By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Audited Accounts - Whose interpretation do you believe? on 10:49 - Mar 18 by E20Jack
Back again?
Oh it isn't obvious to anyone Shakes, least of all "everyone" as your psychosis compels yourself to state time and time again in order to satisfy your insatiable need to convince yourself.
So you are telling me you are victorious in our wonderfully informative chat because you referred to a case Lisa put forward? You know I am not Lisa yes? And you do realise that you make absolutely no sense whatsoever right?
You were talking about London the other day, if your theory based thought and deduction is as awful as it appears now, my City would have chewed you up and spat you out like the fantasist parasite you are. I assume you may have served myself and Lisa drinks maybe?
So again... do you believe that the Trust being the victims of unfair prejudice was something of great obscurity requiring great uncovering work?
The fact a very high profile case was being reported in April 2016 regarding the unfair prejudice at Blackpool football club is neither here nor there of course.
Consider yourself ruined yet again by a headless zombie you utter weirdo
[Post edited 18 Mar 2018 11:07]
"The fact a very high profile case was being reported in April 2016 regarding the unfair prejudice at Blackpool football club is neither here nor there of course"
Is that a fact? Reported where? The Blackpool Weekly Shopper?
Purely out of interest I'd to like to see that report.
Becasue the judgement which was widely reported was passed down in November 2017.
Here's how the Guardian reported it on 6/11/17:
"Justice Marcus Smith found that the Oystons paid £26.77m out of the club to companies they owned, during and after the single lucrative season in the Premier League, in a manner which involved “fundamental breaches” of their duties as directors and unfairly prejudiced Belokon"
Audited Accounts - Whose interpretation do you believe? on 11:10 - Mar 18 by Shaky
"The fact a very high profile case was being reported in April 2016 regarding the unfair prejudice at Blackpool football club is neither here nor there of course"
Is that a fact? Reported where? The Blackpool Weekly Shopper?
Purely out of interest I'd to like to see that report.
Becasue the judgement which was widely reported was passed down in November 2017.
Here's how the Guardian reported it on 6/11/17:
"Justice Marcus Smith found that the Oystons paid £26.77m out of the club to companies they owned, during and after the single lucrative season in the Premier League, in a manner which involved “fundamental breaches” of their duties as directors and unfairly prejudiced Belokon"
Hmmm. Doesn't sound anything like the situation at Swansea to me.
And you're saying I cribbed from this case, as opposed to the link I posted in real time early April 2016 on Jack Army?
Yo mad, bro.
I have said nothing of the sort 'fantasy Shakes'. I have simply pointed out that unfair prejudice is, and should be, among the first ports of call in cases like this and is not at all requiring of any particular deep thinking.
In your case I assume it was the result of googling and searching your Janet and John books. The Guardian reported the Oyston unfair prejudice case in April 2016 and that is only after a quick google, it was rumbling on from the beginning of that year.
"Yo mad bro" really is a tragic sentence coming from a man approaching his pensioner years that claims to be in corporate finance. I wouldn't even expect that from the young whippersnappers on the trading floor.
And dare I ask you Dim, how long exactly have you been working on this clearly time-consuming albit half-assed case to discredit my role in the Trust's legal position?
Sounds like you've been on a bit of a research mission here.
And then there is that psychological profile of me you told me you had prepared. Remember?
Audited Accounts - Whose interpretation do you believe? on 11:24 - Mar 18 by Shaky
And dare I ask you Dim, how long exactly have you been working on this clearly time-consuming albit half-assed case to discredit my role in the Trust's legal position?
Sounds like you've been on a bit of a research mission here.
And then there is that psychological profile of me you told me you had prepared. Remember?
Obsessed much?
LMAO.
Time consuming? Really? Where is the research apart from typing into Google "Blackpool unfair prejudice". So to answer your question... 3 minutes maybe?
Where am I discrediting you? I am simply stating that the fact the Trust were being the victim of unfair prejudice is not a tricky concept you seem to have convinced yourself it is. Whether that is your psychosis or bravado to convince others I am yet to conclude.
Many were looking at other avenues as unfair prejudice can be hard to prove. It was a process of deducing what avenue was best. This is the part you seem to be getting excited over when Lisa was suggesting the quasi partnership route.
When I am approaching 60 if I use such teen slang as "obsessed much, Yo mad bro, and LMAO" I will save yourself the trouble of fantasising over it and consider that self inflicted beheading scenario. Although my sheer embarrassment would probably do that on the spot naturally.
