I FIND IT FUNNY

who's we? Company or self employed ?

company that i own 50% of.

Name of Company ?

why wont CCFC actually , at a price , get the stadium named now that we are just about into our 3rd season there ?

I don't think CCFC will get anything like £9m for stadium naming rights, hence any efforts to get the stadium named by CCFC will not see CCFC reap any benefits.

who's we? Company or self employed ?

company that i own 50% of.

Name of Company ?

which one, i have five

why wont CCFC actually , at a price , get the stadium named now that we are just about into our 3rd season there ?

I don't think CCFC will get anything like £9m for stadium naming rights, hence any efforts to get the stadium named by CCFC will not see CCFC reap any benefits.

no shit sherlock

you can sell players they are REAL ASSETS. raises a thing called cash!

you cant flog the Stadium = bullshit .

Daya, I agree, the stadium is worth something only to those that play in it. It is not a tradable commodity. However, we have seen time and again others claiming that Hammam left us with a legacy of £30m of players (spurious at best) and planning permission for a stadium worth £60m. Why is it ok to mention the intrinsic value of the stadium when discussing Hammams legacy but not when discussing Ridsdales legacy?

As for releasing cash, we could always mortgage the stadium (not suggesting we do), as often football clubs do. I'm not saying we'd get £60m for it but we'd certainly get more than £30m (the supposed value of the players). Its called buy and lease back and happens all the time in the world of corporate finance.

Sorry feedback, but your backtracking Pal, you were arguing with others on here, that the stadium should not be seen as an asset, but yet you argue for your own purposes that it should be seen as a symbol of success as it was Ridsdale who delivered it. Now, we all know its not a tradeable asset like a player for instance, but without it we all are agreed I'n sure that income streams, or even status would not be achieved, so most of us view and value it, as an asset. It is certainly more valuable to us than the playing squad at this moment in time.

you can sell players they are REAL ASSETS. raises a thing called cash!

you cant flog the Stadium = bullshit .

Daya, I agree, the stadium is worth something only to those that play in it. It is not a tradable commodity. However, we have seen time and again others claiming that Hammam left us with a legacy of £30m of players (spurious at best) and planning permission for a stadium worth £60m. Why is it ok to mention the intrinsic value of the stadium when discussing Hammams legacy but not when discussing Ridsdales legacy?

As for releasing cash, we could always mortgage the stadium (not suggesting we do), as often football clubs do. I'm not saying we'd get £60m for it but we'd certainly get more than £30m (the supposed value of the players). Its called buy and lease back and happens all the time in the world of corporate finance.

So why didnt PMG then? any thought ..... its bullshit money , not corporate finance !! is it not ownership of stadium cant change hands ? what if the club went skint and it was hocked ? could the lender take it over ? why didnt the riddler do it ? he hocked everything else !!

perhaps it was not in PMG's interests? i have no idea why not, nor do i care.. What I do know is that any shareholder who is also a director who would mortgage such an asset, then pay themselves without paying creditors would be in serious breach of the Companies Act and liable to prison for unlawful trading. Perhaps that is why they have not done so. As I said, I really don't care.

Daya, I agree, the stadium is worth something only to those that play in it. It is not a tradable commodity. However, we have seen time and again others claiming that Hammam left us with a legacy of £30m of players (spurious at best) and planning permission for a stadium worth £60m. Why is it ok to mention the intrinsic value of the stadium when discussing Hammams legacy but not when discussing Ridsdales legacy?



So why didnt PMG then? any thought ..... its bullshit money , not corporate finance !! is it not ownership of stadium cant change hands ? what if the club went skint and it was hocked ? could the lender take it over ? why didnt the riddler do it ? he hocked everything else !![/quote]

perhaps it was not in PMG's interests? i have no idea why not, nor do i care.. What I do know is that any shareholder who is also a director who would mortgage such an asset, then pay themselves without paying creditors would be in serious breach of the Companies Act and liable to prison for unlawful trading. Perhaps that is why they have not done so. As I said, I really don't care.[/quote]

Exactly bullshit money and just a paper asset . but you can flog a player and make a real profit !!! = real money , hard cash.

