Shepherd Legacy

[Thomson Mouse]

Macbeth, i replied to you, do me the favour? You still imply that we were on the brink of financial disaster but dont deal with the fact that every other club in the premiership was in the same boat. How do you explain that?

 

Personally, i reckon NE5 would be my choice for a pint and a banter over any other moron on this forum, including me.

 

 

 

 

I suppose it depends on whether you want to stand around drinking with someone who would jump around manically waving their arms in the air shouting "I told you so" at the top of their voice, while also telling anyone within earshot that you really do believe him but won't admit it.

 

No thanks, I'd rather stick blunt pencils in my eyes.

 

your making things up again 

 

thats a bad habit, it affects your ability to make sound judgements.

 

 

 

 

I know for a fact you won't see the irony in that statement.

 

 

As I've said, it's not your viewpoint, it's the way you put it across.

 

Maybe it says a bit about CG as well.

[NE5]

Macbeth, i replied to you, do me the favour? You still imply that we were on the brink of financial disaster but dont deal with the fact that every other club in the premiership was in the same boat. How do you explain that?

 

Personally, i reckon NE5 would be my choice for a pint and a banter over any other moron on this forum, including me.

 

 

 

 

I suppose it depends on whether you want to stand around drinking with someone who would jump around manically waving their arms in the air shouting "I told you so" at the top of their voice, while also telling anyone within earshot that you really do believe him but won't admit it.

 

No thanks, I'd rather stick blunt pencils in my eyes.

 

your making things up again 

 

thats a bad habit, it affects your ability to make sound judgements.

 

 

 

 

I know for a fact you won't see the irony in that statement.

 

 

As I've said, it's not your viewpoint, it's the way you put it across.

 

Maybe it says a bit about CG as well.

 

how should it be put across ?

 

As I said, some of it is long standing, and one or two people just don't warrant the patience anymore.

 

Tell me what I've made up ? I certainly haven't made up the league positions, european qualifications, sell out crowds and top quality footballers of the last 16 years, as against what went before, and the complete disarray of the last 2 weeks now that Keegan has exposed Ashley and his cronies for the amateurs that they always were ?

 

 

 

 

[Guest Howaythetoon]

I wanted rid of Shepherd and regard his time here as an ultimate failure but he got a lot of stick for much less (from myself included) by some of those now defending Ashley for worse "crimes".

 

[Syrette]

I wanted rid of Shepherd and regard his time here as an ultimate failure but he got a lot of stick for much less (from myself included) by some of those now defending Ashley for worse "crimes".

 

 

In your opinion.

[Guest Howaythetoon]

I wanted rid of Shepherd and regard his time here as an ultimate failure but he got a lot of stick for much less (from myself included) by some of those now defending Ashley for worse "crimes".

 

 

In your opinion.

 

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40248000/jpg/_40248987_neil2bbcok.jpg

[Syrette]

You're not making much sense at all tonight.

[Tooj]

You're not making much sense at all tonight.

 

Tonight?

[Guest fraser]

The club was not a going concern without SJ Holdings undertakings to pay liabilities last year and would, therefore, have gone into administration otherwise. This is a stark reality.

[Colos Short and Curlies]

The club was not a going concern without SJ Holdings undertakings to pay liabilities last year and would, therefore, have gone into administration otherwise. This is a stark reality.

 

Where are you getting the numbers from (I haven't seen a full balance sheet from the last set of plc accounts)?

 

Also what are you classifying  a going concern as and what basis are you saying we would have gone into administration?

 

I have a couple of key doubts, but don't want to comment more until I see the figures

[Guest fraser]

The club was not a going concern without SJ Holdings undertakings to pay liabilities last year and would, therefore, have gone into administration otherwise. This is a stark reality.

 

Where are you getting the numbers from (I haven't seen a full balance sheet from the last set of plc accounts)?

 

Also what are you classifying  a going concern as and what basis are you saying we would have gone into administration?

 

I have a couple of key doubts, but don't want to comment more until I see the figures

 

SJPH (in effect Ashley) gave an undertaking lasting 12 months to settle certain liabilities and on that basis the board signed off that the club was a going concern; if they had not the alternative was administration.

[Colos Short and Curlies]

The club was not a going concern without SJ Holdings undertakings to pay liabilities last year and would, therefore, have gone into administration otherwise. This is a stark reality.

 

Where are you getting the numbers from (I haven't seen a full balance sheet from the last set of plc accounts)?

 

Also what are you classifying  a going concern as and what basis are you saying we would have gone into administration?

 

I have a couple of key doubts, but don't want to comment more until I see the figures

 

SJPH (in effect Ashley) gave an undertaking lasting 12 months to settle certain liabilities and on that basis the board signed off that the club was a going concern; if they had not the alternative was administration.

