And so just exactly how are you in a position to be able to reveal such inside information then? Why is what you are doing any different? You have denied being either one of the individuals directly involved, or their mouthpiece, or an ex marketing employee with a massive axe to grind. Maybe some even believe you.

I detect no perceivable difference between the activity you are engaging in, and that which you allege - and from my own experience largely wrongly - the previous board did.

You are either a puppet/pawn in this or just truly myopic, time will reveal the extent of the debt, however adding the figures up in your post (no VAT figure in there but has been put at £250k payable back in installments of £50k) then I would suggest that if you have very little income £350k is a significant amount of debt and adding the VAT figure to it, then it becomes an even more significant amount of debt

I have nothing further to add


for the moment

my biggest worry is that all the OOC players will go i know there is some out of contract that might not get a new one but there are names on there that we don't want to lose!

Bought a program, expecting to see some positive news about the finances....

Nothing!!

Same, the programme still listed Hood as our chairman ffs!

Its not his printing company that publishes it is it?

I must have had that post deleted that says I have inside information
Oh yes, your posts are fare more informative/constructive and interesting

Your own "experience" is, by definition of your showboating on behalf of the previous board and delusional subsequent offerings, largely jaundiced. You have been highly consistent in regurgitating the off-record party line and have continually been sold an absolute stinker. Your posts reaffirm that, continually.

I firmly understand that as a frequent, and some may so, excessive, poster on these boards, you have aimed to "rule" (since that is clearly the objective) by mixing half truths and untruths with elements of legalities and statutory statements.

I equally understand that you must be even more disappointed you have been fed a large number of blatant lies by the previous board, hence the need to backtrack and throw in token gesture offerings as to Hood et al being "naive" whilst been highly vociferous and vitriolic in your damnation of a review team you haven't even heard from yet.

To attempt your sniper rifle retorts at any poster who challenges your misguided beliefs, is poor form and continues to illustrate your heightened narcissism.

Thankfully, a number of posters are beginning to see through your misguidings and firmly challenged you; indeed embarrassed some of your myopic nonsense.

The point remains this; the debt level is far greater than you or most, realise and largely generated by the previous misfiring board. Whatever I write or you write doesn't change that or mitigate anybody's stance. Rather just leave those in place at the moment to do what they need to do. It's that simple.

Alternatively, you could offer your insightful services to the incumbent team?

And in all of that diatribe, in which you resort to personal attacks so one can only conclude you have little of substance to contribute, you have not in any way refuted my allegation.

The one statement of substance you make - about the "debt level" - would appear anyway to have been contradicted by the recent statements from both Coulby and Hood. The only "debts" I saw either refer to were this "six figure loan" that Coulby never expanded upon and Hood maintains was a £110k advance of Sky money, and the £250k Lease sale output tax liability. And, as regards the latter, since you accuse me of being a sycophant to the former board, I would refer you to my repeated (and unsatisfied) questions about the "black hole" that I worked out must be there and especially over VAT that was never (IMO) the club's to use and spend in the first place.

Are you SO concerned that people are seeking to understand and question what is happening, and what has happened? Why is it OK for you to engage in the activity that you seek to deride and attack others for doing, if they do not support your stance? I seek to interpret and comment on the information that is available. That is all. Why should that seemingly concern you so much that you resort to personal attacks and derision? Are you scared I might just hit close to the truth from time to time?

As for "offering my services", I have done precisely that in the past. Indeed, it has been regularly commented about on here that there are numerous people who have said they would willingly provide voluntary help to the club in their own fields of specialisation. Yet, for all the years I can remember, and under whatever administration, the club has shown pretty well no appetite for any such help - unless it came with a hard cash benefit. They have always seemed scared to death of any supporter involvement. Is it likely that the latest incarnation will be any more keen to tap into a pool of talent that may be available?

I believe the majority of posters on this forum actually see through YOU, to be honest. That has certainly been my experience from talking to people.

Bless, I can see you are a little perturbed by your use of capital letters. How endearing.

Your standpoint is based on jaundiced feeding from former directors and senior staff at the club; your views are hardly impartial and based on your deductions.

Again, you throw in semantics aligned with what a club/business statutory offerings may be, when in reality, it is simply your interpretation and not what unquestionably needs to happen as you so strongly suggest. Some would say, you deceive people with partial truths. Rarely have you 'hit' any truths on here.

The only person contradicting the level of debt, is Peter Hood. Oh and you. Understandably. Him because he was a contributing element and you, because he told you information to the contrary and, you feel a little bit let down.

As for your offer of help. Admirable. And I'm sure if you contact Stephem Coulby he may actually provide you with a listening ear. But then that wouldn't suit your hopscotching mandate on here (which you seemingly place great value in).

Interestingly, on the contrary, a growing number of posters are actually challenging your views, because, without doubt, they are neither based on fact and indeed have been proven to be wildly inaccurate. Open debate is essential to the success moving forward, what isn't needed, is your attempts at being a self appointed CEO of the Supporters.

As Coulby said, the review will explain in detail the problems that have been identified and more importantly, the plan moving forward. And that more than anything, we will all look forward to I'm sure.

Boring!!!

Just what I was going to post!! It was going through my mind whilst reading how 'boring' this is becoming and you beat me to it

People are right to challenge Adey - he is one of only a handful offering anything constructive to the debate. I notice that all you have managed to do is to seek to destruct a line of argument without offering anything constructive - any idiot can do that and it is a long way from open debate.

Before you go slagging off other members of the board, let's see what you have to offer, other than insults.

As for Adey, I have read nearly all of his posts with interest (I have read some of the more financial ones with little interest). I can see nothing in any of them where he is offering anything other than his view - doesn't look to me that he is trying to represent anybody other than himself.