Amberexile wrote:

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

Is it your belief that on the face of published figures that directors or some of the directors, are being paid?

no

EDIT: Assuming you mean paid for being a Director.

[/quote]

I genuinely have no idea. What is director's remuneration?

Exile 1976 wrote:Ain’t got a scooby if it would come under directors remuneration but could it be payments to people like Les Scadding / Greenhalf etc to pay off the full amount owed instead of installments?

Maybe they were also paying Charlie Hopkins in instalments.

I really fear for our future if after our fantastic season on the money spinning f a cup run, we only made a 82 grand profit. What happens if we don't have the money from cup runs for the next few years? And the board really need to tell us fans exactly where all the monies have been spent on.

Countymadbell wrote:I really fear for our future if after our fantastic season on the money spinning f a cup run, we only made a 82 grand profit. What happens if we don't have the money from cup runs for the next few years? And the board really need to tell us fans exactly where all the monies have been spent on.

Try to remember we lost £350k the previous season and this would have swallowed up a fair chunk of that profit , then we had the unsustainable cost increases that KW aluded to, player bonuses , management bonuses , the Paul Hayes mistake , staging costs , policing costs. It is clear that running a successful sustainable league 2 club is not as easy as some would think.

Stan A. Einstein wrote: I genuinely have no idea. What is director's remuneration?

It is defined as - the process by which directors of a company are compensated, either through fees, salary, or the use of the company's property, with approval from the shareholders and board of directors

As I said above everyone has theories which may be right or wrong. Wouldn't it be nice if just for once, the board of directors, who are the only ones who actually know, clarified, how much is being paid, to whom, for what?

Those with charge of our club need to be accountable. It may be that their financial acumen has been up to scratch. But come the elections to the board, how are we, the electorate, meant to judge?

It’s Interesting that Cambridge united made £560k from player sales last year yet still managed to lose £870k and they own their own stadium.

The accounts have been late the last two years so would have incurred fines. My question would be why are/were the management accounts so far behind?

At the end of the day, football is a money pit and the majority of clubs post huge losses every year. The people who thought the FA cup run would suddenly mean huge profits don't quite get it.

Why worry? We have massive assets of err,um ,are ,hmm

Stan A. Einstein wrote:As I said above everyone has theories which may be right or wrong. Wouldn't it be nice if just for once, the board of directors, who are the only ones who actually know, clarified, how much is being paid, to whom, for what?

Those with charge of our club need to be accountable. It may be that their financial acumen has been up to scratch. But come the elections to the board, how are we, the electorate, meant to judge?

To be honest, I doubt the majority of supporters are particularly bothered. Sad but true I feel.

Amberexile wrote:

Stan A. Einstein wrote:As I said above everyone has theories which may be right or wrong. Wouldn't it be nice if just for once, the board of directors, who are the only ones who actually know, clarified, how much is being paid, to whom, for what?

Those with charge of our club need to be accountable. It may be that their financial acumen has been up to scratch. But come the elections to the board, how are we, the electorate, meant to judge?

To be honest, I doubt the majority of supporters are particularly bothered. Sad but true I feel.

I certainly think those supporters old enough to remember the club going out of business before are concerned that any monies aren't being misspent. The problem is we don't know from the published accounts whether it is or not, hence why a meeting to call the BOD to account is needed.

Personally I suspect some of the added expenditure is down to the WRU screwing County for more money because they realise FA Cup success will lead to more being available and possibly the shared cost of the new pitch being payable in the years accounts.

But I need to hear that (or other reasons) from those running the club....

wattsville_boy wrote:

Amberexile wrote:

Stan A. Einstein wrote:As I said above everyone has theories which may be right or wrong. Wouldn't it be nice if just for once, the board of directors, who are the only ones who actually know, clarified, how much is being paid, to whom, for what?

Those with charge of our club need to be accountable. It may be that their financial acumen has been up to scratch. But come the elections to the board, how are we, the electorate, meant to judge?

To be honest, I doubt the majority of supporters are particularly bothered. Sad but true I feel.

I certainly think those supporters old enough to remember the club going out of business before are concerned that any monies aren't being misspent. The problem is we don't know from the published accounts whether it is or not, hence why a meeting to call the BOD to account is needed.

Personally I suspect some of the added expenditure is down to the WRU screwing County for more money because they realise FA Cup success will lead to more being available and possibly the shared cost of the new pitch being payable in the years accounts.

But I need to hear that (or other reasons) from those running the club....

I'm sure people are concerned (me included) and of course there will be a meeting where the BOD can be called to account once the AGM is eventually arranged as this is the standard procedure for the accounts to be presented and questions taken.
Why I believe that the majority of supporters are not particularly bothered is that firstly only a minority of supporters actually turn up to the AGM (I won't be there) and secondly those who do turn up have in the past raised very little in terms of questions about the accounts.
While people will be concerned, I doubt they will be concerned enough to use the formal route to quiz the board.
Which brings us to Stan's point that it would be nice for the board to divulge this information and my view that while agreeing that it it would be nice, until there is a groundswell of visible concern, it won't happen.

So elections to the board, AGM or Brexit.

Which will happen first?

Halley's Comet