FirParkCornerExile

Folk can dress it up however they like a loan is not a profit and if it results in a profit on the balance sheet it is not a true reflection of the operating costs of the club. As I said typical accountants smoke and mirrors. So the clubs reported profits over the period of fan ownership would be a loss because we are treating a £3million loan as operating profit in if it were not included we would show a £500,000 loss. The devils always in the detail.

The expenditure on pitch and ground improvements need to stop being referred to as a loss and almost certainly take a double take at any profit declared if it includes the £3million quid 20 year loan. Such accounting behaviour , although most certainly not illegal, completely distort peoples understanding of the clubs operating finances. I hate accountants with a passion, no wonder this country is fucked and no bastard knows where all the money has gone. it begs the question that if the apparent profit Motherwell have made of £2.5 million over the time of fan ownership includes the £3 million pound Government loan. If it does the position is actually a £500,000 operating loss

so the reality is it was never a true profit, a loan is not profit. How in Gods name they get away with showing a loan as a profit defies belief and by the same token the loss is not a true loss. No wonder accountants are rich , all smoke and bloody mirrors.

"Recent losses have come after major one-off spending on facilities, eg a £1.2million pitch plus building work in the East (John Hunter), a new PA system and much improved CCTV systems" Were these improvements not paid from the £3 million 20 year loan the club got from the Scottish Government?? If so the only part of that cost that can be attributable to the losses is the £150,000 annual loan service charge.

We just swooped in and signed him.

Roumer?? what league does he play in

some of the responses I've see on twitter to him are disgusting , "fuck off " and "Fuck your offer" are really mutant material.

no, theres no way they could offer that. No one knows future cash generation , same for the WS. It was just a roundabout way of saying no one know if the offer is good or bad going forward based on a purchase price? Anyone know how much John Boyle paid for us.

Devils advocate here. Would you accept it if it cost the investment team £2 million to buy but generate additional £1/£2 million a year revenue excluding player sales.

If we could why have we not done it before? This is the WS big problem , they apparently can come up with something better now, but why has it taken so long? what have they been doing for years, what investment opportunities have they identified or been working on all the time we've been a fan owned club.

or not as the case may be. An automatic assumption that saying Yes will result in the club going out of business is nonsense and the assumption that staying with the WS will never see us like ICT is also nonsense. There are no certainties and never will be and that's why its such a difficult choice for many.

A reasonable response.

Well yes that is correct but that's only the money to acquire the club. The expectation is their business model will generate far more cash than we currently generate. Whether that happens or not who knows, but the £2 million is the purchase price not the expected cash generation, and that's the problem. Neither the Well Society or Investment team can tell us what they will generate. If the new investors could generate serious money it could be worth it. However that cannot be guaranteed. The WS are unlikely to come up with anything that generates serious money or they'd have done it before now surely. Some fans will be happy at that as they see it as no risk plodding along. You pay your money you takes your choice.

I really want to see what the WS are offering.

** info means original post answered.

The Well Society have £750,000 and in 6 years time they can buy back for £650,000, so can they not take back control at that point. Apologies I've not looked in detail yet.

I'm sorry but raffles, tombola's and WS quiz nights don't do it for me as our fund raising opportunities. If they have something thats better I'll happily reject. If they dont I'll consider the investment offer. As long as the assets of the club are protected (ie, the ground) I'm open to be convinced.

That's my big bug bear , surely to recommend rejection the Well society should have a detailed counter 6 year vision.

thats exactly it , hes no better than the day he arrived and could never show any consistency.

oh man I hope so....lol

Bevis was always a fuck up waiting to happen. Contrary to reports we didn't offer him a contract which restores some of my faith in our recruitment.

Fees are scheduled to be paid by dates , so not necessary to have the money in the bank at the time the transaction is agreed. St Pauli apparently interested in Bair

the fee being quoted , admittedly on pie and bovril, is £100,000 if we've paid that one of the two I mentioned is offski.

If we've paid a fee for him and agreed one St Mirren couldnt I suspect either Bair or Miller are off or both. We cant normally afford any fees.

I could be persuaded, if not totally convinced, to keep some Id rather see gone but Mugabi just isnt one of them.