Sorry feedback, but your backtracking Pal, you were arguing with others on here, that the stadium should not be seen as an asset, but yet you argue for your own purposes that it should be seen as a symbol of success as it was Ridsdale who delivered it. Now, we all know its not a tradeable asset like a player for instance, but without it we all are agreed I'n sure that income streams, or even status would not be achieved, so most of us view and value it, as an asset. It is certainly more valuable to us than the playing squad at this moment in time.

not back tracking in the slightest, my position is clear. The stadium may have a vlaue of £60m, but as a cash raising assets its pretty worthless, other than you can have up to 27,000 paying customers watch the match.

My point I was making was that to suggest if Hammam left £30m of playing talent (which is entierly spurious given who the players were) is akin to saying that Ridsdale left £60m worth of assets in a stadium. Yet the same supporters of Hammam are not suggesting we see the return of Ridsdale.

In all of this I have never said I want to see Ridsdale return (god no!!) or that the stadium could really be sold (it cannot, although some sort of finance could be released on it). For want of repeating myself, I was drawing comparisons betwen Ridsdale's legacy and Hammam's legacy, nothing more, nothing less.

Exactly bullshit money and just a paper asset . but you can flog a player and make a real profit !!! = real money , hard cash.

what team do you play with if you sell all your players? I'm not entierly sure of your point again.

I am not a Ridsdale apologist, far from it, I have merely used him as an example to show how a legacy can be manipuilated to paint a picture that is not entirely correct.

Sorry feedback, but your backtracking Pal, you were arguing with others on here, that the stadium should not be seen as an asset, but yet you argue for your own purposes that it should be seen as a symbol of success as it was Ridsdale who delivered it. Now, we all know its not a tradeable asset like a player for instance, but without it we all are agreed I'n sure that income streams, or even status would not be achieved, so most of us view and value it, as an asset. It is certainly more valuable to us than the playing squad at this moment in time.[/quote]

backtracking big time . Quicker than an Italian Army or an accountant shop lifting in WH Smiths !

Gwyn

has anyone actually said any of that? not that I have seen. What some people, myself incldued, have commented on is that you cannot simply say Hammam is great he achieved X Y and Z and ignore the baggage that the club ended up with. If you are to judge Hammam then you have to judge him on all successes and failures. In my opinion, he had more of the latter than the former, the club nearly went to the wall on Black Friday. for all the exciting times before that it would have counted for nothing if the club did not exist. Thankfully, other investors came in at that time and we are where we are now.

How did it not go to the wall on Black Friday Feeders son ? Pray tell ?

ah that will be the part that nobody gives paul guy any credit for steve.

And I bet Him and Mike Hall haven't made a penny out of it. The old football loving fans that they are.
his money was paying the wages and bills at that time otherwise we would have gone to the wall.

Exactly bullshit money and just a paper asset . but you can flog a player and make a real profit !!! = real money , hard cash.

what team do you play with if you sell all your players? I'm not entierly sure of your point again.

I am not a Ridsdale apologist, far from it, I have merely used him as an example to show how a legacy can be manipuilated to paint a picture that is not entirely correct.

your all confused now .... take a pill , read through your posts today and digest again. take a trip to " black friday " and your statements - i know you have backtracked so much today you have lost your path !

my flights in now - so must dash !!! ciao ciao xxx

"Feedback"]Gwyn

has anyone actually said any of that? not that I have seen. What some people, myself incldued, have commented on is that you cannot simply say Hammam is great he achieved X Y and Z and ignore the baggage that the club ended up with. If you are to judge Hammam then you have to judge him on all successes and failures. In my opinion, he had more of the latter than the former, the club nearly went to the wall on Black Friday. for all the exciting times before that it would have counted for nothing if the club did not exist. Thankfully, other investors came in at that time and we are where we are now.

