
No. It means that if Darryl cannot fund the club and sells he will be writing off a very large portion of his loans or the whole lot, possibly. If we had external financing from banks and owed monies for VAT, PAYE and rent arrears we would be rightly worried. I think the word possibly is key there. I would hope he does to, but also possible he could sell the club or walk away and we would still owe him £14m . If u we're going to write off all debt run up on ur watch why hold it as soft debt? Genuine question that? Tax reason ?
|
|
|
Post by Mark Sennett on Aug 26, 2017 20:02:51 GMT
Learn the difference between cash flow and profits and losses. Or get an accountant to explain it to you. Spot on. Darryl also makes the most salient point that's got missed in all this the.club.has.no.external.debt. The latest published accounts show debt to creditors other than ensco of nearly £2m so that shows in we did have debt to others at that time and not an I significant amount either.
|
|
|
Post by eighteen93 on Aug 26, 2017 20:28:05 GMT
...and two weeks after the balance sheet date we sold Roofe and then O'Dowda.
What's your point ?
|
|
|
Post by barmyarmy on Aug 26, 2017 20:36:58 GMT
Thanks Foley. Still keen to hear OxVox's view on the debt situation. We've covered the facts above and now to address a rumour that may well make the facts make more sense. I've learned from people inside football that the club is still being touted round for sale. I think most of you have seen from my past posts that I don't post baseless rumours. I trust my sources on this 100%. Point is there's nothing wrong with the club being for sale it's Darryl's right to sell or explore selling! Nobody could anyone question Darryl is he came out and said his plan for OUFC is to make it sustainable by selling players to reduce debt and living within our means. If he's trying to make us a sustainable L1 club then i'm all for it! But that is not what we are seeing here in my opinion. We were told at the end of the season that ticket prices need to go up to give us a top 6 budget. Since then we've seen a lot of money come into the club as detailed above. But there has been no evidence of heavy investment in playing side we've sold players, let players go, and loaned out players. Now it's entirely possible that we may make a big signing(s) before the window shuts and thus see that money reinvested. But that's not what Pep said yesterday (but he could of course be being coy). There's also still the chance that Marvin departs before next weekend. So at this point it's hard to believe we have a top 6 budget as was mooted. My concern from Darryl's reply to my question is the wording. He stated that "my cash investment (including the £4m paid to Ian) is £10.38m". This makes it look like Darryl has written out cheques to that tune of £10.38m and that's simply not the case. As i said above the should be £4 million equity and £2 million debt. If we were trying to become a debt free club and couldn't necessarily have a top 6 budget in this league then fine but don't make soundbites that we are going for it and have a big war chest for squad building, unless you intend to actually use it (which of course we may). But it seems we are selling assets, still talking about selling the club and we have an uncomfortable level of debt. So i'm keen to learn if the debt level will now decrease and see if others share my unease about why the debt is at the level it's at. In my opinion it can't be in the club's interest to have ported £4million of debt WPL wrote off. If someone can explain to me why it is in the club's interests then I'd be keen to hear your point of view. If the club is indeed being touted to be sold then it's hard to argue that Darryl is currently extracting as much value from the playing squad as possible before completing a sale. I personally would have no problem if the club is selling players to reduce debt and become sustainable even if it means we don't have a top 6 budget in this league. But what i'm not comfortable with is public comments saying we are going for it financially (and we increase ticket prices to aid this) when the current signs do not point to this. So all this is just an opinion, you have no facts or evidence to back it up?
