Brace yourselves in again please .... - Page 6

lancsdave · 18-02-2011, 08:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by mab

I think you'l find that stanley used the money well on this occation NJSP

What was it ?

sparkie · 18-02-2011, 09:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by katei77

thats down to the contractors the ones Mr K paid for we cant even blame RH/EW/DON for that balls up

Unless of course it was one of that trio that sourced the contractors , then got ilyas to pay for it. And if it was one of them that delayed the start of work on the pitch. Just hypothesising of course

Whalley Red · 18-02-2011, 09:13

The Observer article about Rob Heys' denying Peter Shaw's figures is now online:

Stanley directors' meeting is not a crisis meeting, says chief executive Heys | Accrington Observer - menmedia.co.uk

If the purpose of this 'stakeholder representatives' meeting with Peter Shaw was that these reps then inform everyone else, are there any more details forthcoming from this?

So far, we have a £100,000 tax debt by the end of this month and expenses exceed income.

For example, has the full £250,000 PL parachute payment been received and already been spent on unpaid bills?

VALAIRIAN · 18-02-2011, 09:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larry Lobster

In such a difficult financial situation, This begs the question as to why John Coleman was allowed to make two permanent signings in the January Window and bring another loan player in until the end of the season.

A massive squad (by league 2 standards) has been assembled when it appears the club simply can't afford it. I'll take some convincing that the recent signings have improved anything as well.

He has instructions to trim his squad!!

smobile · 18-02-2011, 10:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whalley Red

The Observer article about Rob Heys' denying Peter Shaw's figures is now online:

Stanley directors' meeting is not a crisis meeting, says chief executive Heys | Accrington Observer - menmedia.co.uk

If the purpose of this 'stakeholder representatives' meeting with Peter Shaw was that these reps then inform everyone else, are there any more details forthcoming from this?

So far, we have a £100,000 tax debt by the end of this month and expenses exceed income.

For example, has the full £250,000 PL parachute payment been received and already been spent on unpaid bills?

Sorry to appear negative here, but I don't believe a word that comes out of RH's mouth. I have nothing against him personally, but all he can do is be a mouthpiece for EW & DON - We have had the denials before and that is all exagerrated, and it's not that bad, it's manageable, we will sort it out etc etc.... IT'S ALL LIES - Watch this space, it will be closer to Perter Shaw's version than RH's / The Clubs version......

JEFF · 18-02-2011, 10:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by mab

100k tax bill hows that since 20th november we only had 4 home games out of 12 games played,income from those 4 games wouldn't atract that kinda tax surly?players and staff have been payed last month, This Directors meeting would this be at the wycombe game which i would think it will be the first time mr kharn and mr marsden have seen stanley play for a while,as mr kharns been out of the country for a month or two and both live in the london arear,may be the meeting to welcome peter shaw on board as a new Director of the club who knows.

Peter Marsden attends quite a few games. I saw him at Barnet, Cheltenham and Stevenage, that's three out of the last four away games, and he attends home games when he can.

Alvin the chipmunk · 18-02-2011, 10:24

Oh so we "only" owe £30,000 do we. Oh that's fine then.

Regardless of who'se sourced what from where the simple fact remains we are in it neck deep.

lancsdave · 18-02-2011, 10:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alvin the chipmunk

Oh so we "only" owe £30,000 do we. Oh that's fine then.

Regardless of who'se sourced what from where the simple fact remains we are in it neck deep.

To be fair if it is only 30K then that would be a fairly usual debt compared to turnover. It's only the cost of a few phone calls

lancsdave · 18-02-2011, 10:44

According to the Telegraph the board meeting is only provisional so it may not take place after all

http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk...eet_in_London/

Fourth official · 18-02-2011, 10:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by VALAIRIAN

He has instructions to trim his squad!!

Must be all those postponements,easy to put on a few pounds!!!!

cashman · 18-02-2011, 11:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by lancsdave

According to the Telegraph the board meeting is only provisional so it may not take place after all

Stanley board to meet in London (From Lancashire Telegraph)

Well R.Heys dont mention provisional in the beano, so we can take the L.E.T.s provisional as garbage.

Stanleymad · 18-02-2011, 12:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by lancsdave

To be fair if it is only 30K then that would be a fairly usual debt compared to turnover. It's only the cost of a few phone calls

The futures bright - the futures ORANGE

The Red Blooded · 18-02-2011, 13:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by VALAIRIAN

We can all have our opinions, mine is that Rob Heys is OK!!!! He is never going to sell us down the river, unlike the other two, the only thing he is guilty of is caring to much!!!!!!!

My opinion..

I have no issues with opinions, I just like an explanation along with it

I agree though Rob is the only one at the club who can really see things from a wider prospective. Be it a business prospective or a fans prospective.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bdc

The meeting was organised to ensure all stakeholder groups were being informed of everything that is currently happening and what the actual situation at the club is in regards to financing. The idea of this was for each stakeholder group to then inform everyone of any information deemed important. I for one am pleased that Peter arranged it, he deserves a good amount of credit for this, at least we are actually finding out information rather than just hearing whispers. Surely this is step forward Shakermaker?

It sounds as though you were invited along to the meeting, are you a stakeholder?

I still think we are not being told enough about this "Meeting", why bother telling us some details and not the full thing?

Revived Red · 18-02-2011, 13:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug

Peter Shaw has only done what we’ve asked for and was promised; he’s been open and transparent, which is more than anyone else has been in the last two years; at least we know before the rest of Lancashire.

I must be missing something here. I can't find any statement from Peter Shaw so I don't understand the "open and transparent" bit. Hopefully someone will explain.

maccawozzagod · 18-02-2011, 13:15

open and transparent - make sure the details are out there.

meeting not open to all - by the time a large venue could be found (and not many would have turned up anyway) and advertising taken place then some of the details would already be out there in the public domain. A small number of fans were selected based upon various factors including their willingness to get involved in things and their ability to communicate the facts to as wide an audience as quickly and accurately as possible. I suspect my invite was based upon my willingness to gossip!!!

Some people are in danger of not taking the important things on board because they'd rather see the negatives as to why this that or tuther. If you feel hard done by that you weren't there then try to see it as we saved you an hour of your time and the details were on the web within an hour or so of the meeting finishing.