BCFChris Posted January 12, 2005 Report Share Posted January 12, 2005 So, the board have the power to tell HTV to film in pubs and then they have the power/jurisdiction to act upon that footage if they see anything they don't like? Wibble. Nibor asked: "Anyway, what was the need for alledging financial malpractise of the sort that people go to jail for?" Failed to answer that one, Chris. In your own time. ← I was simply stating a fact that accountants have a knack of making things appear worse than what they are. This, whether you like it or not, is true! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slave to the rhythm Posted January 12, 2005 Report Share Posted January 12, 2005 And to the original post I would like to point out the misconception that directors GIVE or HANDOUT bcfc money! WRONG they lend it to be redeemed at a LATER DATE with interest!!!!!! ← Correct. The directors are not stupid, they have lent the club money and they will obviously want to get it back somehow. Just out of interest, how much debt does the club owe the directors and how much is the stadium apparently worth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Slinky Posted January 12, 2005 Report Share Posted January 12, 2005 I was simply stating a fact that accountants have a knack of making things appear worse than what they are. This, whether you like it or not, is true! ← Are you acusing the board of fraud or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCFChris Posted January 12, 2005 Report Share Posted January 12, 2005 This is a forum isn't it?! People come on and experess there views?! If so BCFChris had his and posted them. Glad to see we have a healthy and busy forum and wouldn't it be boring if we all had the same view? Agreed some people are never happy and I have posted my views to Steve L on the board but at the end of the day he surely expects some critisism from it, along with alot of good ideas and sugestions. And to the original post I would like to point out the misconception that directors GIVE or HANDOUT bcfc money! WRONG they lend it to be redeemed at a LATER DATE with interest!!!!!! I think alot of posts are made in the heat of the moment and should be taken with a pinch of salt! We are on the up and still in there so COME ON U REDS!!!! ← I honestly believe that most posters on this forum, would be quite happy if everybody just agreed with each other. It seems as though anyone with a different view is shot down in flames at the earliest opportunity. This used to be a very good forum in the beginning, but now it is full off sheep who follow the shepherds! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
And Its Smith Posted January 12, 2005 Author Report Share Posted January 12, 2005 I think Steve L would understand the likes of BCFChris are a small element who seem to lack the basic understanding regarding the amount of money,time and support the curent board have put into Bristol City. ← I really hope thats true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Slinky Posted January 12, 2005 Report Share Posted January 12, 2005 This is a forum isn't it?! People come on and experess there views?! If so BCFChris had his and posted them. Glad to see we have a healthy and busy forum and wouldn't it be boring if we all had the same view? Agreed some people are never happy and I have posted my views to Steve L on the board but at the end of the day he surely expects some critisism from it, along with alot of good ideas and sugestions. And to the original post I would like to point out the misconception that directors GIVE or HANDOUT bcfc money! WRONG they lend it to be redeemed at a LATER DATE with interest!!!!!! I think alot of posts are made in the heat of the moment and should be taken with a pinch of salt! We are on the up and still in there so COME ON U REDS!!!! ← Right, so you think that, if the current board leave, they will not only get back everything they've put in, they'll actually be in profit? Now what was I saying about ignorant people? The current board have GIVEN or HANDED OUT more money to this club than you ever will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slave to the rhythm Posted January 12, 2005 Report Share Posted January 12, 2005 I was simply stating a fact that accountants have a knack of making things appear worse than what they are. This, whether you like it or not, is true! ← I am an accountant and I have no idea what you are talking about. Accountants deal in facts, not fiction. If boards of directors then put a "spin" on those facts then that's a different matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Posted January 12, 2005 Report Share Posted January 12, 2005 I honestly believe that most posters on this forum, would be quite happy if everybody just agreed with each other. It seems as though anyone with a different view is shot down in flames at the earliest opportunity. This used to be a very good forum in the beginning, but now it is full off sheep who follow the shepherds! ← It's called a debate???