Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Viking Chat => Topic started by: Donnyjim on September 13, 2012, 09:44:30 pm
-
On twitter at the Retford agm. Dean "we have no debt, we run the stadium and the budget is under control. A good position which meant we've turned bids down"
-
Cool. Probably not true.
-
So we turned down bids for Sharp, Stock, Friend and Coppinger did we?
Did we sell Sharp to Southampton or Dick Turpin? They robbed us at getting him for only just over a million.
O'Driscoll mut have piddled his pants when he saw us do that.
-
Shut up Alan, honestly. He's clearly referring to players still here, case in point Kyle Bennett who we know a bid was turned down by the club.
-
So we turned down bids for Sharp, Stock, Friend and Coppinger did we?
Did we sell Sharp to Southampton or Dick Turpin? They robbed us at getting him for only just over a million.
O'Driscoll mut have piddled his pants when he saw us do that.
Yeah. He must have. But if he did, I'm sure he must have completely forgotten that there was a clause in the contract that he had a hand in offering to Billy.
And he must have forgotten that Billy probably wouldn't have joined us in the first place without that clause.
And he must have forgotten how many times a similar thing happened to him when he was manager of AFC Bournemouth.
-
In fairness, Alan does have a point re Sharp, even if it's largely irrelevant to the thread. I'm not bothered by the minimum fee release clause, although it was criminally low. What still bugs me about the deal though was that we turned down £3m from Saints literally a month earlier, knowing he could walk for half that in a month's time.
At least we didn't sell him to Ipswich and Paul f**king Jewell, though.
-
In fairness, Alan does have a point re Sharp, even if it's largely irrelevant to the thread. I'm not bothered by the minimum fee release clause, although it was criminally low. What still bugs me about the deal though was that we turned down £3m from Saints literally a month earlier, knowing he could walk for half that in a month's time.
At least we didn't sell him to Ipswich and Paul f**king Jewell, though.
We accepted a bid (reportedly of over £3m) from Southampton for Sharp last summer, but he rejected the chance to move at that time.
-
According to the Star today we also turned down an approach from our six fingered friends to take Martin Woods on loan. Not sure if thats a good thing or not!!
-
Yep we fight tooth and nail to keep Bennett, Woods even Keegan FFS, but it's off ya go for peanuts to Billy, Copps, JoC, Friend, Stock and the rest!
-
You're in a different world to me if you think what we got for them is peanuts.....
What's the alternative, keep aging players or players that don't want to be here on money we can't afford? If you'd prefer that then can you please provide a realistic solution as to where the money will come from?
-
You're in a different world to me if you think what we got for them is peanuts.....
What's the alternative, keep aging players or players that don't want to be here on money we can't afford? If you'd prefer that then can you please provide a realistic solution as to where the money will come from?
Much more of this kind of realism please, and fewer comments posted purely to be antagonistic, or those feeding such remarks by giving them attention and wasting a thread on trolls. Let's get along, we're all Rovers fans and we can't envy those running the club. Let's get behind them!
-
Yesterday Dean Saunders also said "we are struggling financially. We've cut the budget by 70% and I know that some of the bigger earners might still have to be moved on". Doesn't sound like we're in such a "good position".
-
So we turned down bids for Sharp, Stock, Friend and Coppinger did we?
Did we sell Sharp to Southampton or Dick Turpin? They robbed us at getting him for only just over a million.
O'Driscoll mut have piddled his pants when he saw us do that.
Get real we get watched by one man and a dog .....
Have to cut your cloth FFS
Do you want us to be another Pompey?
-
Yesterday Dean Saunders also said "we are struggling financially. We've cut the budget by 70% and I know that some of the bigger earners might still have to be moved on". Doesn't sound like we're in such a "good position".
But then equally he said we're debt free last night. The impression I get is to be in line with budgeted amounts and to become financially sustainable we're a bit off, but overall the finances are good. Though if you compare us to most other clubs I bet we look like we're very prudent.
-
You're in a different world to me if you think what we got for them is peanuts.....
What's the alternative, keep aging players or players that don't want to be here on money we can't afford? If you'd prefer that then can you please provide a realistic solution as to where the money will come from?
Much more of this kind of realism please, and fewer comments posted purely to be antagonistic, or those feeding such remarks by giving them attention and wasting a thread on trolls. Let's get along, we're all Rovers fans and we can't envy those running the club. Let's get behind them!
Aye, we're all Rovers aren't we?
-
"No debt"?
So have the £4.8m of loans that were on the Balance Sheet at 31st May 2011 now been repaid? :whistle:
-
"No debt"?
