Trust Letter to AL

[ghostofcecere]

7 hours ago, singe said:

Nigh on £12m is easy to forget when it is convenient.

Some of the £12M showing in the club accounts is the cost of leasing the North Stand off Brassbank for the next X amount of years (sorry can’t remember what the timeframe was). So whilst it’s horrific, it’s marginally less horrific than it might appear. 

 

The most worrying thing thing that was said is that the club is basically insolvent and relies completely on the money the owner puts in. I should add, it’s not clear to the Trust where the money comes from!

[latics22]

NDA or not, why hasn’t this been said? And where are the minutes? Instead of the pre pre statement. It’s a bit ridiculous ! And all gone quite again! 

[laticsmarra]

11 hours ago, kowenicki said:

 

Im not sure if statutory accounts are the same as the abbreviated accounts that would usually be sent to companies house.  I was under the impression that statutory accounts included full info. But I’m not an accountant. 

 

 

Statutory Accounts are those filed at Companies House.Smaller companies which fall below certain size criteria have the option to file either Micro or Abbreviated Accounts which have a Balance Sheet only' supported by limited notes.They do not include a Profit & Loss Account.Basically not worth the paper they are written on.

[GlossopLatic]

59 minutes ago, ghostofcecere said:

Some of the £12M showing in the club accounts is the cost of leasing the North Stand off Brassbank for the next X amount of years (sorry can’t remember what the timeframe was). So whilst it’s horrific, it’s marginally less horrific than it might appear. 

 

The most worrying thing thing that was said is that the club is basically insolvent and relies completely on the money the owner puts in. I should add, it’s not clear to the Trust where the money comes from!

 

I think Corney extended the lease of the ground back in 2011 for 20 years so we have a good 12 years worth of lease their which as one lump sum looks bad but probably isn't as bad as it looks.

 

Interms of what the Trust can look at the statutory accounts are in my understanding (anyone who knows better please imterject) year end accounts giving a high level view. The Trust as shareholders can see them by law. To get to the nitty gritty you would probably need someone to go in and audit them or get a thorough review of the management accounts.

 

But any commercially sensitive details shouldn't be out in the public domain so signing an NDA here shouldn't be greeted with a sense of conspiracy . That said Id still like to see some proper minutes from this meeting just to get abit of insight into what has gone on.

Edited May 14, 2019 by GlossopLatic

[mcfluff1985]

1 hour ago, Jimbooth said:

That's not the same at all. 

Why? If you've signed up to the trust and seen the absolute shambles they've made of this whole thing I'd be surprised if you didn't want your money back.

 

Shit show of the highest order. Promises of statements and minutes etc. Few statements saying bugger all.

 

It's actually embarrassing 

[latics22]

5 minutes ago, GlossopLatic said:

 

I think Corney extended the lease of the ground back in 2011 for 20 years so we have a good 12 years worth of lease their which as one lump sum looks bad but probably isn't as bad as it looks.

 

Interms of what the Trust can look at the statutory accounts are in my understanding (anyone who knows better please imterject) year end accounts giving a high level view. The Trust as shareholders can see them by law. To get to the nitty gritty you would probably need someone to go in and audit them or get a thorough review of the management accounts.

 

But any commercially sensitive details shouldn't be out in the public domain so signing an NDA here shouldn't be greeted with a sense of conspiracy . That said Id still like to see some proper minutes from this meeting just to get abit of insight into what has gone on.

Well it’s hardly trusting is it? How many are on the trust at the meeting? If one speaks how would they know who spoke? How much does as NDA cost? How time consuming is it ? If there is nothing to hide....?

[singe]

5 minutes ago, GlossopLatic said:

 

I think Corney extended the lease of the ground back in 2011 for 20 years so we have a good 12 years worth of lease their which as one lump sum looks bad but probably isn't as bad as it looks.

 

Interms of what the Trust can look at the statutory accounts are in my understanding (anyone who knows better please imterject) year end accounts giving a high level view. The Trust as shareholders can see them by law. To get to the nitty gritty you would probably need someone to go in and audit them or get a thorough review of the management accounts.

