Calgacus 8 Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 (edited) I'm sure they would have been quite understanding! Edited October 2, 2013 by Calgacus typo 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calgacus 8 Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 I think we are getting caught up in the minutia of the accounts. My big worry is the rather large gap between revenue and costs, how long the cash will last and where funding is going to come from when (not if) we do run out of money. Yes ...it's a bit like commenting on frame and ignoring the painting. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,329 Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 I think we are getting caught up in the minutia of the accounts and missing the big picture. My worry is the rather large gap between revenue and costs, how long the cash will last and where funding is going to come from when (not if) we do run out of money. The potential future cashflow shortfall is obviously the biggest issue, but there are plenty of other points to sort out as well. There have been suggestions that this £3m+ had been a massive overspend by the directors or had mysteriously disappeared. Boss's theory is important as it potentially answers a query on expenditure that represents 15% of turnover. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 I think we are getting caught up in the minutia of the accounts and missing the big picture. My worry is the rather large gap between revenue and costs, how long the cash will last and where funding is going to come from when (not if) we do run out of money. Boss posted his article in the main accounts thread, but I moved it out to it's own thread so that it could be discussed separately since it's about the details of a very specific issue. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
boss 0 Posted October 2, 2013 Author Share Posted October 2, 2013 Boss posted his article in the main accounts thread, but I moved it out to it's own thread so that it could be discussed separately since it's about the details of a very specific issue. Ah, I thought I had. I even apologised to Frankie for messing up his forum as I didn't mean to start a new thread. And I didn't! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,050 Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 For this structure to work, the share premium had to be charged on paper against the IPO money. That’s why it looks like the IPO cost so much and why the issue to Green was specifically dependent upon a successful IPO. But in layman's terms, it didn’t really cost £5.7m in money paid out – the (say) £3m was really Green’s cut for the initial work. That was of course before we knew what league we would be playing in, hence Mather’s comments today are not incorrect. Greens contract wasn't signed till 17 September 2012 (though backdated till 12 June) ergo Mather's claim that we didn't know what league we would be playing cannot be correct as we were playing football in Division 3 then. Greens share were issued to him on 31 October 2012. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 Ah, I thought I had. I even apologised to Frankie for messing up his forum as I didn't mean to start a new thread. And I didn't! I thought your post/article merited a thread of it's own because it would quickly have gotten lost in the main accounts thread. A little slight of hand, "now you see me, now you don't" to go with the subject matter! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
boss 0 Posted October 2, 2013 Author Share Posted October 2, 2013 Greens contract wasn't signed till 17 September 2012 (though backdated till 12 June) ergo Mather's claim that we didn't know what league we would be playing cannot be correct as we were playing football in Division 3 then. Greens share were issued to him on 31 October 2012. Agreed, but the contract incorporated the Option that was approved by the board on 29 May 2012 which was before we knew what league we were in. It's ultimately the exercise of the Option that gives rise to the 'cost'. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
boss 0 Posted October 2, 2013 Author Share Posted October 2, 2013 A little slight of hand, "now you see me, now you don't" to go with the subject matter! As bad as Mather. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,050 Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 Agreed, but the contract incorporated the Option that was approved by the board on 29 May 2012 which was before we knew what league we were in. It's ultimately the exercise of the Option that gives rise to the 'cost'. Approved by the board, LMFAO Care to tell us what or rather just who exactly constituted the board on 29 May 2012? It was a solo gig by none other than Charles Alexander Green was it not? It wasn't necessary to incorporate that Option into the contract on 17 September 2012 so to claim that we did not know what league we would be playing when that option was granted is untrue as were were actually playing football in a league. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.