No analysis of SWFC accounts until at least the end of July..

[Dick_Turpin]

Just now, hirstyboywonder said:

 

The reality is we were a long way off any such sanctions of a criminal nature being taken on that basis and as usual Maguire was being sensationalist.

And Wednesday were as usual incompetent/shoddy/tardy/ call it what you will. 

[lanzaroteowl]

Hiding behind the rules?

Bit like a goalkeeper handling the ball then.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, rickygoo said:

 

He does that all the time not just about Chansiri. He thinks it's clever when it's clearly anything but. 

 

Maybe he does do it all the time, never said he has a specific vendetta against us rather than anyone else, more that he likes to target clubs with financial issues.

Of course our finances are worthy of debate in the football world in this respect but I'd rather take into account the critical analysis of reporters who tend not to use such schoolboy type jibes in their musings, it doesn't do him any favours.

 

I have a fair grounding in financial accounts and I am sure @mkowl is far better qualified in this respect in terms of his analysis of our accounts than Mr Maguire is and so tend to take Maguire's opinions with a pinch of salt.

 

Maguire 'reporting' that we are currently using a Government-allowed extension is not news in any way but I suppose it gets him a few more hits with his 'witty' remark.  

[@owlstalk]

14 minutes ago, hirstyboywonder said:

 

Why would he say 'hidden behind the rules'?

I really don't see why people are struggling to understand his language here.

There are rules meaning you can extend your time to file the accounts, during which time no examination of them can be made so they're effect 'hidden by the rules'

That's all he meant

Nothing sinister or anti-swfc about that at all

Everyone needs to stop being oversensitive.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, rickygoo said:

And Wednesday were as usual incompetent/shoddy/tardy/ call it what you will. 

 

Indeed, not great that we filed them late but no legal action was taken as a result of late filing was it?

[Dick_Turpin]

2 minutes ago, hirstyboywonder said:

 

Maybe he does do it all the time, never said he has a specific vendetta against us rather than anyone else, more that he likes to target clubs with financial issues.

Of course our finances are worthy of debate in the football world in this respect but I'd rather take into account the critical analysis of reporters who tend not to use such schoolboy type jibes in their musings, it doesn't do him any favours.

 

I have a fair grounding in financial accounts and I am sure @mkowl is far better qualified in this respect in terms of his analysis of our accounts than Mr Maguire is and so tend to take Maguire's opinions with a pinch of salt.

 

Maguire 'reporting' that we are currently using a Government-allowed extension is not news in any way but I suppose it gets him a few more hits with his 'witty' remark.  

I don't think anyone could say that our accounts make for happy reading. 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, @owlstalk said:

I really don't see why people are struggling to understand his language here.

There are rules meaning you can extend your time to file the accounts, during which time no examination of them can be made so they're effect 'hidden by the rules'

That's all he meant

Nothing sinister or anti-swfc about that at all

 

Why didn't you quote the rest of my post which relates directly to this?

 

Look at the history of how he posts in relation to us. He was definitely having a dig by using the term 'hiding behind'.

[Dick_Turpin]

2 minutes ago, hirstyboywonder said:

 

Indeed, not great that we filed them late but no legal action was taken as a result of late filing was it?

Dunno. Were we fined? Was Chansiri? I have no idea to be honest. 

[@owlstalk]

Just now, hirstyboywonder said:

 

Why didn't you quote the rest of my post which relates directly to this?

 

Look at the history of how he posts in relation to us. He was definitely having a dig by using the term 'hiding behind'.

Sorry but I don't hang on someone's past to establish what it is they've currently said.

That's just prejudiced.

What he's said about hiding behind rules wasn't a dig at anyone, it just means he can't currently examine the accounts.

Jeeeeeeesus

[Guest]

1 minute ago, rickygoo said:

I don't think anyone could say that our accounts make for happy reading. 

 

At no point did I suggest they do. Some people offer better informed critical analysis than others.

