thats just how i see things, also as stated earlier clarification from Ilyas would not go amiss, after much thought on it, seems like a "Gun To The Head" to me, would welcome him telling us differant.
Can Someone Explain ?
- Thread starter Shurm
- Start date
Sorry, I don't understand this. I thought we had 2 months to raise £308,000. Isn't that the only possible budget? Or am I missing something?
the budget (weeks ago) was designed with the 18k a month payment set aside. If the debt disappears here and now then there will be a surplus in monthly trading figures
So what has happened to the loans that were made in order to pay HMRC?
read uks link of the meeting, that explains
meant listen not read. lol
Shurm and Jeff are thinking like me.
Take the football passion out of what is a business problem....
Why Do people describe Ilyas as BLACKMAILING the Don ?? He has contributed as much to ASFC as the Don has (word of mouth due to lack of accounts) BUT does not have any say in the running of the club.
We are at a pivotal point in ASFC's future...
ONE man and his ways got us into this mess. I worry that one man could do that again(Nothing personal I dont now the Don personally), but where a share option is BEST is that we have shareholder meetings and ONE man cannot rule to the clubs detriment. And things are a lot more public for the fans to see.
Last night the Don asked us to trust his jugdement in this matter only a few minutes after admitting to buying a club up to its eyes in mess(2 months ago) ???
As an ASFC fan I say bring me the tin bucket to chuck money in !!!!
As a business man I say who are we trying to save ??
Take the football passion out of what is a business problem....
Why Do people describe Ilyas as BLACKMAILING the Don ?? He has contributed as much to ASFC as the Don has (word of mouth due to lack of accounts) BUT does not have any say in the running of the club.
We are at a pivotal point in ASFC's future...
ONE man and his ways got us into this mess. I worry that one man could do that again(Nothing personal I dont now the Don personally), but where a share option is BEST is that we have shareholder meetings and ONE man cannot rule to the clubs detriment. And things are a lot more public for the fans to see.
Last night the Don asked us to trust his jugdement in this matter only a few minutes after admitting to buying a club up to its eyes in mess(2 months ago) ???
As an ASFC fan I say bring me the tin bucket to chuck money in !!!!
As a business man I say who are we trying to save ??
Last edited:
read uks link of the meeting, that explains
Sorry - can't open that link. Can anyone tell me what was said about these loans?
The Don has been involved with the club for long enough. He must have known about the debts and overall financial situation. He also knew what his own resources were. There seems to me to be a mismatch. I wonder how he planned to solve this mismatch. Where EXACTLY was the money going to come from?
basically i understood, the summer when club had no income coming in, they were used fer day to day running/ outgoings of the club, the money fer the loans is now back in bank as i understood Rob Heys saying, as fer mismatch rightly or wrongly they were working on premise that the tax could be paid oer 12 months, not 8 weeks, i will ask you the question i asked jeff, where would stanley be now if the don had not bought E.W. out? the possibilty does not fill me with excitement.
the possibilty does not fill me with excitement.Thanks for that, cashy.
So the money for the loans is now back in the bank. I wonder where that money came from. I have just re-read the item about John Glasson's loan on the fishy site. This is an interesting quotation :
Allaying any fears of the club building up further debt David continued "John will be repaid in full in the next 12 months.
Mmm?
I fear that the answer to your question about where would Stanley be had the Don not bought out EW is that we would be in the same predicament.
So the money for the loans is now back in the bank. I wonder where that money came from. I have just re-read the item about John Glasson's loan on the fishy site. This is an interesting quotation :
Allaying any fears of the club building up further debt David continued "John will be repaid in full in the next 12 months.
Mmm?
I fear that the answer to your question about where would Stanley be had the Don not bought out EW is that we would be in the same predicament.
it was just on 2br about 30 mins ago, that E.W. had a few offers to sell the club, if that was the case then neither ilyas nor the don could do owt about his choice, the owner of owt rules simple as. E.W. felt the Don was the best hands to put club in, right or wrong thats the way it was, so therefore i must accept the owners right, n do me best to support the club through this crisis.
i doubt that very much revived red, i fer one could not see the new back room team being here, also do not think coley would have been able to get this squad together. think things have started moving in a far more positive way since michelle n these extra bodies have come aboard n given a fair run think the club will benefit greatly from this addition.
I partly agree with that, cashy. But your question was "where would Stanley be now". Emphasis on the now. And I am thinking solely of the financial situation. I agree that the backroom team would not be in place as they are now. But it hardly matters if we have not progressed out of the financial mire.
I think my tiny brain is just starting to get all this. Sorry ASSF people.
