Roland Agar, and smaller shareholders Gary Tasker (or those he spoke for) and Coulby with his remaining very small holding, I believe. Not sure if any others. Not sure about Jack Bates' holding.

NOthing so far to indicate my diagnosis was wrong. the black hole is still the difference between income and cost of sales, including Odsal. It doesnt take long to do a cash flow, in these circumstances it will take a long time to do a credible cash flow. The worrying thing about Coulby deriding the alleged budgeted £1m loss is the lack of any apparent understanding of why that should be, and their alternative plans to magically increase sales or reduce costs by that £1m to come to a break even point. Caisley couldnt do it first time around, so what has Coulby got that Caisley and Hood hadnt. Answers on the head of a pin, please.

Also very interesting to see that the rumours are that caisley is threatening to leave VP, wasnt coulby shocked and horrified that Hood discussed the very same thing in his revelations a few days ago? Maybe the penny has dropped. Reviewing a business plan/budget, and creating one require very different skills. What occupation suits Coulbys skill(s) set?

Coulby so far has shown himself to be thoroughly naive as to the issues facing the club. And for a shareholder, worryingly unaware of them. So lets hope he really is Crusher Caisleys muppet.

Round 2.

Adey, a bit cross thread, but the answers to your questions are:

(Non-financial minded bloggers please skip to =#FF0000the end, it is really pretty tedious otherwise.)
When i say settlement I mean the amount we agreed to pay Leeds. That specifically excludes our payment to Leeds of £64K ordered by Gray when we lost the first hearing, our own costs for that and any of our subsequent costs. The latter are all too deeply buried in the accounts for us to ever fathom out. But if Leeds costs were £64 K it sets a benchmark for our own defence costs for that hearing. Subsequent legal costs are also a guess, but again we may have a guide in the settlement figure to Leeds.
For that settlement figures I have taken the following figures/statements/assumptions.
The settlement was paid in three equal annual instalments, 2009 -11 The settlement was fully accrued in the 2008 accounts.
Assuming correct accounting, one third of the settlement is within accruals due within one year, and two thirds is within the due two years and more balance in those 2008 accounts.
Taking the latter, this had in previous years included the Odsal settlement deferred income, but in 2008 there was only one year left, so was in the within 1 year and not in the over 1 year.
That figure in the 2008 accounts, for accruals and deferred income due over 2 year, is £241601. Grossing that up from the 2/3rds it should represent to the full amount gives us a maximum of £360000, the balance being within due within 1 year.
As always, if anyone has any better figures, I would welcome them.
On the Awford issue, the point I was making was it was yet another straw on the camels back, irrespective of the size. Yes, when I was doing the trend analysis I realised that the less than 12 months deferred income was season ticket sales, my error is in fact is miscalculating the timing of the pass through of the odsal deferred income, which was actually 2009 rather than 2010. That led me to make an incorrect calculation for 2009 ie £900k minus Odsal settlement of £324k or so, is circa £600k, 2010 figure definitely does not have Odsal in it, so an increase on a like for like basis to £1m which would be plenty for both an increase due to the pledge etc and a bit for Awford.
=#FF0000The endBut I was wrong, it is just an increase of £100K, and that is probably the fact most relevant to our current predicament: it indicates that the first year of the pledge appears to have only raised an additional £100K more than the previous years season ticket sales. So after the subsequent poor performance on the field, just how successful was pledge year 2? And for the whole pledge thing to work, year one had to be successful on the field, otherwise...black hole. And Odsal.
I was always suspicious about the pledge totals magically being met. And a learning point for Coulby. He derided the reduction in season ticket prices. What this indicates is that increasing season ticket prices will not necessarily increase income sufficiently. Cue plan C. A Nigerian diplomat that needs to get some money out of the country

I suspect Pledge 2 was seen as a bit of a disaster, pretty well for the reasons you say.

When I am less tired I will dig out the accounts again, but I can see where you are going with your logic.

My suspicion was always that Mr Caisley would seek administration to gain control and then to get us out of Odsal and down to VP. The Odsal lease sale and the pledge very much complicated the situation and will have made both actions considerably more difficult IMO should someone seek to do that still. Whether the actions described on another thread, by someone who (if it is true) would seem to have been leaked to in the same way the Caisley camp on here derided the previous board for allegedly so doing, are in any way connected with this scenario can only be a matter for speculation.

As for Mr Coulby's comments, I suggest it would be prudent to remember there is still a battle being fought and so they may not be impartial or tell the whole story. I have a feeling Mr Coulby is considerably less naive than you suggest. I certainly hope so, since the future is at least partly in his hands.

So who is COULBY?

What is his background?

How much is HE PERSONALLY willing to inject from HIS OWN PERSONAL FORTUNE into his beloved BULLS?