How did it not go to the wall on Black Friday Feeders son ? Pray tell ?




ah that will be the part that nobody gives paul guy any credit for steve.
his money was paying the wages and bills at that time otherwise we would have gone to the wall

Says who exactly ?

Also the end of the retail park dream !!! if that was the case.

Why the sudden urgency to bail the Club out if that was the case ? why did they not buy it themselves when it was only 3 million ? hmmmmmmmm. because they f*cking leeches !!! oh and f*cking liars!!!

Did you know that they tried claiming that Hammam had threatened all their families and also the Malaysians witha hit man !!

you couldnt make it up !!!






well who did pay the wages then steve and like you say why did they not buy the cub for 3 million.
no they had a cunning plan where they let the club rack up a debt of 20 odd million and then step in.
brilliant business plan

And how much of that 20 million pound debt have they paid back, seems like a good plan to me.

Sorry feedback, but your backtracking Pal, you were arguing with others on here, that the stadium should not be seen as an asset, but yet you argue for your own purposes that it should be seen as a symbol of success as it was Ridsdale who delivered it. Now, we all know its not a tradeable asset like a player for instance, but without it we all are agreed I'n sure that income streams, or even status would not be achieved, so most of us view and value it, as an asset. It is certainly more valuable to us than the playing squad at this moment in time.

backtracking big time . Quicker than an Italian Army or an accountant shop lifting in WH Smiths ! [/quote]



not backtracking Daya, it appears the analogy was lost on some on here. let me say it again

Hammam = 2 promotions + £24m extra debt + close to being wound up = good
Raidsdale = stadium + £16m extra debt + close to being wound up = bad

dress it up all you like, insult and snipe (on the no sniping forum) all you like, i can't see how either Hammam or Ridsdale, who both created positives but who both also nearly took us to the wall, could ever be seen in a positive light.

Sorry feedback, but your backtracking Pal, you were arguing with others on here, that the stadium should not be seen as an asset, but yet you argue for your own purposes that it should be seen as a symbol of success as it was Ridsdale who delivered it. Now, we all know its not a tradeable asset like a player for instance, but without it we all are agreed I'n sure that income streams, or even status would not be achieved, so most of us view and value it, as an asset. It is certainly more valuable to us than the playing squad at this moment in time.

not back tracking in the slightest, my position is clear. The stadium may have a vlaue of £60m, but as a cash raising assets its pretty worthless, other than you can have up to 27,000 paying customers watch the match.

My point I was making was that to suggest if Hammam left £30m of playing talent (which is entierly spurious given who the players were) is akin to saying that Ridsdale left £60m worth of assets in a stadium. Yet the same supporters of Hammam are not suggesting we see the return of Ridsdale.

In all of this I have never said I want to see Ridsdale return (god no!!) or that the stadium could really be sold (it cannot, although some sort of finance could be released on it). For want of repeating myself, I was drawing comparisons betwen Ridsdale's legacy and Hammam's legacy, nothing more, nothing less.

The difference is however, if we take your simplistic argument that people feel that its ok to welcome back SH because he left assets of £30 million in the shape of players, yet why not then welcome back Ridsdale as he left an even bigger legacy in a £60 million stadium, is precisely, that, too simplistic. SH for instance, created those assets with outside finance sourced by him and either purchasing players and adding value or through building an academy that produced players of real value from nothing. Ridsdale, bare faced lied and cheated and duped the fans into parting with real cash for reasons, that were untrue. Hamman, can be found guilty of going back on his word, that he would not sell players, but for me as for many others I suspect, that is much more forgivable than what Ridsdale did. That's not even taking into consideration Ridsdales, part in the boardroom removal of SH, and the overinflated salary that Ridsdale voted for and took from the club for himself.

your all confused now .... take a pill , read through your posts today and digest again. take a trip to " black friday " and your statements - i know you have backtracked so much today you have lost your path !

my flights in now - so must dash !!! ciao ciao xxx

not backtracked in the slightest Daya, Ridsdale and the Stadium was an analogy why Hammam should not be welcomed with open arms. This analogy was seemingly lost on you.

