I see Wakey will be £100,000 better off soon, and no need to sell Brough because they are doing a share issue.

Maybe we coud strenghten our squad even more, maybe raise a transfer fee for that (fit) WORLD CLASS injection we need........

What happened to our share issue Kath?

Steady HKC the Media police will be paying you a visit.... good question though

We operated at a profit last season, and we spend full cap. A £100k share issue would have little effect on squad strengthening.

I'm also slightly puzzled as to why you would want to put more money in Kath's pocket than you already do.

The profit goes in Kaths pocket.

A share issue would be for a specific use, transfer fee, training facility etc. It would also take some of the club back to the fans.....

Nearly an hour to click quote, you are slipping Kosh old boy

You always ask other people for proof... where's yours for this obviously untrue statement.

Give Kath the 3.8 million she wants for the Club.
Her and Gary need the money to buy out Caddick at Leeds.

Indeed. And the other board members I would imagine.


How would you ensure that the money raised through a share issue was spent where you wanted it to be? You'd have no more control over it than any other spending that the club does.

And £100k = 100k shares. That's not enough to have any control over what the club does, even if they were voting shares (and they almost certainly wouldn't be) and you could get all those shareholders to agree.


Contrary to popular opinion, I do actually have a life outside this forum.

How about the fact that we've been pinged twice for going over it?

Due to Crocker's non-arrival we'll be under cap this season, but up until now we've been at or close to it. We just don't spend it well.

What a load of tosh. The profit goes towards reducing FC's negative Profit reserves. It's illegal for a company with negative reserves to pay a dividend so neither Kath, who is a minority shareholder, nor the other shareholders who collectively own 70%, will be putting the profit in their pockets.

It's illegal to pay dividends with no profit (technically) "reserves" are irrelevant

But we are turning a profit, and directors are still sat on £70k pa salary.

Oh and the debt, thats with the directors anyway.

I think they call it a win win situation

It is illegal to pay a dividend if a company has no positive retained earnings. Our retained earnings are negative to the tune of £1.5m.




Each? We have 8 directors. Are saying they take £560k out of the business in salaries?




They should and will get interest on their loans to the club. If it weren't for them there would be no club - they have invested their own cash and are entitled to a return.

Having gone thrugh the last set of accounts I was just wondering if you would explain the £70,000 per annum salary that the Directors get, Thanks!

I think I call that total bollox.

Of course they are. The question I would like to know is are we making inroads into these 'debts' or loans?

Not accusing the club of anything but ive seen instances before at sporting clubs where directors receive generous interest payments on loans supplied to clubs that they run. They made sure that these loans were not paid off in order keep the interest payments at a decent level.

Our overall level of debt is reducing. Last accounts showed £1.7m in total, was £2.4m three years ago. Don't know what proportion of this is/was owed to directors though as the accounts don't show it.

was 2% over base rate wasnt it, i do hoep the interest dropped now the base rate is at an all time low

If I were a director I'd be looking to be repaid as quickly as possible rather than spinning it out. I can think of much safer investments than a professional rugby team. It would be easy to get a better return too.

Some people should shut up spouting about things they don't understand

Should make a profit again this year, what with the savings on Crocker, paying out Byrne, no CC fine to pay. At this rate the club will be debt free by 2030

I konw, Kath would have much more than that

Kath and Rule both on salary in excess of £70k

so back to the share issue.

Many people say on here "right, no Crocker, lets go BUY someone, spend on a fee and get the best" I agree with this. But how is it funded?

The £130k pa that Crocker would be on is a salary, not a transfer fee, so if player X came along and wanted to come here but his club wanted £100k, how could we fund it?

Will the shareholders shell out? NO

Does the club have a "pot" "resverved profits"? NO, as established in recent posts.

Do we have property we can mortgage? NO

so a share issue might just give us that break we need.......

The £100k transfer fee would count on the cap. We plan to spend virtually up to the cap anyway, but obviously have Crocker's salary to play with, so this freed up money should be used. But it would have to be a player already in SL to be any use this season and how many clubs would be willing at this stage to free up a marquee player for £100k?

Transfer fees on the cap? Are you sure? I'll give you a clue, it's called the salary cap

No, but it's been said on here before that it's the case, so it must be true.

Brilliant... does that mean we can sign players with massive sign-on fees and then pay them £1 a week salary?