Tangerine_Ultra wrote:

I totally back the Fed 100% on this. We can't just bury our heads in the sand like the majority of our support is doing and think everything is fine when it really isn't.

My head is far from buried but I'm also not just going to follow the federation blindly like a sheep.

blackandtangerine wrote:

Creme Tangerine wrote:

sorry you are correct, the fed or trust never directly leaked contract details but it was certainly hinted at which led to press speculation forcing a statement from the club. The jist is that this statement led to a series of events unfolding which has led to a major breakdown in trust and communication between the board and the fan's reps. Work needs done on both sides to mend this and I don't think cheap digs about the chairman's whereabout's will help in mending the rift

"Firstly, we were shocked to find out that a huge amount of ‘commission’ has been paid to unnamed parties from the sale of 4 players – Gauld, Robertson, Armstrong and Mackay-Steven. We believe this figure to be in excess of £500k. This does not include payments to players, agents or other clubs. When all of these various payments are totalled, over 25% of the £6.3m in fees received has not been kept in the club."

The Chairman told us the managers contract. Then after our statement David Southern confirmed it in clubs follow up statement. Old news.

According to the BBC, the chairman told you confidentially. It may be 'Old news'  but the point is that the above statement soured the relatonship between the club and the fans and the new dig at ST being in Oz in the current statement only adds fuel to the flames. If you want answers from the club, I think a change of tact is needed.

Morphman wrote:

Creme Tangerine wrote:

sorry you are correct, the fed or trust never directly leaked contract details but it was certainly hinted at which led to press speculation forcing a statement from the club. The jist is that this statement led to a series of events unfolding which has led to a major breakdown in trust and communication between the board and the fan's reps. Work needs done on both sides to mend this and I don't think cheap digs about the chairman's whereabout's will help in mending the rift

"Firstly, we were shocked to find out that a huge amount of ‘commission’ has been paid to unnamed parties from the sale of 4 players – Gauld, Robertson, Armstrong and Mackay-Steven. We believe this figure to be in excess of £500k. This does not include payments to players, agents or other clubs. When all of these various payments are totalled, over 25% of the £6.3m in fees received has not been kept in the club."

I thought that was the whole point of Arabtrust to voice the view of fans? If the Trust/fed had known of 500k+ going out the club in the former of "commission" to unnamed parties and not made it public eh for one would've been cancelling my membership.

We've all seen what happens when clubs fans don't question owners or finances. Take a look at rangers, hearts or the fun for example. It might've caused unrest but I'd rather that than a club facing "unforeseen" financial problems in a few years time.

All authority should be questioned, particularly in football, and the Trust/Fed done the right thing, even if the timing when first statement was released wasn't great.

The fans don't need to know the ins and out though of everything and the 'unnamed party' wasn't some dodgy person loan shark or whatever lurking in the shadows, it was our manager who had the clause in his contract as an instentive to play and develop young players so they could be sold for the long term benefit of the club. It's a much better model than the one that got us into all the debt in the first place (signing expensive journeymen for short term gain which would only add to the debt). 

You made me laugh compairing us to the Admin 3. We have been continauly servicing and reducing our debt under the current model and whilst not all the income has gone directly to clear the debt and some still remains, it's hardly comperable to the 25 millon debt the dees ranked up, or the situations the buns and tarts found themselves in.
 

Creme Tangerine wrote:

Morphman wrote:

Creme Tangerine wrote:

sorry you are correct, the fed or trust never directly leaked contract details but it was certainly hinted at which led to press speculation forcing a statement from the club. The jist is that this statement led to a series of events unfolding which has led to a major breakdown in trust and communication between the board and the fan's reps. Work needs done on both sides to mend this and I don't think cheap digs about the chairman's whereabout's will help in mending the rift

"Firstly, we were shocked to find out that a huge amount of ‘commission’ has been paid to unnamed parties from the sale of 4 players – Gauld, Robertson, Armstrong and Mackay-Steven. We believe this figure to be in excess of £500k. This does not include payments to players, agents or other clubs. When all of these various payments are totalled, over 25% of the £6.3m in fees received has not been kept in the club."

I thought that was the whole point of Arabtrust to voice the view of fans? If the Trust/fed had known of 500k+ going out the club in the former of "commission" to unnamed parties and not made it public eh for one would've been cancelling my membership.

We've all seen what happens when clubs fans don't question owners or finances. Take a look at rangers, hearts or the fun for example. It might've caused unrest but I'd rather that than a club facing "unforeseen" financial problems in a few years time.

