eddie Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 What's the difference between Pardew's actions and Clough's cowardly assault on Davies? One will stand up in court, the other won't - because Billy didn't have a leg to stand on. OK, one leg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boycie Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 Kevin's back.oh yeah? *taps nose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StaffsRam Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 What's the difference between Pardew's actions and Clough's cowardly assault on Davies? One being categorical fact, while the other was a complete work of fiction aimed at papering over the fact that he'd just lost..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddie Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 One being categorical fact, while the other was a complete work of fiction aimed at papering over the fact that he'd just lost..... Who was the solicitor involved in not bringing a case? Some relation of Billy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StaffsRam Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 Not the infamous Jimbo? Disclaimer: not to be confused with Andy Reid, Jumbo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eezzeetiger Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 Actually disappointed billy's banned for derby match, we cant hurl abuse at him I'm sure he will get a mention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leicester Ram Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 To be fair somethings don't change. Repton toffs, Hughes and Bamford in the Direby side Yeah, f*cking private school *********, hate the lot of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boycie Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 Yeah, f*cking private school *********, hate the lot of them.hmmmmm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddie Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 I'm sure he will get a mention. We wil be singing the names of two people: Billy Davies Hugh Riwankha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ambitious Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 http://www.nottinghampost.com/Nottingham-Forest-post-losses-17-1m/story-20764935-detail/story.html NOTTINGHAM Forest made losses of £17.1 during the last financial year – and had staff costs of £21m. Those staff costs dwarfed the club's turnover of £14.4m during 2012/13 – and suggested that they face a fight to adhere to Financial Fair Play rules this season. Forest's Kuwaiti owners, the Al Hasawi family, backed the club considerably, with £35.4m owed to them and the club's parent company in the form of interest free loans, which would only be repayable when the club was in a position to do so, according to the accounts. The club breached FFP limits by a large distance in 2012/13, when allowable losses were £10m. Crucially, there were no punishments in place for breaching the rules last season – but there are this season, when Championship clubs will be allowed to lose £8m. Therefore, if the club fails to reduce the deficit for the current season to £8m or less, they could be hit with a transfer embargo next January and fines. When asked about the situation recently, Al Hasawi said that the issue would be addressed in the form of sponsorship from several companies in Kuwait. The average league attendance at Forest grew last season, with the team performing better on the pitch following their fight against relegation in 2011/12. Last season it was 23,082, in contrast to the previous campaign when it was 21,969, during that successful struggle to avoid the drop into League One. This also meant there was an raise in income from gate receipts, growing 6% to £7.1m. This was offset, however, by a £700,000 reduction in the basic award from the Football League to £1.8m. Staff costs were up from £17.6m in 2011/12 to £21m – with wages accounting for £18.4m of that figure. According to the directors' report submitted along with the accounts to Companies House this morning, the finances had stabilised following the takeover by the Al-Hasawi family, who bought the club in the summer of 2012, following the sudden death of previous owner and chairman Nigel Doughty the previous February. Doughty funded Forest's losses personally through a loan account and, during more than a decade as owner, was thought to have put close to £100m into the club. At the time of the takeover, Doughty's estate was owed £85.3m. As part of the acquisition, the Al-Hasawis reduced the short-term debt by capitalising a "significant" element of those loans owed to Doughty's estate. Read more: http://www.nottinghampost.com/Nottingham-Forest-post-losses-17-1m/story-20764935-detail/story.html#ixzz2v5aXYffp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inverurie Ram Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 http://www.nottinghampost.com/Nottingham-Forest-post-losses-17-1m/story-20764935-detail/story.html NOTTINGHAM Forest made losses of £17.1 during the last financial year – and had staff costs of £21m. Those staff costs dwarfed the club's turnover of £14.4m during 2012/13 – Is dwarfed a nottingham post press term for Billy Davies? I'm singing and swinging my cup of soup....."Oh Billy must stay.....ello.....Billy must stay......Billy must stay ello" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ossieram Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 At the time of the takeover, Doughty's estate was owed £85.3m. As part of the acquisition, the Al-Hasawis reduced the short-term debt by capitalising a "significant" element of those loans owed to Doughty's estate. What does that mean exactly? Have they paid the debt to the Doughty estate or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boycie Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 I think it means the amount stops the same, no interest, and it's now a share of the company? Could be wrong, dragon den confuses me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddie Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 I think it means the amount stops the same, no interest, and it's now a share of the company? Could be wrong, dragon den confuses me Nowt to be ashamed about. Dirty Den confused me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramarena Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 Is dwarfed a nottingham post press term for Billy Davies? I'm singing and swinging my cup of soup....."Oh Billy must stay.....ello.....Billy must stay......Billy must stay ello" Tell me about it. As odious as that little twerp is both he and Fridge are leading Forest to huge problems. Time to get the popcorn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Kevin Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 What does that mean exactly? Have they paid the debt to the Doughty estate or not? Converted some of the debt to equity ,which means the Doughty family still owns part of the club. Leicester also converted their debt to equity it will be interesting to see how this is veiwed regarding the new rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ossieram Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 Converted some of the debt to equity ,which means the Doughty family still owns part of the club. Leicester also converted their debt to equity it will be interesting to see how this is veiwed regarding the new rules. How much is that poxy club worth? Looking at other reports, They have converted about £65m into equity and paid off £20m. So if the Doughty estate own £65m worth of the clubs equity, How much do fridgey and co own? And after 10 years the club owned the Doughty estate £85m yet they already owe the the current owners £35m! It doesn't look good does it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McRamFan Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 Capitalisation of debt is basically convincing the people you owe money to to take shares in the company instead of paying them what they are owed. The creditor would then expect a return in a percentage of the profits, if no profit the shareholder would be able to cash in/sell their shares. The shares are usually worth 1-3% more than the original debt as it is more attractive and stops companies going bankrupt, the issue becomes hairy when you post huge losses as they are now have the share holders wanting a return and new debtors wanting paying Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Kevin Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 How much is that poxy club worth? Looking at other reports, They have converted about £65m into equity and paid off £20m. So if the Doughty estate own £65m worth of the clubs equity, How much do fridgey and co own? And after 10 years the club owned the Doughty estate £85m yet they already owe the the current owners £35m! It doesn't look good does it I think it's called creative accountancy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knowle Rohrer Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 It's alright, Jim Price has told us on Twitter that FFP rules are illegal and cannot be enforced! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.