I grew up on the Whitton Estate and Ruel Fox lived a couple of streets away from me!
That can't be whitton, it still has wheels on.
I grew up on the Whitton Estate and Ruel Fox lived a couple of streets away from me!
So you've seen the write offs attributed directly to her, no loans.
Is the pet project restaraunt actually making any money?
I'm sorry, I don't believe it is as cut, dry and all giving as you are making out. Its not all give, give, give because she has the majority sharehold that she swore nobody should have. I have no doubt that she has given money to the club, but she has also had alot in return with the freedom to do as she pleases.
Also, if she didn't give (perceived or genuine) I doubt very much she'd still be here because she's just paid to cover up her own mistakes. She nearly ruined us with error after error.
Finally, I don't think she would sell even if she knew it was in the clubs best interest. I do not think she is a genuine person.
If you dissect the accounts you will see everything there - unless you think they are rigged. The facts are in the accounts but I assume you are not really interested in facts only half baked opinions. The only thing you are right about is that she owns the majority shareholding which could be very valuable if the Club succeeds and she sells. As, however, you are convinced that she wants to run the Club into the ground and will never sell there is no value in that. Debt free, 3 seasons in the Premiership, ahead of time in a 7 year plan etc etc - If that is your definition of ' nearly ruined us ' then you must have strange ideas about success and failure.
Ok, I hate myself for it but I have to ask. Why the obsession with "Delia's"? Overall catering profits have increased massively since a Delia Smith took over the running of the operation. I don't know how it breaks down but why is the restaurant a particular problem for you? Bad burger?
How much dosh has Stephen Fry coughed up during his time on the board?
Not at all, the facts are indeed important.
I dont believe she wants to run the club into the ground, even she is not that stupid. Being an accountant to say she didn't nearly ruin us then perhaps its best you did retire, it also suggests to me you are a tad smitten with her because clearly the club did nearly hit the brink under her decision making as owner.
Have you seen within those accounts no return, success with "Delias". The accounts I looked at saw a 1.6 million payout to the directors. I could be wrong as I certainly do not know about such things. Loans turned to shares? That seems to have been a theme from the past.
I do take exception to people claiming this has been a one way stream of give,give give. I do not think she gives a toss about fan opinion (probably not a bad thing to be honest) but not the image she portrays.
Where are the figures relating to Delias? I couldn't find any direct mention (the hotel was in there). I don't think the books are cooked, I do think she's getting more out than you are letting on. I don't think she is money motivated, ownership, to do as she wanted was her aim. I don't want her or her husband making decisions about football.
Carrabuh, the directorship payments disclosed are I believe only the executive. So Delia's not paid a penny. If you're worried about that, I do know that a year or two ago McNally was in the top three football directors in terms of salary (somewhere round the million mark).
Converting loans to shares is actually effectively a donation to the club in the form of a debt write-off - see Abramovich. It wipes the cost of the loan off the balance sheet, could mean the club can then borrow more elsewhere. Take Evans for example, he's loaned c.£70m to Ipswich and is therefore able to get a very healthy rate of interest on that. Converting it into debt (usually) makes it worth a lot less (short term).
You stated earlier that she has not taken anything, now you only "believe".
How is exchanging loans for shares not getting anything in return. You are surely getting a higher percentage of the club under your ownership.
I think you're confusing me with 1950
I didn't say you're getting nothing, I said it works as a debt write-off (though in Abramovich's case he kind of gets nothing as he's already 100% shareholder I believe) which technically reduces the value (in this case).
Yes, Delia will increase her shareholding, but the debt is almost certainly much more valuable than the dead equity, and when you're already majority shareholder the extra equity doesn't really affect your share of the vote so much. From the company point of view, getting the debt turned into equity is absolutely great.
No, I just see it as her pet project. I'm curious as to whether it actually makes money or was just a means of her doing what she's always wanted to do. I'm not "obsessed" with it, I'm just trying to establish whether it is beneficial to the club.
I'm sure catering profits have increase at all clubs over the last 20 years. I just do not see in the accounts a separate entity that is the restaurant and wonder if the club is supplementing it financially. It may well be that it is, I don't know.
I've never trusted her since the whole Bryan Gunn debacle. I find her very manipulative.
No, I just see it as her pet project. I'm curious as to whether it actually makes money or was just a means of her doing what she's always wanted to do. I'm not "obsessed" with it, I'm just trying to establish whether it is beneficial to the club.
I'm sure catering profits have increase at all clubs over the last 20 years. I just do not see in the accounts a separate entity that is the restaurant and wonder if the club is supplementing it financially. It may well be that it is, I don't know.
I've never trusted her since the whole Bryan Gunn debacle. I find her very manipulative.
Others have already adequately answered the majority of the points but I am amazed by your final comment ' I find her very manipulative ' I have met and spoken to Delia many times over the years and, perhaps because she is driven by her strong religious beliefs, have always found her to be exactly the opposite. At golf this morning one of our four deals with Delia on a weekly basis and I just asked him whether he had ever found her to be manipulative. He was genuinely surprised at the question and replied along the lines of ' never - sometimes she is too straightforward for her own good ' I also asked him about her current day to day involvement with the Club and his impression was that she had virtually stepped back ' leaving the catering/hospitality side to the team she has put in place, Board matters to Alan and the day to day running of the Club to David ' Why have you found her manipulative?
The rant of a desperate man.
