Re: Latest financial situation - all posts here : Mon Jul 02, 2012 8:53 am  

It's a strange fact that in business, bad decisions come in sequences. I remember as a young lad in the civil engineering industry an agent was sacked. When anything was found to be wrong thereafter he was blamed. After a while the area manager said he'd clearly sacked the wrong guy as he appeared to be the only bloke who did anything.

When a poor decison is made (and Harris was a 650k poor decision) it takes good management and a solid ownership to provide the capital guarantees to restructure and move on. We didn't have any of those things and so continued to make further bad decisons with the caveat that they could be blamed on the last one out of the door. As a result the 'story' post Caisley never really held water as the team on the field declined so markedly. I'll always hold the decision to employ and then repeatedly not sack SM was more significant but others don't and thats fair enough.

I don't want to see CC back as he's clearly a divisive figure but I don't believe Guilfoyle, Caisley, Coulby, plus Hetherington and the T and A are part of a conspiracy. It just doesn't add up.

Re: Latest financial situation - all posts here : Mon Jul 02, 2012 8:58 am  

I don't want to see CC back as he's clearly a divisive figure but I don't believe Guilfoyle, Caisley, Coulby, plus Hetherington and the T and A are part of a conspiracy. It just doesn't add up.

Thats why its a sanitised version!

Re: Latest financial situation - all posts here : Mon Jul 02, 2012 9:04 am  

Blotto wrote:

I don't want to see CC back as he's clearly a divisive figure but I don't believe Guilfoyle, Caisley, Coulby, plus Hetherington and the T and A are part of a conspiracy. It just doesn't add up.

Thats why its a sanitised version!

Sorry, I don't follow.

Re: Latest financial situation - all posts here : Mon Jul 02, 2012 9:10 am  

Oh right, When is the deadline then?

Re: Latest financial situation - all posts here : Mon Jul 02, 2012 1:44 pm  

Frank Whitcombe wrote:

I've posted pretty regularly on here for a couple of years now, and I've been ridiculed, agreed with, embarrassed, and most of the the time I've been right through it all like most people on this board I just wanted to support my team.

There will be news in the next few days that has proved some of us right again, there will be no administration thanks to a benefactor (not investor, that's important), there will be breathing space for the club to move forward and shape itself anew with homegrown talent at the fore.

So as I've said before time to get behind everyone at the club and move forward, I'm running with the Bulls cos we're really gonna be alright!

No prizes for wondering why the fekk YOU have been conspicuous by your absence? Just a shame too many people listened to the likes of you.

Re: Latest financial situation - all posts here : Mon Jul 02, 2012 2:20 pm  

the actual figures are the right direction for my estimate though a bit higher. Strange how a auditor either cannot divide £550k by 3 and multiply it by two, or not apply the gross figures rule for balance sheet balances. But £360k is a lot nearer £550k than £1200K. What is more interesting is that on the face of it there was a defence under the whatsits Development ruling ie they had that solicitors assurance that Cardiff had terminated the deal not Harris. But getting a solicitor into the witness box is a lot more difficult than getting a client in there, so practicalities may have ruled rather than precedents.

[Bulliac]

Re: Latest financial situation - all posts here : Mon Jul 02, 2012 3:27 pm  

martinwildbull wrote:

the actual figures are the right direction for my estimate though a bit higher. Strange how a auditor either cannot divide £550k by 3 and multiply it by two, or not apply the gross figures rule for balance sheet balances. But £360k is a lot nearer £550k than £1200K. What is more interesting is that on the face of it there was a defence under the whatsits Development ruling ie they had that solicitors assurance that Cardiff had terminated the deal not Harris. But getting a solicitor into the witness box is a lot more difficult than getting a client in there, so practicalities may have ruled rather than precedents.

The figures are for the amount paid to Leeds including their costs but obviously don't include the Bulls' legal costs, which should be added to show the full loss brought about by the action. I'd assume they would hardly have been negligible, though I guess it's possible there were no costs, given the relationship between the Bulls' then chairman, and their legal advisor Walker Morris. But with notional costs added it would bring the figure a bit nearer my own guesstimate of a sum pushing 7 figures.

Re: Latest financial situation - all posts here : Mon Jul 02, 2012 4:17 pm  

apologies bulliac, my estimate was purely settlement, which is given as £550k for compensation and costs. our costs are give as £79K. even then there is scope for ambiguity as Coulby says that this is for related legal costs paid out 2005-8. in 2005 we were ordered to pay an estimated £64K for Leeds costs for the original hearing that established the breach. Now is this included in those legal costs or has it been given another title eg "Compensation"? Anyway, my total cost estimate is £550K + £79K + £64K = £693K. plus the unquantifiable management time. Approaching your £1m mark, but even so a lot less than the £1.2M some claimed. In terms of payment, its only the £550k that was paid in the years of fast decline 2009 - 10- 11, Coulby is unambigous that the legal costs had been paid out by 2008, so not relevant to the debate as to how much Harris affected us in those latter years.

Re: Latest financial situation - all posts here : Mon Jul 02, 2012 4:44 pm  

Coulby in the League Express says the club owes(ed) 700k to HMRC with 450k overdue. In addition the club owe Andy Lynch money as well as other long creditors threatening action over long standing debts.

The club have recieved confirmation from the club's auditors of discrepancies in the 2010 accounts.

Re: Latest financial situation - all posts here : Mon Jul 02, 2012 5:01 pm  

I read the actual full judgement a couple of years back, found when I was looking for something else. The basics of the contract were that Harris was only ever loaned to Cardiff, and Leeds had a contract for one year, to begin once the "loan" to Cardiff ended. I remember the judges conclusion on Harris was that he didn't really understand the contract (which I read as "he was a bit thick"). So the by the sounds of it, it wouldn't have mattered who ended the Cardiff bit, because Leeds had a year once the Cardiff loan ended.