McNally

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="lappinitup"]

Tangy wrote........

"Please explain to the readers of this bb. how the purchase of the ex LSE land and ex Norwich City Council land are currently profitable on an annual basis? Add half the last arrangement fee (for rolling over the £2.5m loan in December 2008 and its due for repayment in December 2010) to the annual interest bill and its probably costing £300k a year for exactly what? Its not entertaining,  Its just a drain on the clubs resources."

So, do you think they should sell now or wait until prices recover?

[/quote]

Its Capt. Ludd again!

To answer your question, please see the reply I made earlier.

Bye bye.

[morty 0]

This thread definetly smells like someone has soiled themselves in it.

**Opens a window**

[lappinitup 629]

It''s a simple question that you didn''t answer before and obviously won''t answer now.

Let''s try another one. If the credit crunch hadn''t happened and this land had been sold off at a large profit, would you have been on here constantly praising the board for their actions, in the way that you use the land deal now in an attempt to discredit them?

[Mello Yello 2,281]

[quote user="lappinitup"]

It''s a simple question that you didn''t answer before and obviously won''t answer now.

Let''s try another one. If the credit crunch hadn''t happened and this land had been sold off at a large profit, would you have been on here constantly praising the board for their actions, in the way that you use the land deal now in an attempt to discredit them?

[/quote]

Depends what the board would have done with the large profit from the land sell off....

Probably wouldn''t be spent on what the support - would prefer it to be spent on....

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote user="morty"]You people want to calm down before someone soils themself.[/quote]

Too late.

NURSE !
[/quote]

Nurses don''t do that.

And if it just dribbles down your leg you''ll have to handle that yourself.

Try again.

OTBC

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="T"]

I''ve answered your questions. You just choose to select irrelevant and incomparable data like as politician in your desparate attempt to come up with a bizarre case that you are right but as you say you ignore the overall picture becausue it does not suit you.

Burnley''s promotion was funded by a rich property developer. It was not funded by fans or on-field activities that is for sure. So as in raising the Preston example you are jsut proving yourslef wrong to everyone- I''m afraid you are living in the past and in complete denial of the realities if you think the fan''s funding is enough. It seems that you are happy to stay in the  third division as that is your stated funding policy. In fact if we closed the profitable off-field activities we would be even worse off. You clearly have no understanding of business or finance but fortunately that does not matter as the directors do.

[/quote]

Some questions T:

a.,  What were the debts for which sent Leicester, Saints, Ipswich etc. into administration given that you`ve stated on this thread that you can`t get bank loans for players/wages?

b.,  What were our debts- which our CE recently called the "biggest issue" at the club- for?

c.,  How does going from a period when we could break even with 16k gates, to needing over 40k gates to break even in `08 show that the club are financially better off for the infrastructure "obsession"?  And bear in mind the team were largely self-funded through transfer profits in `08.

d.,  Have Burnley FC bought and sold land, or did you just make that up because you are desperate?

I invest in companies for my main source of income.  I have seen plenty of ideas that look great in theory but simply do not work in practise- particularly when businesses lose sight of their core product because they are so in love with their pet theory.  All businesses which go bust thought that their great plan/idea would work and make them rich.  Football is littered with clubs with huge, expensive stands which are rarely filled and huge expensive loans to pay for them which they are struggling to meet (not to mention to pay for land/offices/new conservatories etc.).  Most of those clubs are in massive financial difficulties- including us.  Your pet theory rarely works in practise T, accept it.

[T 190]

1. Leicester I don''t know but I thought the debts for Saints and Ipswich were related to stadium development. Is that the answer you are looking for? Lots of club invest in stands and new grounds as they need the income to compete. Of course you have a problem if you slip down the leagues and no longer have the crowds but wouldn''t you say NCFC have got this one about right.

2. The debts are for the stands and the land deal. The stand makes sense, the land deal made sense when the decision was made, does not look good now, and will probably work out ok overall in the end.

3. see Nutty, he talks a lot of sense

4. Burnley have not but there owner has and it is this money that funded promotion not football.

5,. Football is not a normal business, it is a hobby so your last comments don''t apply.

Football doesn''t pay so you have to make your money alsewhere, sell players (see Nutty) or have a rich benefactor. Sorry you can continue to delude yourself that you know better than the owners, directors, Deloittes, Chairman of the football league, Peter Cullum and someone who has professionally reviewed a premiership football club, which Tangie has worked out is true but you are in your own little world and bit of share speculation does not mean you understand business, as it is only the one''s on the inside who ever really know what is going on.

