MrsRam Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 You just seem a bit negative, is all... going to bed now....tis late. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamNut Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 You just seem a bit negative, is all... going to bed now....tis late.i think you're being a bit hyper sensitive here.it doesn't come across as negative in any way.Just a potentially interesting snippet of info. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Day Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 that's the joke our illustrious leader did. He's getting funnierI have nothing to do with this, point your finger towards Belper Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrsRam Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 Maybe I am being hypersensitive maybe Ronnie is right and we might have to take a few signs down. We'll see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boycie Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 If it's true there's 2 outcomes.1. The current sponsors go under. I assume the clubs been paid up to date, and all the branding around the stadium was at the old sponsors cost.2. We get new sponsors, do you think we'd struggle? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
needles Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 If it's true there's 2 outcomes.1. The current sponsors go under. I assume the clubs been paid up to date, and all the branding around the stadium was at the old sponsors cost.2. We get new sponsors, do you think we'd struggle?We could learn from the doggies - Candy Crush Arena. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 If it's true there's 2 outcomes.1. The current sponsors go under. I assume the clubs been paid up to date, and all the branding around the stadium was at the old sponsors cost.2. We get new sponsors, do you think we'd struggle?or outcome no 3, we all blame Sam your so cynical Boycie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boycie Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 Me? has Nigel got a new job yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trevor1946 Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 Welcome back Ronnie ,i like you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sage Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 that's the joke our illustrious leader did. He's getting funnierThere is still a lot of scope Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rammieib Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 Welcome back Ronnie ,i like you how did I come into this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronnieronalde Posted October 6, 2015 Author Share Posted October 6, 2015 Following on from i-pro management and the paying 14.08 pence in the pound CVA arrangement.Looks like i-pro sports corporation have recently appointed a security trustee. Again maybe it's for smarter accountant types than me to say whether I'm reading too much into this.From the reaction to this thread I can see no-one really cares that the much heralded 7m 10 year sponsorship deal looks to have been based on very little but the back on fag paper figures from a company that had zero turnover. Disappointing but I guess it's understandable that fans turn the other cheek when it involves their own club. Please try not to have a go at me for raising the issue. I'm just very keen to get some understanding.I'm sure Owen Bradley and Steve Nicholson (maybe as well as even Mel Morriss) read this forum. Is there anyway someone can ask the question or answer the question for me? Have i got it totally wrong or is the I-pro group in trouble and if so, will it impact the sponsorship deal/stadium naming rights? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mafiabob Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 Following on from i-pro management and the paying 14.08 pence in the pound CVA arrangement.Looks like i-pro sports corporation have recently appointed a security trustee. Again maybe it's for smarter accountant types than me to say whether I'm reading too much into this.From the reaction to this thread I can see no-one really cares that the much heralded 7m 10 year sponsorship deal looks to have been based on very little but the back on fag paper figures from a company that had zero turnover. Disappointing but I guess it's understandable that fans turn the other cheek when it involves their own club. Please try not to have a go at me for raising the issue. I'm just very keen to get some understanding.I'm sure Owen Bradley and Steve Nicholson (maybe as well as even Mel Morriss) read this forum. Is there anyway someone can ask the question or answer the question for me? Have i got it totally wrong or is the I-pro group in trouble and if so, will it impact the sponsorship deal/stadium naming rights? there's a fan forum end of October at the IPRO... A thread on here about it. Perfect place for your question.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Sagan Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 I suppose the apparent apathy over the financials is that, whatever the situation, it's not us who are behaving badly. It's more worthy of note when that lot up the round are forever in court over winding up petitions because they're not being fair to local businesses and are terrible late payers.The 700k a year is roughly 3% of turnover, so obviously that's significant if it stops being paid. And having renamed from Pride Park to the iPro I do think it would be a much tougher task to resell the naming rights to a new party. I did always want the Rolls Royce Stadium, but that's probably gone now...Definitely ask the question at the fans forum if you're interested, Ronnie. You don't have to be there in person - it can be done online.My feeling is that the club is extremely well run so I expect we're prepared for whatever the outcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Animal is a Ram Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 On their football partners page are:PL - Norwich (with Bradley Johnson on the pic)Champ - Derby (with Jamie Ward on the pic), Birmingham, Bolton, Brighton, Cardiff, Fulham, Huddersfield, Ipswich, Reading, Rotherham, Sheffield WednesdayL1 - Millwall, Chesterfield, DoncasterL2 - Notts County.A lot of clubs there where you'd expect them to have done their homework before entering into any deals. However, spotted on a very brief google search - of the 'free' company reports - a couple of directors of Sport Management Ltd resigned, but became directors of Sport Corporation Ltd. Also, Cliff Bogle, who we saw with Mr Rush with when the deal was first announced back end of 2013 - resigned as director of Sport Management, but no reference of him on Sport Corporation. The only remaining director of Sport Management 'appears' to be the wife of one of the former directors of both Sport Management and Sport Corporation.With what little knowledge I have of business process - I'd guess that the beverages side is 'doing well' and the rest of it isn't, and that they have sought to spin it off as a separate business (iPro Sport Corporation Ltd.) Whether or not it renders it safer from any fallout of iPro Sport Management disappearing, is beyond me.On the other hand, I could be completely wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robster1 Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 If it's true there's 2 outcomes.1. The current sponsors go under. I assume the clubs been paid up to date, and all the branding around the stadium was at the old sponsors cost.2. We get new sponsors, do you think we'd struggle?Spot on, and to be honest I would have thought that £700k a year is nowhere near going rate for a premiership club (surely we will get there at some point during the 10 year sponsorship deal!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i-Ram Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 Personally I think it's all Clement's fault. Not good at crossing the t's and dotting the i's that man. I wouldn't let him get anywhere near completing a team sheet let alone computing a balance sheet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronnieronalde Posted October 6, 2015 Author Share Posted October 6, 2015 Personally I think it's all Clement's fault. Not good at crossing the t's and dotting the i's that man. I wouldn't let him get anywhere near completing a team sheet let alone computing a balance sheet.Any need for that really?Anyone who thinks it's Clements fault is clearly a buffoon.Anyone who tries to tie this to any other posts/views is clearly a trouble causer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddie Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 Any need for that really? Anyone who thinks it's Clements fault is clearly a buffoon. Anyone who tries to tie this to any other posts/views is clearly a trouble causer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronnieronalde Posted October 6, 2015 Author Share Posted October 6, 2015 I got the point he was making. Just didn't think it was necessary at all. A bit like someone trying to provoke a reaction with the pissing on chips comment. No need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.