Value For Money

[Bud the Baker]

1 hour ago, bazil85 said:

I’ll ask you to the next funeral if I feel it’s getting a bit too cheery...

You may have tried pointing that out before but it doesn’t make it true.

We known you're one for thriving on negativity. To the point you got very frustrated when positive aspects broke about subjects such as the income from the two stand arrangement.  

It's my opinion and one that's been made by many others, like I say it's just a tactic to define yourself as positive and anyone who disagrees with you as negative. I can play it too - we known (sic) you're one for thriving on sycophancy!

I wasn't frustrated on the two stands issue (see what I did there?) although it was clear to see you were with your double flip on the subject and your increasingly hysterical denial of this. As far as I'm concerned the issue was put to bed by GLS in his April Statement and all will be confirmed when the 2018/19 Financial Report is published in Nov/Dec. 10% of the player budget - LMFAO!

Take away the tactics and there's nothing of substance in the bulk of your posts.

 

Edited September 14, 2019 by Bud the Baker

[bazil85]

1 hour ago, Bud the Baker said:

It's my opinion and one that's been made by many others, like I say it's just a tactic to define yourself as positive and anyone who disagrees with you as negative. I can play it too - we known (sic) you're one for thriving on sycophancy!

I wasn't frustrated on the two stands issue (see what I did there?) although it was clear to see you were with your double flip on the subject and your increasingly hysterical denial of this. As far as I'm concerned the issue was put to bed by GLS in his April Statement and all will be confirmed when the 2018/19 Financial Report is published in Nov/Dec. 10% of the player budget - LMFAO!

Take away the tactics and there's nothing of substance in the bulk of your posts.

 

What I take away from that is you still think GLS lied (and now David Nicol by extension) & some how accounts that in previous years haven’t separate out individual match income will prove it. You’ll be in for a shock when that either doesn’t happen or backs up GLS. 

You cant accept you were wrong about the income & are desperately hanging onto a serious of very unlikely events that will one day prove you right. LMFAO

I made positive from a situation no one wants at our club & appreciate the silver lining in a six figure, 10% player budget increasing income.

It can be your opinion that my positivity is excessive but my opinion is that stems from your complete lack of wanting any positivity around the club you ‘support’ 

[Bud the Baker]

1 hour ago, bazil85 said:

What I take away from that is you still think GLS lied (and now David Nicol by extension) & some how accounts that in previous years haven’t separate out individual match income will prove it. You’ll be in for a shock when that either doesn’t happen or backs up GLS. 

You cant accept you were wrong about the income & are desperately hanging onto a serious of very unlikely events that will one day prove you right. LMFAO

I made positive from a situation no one wants at our club & appreciate the silver lining in a six figure, 10% player budget increasing income.

It can be your opinion that my positivity is excessive but my opinion is that stems from your complete lack of wanting any positivity around the club you ‘support’ 

No I said he was spinning the facts I made that distinction clear on a number of occasions - another one of your tactics is misrepresenting what people have actually posted.

I don't believe I'm wrong and I'm confident my POV will be shown to the more credible when the accounts  for 2018/19 are published.

You're positivity in misnamed and repeating it doesn't make it true it's sycophancy, you clearly desire recognition as the sites uberfan although why you want this title is beyond me . 

It's taken three posts to get to the us repeating the same old arguments but I'll restate my position you're not a positive poster and come November it'll be clear even your  inflated estimate will be shown up for the servile, shameless, sycophantic, spin it is, which is most definitely not the same as "support" - just another juvenile debating tactic!. 

PS - You forgot to deny the double-flip on this issue, clearly something Freudian going on! 

 

 

Edited September 14, 2019 by Bud the Baker

[smcc]

2 hours ago, bazil85 said:

What I take away from that is you still think GLS lied (and now David Nicol by extension) & some how accounts that in previous years haven’t separate out individual match income will prove it. You’ll be in for a shock when that either doesn’t happen or backs up GLS. 

You cant accept you were wrong about the income & are desperately hanging onto a serious of very unlikely events that will one day prove you right. LMFAO

I made positive from a situation no one wants at our club & appreciate the silver lining in a six figure, 10% player budget increasing income.