I once stayed in a cottage near the foot of Pen-y-gent in Yorkshire. This peak is far less ethereal than an accountants spreadsheet, however when photographed from different aspects it looks like a totally different thing.
Does this mean one photograph is wrong and the other right?
Or merely different views which help us to more fully understand the whole
Is it useful the accounts was raised as a thread and some of the issues explored? Most certainly.
It it helpful that this really important issue to us as significant shareholders, was turned into a pissing contest and point scoring exercise? Most definitely not.
3
Audited Accounts - Whose interpretation do you believe? on 12:04 - Mar 18 with 1076 views
Audited Accounts - Whose interpretation do you believe? on 11:34 - Mar 18 by chad
I once stayed in a cottage near the foot of Pen-y-gent in Yorkshire. This peak is far less ethereal than an accountants spreadsheet, however when photographed from different aspects it looks like a totally different thing.
Does this mean one photograph is wrong and the other right?
Or merely different views which help us to more fully understand the whole
Is it useful the accounts was raised as a thread and some of the issues explored? Most certainly.
It it helpful that this really important issue to us as significant shareholders, was turned into a pissing contest and point scoring exercise? Most definitely not.
I agree with most of that, but you are ignoring the fact that there is objective truth here.
And this is what I said in the first instance when the issue of Lisa's lack of understanding of basic principles of finance first emerged:
++++++++++++++++++++++++
1. With respect Lisa you don't understand the impact of working capital on cash-flow.
Let's say at year end there was £40m of deferred income (some of it must have been real accruals).
What that means is an advance payment in respect of the following year's revenue (from TV) had already been received. When that year is complete around £110m of sales will have been recognised. But only £ (110-40)=£70m cash received in respect of **that accounting year**.
Therefore when reconciling the P&L to cash-flow it is already down by £40m before any out-flows due to losses for the year.
The Premier League is in effect provoffering a pre-financing line to clubs and Swansea has decided to take maximum advantage.
When does that go wrong? On relegation or if TV revenues start to decline. +++++++++++++++++++++++++
The conversation then went donwhill from there as Lisa attempted to cover up her quite extraordinary lack of basic understanding, by making one baseless attack after the other on my analytical skills. Fcuking cheek
Neverhteless I remained exceptionally polite for some time after, admittedly in part because I was in shock.
Did I honestly just read Shaky claim to have analytical skills? Jesus Christ man, that is like Harold Shipman saying he has compassion as one of his strengths.
Audited Accounts - Whose interpretation do you believe? on 09:37 - Mar 18 by Shaky
since you ask so nicely:
I’m confused. The trust took legal advice on unfair prejudice at the time of Americans 1.0. Which was 2014 or 2015. Phil specifically mentioned it in a trust forum over a year before you posted about it?
. . .And BTW i see Monmouth has cast an arrow in this discussion.
You've been strangely silent throughout this discussion, what with you being a big booster for Lisa and everything.
But I bet you at least know the rule of thumb that when working capital goes up (/big negative becomes smaller) it consumes cash, and when it goes down it releases cash. And that working capital and cash are two sides of the same coin.
That understanding alone makes you more qualified for the finance affiliate position than Lisa.
Audited Accounts - Whose interpretation do you believe? on 12:08 - Mar 18 by wobbly
I’m confused. The trust took legal advice on unfair prejudice at the time of Americans 1.0. Which was 2014 or 2015. Phil specifically mentioned it in a trust forum over a year before you posted about it?
E20: "So you reckon before April 2016, nobody mentioned the obvious fact they were victims of unfair prejudice? Right?"
Fantasy Shakes: "Correct'.
(Yet in 2015 the Trust release a statement including the aforementioned Dai Little that state Unfair Prejudice as something they are very much aware of)
Audited Accounts - Whose interpretation do you believe? on 12:15 - Mar 18 by E20Jack
E20: "So you reckon before April 2016, nobody mentioned the obvious fact they were victims of unfair prejudice? Right?"
Fantasy Shakes: "Correct'.
(Yet in 2015 the Trust release a statement including the aforementioned Dai Little that state Unfair Prejudice as something they are very much aware of)
What do you mean "couldn't put a case together"?
There was no case, there was no takeover.
You are literally barmy.
[Post edited 18 Mar 2018 12:19]
You're an evil little shit, did you know that?
