Accounts Released

I have no problem with rewarding those who work for the club. I rather prefer the payments to be transparent.

 

The ****ers should definitely do it for free, otherwise they're out

 

They're paying themselves £38k a week while the team is struggling with a League one budget.

We released players this summer because we didn't want to pay their wages, rumoured to be as high as £10k a week and they're taking almost four times that while barely even doing anything at the club.

Don't know how you could not have an issue with that.

 

an indirect tax benefit is not “in interest” as the chap claimed

 

This a ****ing joke?

 

“we aren’t the prettiest girl in the playground” is how I remember it.
Just as we signed manucho over James Beattie

 

It was self funding under Adam! So not putting money in
Let’s see what new owners do. It will be interesting for sure
And if they don’t buy ronaldo or Messi my pass is getting sent back

 

And if the new owners pay themself the same salary as the owners? Still boycotting?

 

Got chance just now to read the accounts (from the download in the OP - thanks), rather than just looking at the responses & snippets.

First off, I find it incredible how a) directors (in this there are only 2, being Assem and Ehab) can get away with reporting such bollocks, and b) how an accountancy firm can sign off on it. What I mean by this is the comments in the Director's 'Strategic Report'. Specifically:


i.e. there clearly is no strategy whatsoever to return the club to the PL.


i.e. there clearly has been no such investment in recent years


i.e. their (there's only 2 of them) skills are clearly not substantial and varied in relation to running a football club, and they clearly aren't considering the interests of all stakeholders and communicating accordingly.

Also, it's 'their' not 'there' and statutory accounts are no place for exclamation marks, but they are minor gripes.

The above statements are clearly bollox that don't stand up to the slightest level of scrutiny. And that's without getting into the discussion about 'going concern' when it's now, along with the related SMC, clearly loss making.

Then, in regard to this £20 mill 'current asset' of debtors sat on the Balance Sheet, note 11 to the accounts includes the following:

I can only think this is related to ongoing losses from the SMC that the 'SMC' owe to the club? The fact that it's increased by just over £1mill would seem to support this assumption.

In a sense, if a takeover is happening, it's probably a little academic anyway. The new owner(s) would:
- pay whatever the agreed price is to the Allams, for which the debt would then presumably be cleared
- in return, they would 'receive':
- Fixed Assets with a notional book value of £2.7 million
- Stocks of £0.16 million
- Creditors to pay off of around £7 million in total (<1 year + > 1 year) although some of that might be owed to the Allams so written off as part of the sale.
- a loss making football club (arguably heading for L1 without change / investment) and a loss making SMC

.Apologies if stating the obviouses. And please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

We'd have been £4 million better off in the Championship, but unfortunately due to 'mismanagement' we were in the tier below...

 

Can not accept that if we had an Offer of £8 Million for any player they would still be here.

 

..... unless new owners want to keep him??

 

That Sir is a good point.

 

Looking at that again if Hull City are 40 million in debt and the SMC is 20 million in debt, are we in the ****?

 

Now seems like a good time for a song

 

Best get myself a euro million ticket again.

 

People need to stop talking about what our 'new owners' will or won't do.

Why? Because we don't have new owners.

 

Remember that time our new owners were picking and choosing our new signings.