If I had put money into a business as a owner and heard "customers" saying they must tell us everything about the businesses financial dealings I would be a little puzzled at why supporters think they should give out this private info. Yes, supporters could be explained some things without giving too much detail but some people think they should be told everything. The shareholders should know the detail - the customers get the shortened version. That is how it is unfortunately. Financial and business details should be kept private. That isn't nice if you are a nosey bugger but something we all have to live with or buy shares.

You could argue that at this stage of the season ST holders are not only customers but creditors of the club as well- as they have advanced their ticket money to the club in exchange for a seasons worth of thrill and spills. So to use the modern terminology ST holders are stakeholders in the business and as such entitled to a general idea of how their investment is performing. Also once filed the accounts of the business are in the public domain and can be downloaded by anyone for £1

Nah. You couldn't sensibly argue most of that at all. Whilst I definitely have an [iemotional[/i stake in the business, it ain't a cash one. I'm not a creditor as I'm not owed any money, and what I paid is no sort of "investment" at all; though i suppose I'll get to know how it's performing each time we play!

ST's are deposits, if the club decided to pull the plug now and go for a solvent liquidation before the start of the season then the ST's would be refunded - so as it stands a clear monetary obligation (creditor) on the balance sheet. Believe me the definition I have used for stakeholders is a lot narrower than that in some bodies I work with - though admittedly they mostly get lip service.

Ah good...we're getting down to semantics....everything must be lovely in our garden if there's no nitty gritty to argue about..

Yes yes, and Starbucks doesn't make a profit, that's how much notice I take of accounts. "Solvent liquidation", my arris. You know and I know that in the world we inhabit, there is zero chance of there being any such thing, and that I am never going to get a penny of that money back, ever.

The point I was trying to make though was that we as supporters are not going to get the financial details of a business we spend our money at because we are not really entitled to it. We pay our money to get into the ground - not the board room when they are discussing internal private matters. If you were one of those directors and a supporter came up to you and said "you must tell me all the financial details of the club as I am a supporter and bought my ST", what would your comment be back to that supporter?

We just have to trust the people who own the club and respect their rights to some privacy where it concerns them and not us.
I like most other people would love to know exactly what goes on but I know that as a supporter I will not be told as it is literally not my business.

The trouble is, the club has a hell of a lot of work to do in order to regain the trust of a lot of the fan base. The damage done under the end of the Caisley/Hood era with their terrible mis-management which lead the club to administration, the the Omar Khan era seemed to start out with optimism which was eroded by the loss of two of the club's brightest young players as well as a huge uproar over wages.

So we're into our 3rd lot of owners in as many years going into 2014, and it clearly seems the new owners are looking at moving the ticket sales at the club into season tickets rather than walk ups. Clearly the idea of making tonight's event a ST holder only one is to put the emphasis on the importance the club wants to put on the ST going forward.

Has anyone thought that the new regime are covering their back with the formation of a new company, in case anything unethical has gone on with the previous lot?

A few people called Mr Whitcut out on his business history on here. Then there was the whole matter of the RFL refusing him permission to run the club, seemingly AFTER it'd already been granted.

I don't know the first thing about running a business, but could this have been done on the off-chance of a sh*tstorm flying towards OK Bulls?

Yes accounts are undoubtedly boring I certainly agree with you on that, but in the Bulls accounts ST monies taken prior to the season [iare[/i creditors of the company. Sure the cash as already probably been spent but that isn't the point I was attempting to make rather that the Bulls as a company do have a formal obligation to its ST holders.

I cannot believe I am getting drawn into the technicalities of accounting for accrued income but yes you are right about where they sit in the balance sheet. The better way of looking at it is on a going concern basis rather than a liquidation basisowe the season ticket holders a service, ie the right to walk without any further payment through the turnstiles for the number of designated games (and then be entertained!?!).

So when it says in the


... it means that a refund [imight[/i be paid?

I'm confused ...

northernrelic you might have to quote my post to sort FA out, as a going concern basis it is primarily the goods/service for which the customer has prepaid that is owed not the cash.

Tin hats on!