|
Post by warehamgas on Sept 6, 2019 10:19:13 GMT
Not really dangerous is it? Tell me it’s not true and it’s not up to them by all means. They control the spending and the setting of budgets don’t they? UTG! Not saying it’s a lie mate, but it’s not 100% true. I’m more just saying it’s a dangerous sentence to say the owners can do what they want, never mind that someone would support it just because they potentially have that right Understand your feelings Gassy. My point was that I think this whole business of the “London office” is a bit of a red herring and impacts not a lot. Owners can do what they want, I don’t and wouldn’t support anything and everything they do but just feel that this office thing is something of nothing. Others disagree I know and when the AQs have gone I’m sure the London office will become part of the legend. Perhaps in the current climate (Bury, Bolton) I should have used another word!🤔 UTG!
|
|
|
Post by burnthewitch on Sept 6, 2019 13:23:04 GMT
Not saying it’s a lie mate, but it’s not 100% true. I’m more just saying it’s a dangerous sentence to say the owners can do what they want, never mind that someone would support it just because they potentially have that right Understand your feelings Gassy. My point was that I think this whole business of the “London office” is a bit of a red herring and impacts not a lot. Owners can do what they want, I don’t and wouldn’t support anything and everything they do but just feel that this office thing is something of nothing. Others disagree I know and when the AQs have gone I’m sure the London office will become part of the legend. Perhaps in the current climate (Bury, Bolton) I should have used another word!🤔 UTG! Sorry wareham... but No! The outrageous London office is symptomatic of financial extravagance that we cannot afford. "If" our losses were "only" £500k a year - would you still think a spend of £250k on a pad in London was "something of nothing"? Of course not. We should question the owners ability to prioritise spending and if they are actually capable of running a business competently. If supporters were asked whether they would like a decent creative midfielder on £250k a year, or a swanky London office... would ANYONE think the office is the better option? Seriously, the spend on the London office stinks. Indefensible. It will be the first thing to go when/if we get new owners.
|
|
|
Post by Jomo on Sept 6, 2019 13:36:50 GMT
Understand your feelings Gassy. My point was that I think this whole business of the “London office” is a bit of a red herring and impacts not a lot. Owners can do what they want, I don’t and wouldn’t support anything and everything they do but just feel that this office thing is something of nothing. Others disagree I know and when the AQs have gone I’m sure the London office will become part of the legend. Perhaps in the current climate (Bury, Bolton) I should have used another word!🤔 UTG! Sorry wareham... but No! The outrageous London office is symptomatic of financial extravagance that we cannot afford. "If" our losses were "only" £500k a year - would you still think a spend of £250k on a pad in London was "something of nothing"? Of course not. We should question the owners ability to prioritise spending and if they are actually capable of running a business competently. If supporters were asked whether they would like a decent creative midfielder on £250k a year, or a swanky London office... would ANYONE think the office is the better option? Seriously, the spend on the London office stinks. Indefensible. It will be the first thing to go when/if we get new owners. I'm not saying you're wrong but how can you or I say something is indefensible when you have no idea what's going on there? Or am I being dim? Perhaps it's used for some purposes beyond just having a desk waiting for someone in London? Maybe that is what it's for in which case I'd agree that it should be gotten rid of but we just don't know, so you can't go slamming it. Ask TG what it's for?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2019 13:40:17 GMT
Understand your feelings Gassy. My point was that I think this whole business of the “London office” is a bit of a red herring and impacts not a lot. Owners can do what they want, I don’t and wouldn’t support anything and everything they do but just feel that this office thing is something of nothing. Others disagree I know and when the AQs have gone I’m sure the London office will become part of the legend. Perhaps in the current climate (Bury, Bolton) I should have used another word!🤔 UTG! Sorry wareham... but No! The outrageous London office is symptomatic of financial extravagance that we cannot afford. "If" our losses were "only" £500k a year - would you still think a spend of £250k on a pad in London was "something of nothing"? Of course not. We should question the owners ability to prioritise spending and if they are actually capable of running a business competently. If supporters were asked whether they would like a decent creative midfielder on £250k a year, or a swanky London office... would ANYONE think the office is the better option? Seriously, the spend on the London office stinks. Indefensible. It will be the first thing to go when/if we get new owners. £15k interest per year at 6% for the A-Q’s.Top work.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2019 13:48:22 GMT