The 'controlling shares for ASSF' flag was raised most recently when macca posted in another thread:
In my very basic understanding, the offer from ASSF will only become active (funds will only be released into the ASSF company account) in the event of two things:
Questions of David O'Neill are asked because not everything adds up. I completely empathise with Jeff when he posts his cynical view (that it was O'Neill's plan all along to buy the club and fundraise for a bail-out to make his investment worthwile, as he knew of the club's troubles before he took over). O'Neill has also made up a story (akin to the tricks of EW) that he has received an unconditional offer of help from another party (if it was unconditional, why not accept it straight off?!). There is also the furore over why the funds intended to pay the tax man were used elsewhere, and the ridiculous "I'll investigate why it hasn't been paid" comment.
The O'Neill regime has polished the club up in its short time and no one from any party wants him to be removed, but it's pretty clear that he wouldn't invest the same amount of time or links or resources in the club without a controlling stake.
Obviously the only beneficiary of this post is me and my basic grasp. If I've made any glaring mistakes I'm sure VALAIRIAN & co. will amend accordingly!
The 'controlling shares for ASSF' flag was raised most recently when macca posted in another thread:
In my very basic understanding, the offer from ASSF will only become active (funds will only be released into the ASSF company account) in the event of two things:
- A valuation is allowed to be made of the club,
- Promise of a fresh share issue is made once a valuation is obtained.
Questions of David O'Neill are asked because not everything adds up. I completely empathise with Jeff when he posts his cynical view (that it was O'Neill's plan all along to buy the club and fundraise for a bail-out to make his investment worthwile, as he knew of the club's troubles before he took over). O'Neill has also made up a story (akin to the tricks of EW) that he has received an unconditional offer of help from another party (if it was unconditional, why not accept it straight off?!). There is also the furore over why the funds intended to pay the tax man were used elsewhere, and the ridiculous "I'll investigate why it hasn't been paid" comment.
The O'Neill regime has polished the club up in its short time and no one from any party wants him to be removed, but it's pretty clear that he wouldn't invest the same amount of time or links or resources in the club without a controlling stake.
Obviously the only beneficiary of this post is me and my basic grasp. If I've made any glaring mistakes I'm sure VALAIRIAN & co. will amend accordingly!
Last edited:
I think my tiny brain is just starting to get all this. Sorry ASSF people.
The 'controlling shares for ASSF' flag was raised most recently when macca posted in another thread:
In my very basic understanding, the offer from ASSF will only become active (funds will only be released into the ASSF company account) in the event of two things:
With the valuation declaring that the club is basically worthless, the funds released to ASSF by Mr Khan would buy ASSF a gigantic amount of shares. The ASSF aren't demanding control of the club; it just so happens that the money available should O'Neill decide to play ball would (with just and fair proceedings) buy the company a controlling amount of shares. This money would go into the club rather than to the owner of any shares (as shares bought would be new) and therefore be available to bail out the club.
- A valuation is allowed to be made of the club,
- Promise of a fresh share issue is made once a valuation is obtained.
Questions of David O'Neill are asked because not everything adds up. I completely empathise with Jeff when he posts his cynical view (that it was O'Neill's plan all along to buy the club and fundraise for a bail-out to make his investment worthwile, as he knew of the club's troubles before he took over). O'Neill has also made up a story (akin to the tricks of EW) that he has received an unconditional offer of help from another party (if it was unconditional, why not accept it straight off?!)
The O'Neill regime has polished the club up in its short time and no one from any party wants him to be removed, but it's pretty clear that he wouldn't invest the same amount of time or links or resources in the club without a controlling stake.
Obviously the only beneficiary of this post is me and my basic grasp. If I've made any glaring mistakes I'm sure VALAIRIAN & co. will amend accordingly!
would the don having a controlling stake be good or bad in your opinion shaker? myself i reckon he's took this job on, i have seen improvements at the club since he did, so so far so good IMHO, so therefore to me deserves a crack at it. this old tax bill (2006) apart, things going in a far better way than under previous regime.
would the don having a controlling stake be good or bad in your opinion shaker? myself i reckon he's took this job on, i have seen improvements at the club since he did, so so far so good IMHO, so therefore to me deserves a crack at it. this old tax bill (2006) apart, things going in a far better way than under previous regime.
I'd agree that things have looked much brighter since the O'Neill takeover. The website has been updated much more regularly and Dan is doing a very good job of not only his commercial work but the unravelling of the mess left for him to take up upon his arrival - just to mention a couple of things. For all the confusion and irregularities surrounding the tax bill, I'd like to see the present regime in place once the club is on an equal footing. However as I said in the previous post it appears to me very unlikely that O'Neill & co. would do the same work without a controlling stake in the club.
Last edited:
you may right shaker, meself aint so sure, my opinion fer what its worth is hes stanley through n through, bit like uncle jack was at rovers, only not as rich.
if he was just a control freak, doubt if he would get his jacket off n help wi menial tasks like seating etc etc, i'm prepared at this point to give benifit of the doubt. which aint summat cashy normally does.
if he was just a control freak, doubt if he would get his jacket off n help wi menial tasks like seating etc etc, i'm prepared at this point to give benifit of the doubt. which aint summat cashy normally does.