|
|
|
Post by uptheus on Aug 27, 2017 8:19:25 GMT
Thanks Foley. Still keen to hear OxVox's view on the debt situation. We've covered the facts above and now to address a rumour that may well make the facts make more sense. I've learned from people inside football that the club is still being touted round for sale. I think most of you have seen from my past posts that I don't post baseless rumours. I trust my sources on this 100%. Point is there's nothing wrong with the club being for sale it's Darryl's right to sell or explore selling! Nobody could anyone question Darryl is he came out and said his plan for OUFC is to make it sustainable by selling players to reduce debt and living within our means. If he's trying to make us a sustainable L1 club then i'm all for it! But that is not what we are seeing here in my opinion. We were told at the end of the season that ticket prices need to go up to give us a top 6 budget. Since then we've seen a lot of money come into the club as detailed above. But there has been no evidence of heavy investment in playing side we've sold players, let players go, and loaned out players. Now it's entirely possible that we may make a big signing(s) before the window shuts and thus see that money reinvested. But that's not what Pep said yesterday (but he could of course be being coy). There's also still the chance that Marvin departs before next weekend. So at this point it's hard to believe we have a top 6 budget as was mooted. My concern from Darryl's reply to my question is the wording. He stated that "my cash investment (including the £4m paid to Ian) is £10.38m". This makes it look like Darryl has written out cheques to that tune of £10.38m and that's simply not the case. As i said above the should be £4 million equity and £2 million debt. If we were trying to become a debt free club and couldn't necessarily have a top 6 budget in this league then fine but don't make soundbites that we are going for it and have a big war chest for squad building, unless you intend to actually use it (which of course we may). But it seems we are selling assets, still talking about selling the club and we have an uncomfortable level of debt. So i'm keen to learn if the debt level will now decrease and see if others share my unease about why the debt is at the level it's at. In my opinion it can't be in the club's interest to have ported £4million of debt WPL wrote off. If someone can explain to me why it is in the club's interests then I'd be keen to hear your point of view. If the club is indeed being touted to be sold then it's hard to argue that Darryl is currently extracting as much value from the playing squad as possible before completing a sale. I personally would have no problem if the club is selling players to reduce debt and become sustainable even if it means we don't have a top 6 budget in this league. But what i'm not comfortable with is public comments saying we are going for it financially (and we increase ticket prices to aid this) when the current signs do not point to this. So all this is just an opinion, you have no facts or evidence to back it up? I guess only time will tell, but I think Mark's assumption could be right and then again it could be wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Aug 29, 2017 13:21:46 GMT
Great to see that OxVox has kindly posted the reply to my question so thanks to them for that. Only just spotted it yesterday as I’ve been away. The reply does raise some interesting points. So, I’ll try and be concise having again chatted it over in conjunction with the published accounts with an accountant. Here are the facts: 1. Darryl buys the equity of the club for £4 million, IL writing off his debts in the process. 2. That deal with IL includes Darryl obtaining the option to buy £4 million of IL's debt for £1. 3. In the first season, Darryl injects £3.2 million of cash as debt 4. In the second season, Darryl injects another £3.2 million of cash as debt 5. This means that as of summer 2016 - two years after he has bought the club - the club owes Darryl circa £10.5 million (£4 million of IL’s debt plus cash injections of £6.5 million) 6. In turn, however, there have been running losses of circa £4.5 million. 7. Therefore, of the £6.5 million cash injected (as debt) there should at that point – summer 2016 - have been circa £2 million left. This is logical, as it meant that the club would have been fully funded for our first year in League 1 even if we exited both Cups early, made no transfer profit etc 8. We are being told that the next set of accounts are to show a profit last year of circa £500k. This meant that come the end of last season – May 2017 - the cash float in the club should have been circa £2.5 million. But the club's debt to DE would have stayed at £10.5 million. 