Understand your feelings Gassy. My point was that I think this whole business of the “London office” is a bit of a red herring and impacts not a lot. Owners can do what they want, I don’t and wouldn’t support anything and everything they do but just feel that this office thing is something of nothing. Others disagree I know and when the AQs have gone I’m sure the London office will become part of the legend. Perhaps in the current climate (Bury, Bolton) I should have used another word!🤔 UTG! Sorry wareham... but No! The outrageous London office is symptomatic of financial extravagance that we cannot afford. "If" our losses were "only" £500k a year - would you still think a spend of £250k on a pad in London was "something of nothing"? Of course not. We should question the owners ability to prioritise spending and if they are actually capable of running a business competently. If supporters were asked whether they would like a decent creative midfielder on £250k a year, or a swanky London office... would ANYONE think the office is the better option? Seriously, the spend on the London office stinks. Indefensible. It will be the first thing to go when/if we get new owners. Has £250k pa for this London office ever been confirmed/evidenced as being correct? Also, is it simply a case of getting rid of it and the money saved automatically goes on the playing budget? Seems a bit like when someone hears Alexis Sanchez is on £500k per week and says x number of nurses could be funded with that money - they need reminding that Man U wouldn’t give that money to the NHS if Sanchez hadn’t signed !!!
|
|
|
Post by axegas on Sept 6, 2019 13:55:02 GMT
Understand your feelings Gassy. My point was that I think this whole business of the “London office” is a bit of a red herring and impacts not a lot. Owners can do what they want, I don’t and wouldn’t support anything and everything they do but just feel that this office thing is something of nothing. Others disagree I know and when the AQs have gone I’m sure the London office will become part of the legend. Perhaps in the current climate (Bury, Bolton) I should have used another word!🤔 UTG! Sorry wareham... but No! The outrageous London office is symptomatic of financial extravagance that we cannot afford. "If" our losses were "only" £500k a year - would you still think a spend of £250k on a pad in London was "something of nothing"? Of course not. We should question the owners ability to prioritise spending and if they are actually capable of running a business competently. If supporters were asked whether they would like a decent creative midfielder on £250k a year, or a swanky London office... would ANYONE think the office is the better option? Seriously, the spend on the London office stinks. Indefensible. It will be the first thing to go when/if we get new owners. Is this £250k figure another Gaschat myth? In the latest accounts, the yearly expenses from “Operating lease rentals Land and Buildings” is £57k a year and that will include the training ground and providing housing for loan players. Are we paying the cost for this London office or are Dwayne Sport? There is a big difference between the two, the Al Qadi’s are entitled to do whatever they like with their own money.
|
|
|
Post by blueridge on Sept 6, 2019 14:16:08 GMT
Sorry wareham... but No! The outrageous London office is symptomatic of financial extravagance that we cannot afford. "If" our losses were "only" £500k a year - would you still think a spend of £250k on a pad in London was "something of nothing"? Of course not. We should question the owners ability to prioritise spending and if they are actually capable of running a business competently. If supporters were asked whether they would like a decent creative midfielder on £250k a year, or a swanky London office... would ANYONE think the office is the better option? Seriously, the spend on the London office stinks. Indefensible. It will be the first thing to go when/if we get new owners. I'm not saying you're wrong but how can you or I say something is indefensible when you have no idea what's going on there? Or am I being dim? Perhaps it's used for some purposes beyond just having a desk waiting for someone in London? Maybe that is what it's for in which case I'd agree that it should be gotten rid of but we just don't know, so you can't go slamming it. Ask TG what it's for? Perhaps it's nothing to do with Dwane Sports (BRFC) - more the registered office of Dwane Developments - Hani's separate Company. Has anyone actually seen the cost of this office identified in our accounts? I believe having this office is important and significant.
