Thommo

[Darlofan97]

So many things wrong on here. Tommo has gone and just because it’s spennymoor why the digs? Tommo has too much respect for Darlington he said he wants a change let it go. Time will tell if it’s a good move for him.
Regarding Jason Ainsley. He took the club from the 2nd division of the northern league to the national league north via 4 promotions. Remember last season he was penalty kicks away from a 5th promotion. Is his recruitment that bad? He was also on course to reach another play off battle this season.
Regardless of what you think about budgets (nobody knows they just guess) his record as a manager is unbelievable for a part time gaffer. It’s also worth noting he’s been Manager for the same club since 2007.

Given the level of funding GAS puts in to the club (not a guess, check the accounts)....

Think you have misunderstood the note to the GAS Accounts. It is not the amount of money put into the club by GAS.

The note relates to related transactions, not amount put into club.

Transactions ARE money put in to the club. Whether it be sponsorship, commercial, purchases, donations, contracts etc.

Or do you think Groves is taking this money out of the football club and subsidising GAS with this?

Spennymoor Town FC Ltd are propped up by GAS Ltd, to the tune of £600k+ last accounting year.

This is absolute next-level denial, clearly GAS are subsidising the football club (it is in black & white).

I wouldn't bother embarrassing yourself, as you so often have done in the past (remember the legal discussion around contracts which you embarrassed yourself on, then you scurried away).

That seems to be a common theme.

You clearly do not understand accounting standards.

Related transactions are not simply money put into the club. They are as they say Related transactions.

Try reading either IAS 24 or FRS 8 - depending upon which basis the accounts are prepared


Like you , I have no idea what subsidy is given by Brad Broves to Spennymoor. I do however know what the requirements of IAS 24 and FRS 8 are and I know that claiming related transactions as the figure for any subsidy is simply wrong.

I am not admitting or denying any amount of subsidy as I do not know this figure, nor is it in the accounts. You are using a figure that means something completely different as your evidence





As a hypothetical example - if the gas bill at the Brewery Field was in the name of GAS, and amounted to £1000. If Spennymoor Town paid the £1000 to GAS to pay the bill, that is a related transaction. It is not a subsidy as the football club are paying the bill.


As I said you are using a figure for something completely different as your proof of the size of subsidy.

If you know how GAS operates - you would know that they do not 'take-over' companies' energy bills and pay them on their behalf. So that example is absolute nonsense.

The black and white of it is, is that GAS entered transactions worth a huge amount with the football club. Based on this - it isn't entirely unreasonable to suggest that the football club is subsidised by GAS. Without that support, you would find it difficult to maintain your current set-up (and that's being generous).

I can only ask a direct and fair question - do you believe that the football club is being subsided by GAS or not? Your refusal to acknowledge any shred of information that would point to this is staggering, including your refusal to accept that Groves had put a "seven figure personal investment" in to the club - despite saying so himself.

[spen666]

Given the level of funding GAS puts in to the club (not a guess, check the accounts)....

Think you have misunderstood the note to the GAS Accounts. It is not the amount of money put into the club by GAS.

The note relates to related transactions, not amount put into club.

Transactions ARE money put in to the club. Whether it be sponsorship, commercial, purchases, donations, contracts etc.

Or do you think Groves is taking this money out of the football club and subsidising GAS with this?

Spennymoor Town FC Ltd are propped up by GAS Ltd, to the tune of £600k+ last accounting year.

This is absolute next-level denial, clearly GAS are subsidising the football club (it is in black & white).

I wouldn't bother embarrassing yourself, as you so often have done in the past (remember the legal discussion around contracts which you embarrassed yourself on, then you scurried away).

That seems to be a common theme.

You clearly do not understand accounting standards.

Related transactions are not simply money put into the club. They are as they say Related transactions.

Try reading either IAS 24 or FRS 8 - depending upon which basis the accounts are prepared


Like you , I have no idea what subsidy is given by Brad Broves to Spennymoor. I do however know what the requirements of IAS 24 and FRS 8 are and I know that claiming related transactions as the figure for any subsidy is simply wrong.