 

Probably a stupid question, but is this online anywhere other than Companies House?

[Guest fraser]

The club was not a going concern without SJ Holdings undertakings to pay liabilities last year and would, therefore, have gone into administration otherwise. This is a stark reality.

 

Where are you getting the numbers from (I haven't seen a full balance sheet from the last set of plc accounts)?

 

Also what are you classifying  a going concern as and what basis are you saying we would have gone into administration?

 

I have a couple of key doubts, but don't want to comment more until I see the figures

 

SJPH (in effect Ashley) gave an undertaking lasting 12 months to settle certain liabilities and on that basis the board signed off that the club was a going concern; if they had not the alternative was administration.

 

Probably a stupid question, but is this online anywhere other than Companies House?

 

It's at Companies House. EY audited.

[Colos Short and Curlies]

The club was not a going concern without SJ Holdings undertakings to pay liabilities last year and would, therefore, have gone into administration otherwise. This is a stark reality.

 

Where are you getting the numbers from (I haven't seen a full balance sheet from the last set of plc accounts)?

 

Also what are you classifying  a going concern as and what basis are you saying we would have gone into administration?

 

I have a couple of key doubts, but don't want to comment more until I see the figures

 

SJPH (in effect Ashley) gave an undertaking lasting 12 months to settle certain liabilities and on that basis the board signed off that the club was a going concern; if they had not the alternative was administration.

 

Probably a stupid question, but is this online anywhere other than Companies House?

 

It's at Companies House. EY audited.

 

I aint paying for it, so will take your word.

 

However, there are a number of steps between going concern and administration, hence my initial doubt

 

[Guest fraser]

The club was not a going concern without SJ Holdings undertakings to pay liabilities last year and would, therefore, have gone into administration otherwise. This is a stark reality.

 

Where are you getting the numbers from (I haven't seen a full balance sheet from the last set of plc accounts)?

 

Also what are you classifying  a going concern as and what basis are you saying we would have gone into administration?

 

I have a couple of key doubts, but don't want to comment more until I see the figures

 

SJPH (in effect Ashley) gave an undertaking lasting 12 months to settle certain liabilities and on that basis the board signed off that the club was a going concern; if they had not the alternative was administration.

 

Probably a stupid question, but is this online anywhere other than Companies House?

 

It's at Companies House. EY audited.

 

I aint paying for it, so will take your word.

 

However, there are a number of steps between going concern and administration, hence my initial doubt

 

 

A mere £2?!?! There may be steps but they would have been quickly taken.

[Colos Short and Curlies]

The club was not a going concern without SJ Holdings undertakings to pay liabilities last year and would, therefore, have gone into administration otherwise. This is a stark reality.

 

Where are you getting the numbers from (I haven't seen a full balance sheet from the last set of plc accounts)?

 

Also what are you classifying  a going concern as and what basis are you saying we would have gone into administration?

 

I have a couple of key doubts, but don't want to comment more until I see the figures

 

SJPH (in effect Ashley) gave an undertaking lasting 12 months to settle certain liabilities and on that basis the board signed off that the club was a going concern; if they had not the alternative was administration.

 

Probably a stupid question, but is this online anywhere other than Companies House?

 

It's at Companies House. EY audited.

 

I aint paying for it, so will take your word.

 

However, there are a number of steps between going concern and administration, hence my initial doubt

 

 

A mere £2?!?! There may be steps but they would have been quickly taken.

 

Hmm, maybe - but Fred did claim to have outside funding in place.

 

Also, if that was the situation and Fred had continue to 'trade' (signing a new Manager, selling season tickets etc) the he would be in deep shit as a director operating like this.

 

Did the EY statement explicitly state that had Ashley not come in as he had then the club would have gone into administration? It would be unusual if it did tbh.

 

And many accounts get signed without a going concern statement in the auditors report, a large proportion of these recover successfully.

[Guest fraser]

The club was not a going concern without SJ Holdings undertakings to pay liabilities last year and would, therefore, have gone into administration otherwise. This is a stark reality.

 

Where are you getting the numbers from (I haven't seen a full balance sheet from the last set of plc accounts)?

 

Also what are you classifying  a going concern as and what basis are you saying we would have gone into administration?

 

I have a couple of key doubts, but don't want to comment more until I see the figures

 

SJPH (in effect Ashley) gave an undertaking lasting 12 months to settle certain liabilities and on that basis the board signed off that the club was a going concern; if they had not the alternative was administration.

 

Probably a stupid question, but is this online anywhere other than Companies House?

 

It's at Companies House. EY audited.