9. Since then, there have been significant further net inflows - let us suggest circa £2.5 million, to be on the conservative side (for Appleton compensation, Lunny sale, Sercombe Sale, Roofe and O’Dowda payments, meaning that as of now our cash float should be circa £5 million, minus whatever the running costs have been during the summer – maybe £300k. Let us be conservative, again, and say £4.5 million left of the £6.6 million that DE injected over two years. If Marvin goes as well, that would mean that Darryl has pretty much recovered the £6.5 million he originally invested after he became owner. Darryl then has a choice as to what to do. He can leave it in the club and use it as a war chest, paying for the next two seasons and enabling Pep to spend decent money on top players or he can extract it from the club, claiming it as a “debt re-payment” and thus tax free. Of course, what he actually does will tell us an awful lot about his ambition for the club and his own financial position. After all, he would only have to spend a relatively small amount of the £5 million war chest to give Pep a great shot of a top 4 finish, given the current strength of the squad. As even from the notes from the recent fans forum I’m not entirely sure what the long term plan is and why there’s no longer such urgency on getting a stadium solution sorted when only a few months ago it was said to be essential for oxvox to agree heads of terms on the Kassam Stadium as the club was not financially viable. If, on the other hand, he doesn’t spend much if anything on transfers and keeps the wage budget more or less the same – at around £3 million – then that will budget a “loss of £1 million/£1.5 million” assuming no Cup runs. That would then enable him to extract circa £4 million in “debt re-payments”. If Marvin went then he could perhaps extract even more. If this is the case then perhaps this is why he pulled out of the Sartori deal at the last minute. Portsmouth has just gone for about £5.5 million, club and stadium freehold. Let us imagine that Satori was paying less for us (OUFC being a smaller club with no stadium); let us put it at, say, £4 or £5 million. DE might, quite understandably, have looked at that and thought “I can get that out of the club just by selling players” and then sell the club for whatever he can get for it after that. Going back to the original response, Darryl claims to OxVox that his current financial exposure to OUFC is £10.5 million. That is a play on words and can make some people think he’s written several cheques that total that amount!! The DEBT is technically £10.5 million, but that includes the price he paid IL for an asset AND a large chunk of money that was ear-marked for OUFC but has never been used. Taking into consideration payments received this season and the profit last season the actual exposure is he bought the club for £4 million and has spent, net, around a further £2 million. So, the financial situation should be £4 million equity and £2 million debt. It is for this reason I’m not comfortable with the £10.5 million debt level in the club and am keen to hear others (including OxVox’s) take on that. I think you've got this wrong Mark. The club lost approx £4.3 million in 2014/15 and 2015/16 (these are real losses and don't include debt repayments), and Eales via the club has paid WPL £4million. That's £8.3 million in total. Then in 2016/2017 it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume he's had to put in an extra £2 million during the season taking his cash investment up to the £10.38 million he was quoted by 'Tom', as large payments for Roofe and O'Dowda have come in presumably after the year-end as this is how transfer deals are staggered. We are then told that the squad budget for 2017/18 has been increased (although budgets don't need to be spent in total), and there is a transfer kitty available, and that the club is funded for the foreseeable future. So when has the cash been taken back out of the club? How has the player budget gone up a reported 30% if Eales has taken the transfer income out?
|
|
|
Post by londonroader on Aug 30, 2017 18:11:36 GMT
Great to see that OxVox has kindly posted the reply to my question so thanks to them for that. Only just spotted it yesterday as I’ve been away. The reply does raise some interesting points. So, I’ll try and be concise having again chatted it over in conjunction with the published accounts with an accountant. Here are the facts: 1. Darryl buys the equity of the club for £4 million, IL writing off his debts in the process. 2. That deal with IL includes Darryl obtaining the option to buy £4 million of IL's debt for £1. 3. In the first season, Darryl injects £3.2 million of cash as debt 4. In the second season, Darryl injects another £3.2 million of cash as debt 5. This means that as of summer 2016 - two years after he has bought the club - the club owes Darryl circa £10.5 million (£4 million of IL’s debt plus cash injections of £6.5 million) 6. In turn, however, there have been running losses of circa £4.5 million. 