I am not admitting or denying any amount of subsidy as I do not know this figure, nor is it in the accounts. You are using a figure that means something completely different as your evidence





As a hypothetical example - if the gas bill at the Brewery Field was in the name of GAS, and amounted to £1000. If Spennymoor Town paid the £1000 to GAS to pay the bill, that is a related transaction. It is not a subsidy as the football club are paying the bill.


As I said you are using a figure for something completely different as your proof of the size of subsidy.

If you know how GAS operates - you would know that they do not 'take-over' companies' energy bills and pay them on their behalf. So that example is absolute nonsense.

The black and white of it is, is that GAS entered transactions worth a huge amount with the football club. Based on this - it isn't entirely unreasonable to suggest that the football club is subsidised by GAS. Without that support, you would find it difficult to maintain your current set-up (and that's being generous).

I can only ask a direct and fair question - do you believe that the football club is being subsided by GAS or not? Your refusal to acknowledge any shred of information that would point to this is staggering, including your refusal to accept that Groves had put a "seven figure personal investment" in to the club - despite saying so himself.

.

I have not said I know how GAS operate. I do however, being a Fellow of the Institute of Chartered Accountants have an understanding of the requirements of FRS8 and IAS 24 dealing with Related Transactions and what they are, which is clearly far more than you do.


Next, ask a grown up to help you look up what the word hypothetical means. I made it clear it was a hypothetical example in simple terms so that even an idiot could understand it was a hypothetical example. I obviously grossly over estimated your intelligence.


I have not commented on whether GAS subsidise Spennymoor Town FC or not. Why? Because I do not have the necessary information to answer questions on whether GAS or some other entity or entities subsidise Spennymoor Town.

Again I cannot comment on what sum if any Brad Groves has invested into Spennymoor Town because I do not know.

If you are interested in whether Spennymoor Town are subsidised, then ask an official of that club. Last time I checked i was not an official or employee. similarily, if you want to know what Brad Groves has invested, then ask him.

All I have stated is the note to the accounts dealing with related transactions is not evidence of any subsidy. That is a matter of accounting regulations and something I do have knowledge of


You are picking something that is not evidence of a subsidy or the size of it and misinterpreting it.

[Vodka_Vic]

I can't wait until Gramps and Ghost add their piece to this thread. It's gonna be a blast.

[Darlofan97]

Ah, Spen, personal attacks & a patronising tone, with little acknowledgement of the facts.

I’d do the same, but I wouldn’t want to stoop down to your level.

[Vodka_Vic]

Ah, Spen, personal attacks & a patronising tone, with little acknowledgement of the facts.

I’d do the same, but I wouldn’t want to stoop down to your level.

He sure is good at filibusting.

[Darlofan97]

Ah, Spen, personal attacks & a patronising tone, with little acknowledgement of the facts.

I’d do the same, but I wouldn’t want to stoop down to your level.

He sure is good at filibusting.

Absolutely.

A lot of guff, a lot of air, but with not actually a focus on the facts in front of him.

He would much prefer to dispute technicalities than the actual issue. Shame.

[QUAKERMAN2]

I would think there are 2 scenarios here.Employees on the payroll of GAS who also provide a service to Spenny.GAS invoices Spenny with these costs and creates a Debtor in the accounts of GAS( ie money due to them from Spenny) and a Creditor in the accounts of Spenny( money owed to GAS for these costs)
Similarly any costs relating to the football club that are processed in the accounts of GAS will reflect purely as Balance Sheet entries in GAS accounts as a Debtor due from Spennymoor FC and again as a Creditor in the accounts of Spenny.There is probably a variety of different transactions between the 2 companies but disclosure has to be shown in the respective Balance Sheets as equal and opposite entries.
Now back to proper footballing matters.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Old Git]

So many things wrong on here. Tommo has gone and just because it’s spennymoor why the digs? Tommo has too much respect for Darlington he said he wants a change let it go. Time will tell if it’s a good move for him.
Regarding Jason Ainsley. He took the club from the 2nd division of the northern league to the national league north via 4 promotions. Remember last season he was penalty kicks away from a 5th promotion. Is his recruitment that bad? He was also on course to reach another play off battle this season.
Regardless of what you think about budgets (nobody knows they just guess) his record as a manager is unbelievable for a part time gaffer. It’s also worth noting he’s been Manager for the same club since 2007.