Some of us recognise that the financial realites of football have dramtaically changed, that the owners have somehow managed to bring in a far better qualified mgmt team. (My own theory is that Delia/MWJ decided to spend their money on Mcnally who I suspect will be costing more than ND - interested to know what he was earning at Fulham.) Recognise that Football has its ups and downs and enjoy the football.

Personally, I don''t see any point dwelling on past decisions which no one can change when the world and NCFC have moved on.

 

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote user="morty"]You people want to calm down before someone soils themself.[/quote]Too late.NURSE ![/quote]

Nurses don''t do that.

And if it just dribbles down your leg you''ll have to handle that yourself.

Try again.

OTBC

[/quote]I bow to your experience in these matters, Bly....

[The Butler 0]

[quote user="T"]

1. Leicester I don''t know but I thought the debts for Saints and Ipswich were related to stadium development. Is that the answer you are looking for? Lots of club invest in stands and new grounds as they need the income to compete. Of course you have a problem if you slip down the leagues and no longer have the crowds but wouldn''t you say NCFC have got this one about right.

2. The debts are for the stands and the land deal. The stand makes sense, the land deal made sense when the decision was made, does not look good now, and will probably work out ok overall in the end.

3. see Nutty, he talks a lot of sense

4. Burnley have not but there owner has and it is this money that funded promotion not football.

5,. Football is not a normal business, it is a hobby so your last comments don''t apply.

Football doesn''t pay so you have to make your money alsewhere, sell players (see Nutty) or have a rich benefactor. Sorry you can continue to delude yourself that you know better than the owners, directors, Deloittes, Chairman of the football league, Peter Cullum and someone who has professionally reviewed a premiership football club, which Tangie has worked out is true but you are in your own little world and bit of share speculation does not mean you understand business, as it is only the one''s on the inside who ever really know what is going on.

Some of us recognise that the financial realites of football have dramtaically changed, that the owners have somehow managed to bring in a far better qualified mgmt team. (My own theory is that Delia/MWJ decided to spend their money on Mcnally who I suspect will be costing more than ND - interested to know what he was earning at Fulham.) Recognise that Football has its ups and downs and enjoy the football.

Personally, I don''t see any point dwelling on past decisions which no one can change when the world and NCFC have moved on.

 

[/quote]

T this is in no way a critisism but wasn''t McNally on "Gardening leave" having had an excellent pay day from that nice Fulham chairman?

(hence that flashy car)

Still a great coup for the club. Then when your backs to a wall it pays to hire good to fight you out of it.

If he with the help of others  he can do for the finances what Lambert is doing for the team...........

[Mr.Carrow 376]

1,  Leicester was down to debt for the Walkers.  Coventry were within hours of going bust due to debt for the Ricoh.  Darlington and their lovely 25k stadium have gone already i believe.  We have been extremely lucky that our crowds have held up so well- which is why people at the club use adjectives like "amazing" and "unbelievable" in relation to our crowds.  If they had gone down to the anticipated 17k or so we would have been in administration by now.

2,  The fact that our finances are "dire" even with jam-packed stands indicate that they must have got the economics of it very wrong.  The Jarrold i can understand, the £4m infill, £6m land and various other loans for stand refits, offices etc. were a case of wrong priorities which contributed towards our relegation and the financial mess we are now in.

3,  No, nutty obfuscates, twists and ignores the bits he doesn`t like.  I`ve yet to see a valid attempt at answering why we shouldn`t be very concerned that we went from needing 16k gates to break-even, to needing over 40k to break-even in a year when the team largely funded itself through transfer profits.  There is absolutely NOTHING there to indicate that the boards admitted "obsession" with infrastructure which kicked in in about `02 has done anything other than divert money away from where it was needed- on the pitch- and pile cost on top of cost until we could barely afford a team at all in `08.  It is you who is denying reality in this case.

4,  So Burnley FC have not profited from investing the clubs money in land, and no evidence that Sheff.Utd have either?  Can you please come up with a football club which has in recent years profited from property speculation instead of making stuff up?

5,  Looks like a cop-out to me.