7. Therefore, of the £6.5 million cash injected (as debt) there should at that point – summer 2016 - have been circa £2 million left. This is logical, as it meant that the club would have been fully funded for our first year in League 1 even if we exited both Cups early, made no transfer profit etc 8. We are being told that the next set of accounts are to show a profit last year of circa £500k. This meant that come the end of last season – May 2017 - the cash float in the club should have been circa £2.5 million. But the club's debt to DE would have stayed at £10.5 million. 9. Since then, there have been significant further net inflows - let us suggest circa £2.5 million, to be on the conservative side (for Appleton compensation, Lunny sale, Sercombe Sale, Roofe and O’Dowda payments, meaning that as of now our cash float should be circa £5 million, minus whatever the running costs have been during the summer – maybe £300k. Let us be conservative, again, and say £4.5 million left of the £6.6 million that DE injected over two years. If Marvin goes as well, that would mean that Darryl has pretty much recovered the £6.5 million he originally invested after he became owner. Darryl then has a choice as to what to do. He can leave it in the club and use it as a war chest, paying for the next two seasons and enabling Pep to spend decent money on top players or he can extract it from the club, claiming it as a “debt re-payment” and thus tax free. Of course, what he actually does will tell us an awful lot about his ambition for the club and his own financial position. After all, he would only have to spend a relatively small amount of the £5 million war chest to give Pep a great shot of a top 4 finish, given the current strength of the squad. As even from the notes from the recent fans forum I’m not entirely sure what the long term plan is and why there’s no longer such urgency on getting a stadium solution sorted when only a few months ago it was said to be essential for oxvox to agree heads of terms on the Kassam Stadium as the club was not financially viable. If, on the other hand, he doesn’t spend much if anything on transfers and keeps the wage budget more or less the same – at around £3 million – then that will budget a “loss of £1 million/£1.5 million” assuming no Cup runs. That would then enable him to extract circa £4 million in “debt re-payments”. If Marvin went then he could perhaps extract even more. If this is the case then perhaps this is why he pulled out of the Sartori deal at the last minute. Portsmouth has just gone for about £5.5 million, club and stadium freehold. Let us imagine that Satori was paying less for us (OUFC being a smaller club with no stadium); let us put it at, say, £4 or £5 million. DE might, quite understandably, have looked at that and thought “I can get that out of the club just by selling players” and then sell the club for whatever he can get for it after that. Going back to the original response, Darryl claims to OxVox that his current financial exposure to OUFC is £10.5 million. That is a play on words and can make some people think he’s written several cheques that total that amount!! The DEBT is technically £10.5 million, but that includes the price he paid IL for an asset AND a large chunk of money that was ear-marked for OUFC but has never been used. Taking into consideration payments received this season and the profit last season the actual exposure is he bought the club for £4 million and has spent, net, around a further £2 million. So, the financial situation should be £4 million equity and £2 million debt. It is for this reason I’m not comfortable with the £10.5 million debt level in the club and am keen to hear others (including OxVox’s) take on that. I think you've got this wrong Mark. The club lost approx £4.3 million in 2014/15 and 2015/16 (these are real losses and don't include debt repayments), and Eales via the club has paid WPL £4million. That's £8.3 million in total. Then in 2016/2017 it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume he's had to put in an extra £2 million during the season taking his cash investment up to the £10.38 million he was quoted by 'Tom', as large payments for Roofe and O'Dowda have come in presumably after the year-end as this is how transfer deals are staggered. We are then told that the squad budget for 2017/18 has been increased (although budgets don't need to be spent in total), and there is a transfer kitty available, and that the club is funded for the foreseeable future. So when has the cash been taken back out of the club? How has the player budget gone up a reported 30% if Eales has taken the transfer income out? Gone 24 hours now and no reply, you really must has p*ssed on their chips with what the reality is...
|
|
|
Post by Paul Cannell on Aug 30, 2017 18:19:25 GMT
I hate to moan on like an incontinent old fart, but I thought last week Lenegan wrote the debt off and the club only cost Eales £1. Has that changed, now it looks like Eales paid £4,000,001 for the club.
Is that you, Margaret? Is my tea ready?