|
|
|
Post by burnthewitch on Sept 6, 2019 16:18:52 GMT
Sorry wareham... but No! The outrageous London office is symptomatic of financial extravagance that we cannot afford. "If" our losses were "only" £500k a year - would you still think a spend of £250k on a pad in London was "something of nothing"? Of course not. We should question the owners ability to prioritise spending and if they are actually capable of running a business competently. If supporters were asked whether they would like a decent creative midfielder on £250k a year, or a swanky London office... would ANYONE think the office is the better option? Seriously, the spend on the London office stinks. Indefensible. It will be the first thing to go when/if we get new owners. I'm not saying you're wrong but how can you or I say something is indefensible when you have no idea what's going on there? Or am I being dim? Perhaps it's used for some purposes beyond just having a desk waiting for someone in London? Maybe that is what it's for in which case I'd agree that it should be gotten rid of but we just don't know, so you can't go slamming it. Ask TG what it's for? Yup - been down that path with TG (who I have found to be responsive, polite and helpful). It's a "private working environment" and "visitors cannot be accommodated". If it was a valuable resource, then surely it's value would have been communicated at some stage? Communication. LOL.
|
|
|
Post by burnthewitch on Sept 6, 2019 16:28:36 GMT
Sorry wareham... but No! The outrageous London office is symptomatic of financial extravagance that we cannot afford. "If" our losses were "only" £500k a year - would you still think a spend of £250k on a pad in London was "something of nothing"? Of course not. We should question the owners ability to prioritise spending and if they are actually capable of running a business competently. If supporters were asked whether they would like a decent creative midfielder on £250k a year, or a swanky London office... would ANYONE think the office is the better option? Seriously, the spend on the London office stinks. Indefensible. It will be the first thing to go when/if we get new owners. Is this £250k figure another Gaschat myth? In the latest accounts, the yearly expenses from “Operating lease rentals Land and Buildings” is £57k a year and that will include the training ground and providing housing for loan players. Are we paying the cost for this London office or are Dwayne Sport? There is a big difference between the two, the Al Qadi’s are entitled to do whatever they like with their own money. I am 99% sure £250k pa is not a myth and was discussed in depth when the news broke. (Apologies - I can't find a specific link). Yes - Dwane Sports can do whatever they like with their own money, not a problem. But this is the point. Is the equity Dwane Sports inherited from the Memorial Stadium effectively "their" money? If Dwane Sports write out cheques for vanity projects / unnecessary offices - then I'm not going to complain. If it's the equity from the Mem being spaffed up the wall, that makes me cross.
|
|
|
Post by burnthewitch on Sept 6, 2019 16:29:56 GMT
I'm not saying you're wrong but how can you or I say something is indefensible when you have no idea what's going on there? Or am I being dim? Perhaps it's used for some purposes beyond just having a desk waiting for someone in London? Maybe that is what it's for in which case I'd agree that it should be gotten rid of but we just don't know, so you can't go slamming it. Ask TG what it's for? Perhaps it's nothing to do with Dwane Sports (BRFC) - more the registered office of Dwane Developments - Hani's separate Company. Has anyone actually seen the cost of this office identified in our accounts? I believe having this office is important and significant. Just looking at your avatar and the last sentence makes me laugh. Thanks for that.
|
|
|
Post by Westy on Sept 6, 2019 16:32:34 GMT
I'm not saying you're wrong but how can you or I say something is indefensible when you have no idea what's going on there? Or am I being dim? Perhaps it's used for some purposes beyond just having a desk waiting for someone in London? Maybe that is what it's for in which case I'd agree that it should be gotten rid of but we just don't know, so you can't go slamming it. Ask TG what it's for? Perhaps it's nothing to do with Dwane Sports (BRFC) - more the registered office of Dwane Developments - Hani's separate Company. Has anyone actually seen the cost of this office identified in our accounts? I believe having this office is important and significant. I've wondered this too. Perhaps fiscally if the AQ's are commuting from the middle East, it's easier and more viable for them to have a centre of operations based in the capital, for any other business they have going on, not just pertaining to us. And as said, if funded by themselves, for their own business reasons, it wouldn't have any bearing on our own finances. We're not say here wondering how much they pay for their electric bill in their presumed mansions in Jordan, and if any of that could be recouped to our own budget.
|
|
|
Post by aghast on Sept 6, 2019 17:12:09 GMT
I am 99% sure £250k pa is not a myth and was discussed in depth when the news broke. (Apologies - I can't find a specific link). Yes - Dwane Sports can do whatever they like with their own money, not a problem. But this is the point. Is the equity Dwane Sports inherited from the Memorial Stadium effectively "their" money? If Dwane Sports write out cheques for vanity projects / unnecessary offices - then I'm not going to complain. If it's the equity from the Mem being spaffed up the wall, that makes me cross. The figure was apparently confirmed by SH at a previous AGM but it included 3(?)members of staff, one of which was Will Dubey who's never been heard of for a couple of years. The Mem is like the Bermuda Triangle for consultants and senior staff. They breeze in with the wind in their sails, and then disappear without trace, never to be heard from or seen again.