We have just brought in a Chairman who was extremely critical of the owners and the previous CE who you defended 100%, saying things like "We are in this to win football games, not build a property portfolio" and "We do not believe the club were sufficiently focussed on on-pitch matters".  Our new CE has identified debt for infrastructure as the clubs biggest problem and is apparently amazed at the unprofessionalism and waste behind the scenes and making big cuts.  This suggests to me that the majority shareholders have accepted they got it wrong and have allowed the club to change tack.  It`s just a shame that some people on here haven`t got the honesty and integrity to do the same.......

[T 190]

It sounds as if you are praising the owners Butler! Careful you could get kicked out of your beloved fraternity for that.

That is my understanding as well  but given that some of the premiership chief execs are on 7 figures I don''t suppose he came cheap even if he was on gardening leave. Money well spent if you ask me as good chief execs and managers are worth the money because everything normally flows from getting the right management team in place. I think MWJ comments about not carrying on as we were at the end of last season were very portent. I don''t think that MWJ/delia got to be so successful by being fools and not being tough when required, have always realised they do not have the skills themselves, they were no longer convinced by the existing mgmt team and paid to get someone in with a stronger CV.

[T 190]

Does Mr C honestly believe we would have such good crowds if we hadn''t invested in good facilities and that this aspect had been well managed by the club?

And do you think hte owners made a good decision to get the new Chairman and CEO on board?

 

You are a troll as if you know as much about business as you claim you would never state the views that you do.

 

 

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="T"]

Does Mr C honestly believe we would have such good crowds if we hadn''t invested in good facilities and that this aspect had been well managed by the club?

And do you think hte owners made a good decision to get the new Chairman and CEO on board?

 

You are a troll as if you know as much about business as you claim you would never state the views that you do.

 

 

[/quote]

I agree with your first sentence but as usual, it is not as black and white as that.  We are an absolute one-off as football is littered with expensive new stands which are never filled.  Do you think the club expected to sell out in the Third division when we built the stands?  We have been very lucky.

Yes, excellent decision- a bit late in the day though.  You supported the previous regime 100% who had a certain approach, we now have a different regime who were highly critical of the last and have changed approach and you want to support them too, without admitting to any contradiction!  It`s a bit like me campaigning for Labour and then, when the Tories win the election, going around with a blue rosette telling people i`ve always been a Tory.  Be consistant man!

Lol.  Cheap shots when you`ve lost the argument.  Nothing new there then....

[The Butler 0]

[quote user="T"]

It sounds as if you are praising the owners Butler! Careful you could get kicked out of your beloved fraternity for that.

That is my understanding as well  but given that some of the premiership chief execs are on 7 figures I don''t suppose he came cheap even if he was on gardening leave. Money well spent if you ask me as good chief execs and managers are worth the money because everything normally flows from getting the right management team in place. I think MWJ comments about not carrying on as we were at the end of last season were very portent. I don''t think that MWJ/delia got to be so successful by being fools and not being tough when required, have always realised they do not have the skills themselves, they were no longer convinced by the existing mgmt team and paid to get someone in with a stronger CV.

[/quote]

Fraternity is an interesting one I must ponder that.

I know of no one who does not approve of the appointment of McNally and the subsequent appointment of Lambert.

That the majority share holders have at long last  realised their mistakes and attempted to correct them also deserves praise.

Denying those mistakes were ever made is what is annoying as how do you correct what wasn''t wrong!

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote user="The Butler"][quote user="T"]

It sounds as if you are praising the owners Butler! Careful you could get kicked out of your beloved fraternity for that.

That is my understanding as well  but given that some of the premiership chief execs are on 7 figures I don''t suppose he came cheap even if he was on gardening leave. Money well spent if you ask me as good chief execs and managers are worth the money because everything normally flows from getting the right management team in place. I think MWJ comments about not carrying on as we were at the end of last season were very portent. I don''t think that MWJ/delia got to be so successful by being fools and not being tough when required, have always realised they do not have the skills themselves, they were no longer convinced by the existing mgmt team and paid to get someone in with a stronger CV.

[/quote]

Fraternity is an interesting one I must ponder that.

I know of no one who does not approve of the appointment of McNally and the subsequent appointment of Lambert.

That the majority share holders have at long last  realised their mistakes and attempted to correct them also deserves praise.

Denying those mistakes were ever made is what is annoying as how do you correct what wasn''t wrong!