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Aug 30, 2017 18:33:14 GMT
I hate to moan on like an incontinent old fart, but I thought last week Lenegan wrote the debt off and the club only cost Eales £1. Has that changed, now it looks like Eales paid £4,000,001 for the club. Is that you, Margaret? Is my tea ready? Lenagan's investment in the club was all accounted for as debt, some £8 million or so off the top of my head. Eales (the club) repaid 4 million of debt owed to WPL, so that's £4 million of 'investment' by Eales. As Sennett says, the balance of the money some £4 million owed to WPL is now owed to Ensco (Eales). On top of that, Eales / Ensco / Alycidon has funded the losses and cash flows of the first three seasons, of which deferred transfer fees are only just coming in.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Cannell on Aug 30, 2017 18:52:17 GMT
Got it. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Aug 30, 2017 19:13:14 GMT
Also we now seem to be in a situation where some fans are seeing the club as a one-way only source of investment. You can put money in but never take it out unless you sell it to someone else who only puts money in, ignoring cash flows of transfer profits to when the cash comes in.
So Lenagan paid £2 million for a L2 side, Eales paid £4 million for a L2 side.
Without the ground that's a lot of goodwill to pay for a club, but then there's the hope value of the club being worth more in L1/ championship.
|
|
|
Post by oxfordyankee on Aug 30, 2017 19:40:00 GMT
If he wants to take the monies generated from transfer/compensation fees and repay back some of his investment, then I don't think many would have an issue with that.
Just tell us. That transparency can help inform fans and assist them in their own OUFC related spending decisions.
|
|
|
Post by charliesghost on Aug 31, 2017 1:20:39 GMT
Great to see that OxVox has kindly posted the reply to my question so thanks to them for that. Only just spotted it yesterday as I’ve been away. The reply does raise some interesting points. So, I’ll try and be concise having again chatted it over in conjunction with the published accounts with an accountant. Here are the facts: 1. Darryl buys the equity of the club for £4 million, IL writing off his debts in the process. 2. That deal with IL includes Darryl obtaining the option to buy £4 million of IL's debt for £1. 3. In the first season, Darryl injects £3.2 million of cash as debt 4. In the second season, Darryl injects another £3.2 million of cash as debt 5. This means that as of summer 2016 - two years after he has bought the club - the club owes Darryl circa £10.5 million (£4 million of IL’s debt plus cash injections of £6.5 million) 6. In turn, however, there have been running losses of circa £4.5 million. 7. Therefore, of the £6.5 million cash injected (as debt) there should at that point – summer 2016 - have been circa £2 million left. This is logical, as it meant that the club would have been fully funded for our first year in League 1 even if we exited both Cups early, made no transfer profit etc 8. We are being told that the next set of accounts are to show a profit last year of circa £500k. This meant that come the end of last season – May 2017 - the cash float in the club should have been circa £2.5 million. But the club's debt to DE would have stayed at £10.5 million. 9. Since then, there have been significant further net inflows - let us suggest circa £2.5 million, to be on the conservative side (for Appleton compensation, Lunny sale, Sercombe Sale, Roofe and O’Dowda payments, meaning that as of now our cash float should be circa £5 million, minus whatever the running costs have been during the summer – maybe £300k. Let us be conservative, again, and say £4.5 million left of the £6.6 million that DE injected over two years. If Marvin goes as well, that would mean that Darryl has pretty much recovered the £6.5 million he originally invested after he became owner. Darryl then has a choice as to what to do. He can leave it in the club and use it as a war chest, paying for the next two seasons and enabling Pep to spend decent money on top players or he can extract it from the club, claiming it as a “debt re-payment” and thus tax free. Of course, what he actually does will tell us an awful lot about his ambition for the club and his own financial position. After all, he would only have to spend a relatively small amount of the £5 million war chest to give Pep a great shot of a top 4 finish, given the current strength of the squad. As even from the notes from the recent fans forum I’m not entirely sure what the long term plan is and why there’s no longer such urgency on getting a stadium solution sorted when only a few months ago it was said to be essential for oxvox to agree heads of terms on the Kassam Stadium as the club was not financially viable. If, on the other