|
|
|
Post by blueridge on Sept 6, 2019 18:17:23 GMT
Perhaps it's nothing to do with Dwane Sports (BRFC) - more the registered office of Dwane Developments - Hani's separate Company. Has anyone actually seen the cost of this office identified in our accounts? I believe having this office is important and significant. I've wondered this too. Perhaps fiscally if the AQ's are commuting from the middle East, it's easier and more viable for them to have a centre of operations based in the capital, for any other business they have going on, not just pertaining to us. And as said, if funded by themselves, for their own business reasons, it wouldn't have any bearing on our own finances. We're not say here wondering how much they pay for their electric bill in their presumed mansions in Jordan, and if any of that could be recouped to our own budget. There is a link, although tenuous through this office to a huge Property Devevlopmrnt/Construction company!!l The wrong thread for this.
|
|
|
Post by warehamgas on Sept 6, 2019 22:01:56 GMT
Understand your feelings Gassy. My point was that I think this whole business of the “London office” is a bit of a red herring and impacts not a lot. Owners can do what they want, I don’t and wouldn’t support anything and everything they do but just feel that this office thing is something of nothing. Others disagree I know and when the AQs have gone I’m sure the London office will become part of the legend. Perhaps in the current climate (Bury, Bolton) I should have used another word!🤔 UTG! Sorry wareham... but No! The outrageous London office is symptomatic of financial extravagance that we cannot afford. "If" our losses were "only" £500k a year - would you still think a spend of £250k on a pad in London was "something of nothing"? Of course not. We should question the owners ability to prioritise spending and if they are actually capable of running a business competently. If supporters were asked whether they would like a decent creative midfielder on £250k a year, or a swanky London office... would ANYONE think the office is the better option? Seriously, the spend on the London office stinks. Indefensible. It will be the first thing to go when/if we get new owners. Wow! It’s like walking into a Harry Enfield comedy show!😉 Been out all day and just seen this. You obviously know what the purpose of this office is and what happens there and have decided that it is indefensible. I don’t know so feel unable to say one way or the other. Either way I doubt if the cost of it seriously affects our playing budget but I can see why it’s being questioned bearing in mind our losses. We all question the owners ability to run a business competently, as the large number of threads on here testify to. And perhaps supporters would like a decent creative midfielder instead. But GC who is in charge of recruitment has recruited 8 (?) new players and so far hasn’t done that so perhaps he thinks he’s got what he needs or feels current players meet that role. (I don’t,I think we need that player but that is my opinion, it’s not fact!) I’m not sure not having the London office would have provided that and I doubt if anyone else can say it would with any certainty. And you may well be right about new owners wanting to get rid of it early on. But it may not belong to BRFC but Dwayne Sports so it may go with the AQs. I don’t know, you seem to know a lot more about it than me. My point remains this office is a red herring and as I said in my original post probably costs less than Payne did overall and might be just as useful. UTG!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2019 22:21:42 GMT
Sorry wareham... but No! The outrageous London office is symptomatic of financial extravagance that we cannot afford. "If" our losses were "only" £500k a year - would you still think a spend of £250k on a pad in London was "something of nothing"? Of course not. We should question the owners ability to prioritise spending and if they are actually capable of running a business competently. If supporters were asked whether they would like a decent creative midfielder on £250k a year, or a swanky London office... would ANYONE think the office is the better option? Seriously, the spend on the London office stinks. Indefensible. It will be the first thing to go when/if we get new owners. Is this £250k figure another Gaschat myth? In the latest accounts, the yearly expenses from “Operating lease rentals Land and Buildings” is £57k a year and that will include the training ground and providing housing for loan players. Are we paying the cost for this London office or are Dwayne Sport? There is a big difference between the two, the Al Qadi’s are entitled to do whatever they like with their own money. From memory that was the figure that came from the accounts (although if swissgas is still about he could probably confirm/deny), I recall the board being asked about it at the AGM and the response was that all the Premiership clubs have a London premises so that's why we do (I mean, obviously, right?) and we had two members of administration staff based there (Will Dubey, the analyst and someone else) but to be fair, that was a couple of years ago now and someone did intimate recently words to the effect of "how do you know we are still paying for the London office"? So if there is no 250k hole being burned in the accounts then maybe it's been quietly given a free transfer, so to speak?