I wonder how much is pure ignorance and how much is malice.
I can’t be bothered shakes to be honest. It’s historical now, and I’m not interested in an argument either way. Deferred income became income when our premier league place was confirmed. The cash was received early and duly spent, so it is all a timing issue. Current cash flow concerns me a lot, given the uncertainty of our income, and how we are managing within the constraints of the receipts we are guaranteed. If we are teeming and lading on premier league survival, then that makes the cash flow situation more precarious, but that timing difference for the initial tranche would be covered by parachute anyway for at least one year whilst we pare our costs, hopefully in a controlled manner.
Only the insiders will know how robust those projections are, but I hope the Trust is all over it.
Audited Accounts - Whose interpretation do you believe? on 12:23 - Mar 18 by Shaky
You're an evil little shit, did you know that?
I wonder how much is pure ignorance and how much is malice.
I am evil now? Because I am pointing out what a fraud you are? Let's not forget my good man it was you that came for me (twice) like the utter psychotic being you are, don't throw your toys out of the pram if that comes back to bite you. Suck it up:-
Fantasy Shaky: "that wasn't taking advice over unfair prejudice it was about selling part of their shares"
Wrong.
"We have now received counsel’s opinion on what this deal means for the Trust. We felt that getting this opinion was needed due to the unusual legal status of a Supporters Trust — to make sure the interests of the members of the Trust were properly protected.
There are two key points from this opinion that is worth everyone being aware of:
That it is against our interests in the longer term to sell some of our shares. We had discussed this amongst the Trust board as one of our options but Counsel was of the opinion that it would weaken our influence, and also weaken any chance of success should we have to take litigation further down the line against any new owner on the grounds that our rights as a minority shareholder were being unfairly prejudiced."
Audited Accounts - Whose interpretation do you believe? on 12:08 - Mar 18 by wobbly
I’m confused. The trust took legal advice on unfair prejudice at the time of Americans 1.0. Which was 2014 or 2015. Phil specifically mentioned it in a trust forum over a year before you posted about it?
As for you Wobbly, i am not really sure what your game is.
Yanks 1 was a proposal to take a minority stake in the club through an offer to buy 30%.
That offer was open to the Trust.
The Trust took advice on aspects of selling a part stake.
And the advice was a part sale would reduce influence and could lead to a lower probability of success in the event of an unfair prejudice arising in the future.
A completely different matter, as I am sure you would agree. Right?
Audited Accounts - Whose interpretation do you believe? on 12:24 - Mar 18 by monmouth
I can’t be bothered shakes to be honest. It’s historical now, and I’m not interested in an argument either way. Deferred income became income when our premier league place was confirmed. The cash was received early and duly spent, so it is all a timing issue. Current cash flow concerns me a lot, given the uncertainty of our income, and how we are managing within the constraints of the receipts we are guaranteed. If we are teeming and lading on premier league survival, then that makes the cash flow situation more precarious, but that timing difference for the initial tranche would be covered by parachute anyway for at least one year whilst we pare our costs, hopefully in a controlled manner.
Only the insiders will know how robust those projections are, but I hope the Trust is all over it.
Your're right about the parachute payment covering some of the hole in the balance sheet.
But of course that is no doubt intended to cover the P&L adjustment going from a cost base of around £150 million and rising, to a revenue run rate of perhaps £20-25 in the Championship.
Audited Accounts - Whose interpretation do you believe? on 12:28 - Mar 18 by E20Jack
I am evil now? Because I am pointing out what a fraud you are? Let's not forget my good man it was you that came for me (twice) like the utter psychotic being you are, don't throw your toys out of the pram if that comes back to bite you. Suck it up:-
Fantasy Shaky: "that wasn't taking advice over unfair prejudice it was about selling part of their shares"
Wrong.
"We have now received counsel’s opinion on what this deal means for the Trust. We felt that getting this opinion was needed due to the unusual legal status of a Supporters Trust — to make sure the interests of the members of the Trust were properly protected.
There are two key points from this opinion that is worth everyone being aware of:
That it is against our interests in the longer term to sell some of our shares. We had discussed this amongst the Trust board as one of our options but Counsel was of the opinion that it would weaken our influence, and also weaken any chance of success should we have to take litigation further down the line against any new owner on the grounds that our rights as a minority shareholder were being unfairly prejudiced."
There was no issue of unfair prejudice at the time, liar.