So have the £4.8m of loans that were on the Balance Sheet at 31st May 2011 now been repaid? :whistle:
Converted into shares, in other words written off.
-
"No debt"?
So have the £4.8m of loans that were on the Balance Sheet at 31st May 2011 now been repaid? :whistle:
Converted into shares, in other words written off.
Good news.
So who is the big new shareholder?
Of that £4.8m, £3.9m were loans from directors and £0.9m were from "others" - have those loans also been converted to shares?
-
"No debt"?
So have the £4.8m of loans that were on the Balance Sheet at 31st May 2011 now been repaid? :whistle:
Converted into shares, in other words written off.
Good news.
So who is the big new shareholder?
Of that £4.8m, £3.9m were loans from directors and £0.9m were from "others" - have those loans also been converted to shares?
There is no new big shareholder.
-
"No debt"?
So have the £4.8m of loans that were on the Balance Sheet at 31st May 2011 now been repaid? :whistle:
Converted into shares, in other words written off.
Good news.
So who is the big new shareholder?
Of that £4.8m, £3.9m were loans from directors and £0.9m were from "others" - have those loans also been converted to shares?
There is no new big shareholder.
So those loans haven't been repaid?
Or were they actually director loans in the first place and wrongly categorised in the Annual Report?
-
"No debt"?
So have the £4.8m of loans that were on the Balance Sheet at 31st May 2011 now been repaid? :whistle:
Converted into shares, in other words written off.
Good news.
So who is the big new shareholder?
Of that £4.8m, £3.9m were loans from directors and £0.9m were from "others" - have those loans also been converted to shares?
There is no new big shareholder.
So those loans haven't been repaid?
Or were they actually director loans in the first place and wrongly categorised in the Annual Report?
Que?
I've just said the loans were converted to shares therefore being written off.
-
"No debt"?
So have the £4.8m of loans that were on the Balance Sheet at 31st May 2011 now been repaid? :whistle:
Converted into shares, in other words written off.
Good news.
So who is the big new shareholder?
Of that £4.8m, £3.9m were loans from directors and £0.9m were from "others" - have those loans also been converted to shares?
There is no new big shareholder.
So those loans haven't been repaid?
Or were they actually director loans in the first place and wrongly categorised in the Annual Report?
Que?
I've just said the loans were converted to shares therefore being written off.
even i got that one martin
-
"No debt"?
So have the £4.8m of loans that were on the Balance Sheet at 31st May 2011 now been repaid? :whistle:
Converted into shares, in other words written off.
Good news.
So who is the big new shareholder?
Of that £4.8m, £3.9m were loans from directors and £0.9m were from "others" - have those loans also been converted to shares?
There is no new big shareholder.
So those loans haven't been repaid?
Or were they actually director loans in the first place and wrongly categorised in the Annual Report?
Que?
I've just said the loans were converted to shares therefore being written off.
OK, in simple terms...
In the 31/5/2011 accounts there were £4.8m of loans.
Of this, £3.9m were categorised as being loans from directors (it's a requirement to disclose director loans)
Therefore, £0.9m were loans from non-directors.
You say that the loans have not been repaid, but have been converted into shares.
Therefore there are one or more new shareholders (unless, as I suggested, the £0.8m of loans were actually director loans in the first place).
If there are new shareholders, it would be interesting to know who they are (of course I accept that it is also none of my business if they wish to remain anonymous).
-
Well I know two things (at least I was told this, I haven't verified it and won't until the next accounts are released)
One, the loans were converted to shares,
Two, the VSC is a shareholder and we have to be informed if any major shareholder arrives
-
Looks like we'll just have to wait for the next accounts then.
-
There are posters on this thread who are either here to destroy any thing positive that is said about Rovers or are just so impoverished of success in their own lives .....the thread started out with an extremely positive statement from DS and has ended up n reminding me that until VSC has a VSC only website to rid us of these hangers on it will always struggle to increase membership beyond a couple of hundred . Let the likes of Chris create his own moan site and it will soon attract all the other moaners and maybe other onlookers will recognise this site as the best way to invest in supporting Rovers . Meanwhile despite all the best efforts of Silent Majority and co I have withdrawn my financial support and put it through other channels to the club .
-
"No debt"?
So have the £4.8m of loans that were on the Balance Sheet at 31st May 2011 now been repaid? :whistle:
Converted into shares, in other words written off.
What about the money that was owed to former directors?
-
Paid off by current directors?
-
"No debt"?
So have the £4.8m of loans that were on the Balance Sheet at 31st May 2011 now been repaid? :whistle:
Converted into shares, in other words written off.