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted January 12, 2005 Report Share Posted January 12, 2005 Yes, he was out of contract but wasn't he under the "Bosman" age of 24? Therefore, could we have got a fee for him at a tribunal if he'd signed for somebody else? Can anybody answer this without redirecting me to some incomprehensible section of the FIFA Rules and Regulations? Incidentally, I downloaded Preston North End's 2004 accounts from the Companies House website. They are in a huge financial mess - I think it's fair to say that their Balance Sheet (which discloses net liabilities of about £8million) means that they are technically insolvent. However, the notes to the accounts disclose that their parent company (presumably, their directors) are committed to keeping the club going. ← No, the bosman age is actually below 23 I think, although commonly reported as below 24. Even if we did, tribunal fees are notoriously paltry since there's a fixed formula for working out how much his development cost (which ignores the fact that players that don't make it are costing us too), it's extremely likely the fee would have been lower than £100k. Nibor Edit - If I remember rightly BCFC is also owned by a holding company which is in turn owned by the shareholders, the holding company may actually own the stadium, a structure that sometimes is used to safeguard assets. Not my field though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted January 12, 2005 Report Share Posted January 12, 2005 I honestly believe that most posters on this forum, would be quite happy if everybody just agreed with each other. It seems as though anyone with a different view is shot down in flames at the earliest opportunity. This used to be a very good forum in the beginning, but now it is full off sheep who follow the shepherds! ← Interesting to note that you're now calling every forum user a sheep after a grand total of 1 thread which might be considered to be flaming you. I am glad SteveL has more patience. By the way: We all know that accountants twist accounts to read the worst. I am sure we are not making as much of a loss as the board would like us to believe. A lot of the fans have been duped in to thinking that the board have been highly generous this season, I am not one of them! This isn't "simply stating a fact that accountants have a knack of making things appear worse than what they are". It's directly accusing the board of filing false accounts and duping investors (fans who own shares), both of which are illegal. Nibor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCFChris Posted January 12, 2005 Report Share Posted January 12, 2005 The problem was that we were unable to commit to contracts for two reasons: 1.We didn't know which Div we'd be in and therefore didn't know how much cash we had. 2.Had we been promoted, how many of those players would we have wqanted and, from the clubs point of view,could we have attracted better players for the same or less?. That policy was, of course,a double edged sword and we blew it by not getting promoted. I agree that Contracts should be renegotiated,wherever possible,about 18 months before they expire.That way,if the player (his agent) decides to stall, you can list him and, if he's wanted, clubs won't wait 12/18 momths, like they'll wait, say 3/6 months for their man. I suppose, in hindsight we could have inserted "get out" clauses for the club if we hadn't acheived promotion but, at that point the players agent would be even more likely to ay OK, if you're promoted, he want's more or some other MH type of clause. The Rosenior "transfer" WAS a real cock up and we should have done much better with that. ← Going back to this earlier post about not offering contracts, because we did not know which division we would be in, even if we had offered the three players concerned (Carey, Hill and Peacock) an extra £2000 per week on a years contract, this would only have cost us an extra £312,000 for the year but would have given us time to sell them if need be. All of these players are worth at least £100,000, so like it or not, this was a mistake! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCFChris Posted January 12, 2005 Report Share Posted January 12, 2005 Interesting to note that you're now calling every forum user a sheep after a grand total of 1 thread which might be considered to be flaming you. I am glad SteveL has more patience. By the way: This isn't "simply stating a fact that accountants have a knack of making things appear worse than what they are". It's directly accusing the board of filing false accounts and duping investors (fans who own shares), both of which are illegal. Nibor ← What other fact did I state then? Very boring now! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Slinky Posted January 12, 2005 Report Share Posted January 12, 2005 Going back to this earlier post about not offering contracts, because we did not know which division we would be in, even if we had offered the three players concerned (Carey, Hill and Peacock) an extra £2000 per week on a years contract, this would only have cost us an extra £312,000 for the year but would have given us time to sell them if need be. All of these players are worth at least £100,000, so like it or not, this was a mistake! ← Supposing no-one then makes an offer, which isn't unlikely given that they aren't particularly amazing players and given that the transfer market has collapsed, we'd have forked out an extra £1Million over the next 3 years. But, hey, I suppose it would have meant the board would have had to lend more money to the club, money that they'd have made yet more profit on. Missed a trick there, didn't they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted January 12, 2005 Report Share Posted January 12, 2005 Going back to this earlier post about not offering contracts, because we did not know which division we would be in, even if we had offered the three players concerned (Carey, Hill and Peacock) an extra £2000 per week on a years contract, this would only have cost us an extra £312,000 for the year but would have given us time to sell them if need be. All of these players are worth at least £100,000, so like it or not, this was a mistake! ← I am so glad you have nothing to do with running the club. Do you think we can force players to sign contracts they don't want to sign or something? It is highly likely that their agents would have advised them to not enter negotiations until they were out of contract or at least past January so there's competition for their signature, and also not to negotiate while promotion is in the balance since they can get more money once up. If we offered 2 grand a week more that would have to be for 3 years, the likely minimum length that any of those players would have accepted. There is absolutely no way any player will sign a 1 year contract in their mid 20s when they have clubs in higher divisions waiting to sign them. There is no guarantee anyone would have paid a higher fee for the players so you would have landed us with 300k a year in extra wage bill merely to retain players that hadn't got us promoted.... How does this make any sense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Slinky Posted January 12, 2005 Report Share Posted January 12, 2005 Chris, are you acusing the board of fraud or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCFChris Posted January 12, 2005 Report Share Posted January 12, 2005 Chris, are you acusing the board of fraud or not? ← Boring! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Slinky Posted January 12, 2005 Report Share Posted January 12, 2005 Boring! ← Yes, but enough about you. Are you acusing the board of fraud or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WWJD Posted January 12, 2005 Report Share Posted January 12, 2005 I honestly believe that most posters on this forum, would be quite happy if everybody just agreed with each other. It seems as though anyone with a different view is shot down in flames at the earliest opportunity. This used to be a very good forum in the beginning, but now it is full off sheep who follow the shepherds! ← No, no, no, no, no. You are not "shot down in flames" because you have a different view. You are not even shot down in flames because you state this view without giving any justification (eg about what the board should be doing instead, given the practical and financial constraints that exist in the real world). You are shot down in flames because you go onto the Ask Steve forum and (a) suggest that the board should move on, without showing any sign that you realise what a huge contribution they make to the club or suggesting any kind of alternative, and (b) accuse him of duping the fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swindlered Posted January 12, 2005 Report Share Posted January 12, 2005 Chris, are you acusing the board of fraud or not? ← I doubt that Chris is qualified to accuse anyone of fraud. He is certainly not qualified to tell SL how to run the club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Slinky Posted January 12, 2005 Report Share Posted January 12, 2005 I doubt that Chris is qualified to accuse anyone of fraud. He is certainly not qualified to tell SL how to run the club. ← Would be nice of him to clarify if he is making that accusation though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DrFaustus Posted January 12, 2005 Report Share Posted January 12, 2005 Would be nice of him to clarify if he is making that accusation though. ← It seems to me (as an outsider), that many of you are trying to force Chris to say something which he may later regret.This type of bullying goes on on our official froum as well. Just because Chris sees things differently doesn't make his opinion any less valid, surely? Chris, if you read this - say nothing. They'll try water torture, teeth extraction, pliers on your fingernails and much worse. Don't let them win Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stortfordred Posted January 12, 2005 Report Share Posted January 12, 2005 This thread has changed rather since the first point! I'd like to go back a bit. Surely it's good that we have a Board which, whether we agree with them or not, at least take the trouble to a) continue to allow us to express our varied and differing views b) take the trouble to reply to some of our questions. It may even be that on some occasions the forum influences their decisions. Yes there will be times when we disagree with them and get frustrated by their inability to understand their views or change their policy but hey that's life. Look at the kind of stick other Boards have got over the years-sometimes it makes a difference, sometimes not eg Alan Sugar or on the other hand Deadly Doug. There is no excuse for vilification or indeed plain stupidity (and most of us-including SL- can see past those ones) but should the forum administrators be more careful about the stuff that goes through? How do we know some of the cack doesn't come from supporters of other clubs intent on making mischief? Bet Roman Abramovic doesn't have a Ask RA forum! Use it properly or lose it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Slinky Posted January 12, 2005 Report Share Posted January 12, 2005 It seems to me (as an outsider), that many of you are trying to force Chris to say something which he may later regret.This type of bullying goes on on our official froum as well. Just because Chris sees things differently doesn't make his opinion any less valid, surely? Chris, if you read this - say nothing. They'll try water torture, teeth extraction, pliers on your fingernails and much worse. Don't let them win ← Nobody's forcing him to say anything but it says a lot about him and his opinions if he doesn't have the