Looks like another Spenny troll has been outed. If you want to extol the virtues of Mr Ainsley you can of course do so but I would definitely prefer AA to manage our club.

[QUAKERMAN2]

AA for me over Ainsley without a doubt.With Groves splashing the cash yet again, really hope they keep well away from Hatfield seeing as Henry has gone and Kennedy finished the season with them on loan.Until Will signs on the dotted line that is a concern and hopefully Darren Holloway’s netcafe tonight might clear this up.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Quaker85]

Spenny's approach to building a team is like when you used to play football manager games on the Spectrum, break the programming and then cheat by rewriting certain lines which give you pots of money, then go and buy a huge squad just because you can. You have to be a certain age to appreciate the analogy though.

I am of a certain age and I did play the game and I did become quite competent at programming but I never did this hack. No idea why


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LoidLucan]

Which complete numpty said this after Brad publicly admitted a seven-figure Spendy bankrolling:

"I would be interested to see where you get this from Brad has not personally put anything like that in as he has set up club finances in the way I referred to above so that the withdrawal of any sponsor won't cause the club to fail."

Fecking comedy gold from the idiot in denial who just keeps on giving.

[Vodka_Vic]

Spenny's approach to building a team is like when you used to play football manager games on the Spectrum, break the programming and then cheat by rewriting certain lines which give you pots of money, then go and buy a huge squad just because you can. You have to be a certain age to appreciate the analogy though.

I am of a certain age and I did play the game and I did become quite competent at programming but I never did this hack. No idea why


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You didn't need to because you had a subsidiary company putting the money in instead, clearly.

[Darlofan97]

Thompson received an offer he "felt that he could not turn down" according to Holloway in this evening's net-cafe. Make of that what you will.

[JasonDeVos]

Thompson received an offer he "felt that he could not turn down" according to Holloway in this evening's net-cafe. Make of that what you will.

I thought he turned down a very similar offer from us........

[PierremontQuaker03]

If Spendy were serious they would have been after Donowa.

[Darlofan97]

If Spendy were serious they would have been after Donowa.

I believe we have an option.

[Darlofan97]

Thompson received an offer he "felt that he could not turn down" according to Holloway in this evening's net-cafe. Make of that what you will.

I thought he turned down a very similar offer from us........

I think the extra 500 minutes he will get next season will have swayed it!

[Magical Quakers]

Thompson received an offer he "felt that he could not turn down" according to Holloway in this evening's net-cafe. Make of that what you will.

I thought he turned down a very similar offer from us........

Perhaps he said that there was ‘nothing’ different. Or rather there was an extra 0 difference! What is an extra 0 between friends anyway?

[theoriginalfatcat]

Spen wrote “Brad Broves” snigger...

[al_quaker]

Which complete numpty said this after Brad publicly admitted a seven-figure Spendy bankrolling:

"I would be interested to see where you get this from Brad has not personally put anything like that in as he has set up club finances in the way I referred to above so that the withdrawal of any sponsor won't cause the club to fail."

Fecking comedy gold from the idiot in denial who just keeps on giving.

I'm surprised people still engage with him after this. And then there's the social media output too

[Darlogramps]

Lovely evisceration of Spen by DarloFan97 there. Always nice to see the baldy no-nothing troll put firmly in his box.

Trouble is he’s shut him down in just a few posts. Make it go on for 20 increasingly repetitive and tedious pages and then you’ll be in my league.

One thing I’ve never understood with certain Spenny fans is why they’re so keen to deny they’re bankrolled. I don’t get it.

It’s actually more effective to just admit it, as it shuts down that line of attack much quicker. “We’re bankrolled, so what?”