What about the money that was owed to former directors?
How many more times do we have to say this, the club is debt free!!! That means it doesn't owe any money. We've had this conversation before Skellow, if TB, DW and JR loan money to a club owned by TB, DW and JR who do you think pays them back???
-
"No debt"?
So have the £4.8m of loans that were on the Balance Sheet at 31st May 2011 now been repaid? :whistle:
Converted into shares, in other words written off.
What about the money that was owed to former directors?
How many more times do we have to say this, the club is debt free!!! That means it doesn't owe any money. We've had this conversation before Skellow, if TB, DW and JR loan money to a club owned by TB, DW and JR who do you think pays them back???
I said former directors who loaned money to the club not JR or the KM2. Have those loans been repaid then because they were owed a 6 figure sums in total?
-
Does it matter?. If the club is debt free, who really gives a stuff. Purely by stating the club is debt free suggests all and sundrie have been paid their dues, or they have written off the debt owed to them.
-
"No debt"?
So have the £4.8m of loans that were on the Balance Sheet at 31st May 2011 now been repaid? :whistle:
Converted into shares, in other words written off.
What about the money that was owed to former directors?
How many more times do we have to say this, the club is debt free!!! That means it doesn't owe any money. We've had this conversation before Skellow, if TB, DW and JR loan money to a club owned by TB, DW and JR who do you think pays them back???
I said former directors who loaned money to the club not JR or the KM2. Have those loans been repaid then because they were owed a 6 figure sums in total?
Yet again, the club is debt free. This has been stated several times by the directors themselves and was reiterated on Thursday at the Retford agm. That must mean, logically, if any money was owed to former directors then those debts were repaid doesn't it? I can't answer any clearer than that, I'm just reiterating what JR, TB, GB and DS have all said.
-
Just wanting clarification as you said the loans had been "Converted into shares, in other words written off." when infact they haven't.
-
Just wanting clarification as you said the loans had been "Converted into shares, in other words written off." when infact they haven't.
Splitting hairs Skellow, the loans from the owners of the club have been written off. If you have other information about former directors and how those loans have been dealt with in whatever fashion then declare what you know rather than forever hinting at what you know. You always do that.
-
Just wanting clarification as you said the loans had been "Converted into shares, in other words written off." when infact they haven't.
Splitting hairs Skellow, the loans from the owners of the club have been written off. If you have other information about former directors and how those loans have been dealt with in whatever fashion then declare what you know rather than forever hinting at what you know. You always do that.
Just wanting clarification thats all as you said all loans had been converted into shares and written off. We're you told that by the club?
-
Wait for the accounts then, also why do you need to know?
-
Just wondering if that is official and what the club told SM with him telling us that on here, anything wrong with that?
-
Did you know We won today skellow!!
-
Did you know We won today skellow!!
Yes thanks sweet cheeks, whats that got to do with asking SM if what he has posted was told to him officially by the club? Or are you just trying to provoke a response and be your usual opinionated bickering self?
-
Can someone help me down from this roundabout, I want to be sick.
-
All i'm wanting to know is if the club officially told SM that all loans have been turned into shares and written off or not, whats wrong with that? But he doesn't seem to be replying and i don't know why ;)
-
Did you know We won today skellow!!
Yes thanks sweet cheeks, whats that got to do with asking SM if what he has posted was told to him officially by the club? Or are you just trying to provoke a response and be your usual opinionated bickering self?
No I was just wondering because you made a post ten mins after the final whistle had blown, but didn't mention the great result we'd just got and then proceeded to make a number of further posts still without mentioning the great victory, so I just presumed you didn't know the result.
Was a simple question really.
-
Because i'm not on a thread discussing the result, im on a thread querrying a statement SM has made. Is that ok with you? or do you want to carry on being a pr*ck looking for an arguement?
-
Only one person who's getting his knickers in a twist and it ain't me sweet cheeks.
-
I know you stalk me babes ,but now even calling my by the pet name that i have for you sweetcheeks. Immitation is the greatest form of flattery, i know you said you recently got married but are you bisexual as you seem to be fascinated by me? pmsl :D
-
Yeah skellow I'm bisexual oh my aching sides..
-
I wouldn't be surprised as stalking me seems to be one of your obsessions, so much so you even discuss what i post on other forums on here :woot: :saywhat:
Sorry to let you down sweetcheeks but i'm not attracted to men :lol:
-
:zzz: :zzz: :zzz: :zzz: :zzz: :byebye: :byebye: :byebye: :byebye: