Nick- I’m not going to get into a long drawn out row with you like you carried out last week with another poster but I find your approach unacceptable for an administrator.
I’ve always thought you carried out an excellent job here but lately your approach disappoints me.
Could you PM me please on how I de register from this site.
Keep up the good work as I believe your hearts in the right place.
Cheers.
Don't need to deregister. You can just stop posting if you want.
Change your name to one of the following:
Dongonzalos
Rasputin
Simon Lawrence
Just happens naturally
You just stop posting if you don't want to.
My approach to point out you strangely posted about wasps during a ccfc game? Am I wrong then?
Feel free to have a flounce though. No need to send you a pm.
So I wasn't wrong that while everybody else was discussing the Southend match you made a thread about wasps and didn't bother with our match?
Not really sure what's disappointing in pointing that out.
Try not being so obvious.
So the question might be is this forum fully GPDR compliant. The rules of the game changed & its a morass.
If the site earns money even indirectly through adverts then it may have a duty to be compliant.
Well I don't know, its up to the site owner to be sure.
A member is at liberty to raise a GDPR request and complain to the information commissioner if unhappy at the response.
There is a difference between having a flounce in public or actually really wanting something to happen.
Is this a shit version of the Avengers trying to assemble? People who have no idea about CCFC on a CCFC forum.
Quite an interesting read:
Next filing is in February 2019, at which point I fully expect at least £11.
What I don't get here is why anyone would post up a message asking for someone to PM them.
Surely you just PM the person yourself and ask your query there.
We're back into the territory of people making big announcements they are quitting the forum, rather than have them just quit the forum.
Surely you just PM the person yourself and ask your query there.
We're back into the territory of people making big announcements they are quitting the forum, rather than have them just quit the forum.
It's exactly that. A big song and dance, bang on about freedom of speech and censorship is what usually happens.
I still have that restraining order out on you and yeah, you're right, I can still keep seeing you sneakily cycling past my house on your bike (nice thighs by the way).
£9.7m loss
Overall the forecast doesn't read positively, the debt to the bondholders has increased by £200k, which is the cost borne from the accounting irregularities.
They've got a £3.5m overdraft which has gone up £2m in a year, doesn't sound healthy.
No mention of the academy in future developments either.
Overall the forecast doesn't read positively, the debt to the bondholders has increased by £200k, which is the cost borne from the accounting irregularities.
They've got a £3.5m overdraft which has gone up £2m in a year, doesn't sound healthy.
No mention of the academy in future developments either.
They don't get it. These big concerts aren't worth that much, good for profile but the organisers will arrange everything, they just want use of the premises.
He'll be gutted... he's probably off to an internet café to set up a new user instead.
I am sure you can all read the accounts so not going to comment on the total detail. Just some more specific comments
- not my idea of robust or in good shape
- clearly Richardson is vital to the Wasps fortunes over the last two years he has put in £12m to keep them afloat
- the specifics of the change from Compass to Delaware are not detailed. I would guess that less than a month after the year end there were some very big settlements to be made. But how? Compass returned the shares in IEC that originally cost the £4m, plus i would think were owed substantial amounts on the trading account and was there any cost to settle the arrangement. Perhaps explains why their charge still shows at Companies House
- somewhat surprised that there were so many prior year adjustments. Considering the previous auditors charged over £200k and were so scathing why were these "errors" not picked up, most seem to have been pretty basic accounting. The previous accounts had already included a 4m amendment
- Their biggest concern still remains cash flow. Hence the increase in bank borrowing and monies from Richardson. The group cash deficit for the year was £1.9m
- looks like they changed bank in the year.
- biggest drain on finance cash flow seems to be the rugby side of the business £2.7m negative which means the rest of the business was plus 0.8m
- considering they didnt win anything then turnovers and margin stood up quite well,
- considering they were supposed to be improving the bottomline then to say they have now put in procedures to control costs is surprising/worrying.
- I assume the covenants are still met despite loss etc - i know the basis was changed from last year
- seems to be a hint that the revalue of the lease might be downward in 2019
- seems to be a lot of focus on management and administration - number increased by 28 people in the year - doesnt seem to be working too well with all the errors and lack of cost control
- no new stadium sponsor must be a concern.
- no mention that CCFC are tenants i dont think
- Judicial review costs have cost them £500k so far
- i would expect the bond price to fall - but that changes nothing for now
Not very good at all really - but situation has not changed, so long as Richardson backs it then they will carry on. My overall view is of a struggling business that has not been run very tightly, wouldnt say it was successful or close to that but i dont think it is about to fall over - but thats just my opinion
- not my idea of robust or in good shape
- clearly Richardson is vital to the Wasps fortunes over the last two years he has put in £12m to keep them afloat
- the specifics of the change from Compass to Delaware are not detailed. I would guess that less than a month after the year end there were some very big settlements to be made. But how? Compass returned the shares in IEC that originally cost the £4m, plus i would think were owed substantial amounts on the trading account and was there any cost to settle the arrangement. Perhaps explains why their charge still shows at Companies House
- somewhat surprised that there were so many prior year adjustments. Considering the previous auditors charged over £200k and were so scathing why were these "errors" not picked up, most seem to have been pretty basic accounting. The previous accounts had already included a 4m amendment
- Their biggest concern still remains cash flow. Hence the increase in bank borrowing and monies from Richardson. The group cash deficit for the year was £1.9m
- looks like they changed bank in the year.
- biggest drain on finance cash flow seems to be the rugby side of the business £2.7m negative which means the rest of the business was plus 0.8m
- considering they didnt win anything then turnovers and margin stood up quite well,
- considering they were supposed to be improving the bottomline then to say they have now put in procedures to control costs is surprising/worrying.
- I assume the covenants are still met despite loss etc - i know the basis was changed from last year
- seems to be a hint that the revalue of the lease might be downward in 2019
- seems to be a lot of focus on management and administration - number increased by 28 people in the year - doesnt seem to be working too well with all the errors and lack of cost control
- no new stadium sponsor must be a concern.
- no mention that CCFC are tenants i dont think
- Judicial review costs have cost them £500k so far
- i would expect the bond price to fall - but that changes nothing for now
Not very good at all really - but situation has not changed, so long as Richardson backs it then they will carry on. My overall view is of a struggling business that has not been run very tightly, wouldnt say it was successful or close to that but i dont think it is about to fall over - but thats just my opinion
Last edited:
Nah, why would they be? They seem to have a knack of taking payments of £4,000 for a service valued at £1,200. Its a great bit of business for them