Why is such a GREAT 'MOVER & SHAKER'?

I find it slightly disconcerting that significant amounts of the data and information filtered from "the club" through to a couple of posters on here (who post in high volume) are largely bullet-led and essentially, inaccurate. That these are taken as being gospel is even more worrying.

I outlined weeks ago the ongoing VAT fiasco along with the clubs inability and failure to repay the RFL loan, despite agreed timescales; only now has that come to the fore in a relatively official capacity. Sadly, there is more to come and the black hole, is just that. Unfortunately admittance of the true level of debt have been somewhat masked by the previous BoD and indeed some staff in general. Understandable some may say, but it certainly outlines the level of trust I would place on their declarations or 'inside line'.

Given that, it is evident the review is likely to be more complex than we appreciate and not simply a GCSE Economics cost v revenue formula.

Predications of administration and the pre-constructed reasons, are way off the mark.

And so just exactly how are you in a position to be able to reveal such inside information then? Why is what you are doing any different? You have denied being either one of the individuals directly involved, or their mouthpiece, or an ex marketing employee with a massive axe to grind. Maybe some even believe you.

I detect no perceivable difference between the activity you are engaging in, and that which you allege - and from my own experience largely wrongly - the previous board did.

You are either a puppet/pawn in this or just truly myopic, time will reveal the extent of the debt, however adding the figures up in your post (no VAT figure in there but has been put at £250k payable back in installments of £50k) then I would suggest that if you have very little income £350k is a significant amount of debt and adding the VAT figure to it, then it becomes an even more significant amount of debt



I have nothing further to add




for the moment

Another one who turns up with apparent inside knowledge. It seems some posters on here are getting too close to the truth for comfort.

I agree that £300k is not an insignificant figure, but equally it's hardly the sort of figure which would put a business the size of the Bulls into admin, particularly if the investors (elusively on the horizon) are brought on board.

Since, despite (or maybe because of?) your apparent position inside the tent, you've chosen to deride the postings of others whilst adding next to nothing to the debate, I won't wait with baited breath for your next offering.

Though I will still wait

my biggest worry is that all the OOC players will go i know there is some out of contract that might not get a new one but there are names on there that we don't want to lose!

Spouting guff same as usual then Frank as I fail to see anything interesting in the programme notes.

Bought a program, expecting to see some positive news about the finances....

Nothing!!

Same, the programme still listed Hood as our chairman ffs!

Its not his printing company that publishes it is it?

I must have had that post deleted that says I have inside information





Nope more to do with my many years of dealing with/construction of/reporting of P&L accounts for multi-location/multi-national companies where turnovers far in excess of the Bulls would be seriously effected by debt far less than the ones quoted (and probably tiny in comparison to the real figures)



Oh yes, your posts are fare more informative/constructive and interesting

Your own "experience" is, by definition of your showboating on behalf of the previous board and delusional subsequent offerings, largely jaundiced. You have been highly consistent in regurgitating the off-record party line and have continually been sold an absolute stinker. Your posts reaffirm that, continually.

I firmly understand that as a frequent, and some may so, excessive, poster on these boards, you have aimed to "rule" (since that is clearly the objective) by mixing half truths and untruths with elements of legalities and statutory statements.

I equally understand that you must be even more disappointed you have been fed a large number of blatant lies by the previous board, hence the need to backtrack and throw in token gesture offerings as to Hood et al being "naive" whilst been highly vociferous and vitriolic in your damnation of a review team you haven't even heard from yet.

To attempt your sniper rifle retorts at any poster who challenges your misguided beliefs, is poor form and continues to illustrate your heightened narcissism.

Thankfully, a number of posters are beginning to see through your misguidings and firmly challenged you; indeed embarrassed some of your myopic nonsense.

The point remains this; the debt level is far greater than you or most, realise and largely generated by the previous misfiring board. Whatever I write or you write doesn't change that or mitigate anybody's stance. Rather just leave those in place at the moment to do what they need to do. It's that simple.

Alternatively, you could offer your insightful services to the incumbent team?

And in all of that diatribe, in which you resort to personal attacks so one can only conclude you have little of substance to contribute, you have not in any way refuted my allegation.

The one statement of substance you make - about the "debt level" - would appear anyway to have been contradicted by the recent statements from both Coulby and Hood. The only "debts" I saw either refer to were this "six figure loan" that Coulby never expanded upon and Hood maintains was a £110k advance of Sky money, and the £250k Lease sale output tax liability. And, as regards the latter, since you accuse me of being a sycophant to the former board, I would refer you to my repeated (and unsatisfied) questions about the "black hole" that I worked out must be there and especially over VAT that was never (IMO) the club's to use and spend in the first place.