It can be your opinion that my positivity is excessive but my opinion is that stems from your complete lack of wanting any positivity around the club you ‘support’ 

 

43 minutes ago, Bud the Baker said:

No I said he was spinning the facts I made that distinction clear on a number of occasions - another one of your tactics is misrepresenting what people have actually posted.

I don't believe I'm wrong and I'm confident my POV will be shown to the more credible when the accounts  for 2018/19 are published.

You're positivity in misnamed and repeating it doesn't make it true it's sycophancy, you clearly desire recognition as the sites uberfan although why you want this title is beyond me . 

It's taken three posts to get to the us repeating the same old arguments but I'll restate my position you're not a positive poster and come November it'll be clear even your  inflated estimate will be shown up for the servile, shameless, sycophantic, spin it is, which is most definitely not the same as "support" - just another juvenile debating tactic!. 

PS - You forgot to deny the double-flip on this issue, clearly something Freudian going on! 

 

 

Now, now children! Stop throwing your toys out of the pram!

[bazil85]

37 minutes ago, Bud the Baker said:

No I said he was spinning the facts I made that distinction clear on a number of occasions - another one of your tactics is misrepresenting what people have actually posted.

I don't believe I'm wrong and I'm confident my POV will be shown to the more credible when the accounts  for 2018/19 are published.

You're positivity in misnamed and repeating it doesn't make it true it's sycophancy, you clearly desire recognition as the sites uberfan although why you want this title is beyond me . 

It's taken three posts to get to the us repeating the same old arguments but I'll restate my position you're not a positive poster and come November it'll be clear even your  inflated estimate will be shown up for the servile, shameless, sycophantic, spin it is, which is most definitely not the same as "support" - just another juvenile debating tactic!. 

PS - You forgot to deny the double-flip on this issue, clearly something Freudian going on! 

 

 

GLS has said it was worth a 10% increase to our player budget. DN has since said that’s a six figure sum. It’s either truth or lies. You using the word ‘spinning’ does not change the fact you think he’s lying  

You can think the accounts will bring a conclusion to this point. I don’t see how given they won’t likely break down our crowd income to individual games & the income will obviously be much higher anyway than when we were in the a championship. So I don’t see at all how you think that’ll work. Perhaps you can enlighten me? 

That’s where we differ though, I have trust in individuals with full access to our accounts & no clear reason to lie, you don’t.  

I have no idea what you mean by ‘double flipped’ seems like more nonsense. 

[Bud the Baker]

Just now, smcc said:

 

Now, now children! Stop throwing your toys out of the pram!

It's what the site's for - keeping mentally unstable dudes like Baz & me off the streets!

[BuddieinEK]

Now, now children! Stop throwing your toys out of the pram!

I feel as if I've somehow been done!
I do not engage with a particular poster any more... Yet I still see all the same shite being posted on a regular basis!
[emoji25][emoji25][emoji25]

[Bud the Baker]

1 hour ago, bazil85 said:

GLS has said it was worth a 10% increase to our player budget. DN has since said that’s a six figure sum. It’s either truth or lies. You using the word ‘spinning’ does not change the fact you think he’s lying  

You can think the accounts will bring a conclusion to this point. I don’t see how given they won’t likely break down our crowd income to individual games & the income will obviously be much higher anyway than when we were in the a championship. So I don’t see at all how you think that’ll work. Perhaps you can enlighten me? 

That’s where we differ though, I have trust in individuals with full access to our accounts & no clear reason to lie, you don’t.  

I have no idea what you mean by ‘double flipped’ seems like more nonsense. 

Are you really that naïve? The Chairman's April Statement doesn't seem to be available any longer but IIRC even you admitted GLSs calculation was based on 1 stand vs 2 and not factoring in the OF fans previously in the West Stand so yet again I say his figure and hence DNs will be inflated to put a positive spin on the situation. It's really not uncommon in real life for people to disagree over what figures are relevant - I don't see why you need to persevere with this hysterical over-reaction.