Ridsdale yes but the stadium no way !

The difference is however, if we take your simplistic argument that people feel that its ok to welcome back SH because he left assets of £30 million in the shape of players, yet why not then welcome back Ridsdale as he left an even bigger legacy in a £60 million stadium, is precisely, that, too simplistic.

why is it too simplistic? both are factually correct, Hammam left a legacy of £30m of players (allegedly) and Ridsdale left a legacy of a £60m stadium.

SH for instance, created those assets with outside finance sourced by him and either purchasing players and adding value or through building an academy that produced players of real value from nothing.

so we all agree that Hammam did not use his own money to fund the players and our promotions, instead using other parties money building up the debt in the clubs name. This is despite Hammam saying the debt would leave we he left. The debt did not did it.

Ridsdale, bare faced lied and cheated and duped the fans into parting with real cash for reasons, that were untrue.

we were all buying season tickets anyway regardless of the golden ticket fiasco. yes Ridsdale lied to us and that one lie means he could never be trusted again. You make just one lie and all trust is lost. now IIRC, Hammam also lied to us.

Hamman, can be found guilty of going back on his word that he would not sell players

so he lied

but for me as for many others I suspect, that is much more forgivable than what Ridsdale did.

thats because Ridsdale never courted individauls as friends and confidantes, thats why it is easier not to forgive Ridsdale, but as Hammam is a friend to some, its much more personal. Friends make mistakes, and you stick with them, there is nothing wrong with that. However, someone like myself who has no interest whatsoever in getting to know either Ridsdale or Hammam, can view both scenarios a little bit more objectively.

That's not even taking into consideration Ridsdales, part in the boardroom removal of SH, and the overinflated salary that Ridsdale voted for and took from the club for himself.

thats business, it happens in business, it is not personal. Hammam is a business man and will sometimes be the sparrow and sometimes be the cow. It is not personal.

you tell me and provide some proof mate if u can.

Bit rich after some of your comments in this thread

"Feedback"]Gwyn

has anyone actually said any of that? not that I have seen. What some people, myself incldued, have commented on is that you cannot simply say Hammam is great he achieved X Y and Z and ignore the baggage that the club ended up with. If you are to judge Hammam then you have to judge him on all successes and failures. In my opinion, he had more of the latter than the former, the club nearly went to the wall on Black Friday. for all the exciting times before that it would have counted for nothing if the club did not exist. Thankfully, other investors came in at that time and we are where we are now.

How did it not go to the wall on Black Friday Feeders son ? Pray tell ?




ah that will be the part that nobody gives paul guy any credit for steve.
his money was paying the wages and bills at that time otherwise we would have gone to the wall

Says who exactly ?

Also the end of the retail park dream !!! if that was the case.

Why the sudden urgency to bail the Club out if that was the case ? why did they not buy it themselves when it was only 3 million ? hmmmmmmmm. because they f*cking leeches !!! oh and f*cking liars!!!

Did you know that they tried claiming that Hammam had threatened all their families and also the Malaysians witha hit man !!

you couldnt make it up !!!






well who did pay the wages then steve and like you say why did they not buy the cub for 3 million.
no they had a cunning plan where they let the club rack up a debt of 20 odd million and then step in.
brilliant business plan

And how much of that 20 million pound debt have they paid back, seems like a good plan to me.

who run that 20 million debt up then gwyn.
this is my whole problem with this as sam run the club with an iron fist taking no notice of any other directors.
one director has an agreement for £1500 per week for tony warner and then sam puts it up to 8k a week and that was just one of many.
so if it was his own money fine but all those wasted millions he wants back.