 

But any commercially sensitive details shouldn't be out in the public domain so signing an NDA here shouldn't be greeted with a sense of conspiracy . That said Id still like to see some proper minutes from this meeting just to get abit of insight into what has gone on.

For clarification, is the £12m as lease over 20 years a repayment? You would expect the sum to decrease, even though it has increased every year!
That is nigh on £1/2m every year, and a hefty chunk out of  the income £3m or £4m before other costs, and then he owns the whole shebang? 

[Dave_Og]

2 hours ago, mcfluff1985 said:

Season ticket holders asking for refunds should get theirs back in pennies?

Nonsense comparison 

[GlossopLatic]

6 minutes ago, latics22 said:

Well it’s hardly trusting is it? How many are on the trust at the meeting? If one speaks how would they know who spoke? How much does as NDA cost? How time consuming is it ? If there is nothing to hide....?

 

Well I'm not a member of the Trust and I wasn't in the room. 

 

Yes it would be good to get a proper summary and some minutes to gain some insight to what has been said and it is going on at the club. But some stuff should just stay behind closed doors as by publicising such information could weaken our hand in any negotiations with other clubs/agents/players.

[GlossopLatic]

9 minutes ago, singe said:

For clarification, is the £12m as lease over 20 years a repayment? You would expect the sum to decrease, even though it has increased every year!
That is nigh on £1/2m every year, and a hefty chunk out of  the income £3m or £4m before other costs, and then he owns the whole shebang? 

 

I don't know the full details but that £12 mill figure is the full debt figure the majority of which will include directors loans to Blitz/Gazal and Corney. I imagine the lease figure is a fraction of that.

[singe]

4 minutes ago, GlossopLatic said:

 

I don't know the full details but that £12 mill figure is the full debt figure the majority of which will include directors loans to Blitz/Gazal and Corney. I imagine the lease figure is a fraction of that.

Ah, I thought you were saying it was not so bad as it looks.

[ghostofcecere]

17 minutes ago, singe said:

Ah, I thought you were saying it was not so bad as it looks.

It was me that partially suggested that.

 

What I meant was it’s not like someone is going to serve us with a winding up order for £12M tomorrow. But as you quite rightly point out, we should see that debt decrease in the accounts year on year... until the next lease is signed of course!

[mcfluff1985]

30 minutes ago, Dave_Og said:

Nonsense comparison 

What's the difference?

[Dave_Og]

49 minutes ago, mcfluff1985 said:

What's the difference?

One is a business selling a product. One is a group of volunteers willing to stick their heads over the parapet while being routinely slated by anonymous posters. 

[mcfluff1985]

8 minutes ago, Dave_Og said:

One is a business selling a product. One is a group of volunteers willing to stick their heads over the parapet while being routinely slated by anonymous posters. 

Ah ok. So anyone who signed up to the trust after all their talk of transparency, now after seeing they're as transparent as a lump of coal, those people should take it on the chin?

[GlossopLatic]

4 minutes ago, mcfluff1985 said:

Ah ok. So anyone who signed up to the trust after all their talk of transparency, now after seeing they're as transparent as a lump of coal, those people should take it on the chin?

 

For a tenner yes

 

This whataboutism is pathetic btw.

[Dave_Og]

10 minutes ago, mcfluff1985 said:

Ah ok. So anyone who signed up to the trust after all their talk of transparency, now after seeing they're as transparent as a lump of coal, those people should take it on the chin?

It simply isn't in the trust's power to deliver much, but they try. I think there have been some mistakes made but at least they are willing to try rather than just moan. 

[latics22]

3 minutes ago, Dave_Og said:

It simply isn't in the trust's power to deliver much, but they try. I think there have been some mistakes made but at least they are willing to try rather than just moan. 

The trust are essentially  AL, people take thier frustration out on them, that  they want to aim at AL! But and it’s big but, you can’t say minutes will be out last week and it all goes silent, u can’t agree a NDA and not declare it. Like someone said a NDA doesn’t mean not declaring a NDA. It feels cloak and dagga, everything they are meant to be fighting against !