The relevant figure in the Accounts won't be Income but Wages.  It won't be detailed but the overall wages figure for 2017/18 when we were in the Championship in 2017/18 was over £2M and it'll obviously be higher for 2018/19 it'll then come down to how we interpret what proportion of that will be player budget so obviously this argument will go on forever. 

Your last statement about not knowing what I meant by "double flipped" baffles me, back in April you went from 2 Stands to 1 Stand plus W7 then shamelessly back to 2 Stands after GLSs statement, are you saying you don't remember? Whatever - I'll speak to you again in November when we can continue to interpret the figures differently. 

Edited September 14, 2019 by Bud the Baker

[bazil85]

1 hour ago, Bud the Baker said:

Are you really that naïve? The Chairman's April Statement doesn't seem to be available any longer but IIRC even you admitted GLSs calculation was based on 1 stand vs 2 and not factoring in the OF fans previously in the West Stand so yet again I say his figure and hence DNs will be inflated to put a positive spin on the situation. It's really not uncommon in real life for people to disagree over what figures are relevant - I don't see why you need to persevere with this hysterical over-reaction.

The relevant figure in the Accounts won't be Income but Wages.  It won't be detailed but the overall wages figure for 2017/18 when we were in the Championship in 2017/18 was over £2M and it'll obviously be higher for 2018/19 it'll then come down to how we interpret what proportion of that will be player budget so obviously this argument will go on forever. 

Your last statement about not knowing what I meant by "double flipped" baffles me, back in April you went from 2 Stands to 1 Stand plus W7 then shamelessly back to 2 Stands after GLSs statement, are you saying you don't remember? Whatever - I'll speak to you again in November when we can continue to interpret the figures differently. 

1. They archived all news recently before late June. You will Struggle to find any news stories on new website layout before then. To think this has absolutely anything to do with the April statement is tinfoil hat stuff 

2. David Nicol confirmed it was a six figure sum very recently on Twitter. This would tie into 10% increase 

3. Yep it’s likely one stand vs two. Or another way to put it what we do for two teams vs the other nine. The most logical way to compare given they didn’t want W6/7 as an option & it wasn’t a format this board have ever used. 

4. So are you now saying you don’t disagree with the 10% increase based on one stand vs two, you disagree on using that format & think we should use the one stand plus W6/7 comparison? If that’s the case we could have put this to bed months ago 

5. Eh your player budget figure analysis makes absolutely zero sense. You have no idea & it won’t be in the accounts what the budget would have been if they didn’t do the two stand arrangement. It won’t be correlated to the previous season in a different division. Oh you’re in for a disappointment. Fortunately we know it was a 10%  increase because someone with full access to the accounts that makes the decisions told us. 

6. Your last paragraph is desperation of the highest order and I challenge you to go back and show where I’ve changed my mind (you won’t be able to). My view is, has and always will be one stand vs two is the most sensible comparison. I did provide other rough figures based on the old arrangement to show my take on if it was done that way but never once said I think that arrangement is the best comparison or the one that’s likely been used. 

Good effort from you again though but you’re still in the list of people that have been unable to show any ‘double flipping’ if that’s what we’re now calling it on my part. 

[Kombibuddie]

1 hour ago, bazil85 said:

. Good effort from you again though but you’re still in the list of people that have been unable to show any ‘double flipping’ if that’s what we’re now calling it on my part. 

Groundhog Day

North & South v North & West

No need for anymore to be said  

[BuddieinEK]

Groundhog Day
North & South v North & West
No need for anymore to be said  

No need. Yes.
But... ...

[bazil85]

6 hours ago, Kombibuddie said:

Groundhog Day

North & South v North & West

No need for anymore to be said  

Mind that time he who shall not be named broke out agreement several times? Let’s see if anyone is willing to call it out?... 

[Kombibuddie]

5 hours ago, bazil85 said:

Mind that time he who shall not be named broke out agreement several times? Let’s see if anyone is willing to call it out?... 

forget the Enigma codebreakers. Anyone??

[slapsalmon]

19 hours ago, bazil85 said:

 

5. Eh your player budget figure analysis makes absolutely zero sense. You have no idea & it won’t be in the accounts what the budget would have been if they didn’t do the two stand arrangement. It won’t be correlated to the previous season in a different division. Oh you’re in for a disappointment. Fortunately we know it was a 10%  increase because someone with full access to the accounts that makes the decisions told us. 