 

I aint paying for it, so will take your word.

 

However, there are a number of steps between going concern and administration, hence my initial doubt

 

 

A mere £2?!?! There may be steps but they would have been quickly taken.

 

Hmm, maybe - but Fred did claim to have outside funding in place.

 

Also, if that was the situation and Fred had continue to 'trade' (signing a new Manager, selling season tickets etc) the he would be in deep s*** as a director operating like this.

 

Did the EY statement explicitly state that had Ashley not come in as he had then the club would have gone into administration? It would be unusual if it did tbh.

 

And many accounts get signed without a going concern statement in the auditors report, a large proportion of these recover successfully.

 

Trade payables were astronomical. Net current liabilities. There was no exception by EY presumably because of the undertaking by SJPH.

[Colos Short and Curlies]

The club was not a going concern without SJ Holdings undertakings to pay liabilities last year and would, therefore, have gone into administration otherwise. This is a stark reality.

 

Where are you getting the numbers from (I haven't seen a full balance sheet from the last set of plc accounts)?

 

Also what are you classifying  a going concern as and what basis are you saying we would have gone into administration?

 

I have a couple of key doubts, but don't want to comment more until I see the figures

 

SJPH (in effect Ashley) gave an undertaking lasting 12 months to settle certain liabilities and on that basis the board signed off that the club was a going concern; if they had not the alternative was administration.

 

Probably a stupid question, but is this online anywhere other than Companies House?

 

It's at Companies House. EY audited.

 

I aint paying for it, so will take your word.

 

However, there are a number of steps between going concern and administration, hence my initial doubt

 

 

A mere £2?!?! There may be steps but they would have been quickly taken.

 

Hmm, maybe - but Fred did claim to have outside funding in place.

 

Also, if that was the situation and Fred had continue to 'trade' (signing a new Manager, selling season tickets etc) the he would be in deep s*** as a director operating like this.

 

Did the EY statement explicitly state that had Ashley not come in as he had then the club would have gone into administration? It would be unusual if it did tbh.

 

And many accounts get signed without a going concern statement in the auditors report, a large proportion of these recover successfully.

 

Trade payables were astronomical. Net current liabilities. There was no exception by EY presumably because of the undertaking by SJPH.

 

I'm sure they were, everything that as come out since backs up the poor state of the accounts.

 

I'm just not convinced that we were in immediate risk of administration, I've worked on companies who have racked up debts year on year and eventually operated with net current liabilities.

 

Its cash flow that is key, bear in mind when the season ticket money was coming in (not included in the current assets), as long as the club had cash to pay its debts in the short term then it could conceivably operate successfully in the year and come back to the same position - its a snapshot of the year only (Balance Sheet) and most of the clubs income is received just after this point in time

[Guest fraser]

The club was not a going concern without SJ Holdings undertakings to pay liabilities last year and would, therefore, have gone into administration otherwise. This is a stark reality.

 

Where are you getting the numbers from (I haven't seen a full balance sheet from the last set of plc accounts)?

 

Also what are you classifying  a going concern as and what basis are you saying we would have gone into administration?

 

I have a couple of key doubts, but don't want to comment more until I see the figures

 

SJPH (in effect Ashley) gave an undertaking lasting 12 months to settle certain liabilities and on that basis the board signed off that the club was a going concern; if they had not the alternative was administration.

 

Probably a stupid question, but is this online anywhere other than Companies House?

 

It's at Companies House. EY audited.

 

I aint paying for it, so will take your word.

 

However, there are a number of steps between going concern and administration, hence my initial doubt

 

 

A mere £2?!?! There may be steps but they would have been quickly taken.

 

Hmm, maybe - but Fred did claim to have outside funding in place.

 

Also, if that was the situation and Fred had continue to 'trade' (signing a new Manager, selling season tickets etc) the he would be in deep s*** as a director operating like this.

 

Did the EY statement explicitly state that had Ashley not come in as he had then the club would have gone into administration? It would be unusual if it did tbh.

 

And many accounts get signed without a going concern statement in the auditors report, a large proportion of these recover successfully.

 

Trade payables were astronomical. Net current liabilities. There was no exception by EY presumably because of the undertaking by SJPH.

 

I'm sure they were, everything that as come out since backs up the poor state of the accounts.

 

I'm just not convinced that we were in immediate risk of administration, I've worked on companies who have racked up debts year on year and eventually operated with net current liabilities.

 

Its cash flow that is key, bear in mind when the season ticket money was coming in (not included in the current assets), as long as the club had cash to pay its debts in the short term then it could conceivably operate successfully in the year and come back to the same position - its a snapshot of the year only (Balance Sheet) and most of the clubs income is received just after this point in time

 

I'm advised (this is not my field) that the high trade payables indicated a big problem with cash flow.

