This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
CPFC 2010 Accounts Overdue
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
 DutchEagleJohan  Vlissingen, Netherlands 21 Jun 18 12.31pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Who is that 42 a year subscription with Rudi? Originally posted by Rudi Hedman
Is IPTV available on just normal smart tv? A lot of the football I watch is Palace away games on a paid for £42 a year quality picture on a widescreen laptop. Not too good via my Firestick but that may be my bt homehub and distance from the Firestick. I watch more games but not constantly so full tv subscriptions are not worth the money to me.
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
Rudi Hedman  Caterham 21 Jun 18 12.53pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by DutchEagleJohan
Who is that 42 a year subscription with Rudi? PM sent.
COYP |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Mstrobez 21 Jun 18 2.41pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Rudi Hedman
Is IPTV available on just normal smart tv? A lot of the football I watch is Palace away games on a paid for £42 a year quality picture on a widescreen laptop. Not too good via my Firestick but that may be my bt homehub and distance from the Firestick. I watch more games but not constantly so full tv subscriptions are not worth the money to me. Tbh Rudi I just hook my laptop up with a high speed HDMI cable and it does the job perfectly. Can’t remember seeing a smart tv option on mine, just firestick and the like.
We're the Arthur over ere! |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Brentmiester_General Front line in the battle against t... 21 Jun 18 4.03pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Rudi Hedman
PM sent. Can you pm me please Rudi. I’ve downloaded the app onto my tv but haven’t got the content.
"We love you Palace, we f@cking hate Man U, We love you Palace, we hate the brighton too, We love you Palace we play in red 'n' blue, so f@ck you, and you ... |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| DutchEagleJohan Vlissingen, Netherlands 21 Jun 18 10.35pm |
|
|---|---|
|
And duly received, cheers. Originally posted by Rudi Hedman
PM sent.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| HeathMan Purley 21 Jun 18 10.43pm |
 |
|---|---|
|
Noting that there were many good neighbour extras in the planning application, I personally would have delayed submitting accounts - if only to discourage - we are too poor to pay for lots and lots of extras - additional costs that others should be paying, until a reasonable time after planning permission was received. COYP. The fact that all our pre-season games are away (as is the Fulham game indicates a struggle to get Selhurst Park ready for the new season. SP is a master at negotiation - although sometimes felt too slow when he is bring players to Palace. COYP.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| bexleydave Barnehurst 22 Jun 18 5.07am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by HeathMan
Noting that there were many good neighbour extras in the planning application, I personally would have delayed submitting accounts - if only to discourage - we are too poor to pay for lots and lots of extras - additional costs that others should be paying, until a reasonable time after planning permission was received. COYP. The fact that all our pre-season games are away (as is the Fulham game indicates a struggle to get Selhurst Park ready for the new season. SP is a master at negotiation - although sometimes felt too slow when he is bring players to Palace. COYP. You don't actually believe any of that do you? The accounts that closed over a year ago have nothing whatsoever to with building works that don't start 'til the end of next season. We are committed to meet the infrastructure and other collateral costs that were part of our application being agreed. Who should be paying then? The council tax payers of Croydon? We've chosen to build a massive new stand and we either have the money to do that and all that it involves or we don't; your not suggesting that we now start playing the hard-up card are you?
Bexley Dave Can you hear the Brighton sing? I can't hear a ******* thing! "The most arrogant, obnoxious bunch of deluded little sun tanned, loafer wearing mummy's boys I've ever had the misfortune of having to listen to" (Burnley forum) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Midlands Eagle 22 Jun 18 5.58am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by HeathMan
SP is a master at negotiation
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| bexleydave Barnehurst 22 Jun 18 6.14am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Midlands Eagle
Edited by bexleydave (22 Jun 2018 6.18am)
Bexley Dave Can you hear the Brighton sing? I can't hear a ******* thing! "The most arrogant, obnoxious bunch of deluded little sun tanned, loafer wearing mummy's boys I've ever had the misfortune of having to listen to" (Burnley forum) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Midlands Eagle 26 Jun 18 1.40pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Interesting article in a paper / blog that I've never heard of where they claim that the delay in issuing the accounts was put down to changes in the way its accountants wanted to show internal, inter-company loans. If true I'm guessing that the auditors got their own way otherwise they wouldn't have signed off the accounts but I'm interested to know what version one was. I believe that there was a mistake in the analysis in the bit covering Parish's salary where they state:- The accounts do not reveal the name of the club’s highest paid director – it is assumed to be Parish – but it does show that they were paid £2,150,000, which is the fourth highest director remuneration in English football. Only Tottenham, Arsenal and Manchester United pay any of their directors more. Palace’s unnamed director also qualified for a contractual bonus in this financial year, though this amount was waived and reinvested in the club. I haven't rechecked the accounts but I'm sure that the £2.15m was the total fees / salary voted to Parish and I'm sure that this excessive amount which was subsequently ploughed back into the club was down to an accounting exercise rather than a lining of the back pocket. The article is here [Link]
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Ginger Pubic Wig Wickham de L'Ouest 26 Jun 18 3.09pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Midlands Eagle
Interesting article in a paper / blog that I've never heard of where they claim that the delay in issuing the accounts was put down to changes in the way its accountants wanted to show internal, inter-company loans. If true I'm guessing that the auditors got their own way otherwise they wouldn't have signed off the accounts but I'm interested to know what version one was. I believe that there was a mistake in the analysis in the bit covering Parish's salary where they state:- The accounts do not reveal the name of the club’s highest paid director – it is assumed to be Parish – but it does show that they were paid £2,150,000, which is the fourth highest director remuneration in English football. Only Tottenham, Arsenal and Manchester United pay any of their directors more. Palace’s unnamed director also qualified for a contractual bonus in this financial year, though this amount was waived and reinvested in the club. I haven't rechecked the accounts but I'm sure that the £2.15m was the total fees / salary voted to Parish and I'm sure that this excessive amount which was subsequently ploughed back into the club was down to an accounting exercise rather than a lining of the back pocket. The article is here [Link]
If you want to live in a world full of kindness, respect and love, try to show these qualities. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Midlands Eagle 26 Jun 18 3.27pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Ginger Pubic Wig
My view is that the issue was due diligence that the 3m retained deposit was a genuine third-party transaction but -- i suspect like inside croydon -- i have no inside track on that. it's just the most likely scenario my small brain can think of. I'm not so sure as that is the sort of thing that is normally sorted out with a meeting lasting no more than one hour. The two options for treatment are 1) taking it into income which increases profits and 2) putting it in creditors as an item that is possibly to be paid back, which wouldn't affect profits. Without any inside knowledge whatsoever I do think that intercompany transactions are more likely to be at the root of the delay otherwise why have such a convoluted shareholding structure
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.