To answer that I'd have to repeat all the other posts on this subject you've clearly ignored or not understood.
Maybe you have insider knowledge that I dont have but don't think so.
I'll give it a go anyway In answer I was relating to your post of Sat Oct 7th 7.10 pm so your remarks on ignoring or misunderstood would seem strange
"Any club run well run would not have their lossers of 600k and this year would be more if Ellis hadnt contributed"
600k was next to the lowest in SL. And the 600k includes non cash items like depreciation.
The balance sheet backs this up with "cash in bank" Depreciation means that at some time these will have to be replaced hence why they are allowed in balance sheet
To point these are the lowest amount lost clearly points to unsubstantial and not something any responsible c/o of any limited company would put to any shareholders or supporters
Ellis gave us money to spend. If he hadn't given it we wouldn't have spent it so wouldn't have affected the numbers. This was a sponsorship I understand therefore the club made the decision
"Any organisation is judged by profit and loss"
You are correct. So the logic is we are better than all but one of our competitors on this judgement. Not logical we are better than you because we lose less money ?
"We have more debt lost our super league position and insolvent as we cannot afford to repay what we have borrowed."
More debt - correct....and more assets too Incorrect any valuation carried out would mean that our indebtedness would not repeat would not meet our asset value this depreciated once they lost the super league status and incurred long standing debt
Lost our SL position - correct. No one likes that. But we are talking about how the club is run.
Rest my case
We are very much NOT insolvent. You need to look up what that means clearly you are not aware what the definition of insolvency is “if a company cannot meet its current indebtedness then it is insolvent”
And we clearly can afford to pay the loans as 1) we are doing it and 2) the council have already given us a break on it. Inconsistent and contradictory statement we cannot afford to repay the loans as we have to ask for a brake?
"Some mythical income stream from the East stand is going to solve everthing."
Not sure why you think it's mythical. We already have income from hospitality in the Hub. So adding a new, massive, venue will clearly add more. And we have already got bookings.
Must have missed that is the east stand opened? Answer it should have been we are danger of losing thee lucrative xmas income secondly income ? you haven’t taken account of the cost and a few bookings will not mean it will be a money cow its mythical until proven by facts
No one says it'll solve everything but it gets us more money and improves scores on 3 of the 5 IMG sections....which is priceless. Agree but only at a cost which now in championship is not sustainable without millionaire support that Mr Ellis will have to do
"Thank god for someone with will and means" - I assume you mean Ellis? And yes I agree. Glad he's here
I'm not blindly defending. The recruitment and playing side were poor this year and it hurt us. But saying the club is run badly, with the statements above is incorrect.
I guess we have different opinions it has been badly run, but in the clear light of day people will have to judge
We have a fantastic chance now of moving forward and that should be the aim of everyone critic and fan alike.
