Amberexile wrote: September 11th, 2023, 11:04 am
Bangitintrnet wrote: September 11th, 2023, 10:51 am
Amberexile wrote: September 11th, 2023, 10:33 am
None of the directors who brought us to this position should be allowed to stay on the board. They should have held elections before doing this but they have proven themselves to be ineffective and should step down ASAP.
49% of the shares being owned elsewhere is meaningless. The new owner will have a majority on the board where all the decisions are made. They may allow one or two trust members onto their board but that will be lip service with no influence.
Once we have given the club away that is it. We may be lucky, we may pick Sherman 2.0, we could pick an absolute rogue who empties the bank account and absconds. I wouldn't trust people who can't explain how they lost £1.2million in a year to choose well when they won't even publish their criteria.
They appear to be in a panic and I don't trust that good decisions will be made. Perhaps they will open up the selection process so that members can make a sensible choice bit they give no indication of doing so.
So basically where we disagree is that you believe 1.2 million has been lost, and shouldn't have been spent.
I believe that the director's in charge when that sum was accumulated, have quite reasonably spent it on supporting a manager in twice getting to the playoffs.
You believe that we should throw away the experience gained by the Co opted directors, and simply try to sell the club for as much money as possible, but that money should go back pro rata to the existing fan shareholders.
It that correct?
OK let's take it step by step.
The £1.2 million, some money should have been accounted for in the previous accounts which included covid. Now I don't have your interest in accounting but I do recognise things that help to reveal a bigger story that the one day slice that annual accounts provide.
Now the Carlisle accounts give details on specifically covid related losses for them, and also covid income such as ifollow income when the grounds were shut. So someone interested in accounts can cross-reference our accounts to see were there are similar incoming covid payments, and work out the rough deficit that had to come out of our cup winnings.
Also the trust had to make assumptions relating to finance, like all clubs, a time that was unexpected and the future income unpredictable.
RP was closed for sport, but being rented by the NHS as a covid centre. The WRU provided a number of sites for the NHS, and they wouldn't have done that without very good recompense, same as PPE providers etc.
Now before the WRU owned RP, it held the security helicopters and security staff, for the countries attending the G7 summit at the Celtic Manor in 2014. That would have been big pay days for RP. So using the cabbage patch, already had established a big price tag, before the NHS agreement with the WRU.
Say the operations manager at RP sat down with our directors, and said look we don't know what the WRU will make out of this deal, but as you are not using RP it will obviously reduce your rental payments eventually, or will pay for the installation of the new pitch. The trust then continue to pay rental and/or fund the pitch, in the belief that it will be refunded in time.
However later, the WRU say to RP, we are keeping the money, you lose £800k a year, why should we give you even more?
Now I don't know if that definitely happened. But it wouldn't supprise me if something similar, was just a part of unexpected sums, that came out of the wrong pot, and were then not replaced, as expected, in the following years accounts. It's the sort of thing that happens in unpredictable times.
We like Morecombe, assumed we had an advantage over clubs with worried parents, and went for it financially, on the basis that we believed that some of the spending would be replaced.........