Re: westerman : Sat Oct 10, 2015 8:38 am  

Jake the Peg wrote:

There you go again, claiming someone has said something they clearly haven't. is it a compulsion? Are you like this in real life? Is that the cash position from this week or a couple of years ago? Like you say, you have no information.

My strength seems to be debunking anything you claim so I'll stick with that

The cash position is from last year's filed accounts. Since then our credit rating has worsened, yet you reckon our financial position hasn't. What is your evidence things financially are at least on a par with this time last year please?

Re: westerman : Sat Oct 10, 2015 8:55 am  

I think its clear to see were not in as good a position as we where but with the greater sky money and lets face it we are still a fairly well supported club and the fact that we seem to be operating on a shoe string budget should mean that were not about to go to the wall. Thing is things could of been sooooo much better and the one person to blame for that is A Pearson. Hes slowly strangling this club in the way hes running it and that is whats driving people away and will continue to do so

Re: westerman : Sat Oct 10, 2015 9:00 am  

Sebasteeno wrote:

I think its clear to see were not in as good a position as we where.

Agreed.

Re: westerman : Sat Oct 10, 2015 10:58 am  

Mrs Barista wrote:

The cash position is from last year's filed accounts. Since then our credit rating has worsened, yet you reckon our financial position hasn't. What is your evidence things financially are at least on a par with this time last year please?

I have no evidence the same as you, however increased sky money, reduced expenditure on academy, transfer fees, not significantly lower attendances would point to the fact they aren't likely to be much worse.

As for the credit rating, this will obviously be made up of a large number of factors but as a private limited company, pearson can pretty much run the club how he wants to maximise the personal financial benefit to him. I can't see that the club has been a particularly good credit risk at any time in living memory. Is our rating significantly worse than other SL clubs who don't own their won ground? Are there any defaults or CCJ's registered against us?

Re: westerman : Sat Oct 10, 2015 3:22 pm  

We have many who now everything about the accounts at Fc like those who knew the under 23s was cancelled and Westerman in talks with Leeds.What a load of garbage some posts on hereare ..grow up FFS

Re: westerman : Sat Oct 10, 2015 11:57 pm  

Jake the Peg wrote:

I have no evidence the same as you, however increased sky money, reduced expenditure on academy, transfer fees, not significantly lower attendances would point to the fact they aren't likely to be much worse.

As for the credit rating, this will obviously be made up of a large number of factors but as a private limited company, pearson can pretty much run the club how he wants to maximise the personal financial benefit to him. I can't see that the club has been a particularly good credit risk at any time in living memory. Is our rating significantly worse than other SL clubs who don't own their won ground? Are there any defaults or CCJ's registered against us?

Good post, beat me to it. Answer to your question is no. And the credit rating mrs b is referring to ain't no evidence either. They tend to fluctuate quite often. And I can imagine even more with this type of seasonal income

Re: westerman : Sun Oct 11, 2015 7:28 am  

Jake the Peg wrote:

I have no evidence the same as you, however increased sky money, reduced expenditure on academy, transfer fees, not significantly lower attendances would point to the fact they aren't likely to be much worse.

As for the credit rating, this will obviously be made up of a large number of factors but as a private limited company, pearson can pretty much run the club how he wants to maximise the personal financial benefit to him. I can't see that the club has been a particularly good credit risk at any time in living memory. Is our rating significantly worse than other SL clubs who don't own their won ground? Are there any defaults or CCJ's registered against us?

Based on what? Certainly not our credit rating history, because that shows that in the last few years it's been very good, and that includes the rating vs similar companies, but in the last year has deteriorated. This latest "in living memory" assertion of yours is fabricated bonkers. There aren't any CCJs against us BTW but this is one of many factors are taken into account. Cherry-picking individual elements doesn't alter the overall balanced risk score.

Re: westerman : Sun Oct 11, 2015 8:32 am  

Mrs Barista wrote:

Based on what? Certainly not our credit rating history, because that shows that in the last few years it's been very good, and that includes the rating vs similar companies, but in the last year has deteriorated. This latest "in living memory" assertion of yours is fabricated bonkers. There aren't any CCJs against us BTW but this is one of many factors are taken into account. Cherry-picking individual elements doesn't alter the overall balanced risk score.

I'm well aware of what makes a good credit rating thanks, I have my own accountant. So the external perception is that our financial position is worse than it was? No shiit sherlock. 2 or 3 years of losses and suddenly we're a worse credit risk. Who'd have thought that. There has been no point in my following of the club (about 40 years now) where the club were a good credit risk IMO and I doubt they'll have secured any meaningful finance without a charge on land when we had some and/or director's guarantees but maybe you can provide evidence otherwise.

Fabricated bonkers? That should be your strapline

Re: westerman : Sun Oct 11, 2015 8:43 am  

Jake the Peg wrote:

I'm well aware of what makes a good credit rating thanks, I have my own accountant. So the external perception is that our financial position is worse than it was? No shiit sherlock. 2 or 3 years of losses and suddenly we're a worse credit risk. Who'd have thought that. There has been no point in my following of the club (about 40 years now) where the club were a good credit risk IMO and I doubt they'll have secured any meaningful finance without a charge on land when we had some and/or director's guarantees but maybe you can provide evidence otherwise.

Fabricated bonkers? That should be your strapline

You claimed the credit will have been poor throughout living memory. That's been debunked, because you made it up.

I think we're sort of agreeing now. Our financial position isn't great and has worsened. The question is how precarious it is. If you believe the filed accounts, which show high levels of indebtedness and losses in this tenure, and credit reports, which isn't pretty and on a downward trajectory, you'd be worried. And maybe reinforcing the point that fans' contributions to the club are on the vital end of the spectrum rather than "nice to have" is a reasonable thing to do. Just saying.

Re: westerman : Sun Oct 11, 2015 1:30 pm  

Surely the credit rating would have been affected by Kath leaving Pearson to sort out the six figure tax bill??