|
|
|
Post by burnthewitch on Sept 7, 2019 10:01:13 GMT
Sorry wareham... but No! The outrageous London office is symptomatic of financial extravagance that we cannot afford. "If" our losses were "only" £500k a year - would you still think a spend of £250k on a pad in London was "something of nothing"? Of course not. We should question the owners ability to prioritise spending and if they are actually capable of running a business competently. If supporters were asked whether they would like a decent creative midfielder on £250k a year, or a swanky London office... would ANYONE think the office is the better option? Seriously, the spend on the London office stinks. Indefensible. It will be the first thing to go when/if we get new owners. Wow! It’s like walking into a Harry Enfield comedy show!😉 Been out all day and just seen this. You obviously know what the purpose of this office is and what happens there and have decided that it is indefensible. I don’t know so feel unable to say one way or the other. Either way I doubt if the cost of it seriously affects our playing budget but I can see why it’s being questioned bearing in mind our losses. We all question the owners ability to run a business competently, as the large number of threads on here testify to. And perhaps supporters would like a decent creative midfielder instead. But GC who is in charge of recruitment has recruited 8 (?) new players and so far hasn’t done that so perhaps he thinks he’s got what he needs or feels current players meet that role. (I don’t,I think we need that player but that is my opinion, it’s not fact!) I’m not sure not having the London office would have provided that and I doubt if anyone else can say it would with any certainty. And you may well be right about new owners wanting to get rid of it early on. But it may not belong to BRFC but Dwayne Sports so it may go with the AQs. I don’t know, you seem to know a lot more about it than me. My point remains this office is a red herring and as I said in my original post probably costs less than Payne did overall and might be just as useful. UTG! I'll take the reference to Harry Enfield as a compliment (though prefer Paul Whitehouse myself)! I think we can agree to disagree. I think it is symptomatic of the bizarre way our Club is being run / being run into the ground. You think it's not worth stressing about. No problems. UTG indeed.
|
|
|
Post by warehamgas on Sept 7, 2019 10:22:44 GMT
Wow! It’s like walking into a Harry Enfield comedy show!😉 Been out all day and just seen this. You obviously know what the purpose of this office is and what happens there and have decided that it is indefensible. I don’t know so feel unable to say one way or the other. Either way I doubt if the cost of it seriously affects our playing budget but I can see why it’s being questioned bearing in mind our losses. We all question the owners ability to run a business competently, as the large number of threads on here testify to. And perhaps supporters would like a decent creative midfielder instead. But GC who is in charge of recruitment has recruited 8 (?) new players and so far hasn’t done that so perhaps he thinks he’s got what he needs or feels current players meet that role. (I don’t,I think we need that player but that is my opinion, it’s not fact!) I’m not sure not having the London office would have provided that and I doubt if anyone else can say it would with any certainty. And you may well be right about new owners wanting to get rid of it early on. But it may not belong to BRFC but Dwayne Sports so it may go with the AQs. I don’t know, you seem to know a lot more about it than me. My point remains this office is a red herring and as I said in my original post probably costs less than Payne did overall and might be just as useful. UTG! I'll take the reference to Harry Enfield as a compliment (though prefer Paul Whitehouse myself)! I think we can agree to disagree. I think it is symptomatic of the bizarre way our Club is being run / being run into the ground. You think it's not worth stressing about. No problems. UTG indeed. I can agree that it is an unusual thing to do perhaps, to have a London office, and I can understand fans seeing it as symptomatic of how the club has gone over the past two years. But we’ve not had foreign owners before and they are very different from what we’ve had so perhaps it’s a sign of the differences and changes and perhaps it doubles up for some other aspect of their business, and I dont even know if we still have it but you may be right and I may be wrong but I don’t see it as important as you do but time will tell. We will have to agree to disagree on this but I suspect we don’t disagree on many things from seeing your posts. And it would be good to have 3 points today. Just leaving Dorset now, let’s hope it’s a good match. All the best. UTG!
|
|