Sorry feedback, but your backtracking Pal, you were arguing with others on here, that the stadium should not be seen as an asset, but yet you argue for your own purposes that it should be seen as a symbol of success as it was Ridsdale who delivered it. Now, we all know its not a tradeable asset like a player for instance, but without it we all are agreed I'n sure that income streams, or even status would not be achieved, so most of us view and value it, as an asset. It is certainly more valuable to us than the playing squad at this moment in time.

backtracking big time . Quicker than an Italian Army or an accountant shop lifting in WH Smiths !

not backtracking Daya, it appears the analogy was lost on some on here. let me say it again

Hammam = 2 promotions + £24m extra debt + close to being wound up = good
Raidsdale = stadium + £16m extra debt + close to being wound up = bad

dress it up all you like, insult and snipe (on the no sniping forum) all you like, i can't see how either Hammam or Ridsdale, who both created positives but who both also nearly took us to the wall, could ever be seen in a positive light.[/quote]


But we were nowhere near being wound up, PMG were using the threat of admin to get the club off Sam, if we had gone into admin it would have suited PMG who had plans to pick the club up for a song, losing the ten points would have made no difference to their business plan, they wanted the stadium to get their retail plans thru, either way it was about profit from a business deal to them, only the end figures were slightly different depending on which option occurred.

If there was any risk of being wound up, why were so many people queuing up for a share out of the future profits that has gone to those involved in the take over rather than to the running of the club.

lots of good memories with Sam ,but as with Rick Wright, he soured them.

"Feedback"]Gwyn

has anyone actually said any of that? not that I have seen. What some people, myself incldued, have commented on is that you cannot simply say Hammam is great he achieved X Y and Z and ignore the baggage that the club ended up with. If you are to judge Hammam then you have to judge him on all successes and failures. In my opinion, he had more of the latter than the former, the club nearly went to the wall on Black Friday. for all the exciting times before that it would have counted for nothing if the club did not exist. Thankfully, other investors came in at that time and we are where we are now.

How did it not go to the wall on Black Friday Feeders son ? Pray tell ?




ah that will be the part that nobody gives paul guy any credit for steve.






Yes Steve, but how much of the 20 million went to Sam as big bonus's, and how much went on trying to rush us a team and a stadium, it may have been fool hardy, but it was never done ruthlessly as a pocket liner as it was done by others later on.
his money was paying the wages and bills at that time otherwise we would have gone to the wall

Says who exactly ?

Also the end of the retail park dream !!! if that was the case.

Why the sudden urgency to bail the Club out if that was the case ? why did they not buy it themselves when it was only 3 million ? hmmmmmmmm. because they f*cking leeches !!! oh and f*cking liars!!!

Did you know that they tried claiming that Hammam had threatened all their families and also the Malaysians witha hit man !!

you couldnt make it up !!!






well who did pay the wages then steve and like you say why did they not buy the cub for 3 million.
no they had a cunning plan where they let the club rack up a debt of 20 odd million and then step in.
brilliant business plan

And how much of that 20 million pound debt have they paid back, seems like a good plan to me.

who run that 20 million debt up then gwyn.
this is my whole problem with this as sam run the club with an iron fist taking no notice of any other directors.
one director has an agreement for £1500 per week for tony warner and then sam puts it up to 8k a week and that was just one of many.
so if it was his own money fine but all those wasted millions he wants back.

Any success that Sam had when he was in charge here or at Wimbledon is rarely attributed to him any good players that he discovered or signed were spotted by his managers or scouts and that he shouldn't be given any credit, and any promotions or victories where down to the manager.

Yet any failures defeats or signings that didn't cut the mustard were all down to Sam's personal bad choice or decision.

Seems a little unfair, but such is life.

I think that's a fair point Gwyn.

To say that Sam was all bad is nonsense, totally unfair and shows a lack of thought by some.

Father of a friend of mine rang the club a few years ago to complain about something or other, it was Sam who rang him back personally to sort it all out, plus, I agree that he awakened the sleeping giant as it were. He certainly gave us hope, raised our profile and started this mad journey we're on now.