conviction to stand by them and state them clearly. Either he accuses them of fraud or he doesn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted January 12, 2005 Report Share Posted January 12, 2005 It seems to me (as an outsider), that many of you are trying to force Chris to say something which he may later regret.This type of bullying goes on on our official froum as well. Just because Chris sees things differently doesn't make his opinion any less valid, surely? Chris, if you read this - say nothing. They'll try water torture, teeth extraction, pliers on your fingernails and much worse. Don't let them win ← To be honest the only reason I mentioned it at all was to highlight what I considered to be the crass ignorance of his original post and the type of thing that I don't think our directors should expect to take for doing their best. Nibor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Peacock Posted January 12, 2005 Report Share Posted January 12, 2005 It's called a debate???? ← And when alot of people are contributing it is a mass debate, therefore people who post on forums alot are mass debaters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riaz Posted January 12, 2005 Report Share Posted January 12, 2005 And when alot of people are contributing it is a mass debate, therefore people who post on forums alot are mass debaters. ← thats good, i liked that one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yate Red Posted January 12, 2005 Report Share Posted January 12, 2005 Right, so you think that, if the current board leave, they will not only get back everything they've put in, they'll actually be in profit? Now what was I saying about ignorant people? The current board have GIVEN or HANDED OUT more money to this club than you ever will. ← I think you are the ingnorant one! You are telling me that the board hand out money to the club never expecting to see it back again?! Me think not!!! All loans that are made by directors are loans to the club, yes at better rates than if lent by a bank but still redemable! These are business men at the end of the day, that act as Citys' CREDITORS!!!! And as for the last comment!!!!! BEHAVE!!! BELIEVE IT if the directors wanted there money back they would get it!! Anyway I think you lost the gist of my post as I was just trying to put across that the whole point of the forum are views of support are all different and thats what makes it GOOD!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
december 1963 Posted January 12, 2005 Report Share Posted January 12, 2005 I agree with Red Dave. And its not just bcfchris's comments that a Chairman should not have to answer. I was surprised with Franklin City and the two questions a little bit later. What Chairman anyway would admit that the club was going backwards even if they believed that. Steve is accused of a condescending curt repsonse. If I was chairman I wouldn't even bother replying. Seeing Steve's responses overall I reckon he takes a lot more effort to reply than I would Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Slinky Posted January 12, 2005 Report Share Posted January 12, 2005 I think you are the ingnorant one! You are telling me that the board hand out money to the club never expecting to see it back again?! Me think not!!! All loans that are made by directors are loans to the club, yes at better rates than if lent by a bank but still redemable! These are business men at the end of the day, that act as Citys' CREDITORS!!!! And as for the last comment!!!!! BEHAVE!!! BELIEVE IT if the directors wanted there money back they would get it!! Anyway I think you lost the gist of my post as I was just trying to put across that the whole point of the forum are views of support are all different and thats what makes it GOOD!!!! ← Yes, I am telling you they have handed money to the club never expecting to see it back. Think what you like. It won't alter the facts. On numerous occasions, the current directors have put their hands in their pockets with no expectation that they will ever see that money again. I imagine there are hundreds of thousands of pounds put into the club by the directors that they will never see again. Still, the true fans can carry on moaning about the price of a cup of tea. I don't consider directly accusing the board of filing false accounts and duping investors as GOOD. We'll have to differ on that point too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted January 12, 2005 Report Share Posted January 12, 2005 I think you are the ingnorant one! You are telling me that the board hand out money to the club never expecting to see it back again?! Me think not!!! All loans that are made by directors are loans to the club, yes at better rates than if lent by a bank but still redemable! These are business men at the end of the day, that act as Citys' CREDITORS!!!! And as for the last comment!!!!! BEHAVE!!! BELIEVE IT if the directors wanted there money back they would get it!! Anyway I think you lost the gist of my post as I was just trying to put across that the whole point of the forum are views of support are all different and thats what makes it GOOD!!!! ← I believe they've written off debts the club owes them in the past, I'm sure I remember Scott Davidson doing so, and also I think you might find some transfers have been part funded out of director's own pockets. AndyJones2004 is an accountant - I'd always wondered if directors were actually allowed to give money to clubs like a donation or if there are regulations about not being a charity etc? Nibor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.