There’s not actually any issue with them living beyond their means. Plenty of clubs do, and so long as Uncle Brad is happy covering the losses, then there’s not much of an issue. It only becomes an issue if Uncle Brad decides he doesn’t want to keep writing off big wads of cash each year.

The denial of this is what makes it even funnier and stranger.

[theoriginalfatcat]

Groves doesn't moan, unlike Singh.

Groves seems to enjoy his financial giving, unlike Singh.

I agree with D.G above - why don't the fans just go with it? Spenymoor punch above their weight because of the good vibes that Groves gives out, as the song says - "It's pure and simple"


Where ever you go, (I want to be there),
Whatever you do, (i'm always gonna be there),
It's pure and simple (yeah yeah)
I'll be there for you.
Pure and simple gonna be there,
Whatever it takes, (i'm gonna be there),
I swear it's true, (i'm always gonna be there),
It's pure and simple (yeah yeah)
I'll be there for you, pure and simple gonna be there. (Brad Groves on lead vocals)

[al_quaker]

One thing I’ve never understood with certain Spenny fans is why they’re so keen to deny they’re bankrolled. I don’t get it.

It’s actually more effective to just admit it, as it shuts down that line of attack much quicker. “We’re bankrolled, so what?”

There’s not actually any issue with them living beyond their means. Plenty of clubs do, and so long as Uncle Brad is happy covering the losses, then there’s not much of an issue. It only becomes an issue if Uncle Brad decides he doesn’t want to keep writing off big wads of cash each year.

The denial of this is what makes it even funnier and stranger.

This - they're far from unique in being bankrolled. The denials just make it funny. How many clubs aren't actually bankrolled one way or another? Hardly any turn an operating profit. Hartlepool are being bankrolled, but either not very well or to the level needed to compete at the top of the conference. We are bankrolled (albeit in a different and more sustainable way, in my opinion at least). They're fortunate in that they seem to have a good benefactor at the moment, but as we and countless others have seen bad owners can come along very quickly.

[Vodka_Vic]

The denial occurs on social media as well, despite Brad saying publicly he's already put a 7 figure sum into the club. Their website recently claimed to have offered Thommo a 'similar deal' to us when there are enough people who know this wasn't the case. Add to this the recent falsehoods posted during the collapsed fence incident and they are getting very good at rewriting history. Definitely a benign dictatorship model going on there.
As for Spen, does he really think that he's going to even convince one person of the fake news that Brad's company has nothing to do whatsoever with the finances of Spennymoor? Who is he actually trying to convince?

[loan_star]

One thing I’ve never understood with certain Spenny fans is why they’re so keen to deny they’re bankrolled. I don’t get it.

It’s actually more effective to just admit it, as it shuts down that line of attack much quicker. “We’re bankrolled, so what?”

There’s not actually any issue with them living beyond their means. Plenty of clubs do, and so long as Uncle Brad is happy covering the losses, then there’s not much of an issue. It only becomes an issue if Uncle Brad decides he doesn’t want to keep writing off big wads of cash each year.

The denial of this is what makes it even funnier and stranger.

This - they're far from unique in being bankrolled. The denials just make it funny. How many clubs aren't actually bankrolled one way or another? Hardly any turn an operating profit. Hartlepool are being bankrolled, but either not very well or to the level needed to compete at the top of the conference. We are bankrolled (albeit in a different and more sustainable way, in my opinion at least). They're fortunate in that they seem to have a good benefactor at the moment, but as we and countless others have seen bad owners can come along very quickly.

Hartlepool fans always used to bang on about how they were being run sustainably under IOR despite the fact that they were bankrolled to the tune of circa £12m during their ownership of the club. Ever since that rug has been pulled they have continued hemorrhaging money into a bottomless pit trying to keep afloat.
Now we see Spenny fans thinking they are run sustainably, exactly how the chimps thought so too, and it will be interesting to see what would happen should Groves ever do an IOR and decide he cant afford to subsidise the club any longer.

[al_quaker]

One thing I’ve never understood with certain Spenny fans is why they’re so keen to deny they’re bankrolled. I don’t get it.