[/quote]So you''re not all clamouring for change then, you''re trampling over each other to say "I told you so"...

[ron obvious 1,501]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="T"]

Does Mr C honestly believe we would have such good crowds if we hadn''t invested in good facilities and that this aspect had been well managed by the club?

And do you think hte owners made a good decision to get the new Chairman and CEO on board?

 

You are a troll as if you know as much about business as you claim you would never state the views that you do.

 

 

[/quote]

I agree with your first sentence but as usual, it is not as black and white as that.  We are an absolute one-off as football is littered with expensive new stands which are never filled.  Do you think the club expected to sell out in the Third division when we built the stands?  We have been very lucky.

Yes, excellent decision- a bit late in the day though.  You supported the previous regime 100% who had a certain approach, we now have a different regime who were highly critical of the last and have changed approach and you want to support them too, without admitting to any contradiction!  It`s a bit like me campaigning for Labour and then, when the Tories win the election, going around with a blue rosette telling people i`ve always been a Tory.  Be consistant man!

Lol.  Cheap shots when you`ve lost the argument.  Nothing new there then....

[/quote]So if something goes well, it''s luck, if badly, it''s criminal mismanagement?

[The Butler 0]

[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote user="The Butler"][quote user="T"]

It sounds as if you are praising the owners Butler! Careful you could get kicked out of your beloved fraternity for that.

That is my understanding as well  but given that some of the premiership chief execs are on 7 figures I don''t suppose he came cheap even if he was on gardening leave. Money well spent if you ask me as good chief execs and managers are worth the money because everything normally flows from getting the right management team in place. I think MWJ comments about not carrying on as we were at the end of last season were very portent. I don''t think that MWJ/delia got to be so successful by being fools and not being tough when required, have always realised they do not have the skills themselves, they were no longer convinced by the existing mgmt team and paid to get someone in with a stronger CV.

[/quote]

Fraternity is an interesting one I must ponder that.

I know of no one who does not approve of the appointment of McNally and the subsequent appointment of Lambert.

That the majority share holders have at long last  realised their mistakes and attempted to correct them also deserves praise.

Denying those mistakes were ever made is what is annoying as how do you correct what wasn''t wrong!

[/quote]

So you''re not all clamouring for change then, you''re trampling over each other to say "I told you so"...

[/quote]

I just knew you would be about  Elsie to try and pick a hole somewhere, you never disappoint!

So who is all and who is clamouring?

To repeat, we are in the third division, finances are dire, attempts, which we all applaud, are being made to correct mistakes that have been acumulating for several years. 

So you want us all to hide behind the settee and pretend it has not happened and that IF things fail  and McNally cannot pull it out of the fire and Lambert cannot get us promoted it will be just one of those things when the club goes into administration.

In the meantime WE ALL are supporting the club in all sorts of ways and HOPE for success.

Thanks Bla you get better, I needed that laugh this morning.[*] And you managed it without your straight person Doris.

[T 190]

No doubt it is the same type of  luck we had when we were promoted to the premiership under the same regime.

No I don''t support or not support the previous regime. I do think hte new mgmt tea has stronger CVs. I have though always supported investing in fixed assets and off the field activities if they generate extra cash for the team in the long term though as this is the only way that you can compete and based on the accounts and the info from Tangie they do. Of course there are no black and whites but to insinuate that our league position has nothing to do with the selection of managers and player is just plain silly. We are a football club and ultimately it is the performance on the pitch that matters.

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote]In the meantime WE ALL are supporting the club in all sorts of ways and HOPE for success.[/quote]Oh really Butler ?  There was me thinking you were just having a good whinge.  Nothing wrong with a good whinge I suppose, just don''t make out that you''re the saviour of the club for having one.

[The Butler 0]

[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote]In the meantime WE ALL are supporting the club in all sorts of ways and HOPE for success.[/quote]

Oh really Butler ?  There was me thinking you were just having a good whinge.  Nothing wrong with a good whinge I suppose, just don''t make out that you''re the saviour of the club for having one.
[/quote]

Better and better you will soon be able to go solo[Y]

[nutty nigel 7,509]

This thread gets more and more ridiculous every day. Just a few observations since I was last here.

I said The Butlers copy and pasted "T.V. cook Delia Smith and husband Michael Wynn-Jones took over the majority of Norwich City''s shares, and Mike Walker was re-appointed as the club''s manager"  was not correct and that it was Watling who bought those majority shares. Smith and Jones joined the board for investment straight into the club. I then get told that all my knowledge is heresay where as those who copy and paste from google are the oracle. Just as I pointed out about the football economy website, and is proved by the rubbish posters get away with putting on here, following the club through google is a dangerous thing. Was there anything else incorrect in Butlers article? Well yes there was. At the end of the 97/98 season we weren''t mid-table. We had just escaped relegation. We weren''t safe until we won those two final home games and finished the season on 55 points. The same sort of total that we did under Hamilton, Grant and Roeder. According to The Butler in 2000 we had 20 points from 20 games and were in real danger of relegation while in 97/98 a similar total was mid-table. This is of course spin. I believe The Butler now accepts my original post that Smith&Jones joined the board in 1996 but didn''t own the club until 18 months later. Although somehow the majority shareholders are only to blame for decline when it''s them. If they are not majority shareholders they are to blame anyway. I stand by what I said the decline that Smith & Jones are responsible for is that from the bottom of the Premier League to Division Three in the last four seasons. Prior to that they had taken us from the bottom of the Second Division to the Premier League in six seasons. The Butler accuses me of re-writing history but where have I done that? The decline from the top of the Premier League to the relegation zone in the Second Division in the 90''s was wholly during the time that Robert Chase and geoffrey Watling owned our club.

 

Now Mr Carrow - I listed those sales and sell on fees earlier in the thread and I am not going to do it again. If you believe they are wrong then please feel free to list my mistakes in reply. I am not at all misunderstanding your points about 16k gates I am just saying that it''s irrelevant without knowing what figure is used to break even against. Or indeed what income those 16k gates bring in.

 

P9 of the 06 accounts? Is that the one where Shaun O''Hara states "Over the last six years the Club has succesfully managed to balance the books with creative re-financing, share offers, property sales, player sales and importantly the support of the fan base. However financing football outside the Premier League is very challenging if the club intends to be competetive. The table below summarises the trading performance of the club since 2001 and clearly demonstrates the difficulty of generating profits from regular activities." Now in that table I can see nothing about non-player wage costs. All I can find is operating costs. Please point me to where these non-player wage costs are actually listed.

 

 

[The Butler 0]

I really can''t be bothered Nutty.

As you are only too aware of the true nature of the takeover stop bulls****

DS became a director in 96 with .5m investment without any intention of buying Chases shares! Cuckoo land again!

The points totals are facts not fictions. I don''t deal with spin you do.

Following the club via Google is not my way but yours. Or is your NCFC Library of Nutty facts that big?

At this point I am now stopping posting on this. I have far more important things in my life than trying to convince someone who you know will NEVER believe what you tell them anyway.

Just so you have something to do this afternoon I would recommend Googling Nigel Worthington. Absolute pages of articles, videos, pictures. you could have an afternoon to remember. Oh don''t believe it all though!

[nutty nigel 7,509]

[quote user="The Butler"]

I really can''t be bothered Nutty.

As you are only too aware of the true nature of the takeover stop bulls****

DS became a director in 96 with .5m investment without any intention of buying Chases shares! Cuckoo land again!

The points totals are facts not fictions. I don''t deal with spin you do.

Following the club via Google is not my way but yours. Or is your NCFC Library of Nutty facts that big?

At this point I am now stopping posting on this. I have far more important things in my life than trying to convince someone who you know will NEVER believe what you tell them anyway.

Just so you have something to do this afternoon I would recommend Googling Nigel Worthington. Absolute pages of articles, videos, pictures. you could have an afternoon to remember. Oh don''t believe it all though!

[/quote]

Thanks for that. Is your cupboard under the stairs full of balls you took home[:|]

And I will guarantee I have more to do this afternoon than you. I fill my entire life with things I have to do. Again you get personal because you have no answer to the point I make.

When is a majority shareholder not a majority shareholder?

When The Butler says so.

 

 

[The Butler 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="The Butler"]

I really can''t be bothered Nutty.

As you are only too aware of the true nature of the takeover stop bulls****

DS became a director in 96 with .5m investment without any intention of buying Chases shares! Cuckoo land again!

The points totals are facts not fictions. I don''t deal with spin you do.

Following the club via Google is not my way but yours. Or is your NCFC Library of Nutty facts that big?

