Jump to content

kobayashi

Sheffield Wednesday Fan
  • Content Count

    768
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

488 Excellent

About kobayashi

  • Rank
    Sheffield Wednesday Reserves

Recent Profile Visitors

2,078 profile views
  1. You are wrong...just as the operating loss ex the profit in ground sale was actually £35.5m. That is a single year loss set against an allowed loss of £39m over years - total mismanagement.
  2. Of the £25.3m turnover a total of £24m came from external sources and just £1.3m from the chairman. Unfortunately in his time at SWFC the chairman has built a cash burning machine so he has to fund through loans the difference between the revenue and the costs he has created. He is paying for his own incompetence...
  3. The rules of the EFL are those which it members the clubs have decided are appropriate. If Chansiri or anybody else believes they are wrong they should make the case and win the support of the other clubs to change them...he didn’t he just chose to ignore the rules.
  4. Are they just queying whether accounting statndards have been properly applied? The statement from the EFL states "financial information provided by Sheffield Wednesday in relation to the Club’s 2017/18 Profitability and Sustainability (P&S) submission". The financial information that clubs have to provide goes beyond just sending in a copy of the audited accounts and includes various projections from the year before, adjustments and directors statements. The SWFC submissions for 2017/18 was not a one-off event it was a series of submissions that presumably was expected to have a reasonable degree of accuracy and consistency. What if those earlier submissions didn't dislclose anything close to say a £35m operating loss or the the iminent sale of the ground for say £60m and the directors cannot provide reasonable explanations?
  5. Strangely over the years many clubs without the benefit of the parachute payments have managed to compete without being hauled up in front of a commission of enquiry. Of the current top 6 teams, one hasn’t been in the top league for 60 years, another for 40 years and the others for about 20 years.
  6. Not necessarily against accounting rules but if money wasn't exchanged then it does bring into question the substance of the transaction.
  7. Teams that get promoted have a few winning runs through the season. Since the first 2 games were won wednesday’s best winning run is 1 game. Mid table again.
  8. kick out the jams muthafookers
  9. Well you probably will...health and safety gone mad...the EU banning conkers..they can’t be too far away in your list of imagined slights to the glory of England and St George.
  10. Flag flying...snowflake...political correctness gone mad...is it Daily Mail bingo?
  11. Probably time to bring out the old patriotism being the last refuge of the scoundrel quote but for most it’s just a result of the wrapped up in a flag rubbish that they are fed by the born to rule types...
  12. Oh well, that’s the mini Farage types back in their box and we can all get back to wanting a Sheffield Double - Wednesday win, Utd lose.
  13. To be fair I'd take 3 points for United over a win in the rugby and the nationalistic crap that comes with it.
  14. Fair points if it had been sold to an unrelated party as in your house to someone else or Maguire from Leicester to ManU but this was a related party non-commercial transaction to manage the books.
  15. Not sure about that...based on his track record a season would be more likely than two.
×
×
  • Create New...