Farhad Moshiri

[GwladysPhil]

He hasn't. His targets are the people below him for the most part. On Moshiri, I think he just wonders out loud what the overall plan is, and sees a lot of drift. A legitimate response to what's happening, imo.

No, he's one hundred percent passively criticising Moshris financial decisions, when he has no insight what so ever in his long term strategy.

It's sad to see you using Esk as a backing focal to criticise the "carpet bagger" Dave, and loses more credibility to your standpoint against the ownership.

 

[davek]

Haha we're not though are we. You see most news papers have to do research and due diligence before they print stuff. They can't just go round spreading lies and roumors as if it were fact. You know like you do and you are proven wrong time and time again.

I don't care if you've just found the esk Twitter account and decided to use it as more ammunition against the club. A fool passing off false information that he read off Twitter by another fool who's ideas come half from near facts and the other half from guesses.

It's not converted into equity. That's the substance. The rest is just you flapping your gums.

 

[davek]

No, he's one hundred percent passively criticising Moshris financial decisions, when he has no insight what so ever in his long term strategy.

It's sad to see you using Esk as a backing focal to criticise the "carpet bagger" Dave, and loses more credibility to your standpoint against the ownership.

That's subjective. How can you determine passive aggression off a blog?

There's a difference between criticism and critique: one is just venting, the other is constructive.

Yes, he's critiqued the stadium capacity. But that shouldn't be taken and inflated to a rupture between him and the Moshiri project, which I think he's still on board with...broadly.

It's healthy to remain objective and not completely sold on an organisation/individual. His analysis is all the better for it.

 

[Billysgingham.]

He hasn't. His targets are the people below him for the most part. On Moshiri, I think he just wonders out loud what the overall plan is, and sees a lot of drift. A legitimate response to what's happening, imo.

Mate you are seeing what you what to see he has been ripping him for months, he is an absolute horror.

 

[Azza]

davek obviously had the day off today.

 

[GwladysPhil]

That's subjective. How can you determine passive aggression off a blog?

There's a difference between criticism and critique: one is just venting, the other is constructive.

Yes, he's critiqued the stadium capacity. But that shouldn't be taken and inflated to a rupture between him and the Moshiri project, which I think he's still on board with...broadly.

It's healthy to remain objective and not completely sold on an organisation/individual. His analysis is all the better for it.

He's done a complete u turn on how he reviews the current regime because it will get him more click and attention to further boost his name. I'm not going into how many intricate details he's manipulated to portray the running of the club in a bad light I simply can't be bothered anymore.

You can use the term passive for other ways, I didn't use it with aggressively.

 

[CRIMHEAD]

It's not converted into equity. That's the substance. The rest is just you flapping your gums.

Its sitting as equity in the statements. This isn't some subjective opinion. Its fact.

 

[Bluewolf]

It's not converted into equity. That's the substance. The rest is just you flapping your gums.

Show me proof it hasn't then? Oh wait you can't because you are yet again chatting absolute bubbles.

I've shown you proof it has.

You calling anyone else out for flapping their gums is hilarious, litraly hilarious.

 

[davek]

He's done a complete u turn on how he reviews the current regime because it will get him more click and attention to further boost his name. I'm not going into how many intricate details he's manipulated to portray the running of the club in a bad light I simply can't be bothered anymore.

You can use the term passive for other ways, I didn't use it with aggressively.

I know what's clouded the issue on the esk: first summer here for Moshiri and the no-show of players/manage/DoF said to be on their way.

Ask yourself this thiugh: who was feeding that guff to the esk - who was passing it on in good faith?

He's wiser for the experience, bit apparently others who criticise him are now.

"There's no Juan Mata, booooooooo!!!"

 

[indieman1]

Its sitting as equity in the statements. This isn't some subjective opinion. Its fact.

Aye but Dave's basic point remains. The auditors may have agreed to that classification for disclosure purposes but the underlying legal form of the arrangement remains that of a loan. It's not a true conversation to equity (shares) as most would understand it and doesn't undermine in any way the point Neiler was making earlier in the thread which is that Moshiri can now formally undo this presentational slight of hand at any stage he fancies.

I view that as rather a moot point compared to the predicted losses being mentioned.

We are about to report the largest loss in this club's history by a country mile. Short of something exceptional cropping up, it will be followed by something similarly frightening the year after and quite probably the year after that too.

We've moved on from being a club that needed the input of a wealthy owner in order to progress and have now almost attained the unenviable status of being a club that needs an annual input from a wealthy owner in order to avoid going into administration.

It's understandable that people aren't entirely comfortable with this scenario given what we have seen play out at other clubs.

 

[mrb85]

Is 55k not the hinted at final figure?

The only official figure I have ever heard of was 52,000.

 

[davek]

Aye but Dave's basic point remains. The auditors may have agreed to that classification for disclosure purposes but the underlying legal form of the arrangement remains that of a loan. It's not a true conversation to equity (shares) as most would understand it and doesn't undermine in any way the point Neiler was making earlier in the thread which is that Moshiri can now formally undo this presentational slight of hand at any stage he fancies.

I view that as rather a moot point compared to the predicted losses being mentioned.

We are about to report the largest loss in this club's history by a country mile. Short of something exceptional cropping up, it will be followed by something similarly frightening the year after and quite probably the year after that too.

We've moved on from being a club that needed the input of a wealthy owner in order to progress and have now almost attained the unenviable status of being a club that needs an annual input from a wealthy owner in order to avoid going into administration.

It's understandable that people aren't entirely comfortable with this scenario given what we have seen play out at other clubs.

Exactly: "treated as equity".

 

[CRIMHEAD]

Aye but Dave's basic point remains. The auditors may have agreed to that classification for disclosure purposes but the underlying legal form of the arrangement remains that of a loan. It's not a true conversation to equity (shares) as most would understand it and doesn't undermine in any way the point Neiler was making earlier in the thread which is that Moshiri can now formally undo this presentational slight of hand at any stage he fancies.

I view that as rather a moot point compared to the predicted losses being mentioned.

We are about to report the largest loss in this club's history by a country mile. Short of something exceptional cropping up, it will be followed by something similarly frightening the year after and quite probably the year after that too.

We've moved on from being a club that needed the input of a wealthy owner in order to progress and have now almost attained the unenviable status of being a club that needs an annual input from a wealthy owner in order to avoid going into administration.

It's understandable that people aren't entirely comfortable with this scenario given what we have seen play out at other clubs.

Whoa. The categorization does matter if the club is ever getting external financing. So you can forget that happening if we build the stadium. I doubt that 60M credit facility would be alive or at least paid out first. Its not that easy.

 

[CRIMHEAD]

Exactly: "treated as equity".

You have no idea what that even means. Its obvious you know nothing about accounting or finance so just stick to what you know please.

 

[Lloyd-Christmas]

Are we realistically in that much of a better position than under Kenwright

The league places have stayed the same (top 10), And honestly the playing staff could be argued are worse than what Martinez had when Bill was Chairman, Lukaku/Stones/Del/Barry/Barkley

Wages are through the roof and will be at breaking point after we bring in 4/5 players this summer topped with the fact that we are hamstrung with players not likely to attract any attention from clubs

The stadium for me is and also has been pie in the sky, There is no chance we are going to find 400m+ to build a new ground on the docks