[Guest]

Just now, rickygoo said:

Dunno. Were we fined? Was Chansiri? I have no idea to be honest. 

 

A civil late filing penalty maybe, criminal legal action that you previously referred to - I don't think so.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, @owlstalk said:

Sorry but I don't hang on someone's past to establish what it is they've currently said.

That's just prejudiced.

What he's said about hiding behind rules wasn't a dig at anyone, it just means he can't currently examine the accounts.

Jeeeeeeesus

 

 

So naive and trusting. It isn't prejudice at all. Do you not take anyone's background or history into any account?

 

He could have said,

'I was looking forward to doing some analysis of SWFC's latest accounts but they have made use of a government approved extension so won't be available at this time'.

 

Instead he said

"sadly they’ve hidden behind the rules introduced by the chancellor extending publishing the accounts for three months so nothing out until end of July...at least".

 

Words often have meaning in the way they are used, in this case it is easy to identify.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[@owlstalk]

10 minutes ago, @owlstalk said:

I really don't see why people are struggling to understand his language here.

There are rules meaning you can extend your time to file the accounts, during which time no examination of them can be made so they're effect 'hidden by the rules'

That's all he meant

Nothing sinister or anti-swfc about that at all

Everyone needs to stop being oversensitive.

 

 

Proves my point

People just want to attack the pundits and sensationalise anything a pundit says as anti-swfc

Sad times

[@owlstalk]

Just now, hirstyboywonder said:

Words often have meaning in the way they are used, in this case it is easy to identify.

Or it could be argued by someone neutral and intelligent that you've merely applied prejudice to see what you want to see.

[lanzaroteowl]

1 minute ago, hirstyboywonder said:

 

 

So naive and trusting. It isn't prejudice at all. Do you not take anyone's background or history into any account?

 

He could have said,

'I was looking forward to doing some analysis of SWFC's latest accounts but they have made use of a government approved extension so won't be available at this time'.

 

Instead he said

"sadly they’ve hidden behind the rules introduced by the chancellor extending publishing the accounts for three months so nothing out until end of July...at least".

 

Words often have meaning in the way they are used, in this case it is easy to identify.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fuckinhate journalists. 

Especially at the moment. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, @owlstalk said:

Or it could be argued by someone neutral and intelligent that you've merely applied prejudice to see what you want to see.

 

I'll leave you it again. 

I completely disagree with you on this and have stated why. If you don't feel I should have put a 'disagree' mark on one of your posts in this respect and feel the need to actively make a point of this then perhaps you should consider why you have a 'disagree with post' option at all. Or maybe you are being oversensitive.

 

 

[Dick_Turpin]

13 minutes ago, hirstyboywonder said:

Maguire 'reporting' that we are currently using a Government-allowed extension is not news in any way but I suppose it gets him a few more hits with his 'witty' remark.  

 

To be fair - it's sort of news if other clubs aren't doing it especially given our history of tardiness, the bombshell in the last set of accounts and the appalling figures they normally reveal.  There's plenty of reasons to be a bit arch about it. But it really doesn't matter.

 

Having said that just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you. 

 

 

[@owlstalk]

Just now, hirstyboywonder said:

Icompletely disagree with you

I know

You disagree with me on everything which is why I sit waiting for posts from you to appear on anything I say, attacking my views.

 

 

[i used to be sc_owl]

There’s a difference between something being hidden because of the rules and accusing someone of hiding behind the rules. 
 

The wording of the statement hardly screams a neutral stance. 

[@owlstalk]

2 minutes ago, i used to be sc_owl said:

There’s a difference between something being hidden because of the rules and accusing someone of hiding behind the rules. 
 

The wording of the statement hardly screams a neutral stance. 

Even if it WAS harsh it's no reason to turn a thread about SWFC accounts into yet another hate festival against a local pundit/journo/commentator

It happens every single time these days and ruins any thread that has any comment about our club in it from a journalist or pundit.