 

The fact remains that the injection of cash by SJPH was required to keep the club a going concern. Of course, Ashley has a problem in that he must continue with the cash injections, notwithstanding his statement of last weekend, otherwise the club may go into administration and he would leave, in the words of Anne Robinson, with nothing.

[alpal78]

I wanted rid of Shepherd and regard his time here as an ultimate failure but he got a lot of stick for much less (from myself included) by some of those now defending Ashley for worse "crimes".

 

 

Yes not agreeing to KK's transfer terms and conditions is worse then putting us through Souness and Roeder. Well done 

[macbeth]

I have the 2007 accounts at home, I'll send a copy to anyone who can't afford the £1 it now costs to download them 

 

Just say if you want them. It'll be Sunday before I can do though

 

 

[ChezGiven]

Scott Parker's 60s Haircut is clearly the most experienced and qualified accountant on this forum.

 

Both have us have doubts about the claims on non-qualified agenda-holding posters. It speaks volumes. The value of any business is based on its future revenue streams, not its past expenditure. If you dont understand that then i'm not sure you should be commenting.

 

 

[Colos Short and Curlies]

Scott Parker's 60s Haircut is clearly the most experienced and qualified accountant on this forum.

 

Both have us have doubts about the claims on non-qualified agenda-holding posters. It speaks volumes. The value of any business is based on its future revenue streams, not its past expenditure. If you dont understand that then i'm not sure you should be commenting.

 

 

 

Unless the mighty Gemmil ever returns.

 

Though I hear he has been banned from the forum by the government as punishment for his part in bringing down the Rock

[madras]

Scott Parker's 60s Haircut is clearly the most experienced and qualified accountant on this forum.

 

Both have us have doubts about the claims on non-qualified agenda-holding posters. It speaks volumes. The value of any business is based on its future revenue streams, not its past expenditure. If you dont understand that then i'm not sure you should be commenting.

 

 

thats the value though,not the viability.

 

plenty of firms have gone under with future profit in the pipeline and full order books etc due to f***ed up cash flow.

[Colos Short and Curlies]

Scott Parker's 60s Haircut is clearly the most experienced and qualified accountant on this forum.

 

Both have us have doubts about the claims on non-qualified agenda-holding posters. It speaks volumes. The value of any business is based on its future revenue streams, not its past expenditure. If you dont understand that then i'm not sure you should be commenting.

 

 

thats the value though,not the viability.

 

plenty of firms have gone under with future profit in the pipeline and full order books etc due to f***ed up cash flow.

 

That is true, but the point I was trying to get across last night was that the club may have high liabilities at the end of June but they get a huge cash injection during July and August due to season ticket money coming in.

 

It's a bit like looking at your bank account the day before pay day (for a lot of people they will be touching an overdraft) and a day after (nice and healthy).

 

The one thing that most clubs (and I'd say all Premier League clubs) have are 'lumpy' cashflows, those who deal with this (banks etc) recognise this and therefore won't necessarly take the balance sheet into account.

 

I'll also repeat that if Fred had continued to operate the club as a going concern when we were about to go into administration then he would be on criminal charges right now

[macbeth]

Scott Parker's 60s Haircut is clearly the most experienced and qualified accountant on this forum.

 

Both have us have doubts about the claims on non-qualified agenda-holding posters. It speaks volumes. The value of any business is based on its future revenue streams, not its past expenditure. If you dont understand that then i'm not sure you should be commenting.

 

 

thats the value though,not the viability.

 

plenty of firms have gone under with future profit in the pipeline and full order books etc due to f***ed up cash flow.

 

That is true, but the point I was trying to get across last night was that the club may have high liabilities at the end of June but they get a huge cash injection during July and August due to season ticket money coming in.

 

It's a bit like looking at your bank account the day before pay day (for a lot of people they will be touching an overdraft) and a day after (nice and healthy).

 

The one thing that most clubs (and I'd say all Premier League clubs) have are 'lumpy' cashflows, those who deal with this (banks etc) recognise this and therefore won't necessarly take the balance sheet into account.

 

I'll also repeat that if Fred had continued to operate the club as a going concern when we were about to go into administration then he would be on criminal charges right now

 

The club has generally banked the season ticket money by the end of June, and has it set aside when the accounts are published each year. This was why 2007 was so desperate, there was no cash around and the season ticket money was alread included. The season ticket figure was £19m. They release the money as the games are played.

 

So there was no future revenue likely to help things along. The general total for crowd related revenue completely depends on home Cup matches, and that is so up to luck.