RyanioBirdio
Well-known member
- Joined
- 1 May 2018
- Messages
- 8,775
I never thought of that. Now I’m REALLY hacked off. And they weren’t even that tasty!guess that means that it was OUFC, not ol slippery, who 'bought' the hot dogs & pints ?
I never thought of that. Now I’m REALLY hacked off. And they weren’t even that tasty!guess that means that it was OUFC, not ol slippery, who 'bought' the hot dogs & pints ?
If you knew what went into cheap hot dog sausages, you might be glad you couldn't taste them!I never thought of that. Now I’m REALLY hacked off. And they weren’t even that tasty!
"Dinlow"?Accounts will look horrific.
Investment will look non-existent.
A League One club is, essentially, a money pit unless you unearth a few gems & sell them or find "tax efficient" ways of losing money.
Think we all know that yet some dinlow on FB thinks they are some kind of visionary genius?? Jog on Darren.
There are a few people on this forum who probably love a good hot dog. They’re used to the taste of bumholes.If you knew what went into cheap hot dog sausages, you might be glad you couldn't taste them!
dinlo"Dinlow"?
Technically he said he would write off the debt accrued under his stewardship, and he has. The debt in question is that passed on from WPL.Hopefully the actions of a certain Mr Eales in making sure he secured his debt - which he claimed he wouldn’t do numerous times - means that going forward people can form opinions based on what they see in front of them, not what they’re told or what they want to believe. Actions will always, always speak louder than words. Remember that.
No, it's not. There is a covenant in place which is quite clear. It covers all the income from player sales contracted under his ownership period.Technically he said he would write off the debt accrued under his stewardship, and he has. The debt in question is that passed on from WPL.
I refer you to the Charge link above.Now I might be missing the point but the debt to Eales is surely the same amount that IL ran up on his watch and Eales took on. He has in essence kept to his word by not asking for more money as you can bet anything that he put a lot more than 3-4 million into the club over the time he was here.
He agreed to write off any debt that occurred on his watch which in effect he has by only asking for the money he had to pay various bills that the club had when he first took over.
Yes. That charge is security against the amount of the debt inherited from WPL.No, it's not. There is a covenant in place which is quite clear. It covers all the income from player sales contracted under his ownership period.
He buggered off having stripped the club back to the bare bones and then had the gall to load up the club with more debt enshrined in legal terms which made it impossible for the club to even think of not paying him.
Just in case you don't believe me:
Charge
Open the pdf file. Apologies it is 27 pages.
I give up. I am wasting my time.Yes. That charge is security against the amount of the debt inherited from WPL.
make your point. DE said he would only leave the club with the debt he inherited, not the debt he ran up in his time. That is what he has done. Or show me the where that is wrong.I give up. I am wasting my time.
Read the charge filed at company house (link in previous thread)make your point. DE said he would only leave the club with the debt he inherited, not the debt he ran up in his time. That is what he has done. Or show me the where that is wrong.
Read the charge filed at company house (link in previous thread)
There has been a wealth of information posted in the past about this "debt" You need to read this and then review. I'm not seeking any dispute/confrontation or any arguement, it is what it is.
The means that were used to facilitate Tiger's purchase of the club have been documented and are out there to be re-read. I have no intention of posting ad infinitum what has been posted before.
Eales left the club with considerably more debt than when he took over. Look at the accounts due to be presented at the forthcoming AGM.
One debt that is unequivocally a result of the Eales era is the disputed service charges/arbitration figure. Accrued under Eales, paid by Tiger as owner of OUFC.
As much as Eales was good for OUFC, when he left, he did so as not out of pocket. He did so having made sure that he would not be financially embarrassed at a later date. And, he did so with a legal requirement on OUFC to pay him ALL the income from the sale of some very good players sold by OUFC and purchased by OUFC.
Eales took over in July 2014, the accounts to 30 June '14 show net liabilities of £8.6m.Eales left the club with considerably more debt than when he took over. Look at the accounts due to be presented at the forthcoming AGM.
So, £2.2 million is just debts from Tiger. And the £4.2 million charge? That's not a debt? And the unpaid service charge to FK? Not a debt?Eales took over in July 2014, the accounts to 30 June '14 show net liabilities of £8.6m.
Eales left in Jan 2018, the accounts to 30 June '18 show net liabilities of £10.8m.
But the £2.2m increase will include 6 months worth of debts racked up under Tiger including fees for Brannagan, Dickie etc.
When the Ensco loan notes are settled it is certainly possible that there was little or no increase in debt at all on Eales watch.
Given the club loses c£2m a year then it's not unreasonable to expect £1m (6 months) down to Tiger. Add in the undisclosed fees for Brannagan and Dickie - who knows - £0.5m?So, £2.2 million is just debts from Tiger. And the £4.2 million charge? That's not a debt? And the unpaid service charge to FK? Not a debt?
All water under the bridge. I have no desire to argue the ins and outs of the finance. Eales has gone. End of. How folk want to remember him is up to them.