Forum Replies Created
-
Wot, no Vanarama coverage on Tuesday night?
Schedule suggests otherwise…
https://www.nationalleaguetv.com/schedule
1 user thanked author for this post.
if there were 7 decent teams in the league we would be 7th.
[/quote]
Pedantic I know, but 8th, surely?
1 user thanked author for this post.
All these extremely naive people who invested money into the scheme, invested into SUFC (1988) LTD, a company solely owned by David Hilton, a sole trader and Director, they did not invest in any company associated with Scunthorpe United Football Club.
They have no claim legally against the club. The claim is against the owner of the company they invested in, that company is still trading and a simple google search will point them in the direction.They didn’t. It was advertised via the club, with enquiries to be addressed to the club. One of the benefits was an opportunity to buy a share in SUFC (1899) Ltd.
I didn’t buy one, but those that did are not as naive as you’re claiming, despite buying into something that would have no value should the club go into administration.
Without having looked into the terms and conditions in any detail, nor being a lawyer of any sort, I’d imagine they have a legally binding contract with the club at this point.
1 user thanked author for this post.
If the trust have £800,000 TJO that should be enough for a down payment for the ground my £1000 would soon follow.
Just to clarify, Scunthorpe United FC Community Sports and Education Trust, which has £897000 funds carried forward in its most recent accounts, is not The Iron Trust.
2 users thanked author for this post.
Cameron Burgess a regular in the Ipswich L1 promotion side!
1 user thanked author for this post.
In the most recent accounts the club has negative total equity of £2.3m, whereas in the accounts to June 2013 total equity was positive at £2.8m.
I’m struggling to see how that’s a better financial position, but then Peter is cleverer than all of us, as evidenced by his recent refusal to answer questions during the Humberside interview on the basis that his interviewer wouldn’t be capable of understanding, so doubtless he’s right..
2 users thanked author for this post.
Thankhand was a spectacularly poor idea, as evidenced by its lack of success.
It was particularly embarrassing that Swann associated the club with it.
If there was any value to it, and the rights were owned by the club, its value wouldn’t be reflected in the accounts, as you can only include the value of intangible assets (including trademarks, copyright etc,) if you’ve paid for them.
Equally, I suspect that any upside would be to Swann’s benefit, rather than the club’s, and that despite using the club website to promote the idea, there was little chance that the club would benefit.
I was being sarcastic in reference to earlier comments about the lack of club assets, at the same time as remembering one of our great leader’s scintillating business ideas. Has anyone actually told him what a “Spyglass” is, and so why his James Bond-themed bar in Blackpool is so ridiculously irrelevantly named??
4 users thanked author for this post.
Surely only the accounting convention precluding valuation of internally developed intellectual property is preventing the innovative Thankhand (TM) from being valued at millions in the club accounts?
https://www.scunthorpe-united.co.uk/news/2020/april/thankhand/
Unless Peter was only using the club to promote yet another stunningly successful business idea…
3 users thanked author for this post.
None.
Interesting that the top 3 transfers from the National League all went to Peterborough
Lee Tomlin from Rushden and Diamonds to Peterborough in 2010 for £225,000
Shaun Brisley from Macclesfield to Peterborough in 2012 for £350,000
Jack Taylor from Barnet to Peterborough for £500k in 2020.
Wasn’t Vardy to Leicester considered the record for non-league? On a technicality, Fleetwood had been promoted to the league before he signed for Leicester, but he left well before the new season started.
1 user thanked author for this post.
If only I’d donated my shares to the Swann family as Peter requested nine years ago. He said it would make it easier for him to sell if I did that.
I blame myself.
Sorry.
8 users thanked author for this post.
Also worth noting that the BT roundup appears on YouTube for those without subscriptions. Hopefully the link works…
3 users thanked author for this post.
Not many appearances in the last month or so though. Presumably unable to play against Mansfield, but would guess either not especially rated by Hill, or one who possibly “feared injury”…
1 user thanked author for this post.
Maybe she didn’t know?
It’s a Coolsilk asset now, not SUFCs, so she may not have been informed.
That would have involved courtesy, common decency etc.
4 users thanked author for this post.
Swann was shown to be a mouthy pratt there, and a braggart here.
not much difference.
He never took their ground though.[/quote]
He tried to relocate Trinity, but the Blues Club (supporters’ association) owned (own) the pitch and wouldn’t go along with his plans, so he left the club ‘debt free’ but with an unsustainable wage bill that arguably ultimately led to the first relegation in their 100+ year history.
A similar arrangement exists at Chelsea, where Abramovich owns everything at Stamford Bridge except the pitch, which is owned by 13000+ fans via the Chelsea Pitch Owners’ plc.
4 users thanked author for this post.
The 115% wages to turnover in the 2014 accounts was only the start; subsequent years were 156.7%, 132.1%, 131.6%, 137.0%, 143.0% before the funds dried up to 77.8% in 2020.
If I had to choose between the ‘astute businessman’ and the ‘hobbyist’, I know who I think has been the better custodian of the club over the years…
16 users thanked author for this post.
£12m wasted? That’s just the loan.
There’s also been the best part of £8m in additional share issues since Swann arrived, and the profit and loss account has gone from £111,938 in the 2012 accounts (the last before share issues started) to -£19,565,559 in 2020 (the most recent available).
1 user thanked author for this post.
I can’t understand why he can’t use the ground as security on a loan to pay off the EFL loan.
Didn’t he tell us the reason he transferred it out of the club was because banks wouldn’t lend to football clubs? Surely now is an opportune time to benefit from this masterstroke?
Yes, it would be risky. But so was the reckless overspending over a number of years that has brought us here…
Presumably the difference is who would be taking the risk and suffering the potential consequences? The previous losses haven’t worked out too badly for some given the ‘transfer of assets’, but there aren’t many assets left to compensate for misjudgment now…
4 users thanked author for this post.
I always found it curious that a man who told us he “wasn’t a property developer” should buy his shares via ‘Coolsilk Property and Investment Ltd.’, particularly after events at Gainsborough, and that his first communication with shareholders was to ask them to donate their shares so that he’d be able to sell the club more easily in future.
His second move was to abolish AGMs, making it all the more strange that he should now not only want to reinstate them, but to have additional meetings with smaller shareholder groups. It’s hard to believe he’s really that interested in what anyone has to say given past events…
1 user thanked author for this post.