All authority should be questioned, particularly in football, and the Trust/Fed done the right thing, even if the timing when first statement was released wasn't great.

The fans don't need to know the ins and out though of everything and the 'unnamed party' wasn't some dodgy person loan shark or whatever lurking in the shadows, it was our manager who had the clause in his contract as an instentive to play and develop young players so they could be sold for the long term benefit of the club. It's a much better model than the one that got us into all the debt in the first place (signing expensive journeymen for short term gain which would only add to the debt). 

You made me laugh compairing us to the Admin 3. We have been continauly servicing and reducing our debt under the current model and whilst not all the income has gone directly to clear the debt and some still remains, it's hardly comperable to the 25 millon debt the dees ranked up, or the situations the buns and tarts found themselves in.
 

 
The fans don't need to know?? Of course we need to know, we've been continually reminded of our debt by ST and the club from the day he took over, and our fans have accepted his methods since. To say we don't need to know or care about finances now the debt has been lowered / removed from the bank is absolute ignorance.

Also at the time it wasn't clear that it was Jackie, purely rumours, and given ST's interest in a small debt ridden club at the other side of the globe the fan's had every right to know who was getting that 500k.

II'm glad it made you laugh, remember that it was 3m ish debt that put Rangers out of business, they won "the big tax case". It was the smaller case, at a similar level of debt to ourselves that put the nail in the coffin for them. It is comparable not because of level of debt, more that fans were assured all was well by the men who were in charge at the time until the bubble eventually burst. I'm glad the fed /trust had the foresight to make sure that didn't happen and continue to make sure questions are asked.

Last edited by Morphman (18/8/2015 4:00 pm)

Creme Tangerine wrote:

Morphman wrote:

Creme Tangerine wrote:

The fans don't need to know the ins and out though of everything and the 'unnamed party' wasn't some dodgy person loan shark or whatever lurking in the shadows, it was our manager who had the clause in his contract as an instentive to play and develop young players so they could be sold for the long term benefit of the club. It's a much better model than the one that got us into all the debt in the first place (signing expensive journeymen for short term gain which would only add to the debt). 

You made me laugh compairing us to the Admin 3. We have been continauly servicing and reducing our debt under the current model and whilst not all the income has gone directly to clear the debt and some still remains, it's hardly comperable to the 25 millon debt the dees ranked up, or the situations the buns and tarts found themselves in.
 

 
The fans don't need to know?? Of course we need to know, we've been continually reminded of our debt by ST and the club from the day he took over, and our fans have accepted his methods since. To say we don't need to know or care about finances now the debt has been lowered / removed from the bank is absolute ignorance.

Also at the time it wasn't clear that it was Jackie, purely rumours, and given ST's interest in a small debt ridden club at the other side of the globe the fan's had every right to know who was getting that 500k.

II'm glad it made you laugh, remember that it was 3m ish debt that put Rangers out of business, they won "the big tax case". It was the smaller case, at a similar level of debt to ourselves that put the nail in the coffin for them. It is comparable not because of level of debt, more that fans were assured all was well by the men who were in charge at the time until the bubble eventually burst. I'm glad the fed /trust had the foresight to make sure that didn't happen and continue to make sure questions are asked.

Unlike these other clubs, we have been paying out taxes and have seen nothing to suggest we wont continue to.

I do agree that transperancy is required but that doesn't mean the club disclosing confidential contracual information. We also publish our finances so all is clear to see anyway.....
 

It didn't say in the club's finances where the money went. That's why we questioned it.
 

huntedbyafreak wrote:

Statement has further divided fans.

Doubt that was the intention but that's what it has done.

What is the end game here?

For Jackie and his 3 amigo's to walk.

Tangerine_Ultra wrote:

huntedbyafreak wrote:

Statement has further divided fans.

Doubt that was the intention but that's what it has done.

What is the end game here?

For Jackie and his 3 amigo's to walk.

They aren't mentioned in statement though. I doubt this will stop if Jackie and his management squad go.
 

I don't feel like the statement should be taken as polarizing at all.  It's obvious which side of the argument the fed falls on, same as mine.  But the statement itself is fairly well reasoned. We didn't learn anything we didn't already know but in the absence of statement from the club, I'd expect them to be compelled to push for answers fron the club on behalf of their members who I'd expect, are rightly concerned.

Although I'm not part of the Fed, I obviously stand with their point of view on this.  Taking a step back as objectively as I can, this statement really shouldn't cause anyone any grief unless they have an axe to grind with the fed.

Foo Kin Twat wrote:

TheShed wrote:

blackandtangerine wrote:

No.
 