 

If 10% of what the accounts say the wage budget is,turns out to be more than the sum that could be made from the ammount of seats available sold at full price then it'll show that the arrangement couldn't have given a 10% increase.

 

If 10% is 250k for example then it can't all have been made up by giving away the stand. 

[bazil85]

1 hour ago, slapsalmon said:

If 10% of what the accounts say the wage budget is,turns out to be more than the sum that could be made from the ammount of seats available sold at full price then it'll show that the arrangement couldn't have given a 10% increase.

 

If 10% is 250k for example then it can't all have been made up by giving away the stand. 

I don’t think it’s very likely our wage budget will be in the region of 2.5 million. Last season a rough estimate based on this would put us in at a wee bit over 1 million, consistent with ‘six figure sum’ and ‘10% increase’ quoted. 

[Kombibuddie]

1 hour ago, bazil85 said:

I don’t think it’s very likely our wage budget will be in the region of 2.5 million. Last season a rough estimate based on this would put us in at a wee bit over 1 million, consistent with ‘six figure sum’ and ‘10% increase’ quoted. 

Our wage bill for players is nowhere near £2million either.

Last year £1,913,176 was paid in wages to 77 staff. 43 were players. How much of that was for the 43 & how much for the 34 is anyone's guess.

We'll see at the AGM

 

 

[bazil85]

41 minutes ago, Kombibuddie said:

Our wage bill for players is nowhere near £2million either.

Last year £1,913,176 was paid in wages to 77 staff. 43 were players. How much of that was for the 43 & how much for the 34 is anyone's guess.

We'll see at the AGM

 

 

It’s a tricky one, there will be some decent hitting staff wages but I imagine the majority is players.

So yeah nowhere near £2 million which is why I’m still stumped that people think GLS will be proven wrong when the accounts come out. 

[Kombibuddie]

I th

It’s a tricky one, there will be some decent hitting staff wages but I imagine the majority is players.
So yeah nowhere near £2 million which is why I’m still stumped that people think GLS will be proven wrong when the accounts come out. 

Only way will be for a shareholder to ask the treasurer/accountant the question outright when the accounts are being presented.
That is information the company i expect, will have at hand for such an important meeting.

[bazil85]

26 minutes ago, Kombibuddie said:

I th

Only way will be for a shareholder to ask the treasurer/accountant the question outright when the accounts are being presented.
That is information the company i expect, will have at hand for such an important meeting.

Not sure what the point in that will be. It’s 10% which is a six figure sum. Been confirmed now by two people sitting on the BOD. 

Not sure why people think they’ll hear any different or continually push that GLS & now David Nicol are liars. If the accountant confirms it will people finally accept it or will he be a liar as well? 

[BuddieinEK]

I take it we don't actually bother with threads as such nowadays, as despite repeated attempts to get back on subject here, it is just like almost every other one with the same tired old shite being regurgitated.

Try again...

I had the pleasure of signing up the other day.

Three attempts before my password was deemed strong enough!

Guaranteed I'll forget it when I try to log in.

Also, it wanted to link with Google, Facebook etc.

I'm always very wary of doing that.

What are the advantages from my side?

Still think the ongoing expenditure is excessive.

[Bud the Baker]

5 hours ago, Kombibuddie said:

 Our wage bill for players is nowhere near £2million either.

Last year £1,913,176 was paid in wages to 77 staff. 43 were players. How much of that was for the 43 & how much for the 34 is anyone's guess.

We'll see at the AGM

 

 

If you add Social Security & Pension Costs the figure comes to £2,074,240 - and this was for the Championship. 

Back in April before Baz did his second flip Baz reckoned the additional income generated was £54,000.

10% of player budget - LMFAO!

Edited September 15, 2019 by Bud the Baker

[bazil85]

1 hour ago, Bud the Baker said:

If you add Social Security & Pension Costs the figure comes to £2,074,240 - and this was for the Championship. 

Back in April before Baz did his second flip Baz reckoned the additional income generated was £54,000.

