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.spen666 wrote: ↑Wed May 20, 2020 2:49 pmDarlofan97 wrote: ↑Wed May 20, 2020 2:24 pmTransactions ARE money put in to the club. Whether it be sponsorship, commercial, purchases, donations, contracts etc.spen666 wrote: ↑Wed May 20, 2020 1:55 pmThink you have misunderstood the note to the GAS Accounts. It is not the amount of money put into the club by GAS.Darlofan97 wrote: ↑Wed May 20, 2020 1:26 pmGiven the level of funding GAS puts in to the club (not a guess, check the accounts)....Shed7 wrote: ↑Wed May 20, 2020 12:52 pmSo 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.
The note relates to related transactions, not amount put into club.
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.
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.