Akkeron Hotels Group goes into administration

Yea Man wrote:

Han Solos Other Ship wrote:

Someone on the farm posted this link:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Minus 8 million......

So on that link, Brent doesn't have a pot to piss in let alone millions to re-build the ministand   

No, no, no, no, no, no, no!

It doesn't tell you anything at all about Brent or his wad, he didn't even come on to the board until 13th Dec last.

This snapshot doesn't tell you jack, it still shows them as a good credit risk, FFS stop reading shiite into shiite because it suits the received ATD mantra..

Person Of Interest wrote:

We are feking smug because the freaks and wierdos on this site have been right all along, again, and a feking gain..

And that is your problem, you managed to spot the shark swimming around in a pond full of giraffes and you think you are clever.

Lord Tisdale wrote:

.......

No, no, no, no, no, no, no!

It doesn't tell you anything at all about Brent or his wad, he didn't even come on to the board until 13th Dec last.

This snapshot doesn't tell you jack, it still shows them as a good credit risk, FFS stop reading shiite into shiite because it suits the received ATD mantra..

With my very limited understanding, I thought the same. We need advice from a real businessman/accountant before conclusions are leapt at.

Lord Tisdale wrote:

Person Of Interest wrote:

We are feking smug because the freaks and wierdos on this site have been right all along, again, and a feking gain..

And that is your problem, you managed to spot the shark swimming around in a pond full of giraffes and you think you are clever.

Not as clever as a swimming giraffe. Where can I see this happen?

knecht wrote:

Lord Tisdale wrote:

.......

No, no, no, no, no, no, no!

It doesn't tell you anything at all about Brent or his wad, he didn't even come on to the board until 13th Dec last.

This snapshot doesn't tell you jack, it still shows them as a good credit risk, FFS stop reading shiite into shiite because it suits the received ATD mantra..

With my very limited understanding, I thought the same. We need advice from a real businessman/accountant before conclusions are leapt at.

WTF is a "real businessman/accountant"?

Your "very limited understanding" is quite probably more than enough to be able to understand the SoP as long as you can work out that you will never be privy to the information you need to make a proper analysis of the situation, just bear in mind that Brent and Nikk are the sharks in the pond and that riding on their backs is probably a safer place to be than trying to retrieve detritus from their gnashers, they are very unlikely to have the best interests of the club as their primary, secondary, or any other level of motivation, they have got money and they are in the game to make more money, the caveat to also accept would be that without one or other of them you might well be in even deeper poo by now.

Odd how football clubs seem to act as a magnet for such febrile Suitage, until you consider the land and cash floating around footy.

Person Of Interest wrote:

Lord Tisdale wrote:

Person Of Interest wrote:

We are feking smug because the freaks and wierdos on this site have been right all along, again, and a feking gain..

And that is your problem, you managed to spot the shark swimming around in a pond full of giraffes and you think you are clever.

Not as clever as a swimming giraffe. Where can I see this happen?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


ps. I should point out that I never in fact suggested that the giraffes were likely to be doing anything more than appearing on a menu.

Person Of Interest wrote:

Lord Tisdale wrote:

Person Of Interest wrote:

We are feking smug because the freaks and wierdos on this site have been right all along, again, and a feking gain..

And that is your problem, you managed to spot the shark swimming around in a pond full of giraffes and you think you are clever.

Not as clever as a swimming giraffe. Where can I see this happen?

 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

so if minus 8 million tells nothing, another company with a plus 8 million net worth would be no better off than Akkeron using the Tisdale theory.

Lord Tisdale wrote:

knecht wrote:

Lord Tisdale wrote:

.......

No, no, no, no, no, no, no!

It doesn't tell you anything at all about Brent or his wad, he didn't even come on to the board until 13th Dec last.

This snapshot doesn't tell you jack, it still shows them as a good credit risk, FFS stop reading shiite into shiite because it suits the received ATD mantra..

With my very limited understanding, I thought the same. We need advice from a real businessman/accountant before conclusions are leapt at.

WTF is a "real businessman/accountant"?

.....

Someone with the knowledge to know what they're talking about. Unlike your inestimable self, I don't claim to be an expert on everything I post on. That's one of the problems with this internet thingy or conversations stood up at the bar with a pint in hand.

PatDunne wrote:

so if minus 8 million tells nothing, another company with a plus 8 million net worth would be no better off than Akkeron using the Tisdale theory.

It is possible for me to have an overdraft on my current account whilst having substantial savings, investments & capital elsewhere. I assume that applies to people dealing with monopoly money as well.