10% of player budget - LMFAO!

You’ve now pretty much admitted that your issue with the 10% increase is not the finances of it, it’s the comparisons.

I have always thought one stand vs two was the most appropriate comparison & given my opinion on different ones doesn’t change that. I know you not being able to show a inconsistency On my part pains you but that’s life  

Actually seems to me you’re the one doing some back tracking around this subject based on the above. but at least it’s given you an out when you were shown to be wrong in your earlier claims it wouldn’t be a significant amount of money. 

The pitiful attempt to ramp up the wage bill because you cant admit when you’re wrong is so laughable it doesn’t deserve any more of my attention. 

[Bud the Baker]

47 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

You’ve now pretty much admitted that your issue with the 10% increase is not the finances of it, it’s the comparisons.

I have always thought one stand vs two was the most appropriate comparison & given my opinion on different ones doesn’t change that. I know you not being able to show a inconsistency On my part pains you but that’s life  

Actually seems to me you’re the one doing some back tracking around this subject based on the above. but at least it’s given you an out when you were shown to be wrong in your earlier claims it wouldn’t be a significant amount of money. 

The pitiful attempt to ramp up the wage bill because you cant admit when you’re wrong is so laughable it doesn’t deserve any more of my attention. 

Take it up with the people who provided the figures - that'll be the club and, erm, yourself flipper85! 

This is what you said back in April when you accepted that the OF fans previously seated in the West Stand should be taken into account - note the lack of any disclaimers. It turns out I can show inconsistency on your part.  It's just one of the many scenarios you invented then before your shameless second flip! 

Quote

The difference in tickets available is roughly 900. I didn’t think they had fully sold out (someone suggested they had but didn’t provide evidence of this) but for ease let’s assume they did. 

900 fans X 3 games X £20 (reduced as an estimate for concessions) £54,000. Minus the expenses I have previously quoted and given our average player wage, the money would likely cover their wages until end of the season 

turns out I wasn’t 

That's two players for half a season. 10% of player budget - LMFAO! 

Edited September 15, 2019 by Bud the Baker

[bazil85]

1 hour ago, Bud the Baker said:

Take it up with the people who provided the figures - that'll be the club and, erm, yourself flipper85! 

This is what you said back in April when you accepted that the OF fans previously seated in the West Stand should be taken into account - note the lack of any disclaimers. It turns out I can show inconsistency on your part.  It's just one of the many scenarios you invented then before your shameless second flip! 

That's two players for half a season. 10% of player budget - LMFAO! 

You said ‘when you accepted’ can you point out which part of that quote is an acceptance that one stand vs two isn’t the best approach in my opinion? 

What an effort from you going way back to get that... As I have said all along my opinion is one stand vs two is the most suitable. Me given a view on other versions does not change that. 

You’ve yet again completely failed in an attempt to show where I have back tracked, lied or spun. Good effort, you’ll maybe get me one day but it ain’t today. 

GLS confirmed it was a 10% increase to the player budget. You can call him a liar all you want but I choose to believe someone with full access to our accounts & no clear benefit to gain from lying thanks. 

[Bud the Baker]

1 hour ago, bazil85 said:

You said ‘when you accepted’ can you point out which part of that quote is an acceptance that one stand vs two isn’t the best approach in my opinion? 

What an effort from you going way back to get that... As I have said all along my opinion is one stand vs two is the most suitable. Me given a view on other versions does not change that. 

You’ve yet again completely failed in an attempt to show where I have back tracked, lied or spun. Good effort, you’ll maybe get me one day but it ain’t today. 

GLS confirmed it was a 10% increase to the player budget. You can call him a liar all you want but I choose to believe someone with full access to our accounts & no clear benefit to gain from lying thanks. 

That post is shameful!

You're the liar and you've been caught lying about your double flip for five months now - it's implicit in the post because you don't say otherwise.

GLS is trying to spin his way out of an unpopular decision (that's his "benefit") which would be easier for him if you didn't keep highlighting the issue. If you genuinely had the best interests of the club at heart, you'd slink away and let this issue die.

Edited September 15, 2019 by Bud the Baker