 
Getting the feeling from that that there's a breakdown in the relationship to some extent between the 2 bodies, given the previous joint statements. 

Looks like nobody can agree on anything just now.

Found this pic last night from the Derby and thought of the caption, "Can anyone see an end to all this shit?"  I can see Silver and myself - anyone else in it?


 

Awful lot of balding United fans. We most have a higher ratio than other clubs
 

Last edited by huntedbyafreak (18/8/2015 5:40 pm)

I have no problem with most of the statement, I don't think its a great one, as it reeks of frustration and trying to appease annoyed supporters, rather than being written in a way to try and get some constructive feedback from the club, but there are questions which need answering, and the club's (ST's) huff with the fans reps has to stop, as it is doing nobody any good.

I am surprised that anybody is surprised over the lack of discussion over finances after the perceived (whether true or not...) breaking of trust earlier this year...it was obvious the club were going to stop divulging info.  Nobody has a right to get inside Financial Information...they were previously getting some of that because ST chose to...that seems to have given people a sense of "entitlement" to this info now.

Also one last point, if he is not divulging financial info now, how do people know "We can't afford to be losing money the way we are.  It's not sustainable."

 

Last edited by geegee (18/8/2015 5:52 pm)

blackandtangerine wrote:

Creme Tangerine wrote:

blackandtangerine wrote:

It didn't say in the club's finances where the money went. That's why we questioned it.
 

It didn't state where the money went because it was confidential. Are you saying the federation were oblivous to where the money was going? The rumour mill was in full swing well before the statments from either the fed or the club was released and I'm sure the club was well aware of this based on the chat on forums and facebook etc. 

Anyway, I've sidetracked from my inital point which is that the federation AND the club should be trying to bridge the gap from the previous fall out, not widening it.
 

We have asked for meetings but chairman says he won't talk about finances. Therefore there will be no meetings unless he changes his mind. All we want is honest answers to questions we have. We can't afford to be losing money the way we are. It's not sustainable.
 

were the fed already aware that the undisclosed cut of the fee was going to JM before the initail statement? Maybe I'm maybe murking my timelines but was this not in the letter the fed recived from their unnamed source which prompted the statement in the first place?

Last edited by Creme Tangerine (18/8/2015 6:09 pm)

Creme Tangerine wrote:

blackandtangerine wrote:

Creme Tangerine wrote:

It didn't state where the money went because it was confidential. Are you saying the federation were oblivous to where the money was going? The rumour mill was in full swing well before the statments from either the fed or the club was released and I'm sure the club was well aware of this based on the chat on forums and facebook etc. 

Anyway, I've sidetracked from my inital point which is that the federation AND the club should be trying to bridge the gap from the previous fall out, not widening it.
 

We have asked for meetings but chairman says he won't talk about finances. Therefore there will be no meetings unless he changes his mind. All we want is honest answers to questions we have. We can't afford to be losing money the way we are. It's not sustainable.
 

were the fed already aware that the undisclosed cut of the fee was going to JM before the initail statement? Maybe I'm maybe murking my timelines but was this not in the letter the fed recived from their unnamed source which prompted the statement in the first place?

 statement came after the meeting with Thompson Robertson and southern.
We had info money was going to the manager but nothing definite until it was confirmed.

RRDH wrote:

Creme Tangerine wrote:

RRDH wrote:

I don't feel like the statement should be taken as polarizing at all. It's obvious which side of the argument the fed falls on, same as mine. But the statement itself is fairly well reasoned. We didn't learn anything we didn't already know but in the absence of statement from the club, I'd expect them to be compelled to push for answers fron the club on behalf of their members who I'd expect, are rightly concerned.

Although I'm not part of the Fed, I obviously stand with their point of view on this. Taking a step back as objectively as I can, this statement really shouldn't cause anyone any grief unless they have an axe to grind with the fed.

The club can't say anything past what they did. They have to abide within the law.

I've no axe to grind, I've been a member of the fed since day one and like them, I want what is best for the team I love and that is why I am willing to scrutinise all sides of the argument 

Creme, wasnt aimed at you pal, hadnt actually read your posts at the time.  Just seeing a lot of sentiment (mainly on another forum) against the Fed for the above statement.  Think thats in large part because people still have issues with them blowing the whistle in Feb/March.
 

I can understand why though because if the fed already knew that JM was getting a cut and wanted to whistle blow, surely they knew the uncertainty this would cause and that it would put JM in a very difficult situation and would mean in times like this after a run of poor form, the support are less likley to be forgiving. You can see how this can be interpreted.