AFC Argyooo ftw.

Has this surge up the table been an aim at promotion, or an attempt to create a buffer between ourselves and relegation?

knecht wrote:

PatDunne wrote:

so if minus 8 million tells nothing, another company with a plus 8 million net worth would be no better off than Akkeron using the Tisdale theory.

It is possible for me to have an overdraft on my current account whilst having substantial savings, investments & capital elsewhere. I assume that applies to people dealing with monopoly money as well.

Always best to pay off your debts unless the interest being earnt by savings/investments outways the debt interest, so many people have ISA's earning 1-3% and credit card debt at 18% but not me, or Brenty one would hope.

Do recent developments mean there's a chance the ministand won't go ahead? I do hope so.

Pafcintheplace wrote:

Do recent developments mean there's a chance the ministand won't go ahead? I do hope so.

If I was a betting man, I would put a few quid on the whole freakin HHP malarky collapsing around Mr Brents ears.

Lord Tisdale wrote:

[ Brent and Nikk are the sharks in the pond
and that riding on their backs is probably a safer place to be than trying to retrieve detritus from their gnashers,

Nonsense, that's just squire love and "the man in the big house is a giant" claptrap.
You'll probably turn to God one day, he's a REAL giant  
People rise, people fall, so do sharks. I do wonder sometimes just where your lack of self esteem comes from.
You can't have won many personal battles with that sort of attitude.

Winter Green wrote:

Lord Tisdale wrote:

[ Brent and Nikk are the sharks in the pond
and that riding on their backs is probably a safer place to be than trying to retrieve detritus from their gnashers,

Nonsense, that's just squire love and "the man in the big house is a giant" claptrap.
You'll probably turn to God one day, he's a REAL giant  
People rise, people fall, so do sharks. I do wonder sometimes just where your lack of self esteem comes from.
You can't have won many personal battles with that sort of attitude.

No offence like, but you strike me as being a very strange man.

PatDunne wrote:

so if minus 8 million tells nothing, another company with a plus 8 million net worth would be no better off than Akkeron using the Tisdale theory.

It does really hurt me to come on here you know.

Whereas the quoted figures do actually tell you next to nothing, my point was, and I have to say it was a pretty bleddy obvious point at that, that the figures quoted bore no actual relationship to Brent's personal worth.

Ltd companies come and go all the time whereas the Suits that run them are always with us and generally are not involved in the humped creditors bracket. Neither I, you, nor the rest of the English speaking world can possibly know how this impacts upon Harry P or his future plans, let's face it the cream of the world's accountants gave Enron a clean bill of health just weeks before it went bust owing billions and they got to see all the accounts not this little tit bit.

I really wish some of you people would actually read things, then when you think you've understood them ask a twelve year old whether you are right or not before you post drivel.

Lord Tisdale makes a vaild point.

PatDunne wrote:

Always best to pay off your debts unless the interest being earnt by savings/investments outways the debt interest, so many people have ISA's earning 1-3% and credit card debt at 18% but not me, or Brenty one would hope.

No it isn't "Always best", not if you are a Limited Co. being used as a vehicle to achieve summat a bit skanky, then it's best to allow your debts to accumulate as much interest as possible before you go bust and write them off.

Have you no inkling whatsoever of how these people operate?

Person Of Interest wrote:

Pafcintheplace wrote:

Do recent developments mean there's a chance the ministand won't go ahead? I do hope so.

If I was a betting man, I would put a few quid on the whole freakin HHP malarky collapsing around Mr Brents ears.

That would be amusing  

  

Angry wrote:

Lord Tisdale makes a vaild point.

Why thank you Angry, but it has to be said that none of this is rocket science.

So now there is a very big chance that the whole Dungheap that is HHP may never see the light of day, and JB takes a hike.

Cause in itself to crack open a few cold ones.

I guess Tudor and his cronies must be sweating a bit all those lovely re development plans for the civic centre and pavillions sitting on his desk let alone H.P.

Oh My !!!!

I'm not entirely clear how all this works with multiple different companies, but is this the gist of it?

1) One particular arm of the Akkeron empire has racked up a load of debts
2) Rather than the larger company (i.e. the rest of Akkeron) paying off those debts, the company has just been stuck in administration and the taxpayer is going to pick up the tab.
3) The rest of Akkeron is free to carry on doing whatever work it pleases despite 2)
4) Akkeron could theoretically shovel PAFC into a separate company, and then send us into administration, while walking away from the debt?