hand, he doesn’t spend much if anything on transfers and keeps the wage budget more or less the same – at around £3 million – then that will budget a “loss of £1 million/£1.5 million” assuming no Cup runs. That would then enable him to extract circa £4 million in “debt re-payments”. If Marvin went then he could perhaps extract even more. If this is the case then perhaps this is why he pulled out of the Sartori deal at the last minute. Portsmouth has just gone for about £5.5 million, club and stadium freehold. Let us imagine that Satori was paying less for us (OUFC being a smaller club with no stadium); let us put it at, say, £4 or £5 million. DE might, quite understandably, have looked at that and thought “I can get that out of the club just by selling players” and then sell the club for whatever he can get for it after that. Going back to the original response, Darryl claims to OxVox that his current financial exposure to OUFC is £10.5 million. That is a play on words and can make some people think he’s written several cheques that total that amount!! The DEBT is technically £10.5 million, but that includes the price he paid IL for an asset AND a large chunk of money that was ear-marked for OUFC but has never been used. Taking into consideration payments received this season and the profit last season the actual exposure is he bought the club for £4 million and has spent, net, around a further £2 million. So, the financial situation should be £4 million equity and £2 million debt. It is for this reason I’m not comfortable with the £10.5 million debt level in the club and am keen to hear others (including OxVox’s) take on that. I think you've got this wrong Mark. The club lost approx £4.3 million in 2014/15 and 2015/16 (these are real losses and don't include debt repayments), and Eales via the club has paid WPL £4million. That's £8.3 million in total. Then in 2016/2017 it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume he's had to put in an extra £2 million during the season taking his cash investment up to the £10.38 million he was quoted by 'Tom', as large payments for Roofe and O'Dowda have come in presumably after the year-end as this is how transfer deals are staggered. We are then told that the squad budget for 2017/18 has been increased (although budgets don't need to be spent in total), and there is a transfer kitty available, and that the club is funded for the foreseeable future. So when has the cash been taken back out of the club? How has the player budget gone up a reported 30% if Eales has taken the transfer income out? No, slappy, you're wrong. DE has now been in the record several times saying that far from putting in 2 million last season the club made a profit. You then mistake cash investment for increased wage budget. If revenues increase by 20 per cent then no cash investment is required for higher wages. Finally, you mistake budget for expenditure. Not bad going for a few paragraphs. Not to p*ss on Thick Mick's chips or anything....
|
|
|
Post by londonroader on Aug 31, 2017 10:53:08 GMT
I think you've got this wrong Mark. The club lost approx £4.3 million in 2014/15 and 2015/16 (these are real losses and don't include debt repayments), and Eales via the club has paid WPL £4million. That's £8.3 million in total. Then in 2016/2017 it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume he's had to put in an extra £2 million during the season taking his cash investment up to the £10.38 million he was quoted by 'Tom', as large payments for Roofe and O'Dowda have come in presumably after the year-end as this is how transfer deals are staggered. We are then told that the squad budget for 2017/18 has been increased (although budgets don't need to be spent in total), and there is a transfer kitty available, and that the club is funded for the foreseeable future. So when has the cash been taken back out of the club? How has the player budget gone up a reported 30% if Eales has taken the transfer income out? No, slappy, you're wrong. DE has now been in the record several times saying that far from putting in 2 million last season the club made a profit. You then mistake cash investment for increased wage budget. If revenues increase by 20 per cent then no cash investment is required for higher wages. Finally, you mistake budget for expenditure. Not bad going for a few paragraphs. Not to p*ss on Thick Mick's chips or anything.... It's Michael to you young man, always have to get personal. I see you can't let your minions answer their own posts now, I'm sure MS understood what was written, anyway I await MG reply as I'm rather ignorant of these financial affairs like many others it seems.
|
|
|
Post by Junior on Aug 31, 2017 15:27:30 GMT
TBF LR, Mark is far to busy writing into and then chasing up answers from Eales on this very matter..
You know the thing that he was told to do days ago..