It’s actually more effective to just admit it, as it shuts down that line of attack much quicker. “We’re bankrolled, so what?”

There’s not actually any issue with them living beyond their means. Plenty of clubs do, and so long as Uncle Brad is happy covering the losses, then there’s not much of an issue. It only becomes an issue if Uncle Brad decides he doesn’t want to keep writing off big wads of cash each year.

The denial of this is what makes it even funnier and stranger.

This - they're far from unique in being bankrolled. The denials just make it funny. How many clubs aren't actually bankrolled one way or another? Hardly any turn an operating profit. Hartlepool are being bankrolled, but either not very well or to the level needed to compete at the top of the conference. We are bankrolled (albeit in a different and more sustainable way, in my opinion at least). They're fortunate in that they seem to have a good benefactor at the moment, but as we and countless others have seen bad owners can come along very quickly.

Hartlepool fans always used to bang on about how they were being run sustainably under IOR despite the fact that they were bankrolled to the tune of circa £12m during their ownership of the club. Ever since that rug has been pulled they have continued hemorrhaging money into a bottomless pit trying to keep afloat.
Now we see Spenny fans thinking they are run sustainably, exactly how the chimps thought so too, and it will be interesting to see what would happen should Groves ever do an IOR and decide he cant afford to subsidise the club any longer.

Yes - Hartlepool and IOR were in my mind when I was writing that!

'Well run' in football seems to actually mean 'losing loads of money but things are going well on the pitch and the owner is happy to suck up the losses at the moment'. What a funny business.

[QUAKERMAN2]

The denial occurs on social media as well, despite Brad saying publicly he's already put a 7 figure sum into the club. Their website recently claimed to have offered Thommo a 'similar deal' to us when there are enough people who know this wasn't the case. Add to this the recent falsehoods posted during the collapsed fence incident and they are getting very good at rewriting history. Definitely a benign dictatorship model going on there.
As for Spen, does he really think that he's going to even convince one person of the fake news that Brad's company has nothing to do whatsoever with the finances of Spennymoor? Who is he actually trying to convince?

What was actually stated in the accounts Adam, was it Spenny accounts or GAS?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Beano]

I have literally no issue with Brad Groves, or GAS, who have invested a significant amount of time, money and effort into transforming Spennymoor from Northern League club with no infrastructure to a club with a burgeoning academy, growing fanbase and is widely acknowledged to well run behind the scenes; fair play to Brad Groves as he knows he'll never get the money back and is clearly passionate about his club and area.

The bit I find utterly bizarre is the denials from Spennymoor fans that this is the case. They wouldn't even be competing for the Northern League title without his support!

[spen666]

The denial occurs on social media as well, despite Brad saying publicly he's already put a 7 figure sum into the club. Their website recently claimed to have offered Thommo a 'similar deal' to us when there are enough people who know this wasn't the case. Add to this the recent falsehoods posted during the collapsed fence incident and they are getting very good at rewriting history. Definitely a benign dictatorship model going on there.
As for Spen, does he really think that he's going to even convince one person of the fake news that Brad's company has nothing to do whatsoever with the finances of Spennymoor? Who is he actually trying to convince?

I have not denied or admitted anything about the funding of Spennymoor because I do not know either way. They may well be subsidised by GAS, by Brad or by any other entity. I do not have inside knowledge of the accounts. Similarly with Darlington, I have no more information as to the source of their income other than what is published as the boost the budget total

What I have said here is that the Note to GAS' accounts relating to related transactions is something that is required by the relevant accounting standards and is not the figure of any subsidy, if indeed GAS subsidise Spennymoor.

[lo36789]

have not denied or admitted anything about the funding of Spennymoor because I do not know either way. They may well be subsidised by GAS, by Brad or by any other entity.

If you don't know then Baldrick has more cunning deduction skills than you do.

What was Brad's £1million + input into the club if not subsidising it? Or are you suggesting its a balance that is held in the club accounts to this date...but wait no the clubs accounts don't declare assets anywhere near that value...so it must have been spent...