Audited Accounts - Whose interpretation do you believe? on 12:30 - Mar 18 by Shaky
As for you Wobbly, i am not really sure what your game is.
Yanks 1 was a proposal to take a minority stake in the club through an offer to buy 30%.
That offer was open to the Trust.
The Trust took advice on aspects of selling a part stake.
And the advice was a part sale would reduce influence and could lead to a lower probability of success in the event of an unfair prejudice arising in the future.
A completely different matter, as I am sure you would agree. Right?
Of course it is a different matter, nobody is suggesting otherwise.
What is being said is that unfair prejudice is something fairly obvious. You are acting as if you were the one to come up with it or even make the Trust aware of the notion.
The fact is, they were discussing it a year before your Janet and John "hey I have found this in a Google search" eureka moment you posted on another site. It is a fairly obvious transition to make and to suggest they hadn't considered it an option is fanciful at best and fantasy ridden at most likely.
You have clearly convinced yourself otherwise though and tragically built this whole current persona on it. Hence why you cast bile on anyone who dare threaten your self created legacy in your own mind.
Audited Accounts - Whose interpretation do you believe? on 12:24 - Mar 18 by monmouth
I can’t be bothered shakes to be honest. It’s historical now, and I’m not interested in an argument either way. Deferred income became income when our premier league place was confirmed. The cash was received early and duly spent, so it is all a timing issue. Current cash flow concerns me a lot, given the uncertainty of our income, and how we are managing within the constraints of the receipts we are guaranteed. If we are teeming and lading on premier league survival, then that makes the cash flow situation more precarious, but that timing difference for the initial tranche would be covered by parachute anyway for at least one year whilst we pare our costs, hopefully in a controlled manner.
Only the insiders will know how robust those projections are, but I hope the Trust is all over it.
. . .and I am not sure what you mean by historical.
After the balance sheet player sales brought in perhaps £50 million while player purchases are around £60 million for a net of around £-10m.
Plus the likely inevitable cash-outflows from the P&L in the intervening period. It aint good.
Audited Accounts - Whose interpretation do you believe? on 11:34 - Mar 18 by chad
I once stayed in a cottage near the foot of Pen-y-gent in Yorkshire. This peak is far less ethereal than an accountants spreadsheet, however when photographed from different aspects it looks like a totally different thing.
Does this mean one photograph is wrong and the other right?
Or merely different views which help us to more fully understand the whole
Is it useful the accounts was raised as a thread and some of the issues explored? Most certainly.
It it helpful that this really important issue to us as significant shareholders, was turned into a pissing contest and point scoring exercise? Most definitely not.
I agree with you Chad.
I said the same two days ago on the other thread:
"The big shame is that some of the points you've made are relevant, and I've agreed with them. Such as saying cash flow management is crucial. That making bad choices on players is damaging and we can't afford to make too many mistakes. And yet all that's been lost by this nonsensical mania you have for trying to prove that no one else on this board could possibly understand finance.
There's an interesting discussion that could be had about finance. I've already alluded to issues such as contingencies and how they may affect us. There are discussions around commercial income. Discussions around the stadium. Discussions around how operating costs are so distorted by us sacking two entire lots of management team in one season. Etc etc etc. But you seem to have no real interest in anything other than trying to make the club look as though it was destitute. You even used the words 'going bust'. It's stupid Shaky. Fans get worried by that sort of misguided nonsense. And it's wrong. "
The issue is that different things are getting conflated and twisted in a desperate attempt to show me as 'wrong' or that I 'don't know as much about ginabce' or that I'm on a 'completely different level'.
It's bloody ridiculous. I refrain from commenting where possible (even when called a cow by Shaky), but he simply doesn't understand the point I'm making,
1
Audited Accounts - Whose interpretation do you believe? on 12:46 - Mar 18 with 973 views
Audited Accounts - Whose interpretation do you believe? on 12:42 - Mar 18 by Shaky
You think unfair Prejudice is like a specific criminal offence say handling stolen property.
Wrong. You have to put specific circumstances and law behind it.
You haven't a clue.
Nice strawman there Shakes. Telling someone something they believe when they have given no indication of that really won't win you any prizes.
Are you suggesting that the reasoning behind the Trust being unfairly prejudiced were difficult to work out and incredibly obscure then Fantasy Shakes?
I think it is coming clearer and clearer with every revelation who is clueless here. My toes are curling for you.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