So Mark, have you received a reply to your question or do you have to run it be your accountant first.. *
* That's a question for Mark, not you Charlie..
|
|
|
Post by barmyarmy on Aug 31, 2017 21:52:03 GMT
So all this is just an opinion, you have no facts or evidence to back it up? I guess only time will tell, but I think Mark's assumption could be right and then again it could be wrong. You know what they say about assuming things.........
|
|
|
Post by KLYellow on Sept 1, 2017 3:38:05 GMT
I don't understand some of the comments on here. Apart from it being a football club, it's also a company / business. As long as we are stable, progressing on the pitch, why should we get involved around the finances of the club.
If you were an employee of a company or just a customer of the brand, would you go to the chairman and question what he or she is doing with the finances? Most of us are not shareholders. I feel DE has been exemplary in taking the club forward, both on and off the pitch.
Let's focus on the football.
|
|
|
Post by uptheus on Sept 1, 2017 6:18:47 GMT
I don't understand some of the comments on here. Apart from it being a football club, it's also a company / business. As long as we are stable, progressing on the pitch, why should we get involved around the finances of the club. If you were an employee of a company or just a customer of the brand, would you go to the chairman and question what he or she is doing with the finances? Most of us are not shareholders. I feel DE has been exemplary in taking the club forward, both on and off the pitch. Let's focus on the football. I don't think I'm emotionally tied to my company, but I am with Oxford United, so may be that's the difference. Also, we've been screwed over by previous owners e.g. once bitten twice shy, so I wouldn't want us to bury our heads in the sand and just hope all is going swimmingly.
|
|
|
Post by londonroader on Sept 1, 2017 6:39:56 GMT
I don't understand some of the comments on here. Apart from it being a football club, it's also a company / business. As long as we are stable, progressing on the pitch, why should we get involved around the finances of the club. If you were an employee of a company or just a customer of the brand, would you go to the chairman and question what he or she is doing with the finances? Most of us are not shareholders. I feel DE has been exemplary in taking the club forward, both on and off the pitch. Let's focus on the football. This is a football forum where most of the time we talk about all this OUFC, it might not be the favored place for the club but its a fans place to agree or disagree and comment on their opinions. I don't buy DE has been exemplary as he's made mistakes but as you say has taken the club leaps and bounds forwards, have we ever been in the position of buying and selling our players as the last 2 seasons, on the field we have come a long was from those dark conference days, off the pitch still a bit of work to do if they are to match the on pitch ambitions. My opinion of DE in a nice way, in some ways he might be a c*nt but he's our c*nt, just like McGuire was on the pitch
|
|
|
Post by Long John Silver on Sept 1, 2017 7:59:27 GMT
TBF LR, Mark is far to busy writing into and then chasing up answers from Eales on this very matter.. You know the thing that he was told to do days ago.. So Mark, have you received a reply to your question or do you have to run it be your accountant first.. * * That's a question for Mark, not you Charlie.. I think you are getting your Marks mixed up.
|
|
|
Post by Denissmithswig on Sept 1, 2017 8:01:30 GMT
TBF LR, Mark is far to busy writing into and then chasing up answers from Eales on this very matter.. You know the thing that he was told to do days ago.. So Mark, have you received a reply to your question or do you have to run it be your accountant first.. * * That's a question for Mark, not you Charlie.. I think you are getting your Marks mixed up. He means Sennet I think.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Burrett on Sept 1, 2017 8:06:46 GMT
I don't understand some of the comments on here. Apart from it being a football club, it's also a company / business. As long as we are stable, progressing on the pitch, why should we get involved around the finances of the club. If you were an employee of a company or just a customer of the brand, would you go to the chairman and question what he or she is doing with the finances? Most of us are not shareholders. I feel DE has been exemplary in taking the club forward, both on and off the pitch. Let's focus on the football. Let's focus on OUFC. That includes player ins and outs, behaviour of stewards, behaviour of fans, the best place to drink at Bury and club finances. I'm really not keen on people telling me which aspects of OUFC I'm allowed to comment on.
|
|