Karl
Jade Galbraith
Posts: 98 
|
Post by Karl on Jan 24, 2019 18:28:20 GMT
Black talks of Rich reaching a target of 90 points as it's their top priority... well why was Neilson in a job for so many years ? Are we moving the goalposts from year to year ? That’s just what I thought Pidge. We’ve gone from multi multi chance Neilson to one chance Cherno. Black was happy for years with 4th or 5th and yet this year 3rd gets the sack because he wasn’t winning his target of the league title. That tells you that presumably the league title wasn’t the target when Corey was here eh ? Or an a rational note it tells you it was always the target but the coach we had, had earned himself some loyalty and a few extra chances cause of the amount of trophies he brought the club.. |
|
iginla
Chick Zamick
Posts: 13,422
|
Post by iginla on Jan 24, 2019 18:45:22 GMT
That’s just what I thought Pidge. We’ve gone from multi multi chance Neilson to one chance Cherno. Black was happy for years with 4th or 5th and yet this year 3rd gets the sack because he wasn’t winning his target of the league title. That tells you that presumably the league title wasn’t the target when Corey was here eh ? Or an a rational note it tells you it was always the target but the coach we had, had earned himself some loyalty and a few extra chances cause of the amount of trophies he brought the club.. If you worked in a bakery.... 🤣 And your boss asked you to make cakes but you kept making bread,how long do you think he’d give you before he got fed up of bread.....ten years ? |
|
DMS
Robert Lachowicz
Posts: 573
|
Post by DMS on Jan 24, 2019 19:08:55 GMT
The Continental Cup was hardly easy, three away legs in order to win the trophy? Belfast have just had two rounds, both at home, and failed to win so I don't see how anyone can say that it was easy. I feel the terrible performance domestically that season (sound familiar?) may have taken away from from the achievement of winning the Continental Cup but it should be remembered as a fantastic triumph that has yet to be emulated by anyone else in the EIHL. Ask Mikka and a couple of our coaches from that year what they thought. Mikka was even quoted in print as saying it was no big deal if you care to find the article. “Ask Mikka”- one of the Mardiest players to ever grace the EIHL. The only thing he ever thought was a big deal was if ‘Joan’ the goal judge in fife didn’t count his saves properly |
|
|
|
Post by kievthegreat on Jan 24, 2019 19:59:24 GMT
There is also the part about using the money you've earned from the first cake to shop to fund the opening of a second cake shop. The Clan last i heard are no longer in need of said funding. The London project however.....well i bet that's taking a penny or two away In the Aladdin Management Ltd Accounts (Panthers) from June 2012, £134,443 was owed to them by Clan Entertainment Limited. In addition a further £250,000 is owed to Panthers by Sportscape Group (which owns the majority of shares in Aladdin Management and Clan Entertainment Limited) A look at their accounts for the same period shows that they were in turn owed £280,000 by Clan Entertainment Limited. I.e they were given £250,000 by Panthers to give to Clan. So in effect the Panthers are owed directly and indirectly £384,443 by Clan. That exact amount, £384,443 is still owed to Aladdin Management as of the last accounts, published March 2018. If you check both the Sportscape and Clan Accounts all the long term debtors and creditors all add up to this as well. Now it doesn't look like Panthers have been subsiding clan year on year, but the Panthers side of the operation seems to have stumped up a lot of cash in the start-up. At what point are Clan no longer in need of funding? It doesn't look like Panthers have been giving them money in the last 6-7 years, but similarly Panthers gave them a lot of money to start and have not been repaid, so are they not in effect subsidised by oweing close to £400,000 to the rest of the "Group"? Or is it a case we're getting to possessive of other people's money? It's money from one part of the business being pushed into another. Is it just on paper owed to one part, or is there some greater attachment to that party's customers? Ps. I'm not a proffessional accountant so if anyone thinks I've missed or misinterpreted please do point out. PPS all numbers I've provided here are from companies house and are available for everyone and anyone to check. |
|
|
|
Post by spik on Jan 24, 2019 22:07:36 GMT
The Clan last i heard are no longer in need of said funding. The London project however.....well i bet that's taking a penny or two away In the Aladdin Management Ltd Accounts (Panthers) from June 2012, £134,443 was owed to them by Clan Entertainment Limited. In addition a further £250,000 is owed to Panthers by Sportscape Group (which owns the majority of shares in Aladdin Management and Clan Entertainment Limited) A look at their accounts for the same period shows that they were in turn owed £280,000 by Clan Entertainment Limited. I.e they were given £250,000 by Panthers to give to Clan. So in effect the Panthers are owed directly and indirectly £384,443 by Clan. That exact amount, £384,443 is still owed to Aladdin Management as of the last accounts, published March 2018. If you check both the Sportscape and Clan Accounts all the long term debtors and creditors all add up to this as well. Now it doesn't look like Panthers have been subsiding clan year on year, but the Panthers side of the operation seems to have stumped up a lot of cash in the start-up. At what point are Clan no longer in need of funding? It doesn't look like Panthers have been giving them money in the last 6-7 years, but similarly Panthers gave them a lot of money to start and have not been repaid, so are they not in effect subsidised by oweing close to £400,000 to the rest of the "Group"? Or is it a case we're getting to possessive of other people's money? It's money from one part of the business being pushed into another. Is it just on paper owed to one part, or is there some greater attachment to that party's customers? Ps. I'm not a proffessional accountant so if anyone thinks I've missed or misinterpreted please do point out. PPS all numbers I've provided here are from companies house and are available for everyone and anyone to check. Don't try to ask Mr.Black anything at the 'next' Q and A evening. You may find yourself out in the cold, ask Rob. |
|
|
|
Post by bobness on Jan 28, 2019 17:46:41 GMT
The Clan last i heard are no longer in need of said funding. The London project however.....well i bet that's taking a penny or two away In the Aladdin Management Ltd Accounts (Panthers) from June 2012, £134,443 was owed to them by Clan Entertainment Limited. In addition a further £250,000 is owed to Panthers by Sportscape Group (which owns the majority of shares in Aladdin Management and Clan Entertainment Limited) A look at their accounts for the same period shows that they were in turn owed £280,000 by Clan Entertainment Limited. I.e they were given £250,000 by Panthers to give to Clan. So in effect the Panthers are owed directly and indirectly £384,443 by Clan. That exact amount, £384,443 is still owed to Aladdin Management as of the last accounts, published March 2018. If you check both the Sportscape and Clan Accounts all the long term debtors and creditors all add up to this as well. Now it doesn't look like Panthers have been subsiding clan year on year, but the Panthers side of the operation seems to have stumped up a lot of cash in the start-up. At what point are Clan no longer in need of funding? It doesn't look like Panthers have been giving them money in the last 6-7 years, but similarly Panthers gave them a lot of money to start and have not been repaid, so are they not in effect subsidised by oweing close to £400,000 to the rest of the "Group"? Or is it a case we're getting to possessive of other people's money? It's money from one part of the business being pushed into another. Is it just on paper owed to one part, or is there some greater attachment to that party's customers? Ps. I'm not a proffessional accountant so if anyone thinks I've missed or misinterpreted please do point out. PPS all numbers I've provided here are from companies house and are available for everyone and anyone to check. Crivens, that's good work. I guess if all the businesses are going concerns and commonly owned, inter company debt isn't an issue, just wooden dollars. |
|
