Meeting toneet at Oakwell. With our US CEO.

Thanks Hooky and all who attended. It appears certain people will not accept anything the club have to say, and had that mindset before the meeting even took place. I'm not happy with things at the moment, but I'll give the board time to try and rectify it. It is too hard to go through life being terminally pessimistic, as many seem to be. Thank you again.

 

It felt like everything was answered honestly. I came out feeling much the same as I did walking in. I think I could have predicted nearly all the answers.

There was no raised voices. Just a real Q&A with intelligent questions and what seemed to be truthful replies. The answers didn't really make me feel anymore confident about this seasons final outcome. If anything the 95% spending answer swung it. If I'd have guessed I'd have thought 50ish with room for manoeuvre in.Jan without losing anyone of worth and value.

 

That's what was said, day to day running of the club, wages for all office,media,club shop staff. Groundstaff too.

 

Much as my feelings towards the club currently I can’t be bothered to read the thread however, do they expect us to believe we spent even a quarter of what we got for incomings ? Irrespective of agents fees blah blah blah what about the near £7m from Stones a big sell on from Mawson and probably others? Were being taken for mugs

 

Stop being a hypocritical bell*nd mate. You were crying and on about leaving the board a few week ago when people kept challenging you and now here you are dismissing other people’s opinions without a second thought.

 

The 95% was quoted including the entire contracted salary inclusive. So a 4k a week signing for example is c£750k in addition to the transfer fee.

I'm sure the Mawson Stones money was pre takeover so would have been part of the takeover in anyway which?!?

Juddy you know I'm no happy clapper. Far from it, just reporting what was said.

 

Do you believe what they said?

 

Bloody hell. Whitey must be on £50k a week.

 

So we've made enough money to pay those players for 4 years and buy them and account for that expenditure. Sounds smart.

Presumably then, we'll be let in for free every week next season and for the two after seeing as the Sky money will be the income covering any other costs?

 

But that contract has still been honoured just by virgin paying it rather than yourself. Nobody has honoured Moore's contract because Conway allowed him to leave when he didn't have to.

 

But we still have no idea why they are here.

 

This board is just so full of cheerful, carefree, positive people these days. I think I'll go and listen to some Leonard Cohen to cheer myself up.

 

Genuine question
On a different foot goldy Do you have anything to say to enlighten us that they are lying. (Not supposition/rumour but concrete proof. Have you a personal insight into the financial running of the club) Out of all the criticisms on here I have no evidence to suggest they are. Only time will tell when the accounts are announced. Till then i have no reason to think otherwise.

 

No, it was a reference to you saying you'd rather have not commented at all which was his stance with the 21 word nine statement he did give out. Of course I know you're not him, while you were a regular member on here he was being told to sling his hook from brentford, hull and God knows how many more clubs

 

Moving your example to football, it could be argued that part of the transfer fee paid by Wigan (Virgin in your example) was to buy out Moores remaining contract with Barnsley (or Sky), plus an early release penalty on top, allowing him to terminate the contract with immediate effect and sign a contract with Wigan.

 

But that was at the contract holder (Barnsley)'s desire. The simple fact is that you do not have to sell an under contract player if you don't want to. The club even admitted they chose to sell him because they wanted to cash in and didn't know if a better offer would come along for him so cashed in on that one

 

Why edit supertyke.

At all --- to allow a more detailed report to come out. Given the constant repetitive posts you were coming out with.
I think most people understood

 

A couple of questions. Keep hearing that nothing was said regarding Stendels sacking other than that Dane didn't agree with his bosses regarding the pathetic statement but I am also told by hooky fella that the discussion lasted 20 minutes. Surely they can't both be correct? It doesn't take 20 minutes to say I can't say anything but I disagree with the statement my boss put out. Surely?

And on the 95% issue aren't I right in thinking that if you are taking incoming players wages into account when saying 'we have spent 95% of the money' then surely you also have to take departing players wages into account? Was it 95% of all transfer fees received, including future payments and also including all of the departing players wages? If so that's an obscene amount of money to have spent on such poor players.

 

What have I edited?

 

Sorry mate if I need to explain. Think it's quite obvious.