At this point I am now stopping posting on this. I have far more important things in my life than trying to convince someone who you know will NEVER believe what you tell them anyway.

Just so you have something to do this afternoon I would recommend Googling Nigel Worthington. Absolute pages of articles, videos, pictures. you could have an afternoon to remember. Oh don''t believe it all though!

[/quote]

Thanks for that. Is your cupboard under the stairs full of balls you took home[:|]

And I will guarantee I have more to do this afternoon than you. I fill my entire life with things I have to do. Again you get personal because you have no answer to the point I make.

When is a majority shareholder not a majority shareholder?

When The Butler says so.

 

 

[/quote]

Personal ? Classic you call me a liar and then say I''m getting personal!!

When is a fact a fact when Nutty says so?

The cupboard under my stairs has footballs signed by the ''59 team, the championship winning team, whisky decanters and whisky (NCFC)

Special crystal NCFC bowls, photographs, programs from Munchen and Milan and  Arnhem. Lots and lots of NCFC stuff all got from Google of course.[;)]

Have a good afternoon

[Taxing 0]

[quote user="The Butler"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="The Butler"]

I really can''t be bothered Nutty.

As you are only too aware of the true nature of the takeover stop bulls****

DS became a director in 96 with .5m investment without any intention of buying Chases shares! Cuckoo land again!

The points totals are facts not fictions. I don''t deal with spin you do.

Following the club via Google is not my way but yours. Or is your NCFC Library of Nutty facts that big?

At this point I am now stopping posting on this. I have far more important things in my life than trying to convince someone who you know will NEVER believe what you tell them anyway.

Just so you have something to do this afternoon I would recommend Googling Nigel Worthington. Absolute pages of articles, videos, pictures. you could have an afternoon to remember. Oh don''t believe it all though!

[/quote]

Thanks for that. Is your cupboard under the stairs full of balls you took home[:|]

And I will guarantee I have more to do this afternoon than you. I fill my entire life with things I have to do. Again you get personal because you have no answer to the point I make.

When is a majority shareholder not a majority shareholder?

When The Butler says so.

 

 

[/quote]

Personal ? Classic you call me a liar and then say I''m getting personal!!

When is a fact a fact when Nutty says so?

The cupboard under my stairs has footballs signed by the ''59 team, the championship winning team, whisky decanters and whisky (NCFC)

Special crystal NCFC bowls, photographs, programs from Munchen and Milan and  Arnhem. Lots and lots of NCFC stuff all got from Google of course.[;)]

Have a good afternoon

[/quote]

In your earlier post you sated, unequivocally it seemed, that .............."At this point I am now stopping posting on this." - so why don''t you ?

 

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote]

The cupboard under my stairs has footballs signed by the ''59 team,

the championship winning team, whisky decanters and whisky (NCFC)

Special crystal NCFC bowls, photographs, programs from Munchen and Milan and  Arnhem.[/quote]All that tells me is that you have money.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

[quote user="The Butler"][

Personal ? Classic you call me a liar and then say I''m getting personal!!

[/quote]

I don''t believe I ever have done such a thing. I believe you just made that up.

You have a good afternoon too.

 

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="lappinitup"]

It''s a simple question that you didn''t answer before and obviously won''t answer now.

Let''s try another one. If the credit crunch hadn''t happened and this land had been sold off at a large profit, would you have been on here constantly praising the board for their actions, in the way that you use the land deal now in an attempt to discredit them?

[/quote]

Lets try another one Capt. Ludd.......before you asked the question the other day, I had already stated my position. Hence the response you got from Blah x3.  May I suggest you find the relevant post and read it.

Have a nice day!

 

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="Mello Yello"][quote user="lappinitup"]

It''s a simple question that you didn''t answer before and obviously won''t answer now.

Let''s try another one. If the credit crunch hadn''t happened and this land had been sold off at a large profit, would you have been on here constantly praising the board for their actions, in the way that you use the land deal now in an attempt to discredit them?

[/quote]

Depends what the board would have done with the large profit from the land sell off....

Probably wouldn''t be spent on what the support - would prefer it to be spent on....

[/quote]

The BIG assumption is that a large profit would have been made.....

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="T"]

Money well spent if you ask me as good chief execs and managers are worth the money because everything normally flows from getting the right management team in place. [/quote]

Now thats a comment I will agree with.

T falls over in shock.