Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Veredisquo said:

I literally said that I don’t share the optimism shown by others so I’m not entirely sure what point you’re making. 

The point, you don't share optimism period, swfc at fault, no ifs, no buts, no maybe's, guilty as charged. 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


28 minutes ago, rickygoo said:

Can anyone say anything about this whole muddle with "absolute certainty"? 

WOW from the guy posting about "insolvency" nice one. 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, sweetsheri said:

How can they throw the book at us if we have played within the rules and have the proof to back it up?

You think DC should just roll over and have his belly tickled?

Can you prove he has been dishonest?

 

The whole FFP stinks and it encorages bad practice. Not dishonest practice but bad practice.

The EFL will probably just change the rules. When have facts ever stopped them. Look at FF court of Law says not guilty, EFL say know better and find him guilty.  How is it possible to believe what they say,?whatever the outcome about time they started following the law of the land.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, BARMYARMY2010 said:

WOW from the guy posting about "insolvency" nice one. 

Have you seen the balance sheet? Have you seen that liabilities exceed assets? Have you seen that the audited accounts are qualified re the company's ability to operate as a going concern?

 

Edited by rickygoo
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Harrysgame said:

The EFL will probably just change the rules. When have facts ever stopped them. Look at FF court of Law says not guilty, EFL say know better and find him guilty.  How is it possible to believe what they say,?whatever the outcome about time they started following the law of the land.

Wasn't Forestieri charged by the FA?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the player recruitment to the sale of the stadium to balance the books and then this news today.

 

Embarassing

  • Agree 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, rickygoo said:

Have you seen the balance sheet? Have you seen that liabilities exceed assets? Have you seen that the audited accounts are qualified re the company's ability to operate as a going concern?

 

Weren't you pulled up for posting that initial thing yesterday. 

While ever Mr Chansiri keeps paying the bills, it's a going concern. 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, rickygoo said:

Wasn't Forestieri charged by the FA?

 

Think they are cast from a similar mould, sorry if wrong, but you get the jist of the thread.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, BARMYARMY2010 said:

Weren't you pulled up for posting that initial thing yesterday. 

While ever Mr Chansiri keeps paying the bills, it's a going concern. 

Yes, does not matter what the balance sheet says as long as the owner is rich enough to fund it.

I would have thought the majority of football clubs would on a balance sheet be technically insolvent if they didn't have or had rich backers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Veredisquo said:

No. I just don’t want to see our club suffer because our owner is too naive, or too stubborn to admit when they’re wrong. 
I just fear that with that aggressive statement we are lining ourselves up for a hefty punishment that would derail any sense of progress we’ve made in the past few years. 
 

I love this club- I don’t have to justify that to anyone simply because I think our owner is setting us down a path that may cause more damage than any of us are anticipating. 

 

We are already set up for a hefty punishment that will derail any sense of progress we’ve made in the past few years. That’s what doing nothing will get us.

  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully he wins his case but it wont be a time for celebrating. We shouldn't be in a position where we have had to do this. 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, BARMYARMY2010 said:

Weren't you pulled up for posting that initial thing yesterday. 

While ever Mr Chansiri keeps paying the bills, it's a going concern. 

There's no point rowing about accounting semantics really and definitions of balance sheet and cash-flow insolvency.  If you think the accounts look rosy then fair enough - it's your opinion, and these things are generally judgement calls. During my days as an insolvency accountant we took over companies with better P&L records and balance sheets than Wednesday. However, virtually all of the debt is owed to Chansiri which is hopefully better than owing it to a bank. But it completely depends on how deep his pockets are and his willingness and ability to continue to fund us. That's not necessarily a good place to be.  

 

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Sonny said:

 

We are already set up for a hefty punishment that will derail any sense of progress we’ve made in the past few years. That’s what doing nothing will get us.

21 points is worse than 9- it’s all hypothetical at this stage anyway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, matthefish2002 said:

 

The clubs are the EFL. Its the clubs who decide the rules of the EFL like FFP etc.

 

They agree but it is mainly a proposal put to them to agree and disagree by a board at EFL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The EFL showing their lack of interest to solve the issue at Macclesfield Town currently.

 

Seems like they just want to make noise when it suits them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I want to happen obviously is that DC wins and a level of compensation is awarded for damage to feelings and image.

 

What I feel will happen is some form of no liability arbitration where our trading position  is to a large extent unhindered.

 

We get the kitchen sink thrown at us. Fines, points, relegation. The full on works. In this scenario we walk away from the EFL don't accept the fines, go through the highest courts possible with an unresolved disagreement. Then Join the SFL what a refreshing journey that would be.    

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, rickygoo said:

There's no point rowing about accounting semantics really and definitions of balance sheet and cash-flow insolvency.  If you think the accounts look rosy then fair enough - it's your opinion, and these things are generally judgement calls. During my days as an insolvency accountant we took over companies with better P&L records and balance sheets than Wednesday. However, virtually all of the debt is owed to Chansiri which is hopefully better than owing it to a bank. But it completely depends on how deep his pockets are and his willingness and ability to continue to fund us. That's not necessarily a good place to be.  

 

My reply wasn't about the accounts, it was to your flagrant misuse of the word "insolvency", there are those on here who reckon Chansiri is broke, despite there being no evidence from day one to present, he's always said he has money, just can't spend it. 

 

  • Agree 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BARMYARMY2010 said:

My reply wasn't about the accounts, it was to your flagrant misuse of the word "insolvency", there are those on here who reckon Chansiri is broke, despite there being no evidence from day one to present, he's always said he has money, just can't spend it. 

 

Like I said no point rowing about accounting semantics  -we'll just go round in circles. It wasn't flagrant misuse. It was an interpretation of the balance sheet as reflected in the accounts. So if your reply wasn't about the accounts it wasn't about the specifics of my comment - it was about how you chose to interpret it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, nevthelodgemoorowl said:

What I want to happen obviously is that DC wins and a level of compensation is awarded for damage to feelings and image.

 

What I feel will happen is some form of no liability arbitration where our trading position  is to a large extent unhindered.

 

We get the kitchen sink thrown at us. Fines, points, relegation. The full on works. In this scenario we walk away from the EFL don't accept the fines, go through the highest courts possible with an unresolved disagreement. Then Join the SFL what a refreshing journey that would be.    

A local English derby with Berwick. Tasty.  

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, rickygoo said:

Like I said no point rowing about accounting semantics  -we'll just go round in circles. It wasn't flagrant misuse. It was an interpretation of the balance sheet as reflected in the accounts. So if your reply wasn't about the accounts it wasn't about the specifics of my comment - it was about how you chose to interpret it.  

Really, you got pulled up for your initial post, flagrant misuse, not semantics. 

Am done now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...