I don't "think", I know the difference, and it's substantial.

Depends on the figures involved, and what a person considers substantial. Whether substantial or insubstantial though, it's unnecessary, which is why I agreed with your previous post.

Do you think kath turned up for 10 years and took nothing out?

mmmm, my earlier post is missing.....
So Kath & the other board members/share holders get back their invested money over a 10 year period(not sure they got all of it before selling) but do you think they took no other financial reward from the club otherwise?

In terms of the £300K 'loss', a business can offset losses against future profits, so IF AP can make FC a profitable business in future seasons he can offset the £300K plus other losses against those profits before tax. So there's a real incentive for him in more ways than one to get the negotiations in his favour financially.

You can take dividends monthly in advance of the current years accounts which then are added back into the profit & loss ,then deducted out of the final figures as a form of advance payment.

This only works if you make money!

Indeed, and as a shareholder she had every right to take dividends if the business was profitable, people really need to stop thinking Hull FC is a charitable organisation run to give them something to do on a weekend during the season.

I have no problems with any of the former shareholders taking a dividend, I do have a problem with the apparent lack of investment that was required in order to create said dividends though.

That about sums it up for me too

I'm well aware that a company shareholder can take dividends from a profitable company, however I'm pretty sure that one of our resident accountants said that Hull FC can't pay dividends due to historic losses

Kath did indeed take a salary, along the same level of Rule.

this was income she could count on, dividends weren't certain, it depended on the cash cow fans being milked.

Some of the other directors took salaries too, but she was the top dog

what were their positions?

(and if you say Doggy Style for Kath, I'll puke)

I assume we are talking Hull here and not the SMC....

Well she was chair, the others were all directing board, the shareholders.
Rule was the only non shareholder, until the other kid, Sutton or Flatman? came on board

they were board positions, not paid positions, I'd like to know what their paid positions were.

I'm not sure if you're being pedantic about something you think you know or you just don't understand, but board members can take a salary from a business the same as any other employee. I believe (and one of the accountants can confirm or deny) that because of accumulated losses, Hull FC can't pay dividends, ergo any cash kath took out must have been in the form of salary.

I'm a director of a company, shareholder and board member and I take my annual pay in the form of a salary and dividends

lol, you can come and work for me as one of my 'directors' if you like, the pay isn't great, fack all in fact...

you obviously have an axe to grind, but unfortunately you've not got an edge on it.

when you understand how business, directorships and shareholdings work, come back, and we can talk.