Are you SO concerned that people are seeking to understand and question what is happening, and what has happened? Why is it OK for you to engage in the activity that you seek to deride and attack others for doing, if they do not support your stance? I seek to interpret and comment on the information that is available. That is all. Why should that seemingly concern you so much that you resort to personal attacks and derision? Are you scared I might just hit close to the truth from time to time?

As for "offering my services", I have done precisely that in the past. Indeed, it has been regularly commented about on here that there are numerous people who have said they would willingly provide voluntary help to the club in their own fields of specialisation. Yet, for all the years I can remember, and under whatever administration, the club has shown pretty well no appetite for any such help - unless it came with a hard cash benefit. They have always seemed scared to death of any supporter involvement. Is it likely that the latest incarnation will be any more keen to tap into a pool of talent that may be available?

I believe the majority of posters on this forum actually see through YOU, to be honest. That has certainly been my experience from talking to people.

Bless, I can see you are a little perturbed by your use of capital letters. How endearing.

Your standpoint is based on jaundiced feeding from former directors and senior staff at the club; your views are hardly impartial and based on your deductions.

Again, you throw in semantics aligned with what a club/business statutory offerings may be, when in reality, it is simply your interpretation and not what unquestionably needs to happen as you so strongly suggest. Some would say, you deceive people with partial truths. Rarely have you 'hit' any truths on here.

The only person contradicting the level of debt, is Peter Hood. Oh and you. Understandably. Him because he was a contributing element and you, because he told you information to the contrary and, you feel a little bit let down.

As for your offer of help. Admirable. And I'm sure if you contact Stephem Coulby he may actually provide you with a listening ear. But then that wouldn't suit your hopscotching mandate on here (which you seemingly place great value in).

Interestingly, on the contrary, a growing number of posters are actually challenging your views, because, without doubt, they are neither based on fact and indeed have been proven to be wildly inaccurate. Open debate is essential to the success moving forward, what isn't needed, is your attempts at being a self appointed CEO of the Supporters.

As Coulby said, the review will explain in detail the problems that have been identified and more importantly, the plan moving forward. And that more than anything, we will all look forward to I'm sure.

Boring!!!

Just what I was going to post!! It was going through my mind whilst reading how 'boring' this is becoming and you beat me to it

People are right to challenge Adey - he is one of only a handful offering anything constructive to the debate. I notice that all you have managed to do is to seek to destruct a line of argument without offering anything constructive - any idiot can do that and it is a long way from open debate.

Before you go slagging off other members of the board, let's see what you have to offer, other than insults.

As for Adey, I have read nearly all of his posts with interest (I have read some of the more financial ones with little interest). I can see nothing in any of them where he is offering anything other than his view - doesn't look to me that he is trying to represent anybody other than himself.

Should you feel the urge, by all means feel free to trawl through my posts. I would highlight that I revealed some months ago the situation regarding the VAT bill (of which their are further revelations) along with the RFL loan (which wasn't a SKY money advance, far from it).

Similarly, I will question the views of those who I believe to be contributing absolute untruths if I deem it necessary and indeed contributes to debate. I don't need a blessing or pathway to make that deduction.

Read and post on a thread you're interested in or start one yourself.

Given that Coulby cannot differentiate between a projection and a budget, or a drawdown and a loan, and seems to know nothing of the mechanics of cash flow management, I certainly look forward, with great trepidation, to his plan.

Pinko, preparing profit and loss accounts is a much simpler ballgame than financial management of a business. Reading between the lines Hood and Bennett have in the circumstances managed the cash flow well. The problem in the last few years is that there has been no reserves (other than players to sell) to deal with any unexpected payments/outflows. As they say, profit is an opinion, cash flow is a fact. Which also points to a degree of inconsistency in Hoods defence: he states that the profit for 2011 was £250K, but if that is so then that should have turned up as cash, and yet the pledge and more sponsorship funds are required, despite that profit. I suspect he is getting that figure into the public domain before history is re-written by the victors. And it also points to some inconsistency somewhere in all the figures, or as Adey calls it, the black hole.

The net result of Coulby and Hoods public debate is as Juliebull says, boring, because if that is the worst that Coulby can rake up, then the bulls must be far better off than a lot of other businesses that quite sensibly get on with dealing with their problems quietly.

Given Coubly's attempt to deflect Peter Hood's rebuttal in the T&A, he mentions that they're only looking at the last 2 years. So sorry Mr Coubly, but you need to go back to when the previous chairman stepped down in order to give a full and frank account of how the BoD under Hood have performed.

As they're not doing that, they are IMO, wasting everyone's time in an attempt to get people onside for when they go "We're all doomed!! Doomed I tell ya!!! Only administration can save us now!!!!!" Which is what has been coming since Caisley manoeuvred himself and his cronies back into power.

Please read the thread and you will see i have posted.