[mcfluff1985]

36 minutes ago, GlossopLatic said:

 

For a tenner yes

 

This whataboutism is pathetic btw.

So is the silence from the trust

[mcfluff1985]

45 minutes ago, Dave_Og said:

It simply isn't in the trust's power to deliver much, but they try. I think there have been some mistakes made but at least they are willing to try rather than just moan. 

So a pointless organisation. As they've proven time and again. 

 

It's either boycott or just watch powerless until AL gets bored and fucks off.

 

Those are the only 2 options I can see

[League one forever]

33 minutes ago, mcfluff1985 said:

So a pointless organisation. As they've proven time and again. 

 

It's either boycott or just watch powerless until AL gets bored and fucks off.

 

Those are the only 2 options I can see

Do you understand what the trust is? Seriously? 

 

What power do you think they have over a private businessman whose company isn't in administration? The answer is none. 

 

It seems you want a bunch of volunteers to gain the trust of the owner so he tells them whatever little he chooses. Then you want them to out him, fully minute and publicise every word he says. .  Betraying what slither of cooperation there is.

 

To achieve what?

 

Force him to sell? To who?

 

He clearly loves the ego trip of owning a club. If he is paying the bills, and keeps us out of court. He is answerable to no one! 

 

 

 

 

My advice- stick the cricket on. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[GlossopLatic]

6 hours ago, mcfluff1985 said:

So is the silence from the trust

 

Well you got asked directly on here if you wanted to meet with a trust director and you shit your pants and bottled it. why shpuld they respond to you. You'd rather be a troll on here.

 

And again just to reiterate, you think Paul Scholes bottled it. It's all the trust's fault, the French lads are brilliant and you definitely definitely are not an apologist for the owner.

[mcfluff1985]

1 hour ago, GlossopLatic said:

 

Well you got asked directly on here if you wanted to meet with a trust director and you shit your pants and bottled it. why shpuld they respond to you. You'd rather be a troll on here.

 

And again just to reiterate, you think Paul Scholes bottled it. It's all the trust's fault, the French lads are brilliant and you definitely definitely are not an apologist for the owner.

Again I will refer you to any number of my posts where I say AL is doing an awful job. You really need to see someone, your reading isn't up to much. Scholes, in my opinion, did bottle it, and SOME of AL's players are decent

 

Ha, shit my pants? What would it achieve? I thought the trust were open to suggestions? Look at their responses to people. They're clearly not. They say they'll inform the fans and keep people up to date. They don't. Silence from them at the minute

[mcfluff1985]

6 hours ago, League one forever said:

Do you understand what the trust is? Seriously? 

 

What power do you think they have over a private businessman whose company isn't in administration? The answer is none. 

 

It seems you want a bunch of volunteers to gain the trust of the owner so he tells them whatever little he chooses. Then you want them to out him, fully minute and publicise every word he says. .  Betraying what slither of cooperation there is.

 

To achieve what?

 

Force him to sell? To who?

 

He clearly loves the ego trip of owning a club. If he is paying the bills, and keeps us out of court. He is answerable to no one! 

 

 

 

 

My advice- stick the cricket on. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

They have no power. My point exactly. This is why I said they're a pointless organisation. They cant change anything. 

 

Least they could do is update fans on the meetings they've had. And I don't mean commercially sensitive stuff.

 

You've literally just agreed with me in your post. Trust are powerless and AL can do practically what he wants till he gets bored

[ghostofcecere]

40 minutes ago, mcfluff1985 said:

Again I will refer you to any number of my posts where I say AL is doing an awful job. You really need to see someone, your reading isn't up to much. Scholes, in my opinion, did bottle it, and SOME of AL's players are decent

 

Ha, shit my pants? What would it achieve? I thought the trust were open to suggestions? Look at their responses to people. They're clearly not. They say they'll inform the fans and keep people up to date. They don't. Silence from them at the minute

Silence? I went to a meeting with them on Monday night, maybe you should have gone and asked questions to them directly