An existential crisis at our club

[Grecian2K]

Is it true that even the kids who went for free were queuing up for a refund after the match?

 

[whatsagrecianern]

But that doesn't work though. If you say you've had 3,000 in and only 2,000 actually turned up then you're telling HMRC that your revenue is £20k higher for that match than it actually was. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to multiply attendance by ticket price to come up with a reasonable income stream. Plus they won't be telling HMRC that the club's revenue was 'x' and that's it, there will be a breakdown of how those figures were achieved and if HMRC think something fishy's going on then they'll be examining all those figures. Why, for the sake of supposedly saving face, would you risk a full blown tax audit?

I would expect the revenues to be broken down in the accounts of course and these are audited and presented to HMRC in terms of the appropriate tax return.

It's not as simple as multiplying 3486 x Y is it?

The attendance matters in PR terms as they hide the decline at the club - would love to see the corresponding match day revenues

 

[whatsagrecianern]

Is it true that even the kids who went for free were queuing up for a refund after the match?

No - their childminders were on their behalf

 

[paperclip]

While you make some good points in your opening post, you're very wrong about this. Neither the club, nor the Trust, said any such thing. Rather one individual, who voted in favour of the motion, mooted this as a possibility.

For what it's worth, Taggy said the club's league position was 'unacceptable' and, this being the case, the club board had met with the manager five times in the last three months.

Well, assuming that our league position and performances were actually discussed in these 5 meetings, they don't seem to have had the desired effect. I really can't imagine that Tagg laid it on the line to his good mate.

 

[Antony Moxey]

I would expect the revenues to be broken down in the accounts of course and these are audited and presented to HMRC in terms of the appropriate tax return.

It's not as simple as multiplying 3486 x Y is it?

The attendance matters in PR terms as they hide the decline at the club - would love to see the corresponding match day revenues

Very true, it's not that simple. However my point is why invite the questions when there's no need to? If HMRC get a sniff they'll be all over it - why give them the opportunity?

 

[whatsagrecianern]

Very true, it's not that simple. However my point is why invite the questions when there's no need to? If HMRC get a sniff they'll be all over it - why give them the opportunity?

Because they have nothing to hide from HMRC as the revenue will be accurate but all to gain by inflating attendance figures to give the impression fans are sticking with the club and continue to "believe" in the Tagg Tisdale project/ suicide mission

 

[denzel]

Well, assuming that our league position and performances were actually discussed in these 5 meetings, they don't seem to have had the desired effect. I really can't imagine that Tagg laid it on the line to his good mate.

JT: "Well Paul, our league position isn't very good. What are you going to do about it? "
PT: "Try to win some games, Julian"
JT: "Good man, pass the wine please"

 

[Banksy]

While you make some good points in your opening post, you're very wrong about this. Neither the club, nor the Trust, said any such thing. Rather one individual, who voted in favour of the motion, mooted this as a possibility.

For what it's worth, Taggy said the club's league position was 'unacceptable' and, this being the case, the club board had met with the manager five times in the last three months.

Obviously doing a lot of good isn't it , will they still be meeting with him when relegation is confirmed with half a dozen games left?
I think all these characters will still be bleeding the club dry at the bitter end.

 

[Alistair20000]

JT: "Well Paul, our league position isn't very good. What are you going to do about it? "
PT: "Try to win some games, Julian"
JT: "Good man, pass the whisky please"

Pretty well right (clap) but one correction made based on my sauces.

 

[whatsagrecianern]

"5 times in the last three months"? They make this sound radical... Considering the club's league position a couple of meetings should have been enough to come to a conclusion...I guess we can look forward to another 15 meetings over the next nine months with the same outcome.

The point is in any other business let alone any other football club a manager with such continued under performance against agreed targets would be subject to a formal performance management process - this would allow for either an improved performance or the managed departure of said manager.

The fact this relationship is based on being mates, and the alternative universe which is SJP is based on banter and grown men calling each other by ridiculous nick names is at the root of this problem.

We're meant to be a professional club with professional standards throughout the business - the fact that there hasn't been is going to cost us heavily with the double whammy of relegation and paying off a ridiculous contract come what may.

Frankly you couldn't make it up !!