RobertT
 Offline
Posts: 11724
|
 |
« Reply #840 on: Thursday, March 21, 2013, 21:49:06 » |
|
Oh, and under normal circumstances I doubt the threat of action would cause a club to be placed under embargo. In our circumstances we are under embargo because we publically let the footballng world know via e-mail that we were out of cash and about to go into Admin unless someone purchased some players from us for hard upfront cash. The FL is well within it's rights to be bloody cautious now and not release us from the embargo until a clean slate or hard cash can be shown. It's not unreasonable to also think that once you've paid some debts off, got a nice balance sheet and new owners that you think you've done enough, especially if you dispute you owe the previous employees.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: Thursday, March 21, 2013, 21:51:29 by RobertT »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
RobertT
Offline
Posts: 11724
|
|
« Reply #841 on: Thursday, March 21, 2013, 21:50:22 » |
|
Would still like to know why the mere possibility of legal action means anything at all, unless proceedings have begun.
A public claim was made, a court would ultimately need to decide if it was pursued. If I was the FL, I'd be concerned whether we could pay it should the worst happen and a business may well have to account for it. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Simon Pieman
Original Wanker
Offline
Posts: 36318
|
|
« Reply #842 on: Thursday, March 21, 2013, 21:53:05 » |
|
Si, I'd imagine the "threat" of legal action is a grey area accounting wise? My guess is a prudent company would need to lodge it as a liability until such time as it gets written off the accounts should a comprimise agreement be signed or sufficient time has past to make it no longer a material threat? I'm almost certain Fitton's reign began this way, with debts they disputed owing being on the books.
If it's a probable liability based on a past event and can be estimated reliably then a provision should be recognised (a liability is recorded on the balance sheet). Otherwise it's generally disclosed as a contingent liability i.e. it is noted in the accounts but isn't recognised as an expense or a liability on the profit and loss or balance sheet. I don't think this will have any bearing on the embargo. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Simon Pieman
Original Wanker
Offline
Posts: 36318
|
|
« Reply #843 on: Thursday, March 21, 2013, 21:54:14 » |
|
The communication doesn't begin to cover what we need to know. The details given are vague and bordering on the unbelievable.
If there is a legal issue, you can't expect them to disclose the details. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
flammableBen
Offline
Posts: 1598
|
|
« Reply #845 on: Thursday, March 21, 2013, 21:58:40 » |
|
There isn't a chance that someone put in a claim at 7:57pm recently and everybody involved is just fucking incompetent?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
wiggy
Whippet fancying, T-shirt flogging cunt
Offline
Posts: 2612
Whippet Fancier
|
|
« Reply #846 on: Thursday, March 21, 2013, 22:00:45 » |
|
There isn't a chance that someone put in a claim at 7:57pm recently and everybody involved is just fucking incompetent?
That's going in the book too! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Thank [insert deity of choice] for beer and peanuts
|
|
|
sonicyouth
Offline
Posts: 22352
|
|
« Reply #847 on: Thursday, March 21, 2013, 22:03:19 » |
|
If there is a legal issue, you can't expect them to disclose the details.
Not at all but we still know nothing about the backers, Hall or King. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Batch
Not a Batch
Offline
Posts: 55415
|
|
« Reply #848 on: Thursday, March 21, 2013, 22:06:47 » |
|
I don't think this will have any bearing on the embargo.
OK ta. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Simon Pieman
Original Wanker
Offline
Posts: 36318
|
|
« Reply #849 on: Thursday, March 21, 2013, 22:29:06 » |
|
Not at all but we still know nothing about the backers, Hall or King.
I agree. The problem is the majority are focused on the embargo, probably as it relates to football directly. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
pauld
Aaron Aardvark
Offline
Posts: 25436
Absolute Calamity!
|
|
« Reply #850 on: Thursday, March 21, 2013, 23:11:23 » |
|
I'm with you Rob. We finally get the communication we ask for and because it's not the news people want to hear they're still lynching the board.
No, it's because the communication we finally got appears to be based on the premise we're a bunch of fucking idiots |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Iffy's Onion Bhaji
petulant
Offline
Posts: 15863
|
|
« Reply #851 on: Thursday, March 21, 2013, 23:49:10 » |
|
Off the subject a bit here but does anyone know when the CG lease actually expires? And is it possible that debts are secured against the lease which have to be paid upon it's completion? Just a random thought about where this old debt may have arisen from.
It'll be interesting to see if the lease is extended and if so for how long. Getting a bit worried about the board's stance on the CG and any potential development or lack of it.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Simon Pieman
Original Wanker
Offline
Posts: 36318
|
|
« Reply #852 on: Friday, March 22, 2013, 00:07:16 » |
|
Off the subject a bit here but does anyone know when the CG lease actually expires? And is it possible that debts are secured against the lease which have to be paid upon it's completion? Just a random thought about where this old debt may have arisen from.
It'll be interesting to see if the lease is extended and if so for how long. Getting a bit worried about the board's stance on the CG and any potential development or lack of it.
March |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Simon Pieman
Original Wanker
Offline
Posts: 36318
|
|
« Reply #853 on: Friday, March 22, 2013, 00:30:44 » |
|
Debts from 1957? This is clearly some Marty McFly type bullshit.
[Berniman]Can someone pick up a sports almanac from 1957 as it could solve the money problem?[/Berniman] |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
wheretherealredsare
Change me
 Online
Posts: 3105
|
|
« Reply #854 on: Friday, March 22, 2013, 04:34:43 » |
|
I don't even know what debenture means!
It's wot de substitoots sit on, ennit. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
