Joined: Jul 15 2005 Posts: 29811 Location: West Yorkshire
R_Tomlinson wrote:I didn't think you could pay a dividend if making a loss?
It's an operating loss - after parachute payments and player profits PBT is £2.4m. I think the rule is on negative reserves(cumulative) rather than in-year.
Joined: Mar 11 2007 Posts: 5659 Location: Next to Ramsgate Sands c.1850 in West Hull
Mrs Barista wrote:It's an operating loss - after parachute payments and player profits PBT is £2.4m. I think the rule is on negative reserves(cumulative) rather than in-year.
Ha - so Allam used the parachute payments to pay himself a dividend, then? £2M paid to himself against £2.4M parachutes and money from selling players? Is that what the parachute payments are intended for ?
£1.5M he wants the council to pay up for a plastic pitch for City's use at the KC. Then he'll leave the arena alone...
Philip Larkin wrote:
There ain’t no music East side of this city That’s mellow like mine is, That’s mellow like mine.
cod'ead wrote:Fook me, you're an expert on local governance now too?
I reckon that between you and me, we know everything there is to know in the world.
You seem to know everything about anything, apart from the fact that you're a clueless 2@.
I know that you're a clueless 2@, so between us we must know absolutely everything
Instead of being abusive which is against the forum rules and makes you look stupid to boot, why not explain in detail what you disgreee with, why and exactly how things work..away you go sonny, you're homework has being set.
Joined: Jun 01 2007 Posts: 12671 Location: Leicestershire.
Mrs Barista wrote:Best outcome all round would be to break the current deal and have an independent arbiter to negotiate terms for the next 25 years with in independent operating body. Both clubs need certainty of outgoings, especially FC for whom a small change is a massive % of our business as opposed to a drop in a £70m ocean for City.
I think the certainty of affordable outgoing is the nub of it. An entirely sensible desire, but when combined with the council's own equally understandable desire for certainty of no outgoings, all the risk is borne by the independent operating body. Nobody takes on risk for the sake of it - there has to be a pay-off of some sort. For a commercial operation that'll almost invariably be profit. There were, from what I've read on here, no independent takers when the SMC when it was first set up. So it might well have to be incentivised with a better deal. But, you can't charge the tenants much more - it might tip Hull FC over the edge, which'd be self defeating, and Pearson would surely just stick with the status quo, imperfect as it is. Allam is hardly likely to make life easy for the council, by paying more rent while giving up control.
People might suggest other possible revenue generating opportunities, such as concerts - but they carry risk too. As you say, It would be the best outcome - but it's not a very likely one in the foreseeable, I fear. Looks like a stalemate to me.
'Thus I am tormented by my curiosity and humbled by my ignorance.' from History of an Old Bramin, The New York Mirror (A Weekly Journal Devoted to Literature and the Fine Arts), February 16th 1833.
Joined: Mar 11 2007 Posts: 5659 Location: Next to Ramsgate Sands c.1850 in West Hull
Mild Rover wrote:I think the certainty of affordable outgoing is the nub of it. An entirely sensible desire, but when combined with the council's own equally understandable desire for certainty of no outgoings, all the risk is borne by the independent operating body. Nobody takes on risk for the sake of it - there has to be a pay-off of some sort. For a commercial operation that'll almost invariably be profit. There were, from what I've read on here, no independent takers when the SMC when it was first set up. So it might well have to be incentivised with a better deal. But, you can't charge the tenants much more - it might tip Hull FC over the edge, which'd be self defeating, and Pearson would surely just stick with the status quo, imperfect as it is. Allam is hardly likely to make life easy for the council, by paying more rent while giving up control.
People might suggest other possible revenue generating opportunities, such as concerts - but they carry risk too. As you say, It would be the best outcome - but it's not a very likely one in the foreseeable, I fear. Looks like a stalemate to me.
These were certainly my thoughts, but the new not-for-profit leisure company that is assuming control of council facilities adds a different option, wouldn't you think?
Philip Larkin wrote:
There ain’t no music East side of this city That’s mellow like mine is, That’s mellow like mine.
Joined: Feb 09 2004 Posts: 7735 Location: Here there and everywhere
WormInHand wrote:Ha - so Allam used the parachute payments to pay himself a dividend, then? £2M paid to himself against £2.4M parachutes and money from selling players? Is that what the parachute payments are intended for ?
£1.5M he wants the council to pay up for a plastic pitch for City's use at the KC. Then he'll leave the arena alone...
No, he paid himself a dividend out of the accumulated reserves which had built up over the years since incorporation.
I am not an advocate of Allam, far from it, but you will make any argument against him flawed if there is mud slinging which is incorrect.
I've been wondering for a while that maybe Mr Allam has found a "buyer" who wants a few loose ends tidying up, like, say, a Category 2 Academy. They've been around for a while now, and only City and Burnley in the Premiership haven't got at least level 2. You'd have thought Mr Allam would have been making plans for one a couple of years ago.
Is Hodgson the new Griffin, or is it all about pace?
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum