|
|
Post by dohnut on Oct 15, 2024 18:39:31 GMT
When talking about percentages it needs to be clear exactly what those increases apply to. For example 10% when looking at the whole playing staff but 18% for money put aside for new players. Fair point. I believe both Nigel & Marshall referred to the “ playing budget” but you are right that they could be comparing apples and pears as they say. Still illustrates the point about ambiguity in the messaging though. Highlights the need to be clear on what figures represent. The opportunity for confusion is real. For all I know they may just have differing views of the same thing. I’m just guessing like everyone else. It would surprise me if they had such a vast difference if talking about the same thing. |
|
|
|
Post by mayland0s on Oct 15, 2024 20:15:45 GMT
The trouble is mrb is a social media believer and I think like a lot of others you believe what you want to believe . What do you believe maylandO? I don’t have to believe anything , everything is beyond my control , there’s sod all you can do unless you have some control inside the club . |
|
|
|
Post by Thor on Oct 15, 2024 20:43:39 GMT
Fair point. I believe both Nigel & Marshall referred to the “ playing budget” but you are right that they could be comparing apples and pears as they say. Still illustrates the point about ambiguity in the messaging though. Highlights the need to be clear on what figures represent. The opportunity for confusion is real. For all I know they may just have differing views of the same thing. I’m just guessing like everyone else. It would surprise me if they had such a vast difference if talking about the same thing. could be the playing budget went up 10% but the football budget went up 18% which accounts for Richies pay rise and the new coaches arrival? The keeper coach and Matt's replacement. That could be real? |
|
|
|
Post by eca on Oct 16, 2024 3:13:06 GMT
I acknowledge the sincerity and genuine fan NT displays .
Based on NT interview on the club site he mentioned how others complimented him on how well the financials are at lofc. He then mentioned the only “debt” is what he and others have against them or similar words.
Does that mean the directors “debt” is actually reimbursed to them when new suitable investor(s) purchase the majority of the lofc shares from each current director.
If that is the case does NT investment “debts” attract some contract commercial interest - if that was the case the “debts” should really be called loans.
Alternatively.
Has the NT investments and other director's “debts” just been called a gift - where they see orient as an exciting hobby (in NT case) or sports relaxing pastime to keep them occupied. - where the sums are considerable but as a proportion of their individual wealth acceptable to them individually.
I know in the UK a loss can be offset to other business that made a gain. I know in the USA one can depreciate a domestic house mortgage unlike the uk as an example of how tax is dealt differently there. As the Uk and USA tax laws are different, I don’t know what proportion of their investment can be offset - I assume it relates to whether the “debts” are called commercial investments i.e. loans or just gifts.
|
|
|
|
Post by buffalobill on Oct 16, 2024 7:50:32 GMT
Interesting bit for me is outsourcing of the investment to a company which normally deals with bigger clubs.
If that isn’t spin, then it’s a big coup for Nigel and the rest and indicates that we are potentially a desirable product for outside investment.
The ground issue is the big thing for investors and when he mentions 3 years, I’m guessing that is the timescale to get us to outline planning stage.
If so then we have well and truly started the ball rolling and the council must have given a pretty strong indication that they are happy with the proposed site.
|
|
|
|
Post by dohnut on Oct 16, 2024 8:26:23 GMT
Highlights the need to be clear on what figures represent. The opportunity for confusion is real. For all I know they may just have differing views of the same thing. I’m just guessing like everyone else. It would surprise me if they had such a vast difference if talking about the same thing. could be the playing budget went up 10% but the football budget went up 18% which accounts for Richies pay rise and the new coaches arrival? The keeper coach and Matt's replacement. That could be real? For sure. Could be all sorts of valid reasons why two figures have been quoted for what initially appears the same reason, but on closer inspection are not. 👍 |
|
|
|
Post by dohnut on Oct 16, 2024 8:34:16 GMT
I acknowledge the sincerity and genuine fan NT displays . Based on NT interview on the club site he mentioned how others complimented him on how well the financials are at lofc. He then mentioned the only “debt” is what he and others have against them or similar words. Does that mean the directors “debt” is actually reimbursed to them when new suitable investor(s) purchase the majority of the lofc shares from each current director. If that is the case does NT investment “debts” attract some contract commercial interest - if that was the case the “debts” should really be called loans. Alternatively. Has the NT investments and other director's “debts” just been called a gift - where they see orient as an exciting hobby (in NT case) or sports relaxing pastime to keep them occupied. - where the sums are considerable but as a proportion of their individual wealth acceptable to them individually. I know in the UK a loss can be offset to other business that made a gain. I know in the USA one can depreciate a domestic house mortgage unlike the uk as an example of how tax is dealt differently there. As the Uk and USA tax laws are different, I don’t know what proportion of their investment can be offset - I assume it relates to whether the “debts” are called commercial investments i.e. loans or just gifts. It’s not unreasonable to assume the Directors will receive compensation for the sale of their shares (all or part) in the club and maybe more, such as brand value, good will or whatever creative reason is negotiated. That’s quite reasonable in my opinion. Having invested heavily and taken a huge financial risk, some return is fair. I doubt very much they will recoup all of their investment let alone profit. But if they do, well done. |
|
|
|
Post by dohnut on Oct 16, 2024 8:38:53 GMT
Interesting bit for me is outsourcing of the investment to a company which normally deals with bigger clubs. If that isn’t spin, then it’s a big coup for Nigel and the rest and indicates that we are potentially a desirable product for outside investment. The ground issue is the big thing for investors and when he mentions 3 years, I’m guessing that is the timescale to get us to outline planning stage. If so then we have well and truly started the ball rolling and the council must have given a pretty strong indication that they are happy with the proposed site. Makes absolute sense to me. It won’t be cheap but could pay huge dividends should we get committed investors in the second oldest club in London and the huge potential for growth. I doubt the £100m cost of a new stadium will phase large investors, nor will improving the playing budget. |
|
|
|
Post by eca on Oct 16, 2024 8:50:51 GMT
I acknowledge the sincerity and genuine fan NT displays . Based on NT interview on the club site he mentioned how others complimented him on how well the financials are at lofc. He then mentioned the only “debt” is what he and others have against them or similar words. Does that mean the directors “debt” is actually reimbursed to them when new suitable investor(s) purchase the majority of the lofc shares from each current director. If that is the case does NT investment “debts” attract some contract commercial interest - if that was the case the “debts” should really be called loans. Alternatively. Has the NT investments and other director's “debts” just been called a gift - where they see orient as an exciting hobby (in NT case) or sports relaxing pastime to keep them occupied. - where the sums are considerable but as a proportion of their individual wealth acceptable to them individually. I know in the UK a loss can be offset to other business that made a gain. I know in the USA one can depreciate a domestic house mortgage unlike the uk as an example of how tax is dealt differently there. As the Uk and USA tax laws are different, I don’t know what proportion of their investment can be offset - I assume it relates to whether the “debts” are called commercial investments i.e. loans or just gifts. It’s not unreasonable to assume the Directors will receive compensation for the sale of their shares (all or part) in the club and maybe more, such as brand value, good will or whatever creative reason is negotiated. That’s quite reasonable in my opinion. Having invested heavily and taken a huge financial risk, some return is fair. I doubt very much they will recoup all of their investment let alone profit. But if they do, well done. That is fine- what I find over recent years sometimes NT gives the impression that his financial input is not recoverable but it’s his love for orient that drives his investment. Mixed messages create a feeling of being a director as a burden financially where in reality the “debt” is a loan with a return which is acceptable - however it would be better to use the word loan not debt. In short it’s a business commitment not an investment based on pure benevolence. |
|
|
|
Post by dohnut on Oct 16, 2024 9:09:43 GMT
It’s not unreasonable to assume the Directors will receive compensation for the sale of their shares (all or part) in the club and maybe more, such as brand value, good will or whatever creative reason is negotiated. That’s quite reasonable in my opinion. Having invested heavily and taken a huge financial risk, some return is fair. I doubt very much they will recoup all of their investment let alone profit. But if they do, well done. That is fine- what I find over recent years sometimes NT gives the impression that his financial input is not recoverable but it’s his love for orient that drives his investment. Mixed messages create a feeling of being a director as a burden financially where in reality the “debt” is a loan with a return which is acceptable - however it would be better to use the word loan not debt. In short it’s a business commitment not an investment based on pure benevolence. Fair point. My quess is in reality, however you describe it, and their maybe tax reasons why one term or another is used, it’s unlikely the Directors will financially profit from the experience. I’ve little doubt if financial profit was their motivation then owning a football club is not the answer. But if they do, well done. |
|
|
|
Post by eca on Oct 16, 2024 9:22:04 GMT
That is fine- what I find over recent years sometimes NT gives the impression that his financial input is not recoverable but it’s his love for orient that drives his investment. Mixed messages create a feeling of being a director as a burden financially where in reality the “debt” is a loan with a return which is acceptable - however it would be better to use the word loan not debt. In short it’s a business commitment not an investment based on pure benevolence. Fair point. My quess is in reality, however you describe it, and their maybe tax reasons why one term or another is used, it’s unlikely the Directors will financially profit from the experience. I’ve little doubt if financial profit was their motivation then owning a football club is not the answer. But if they do, well done. I genuinely believe NT involvement is his pure love for orient and making money was not the deal. However attracting new investors will not have NT love they may have an attraction based on how the agent representing orient sells the idea but it will be a commercial decision and then it be clear the investment is a loan just like I am sure BH structured his investment.NT is unique. |
|
|
|
Post by billericayo on Oct 16, 2024 9:26:50 GMT
Fair point. My quess is in reality, however you describe it, and their maybe tax reasons why one term or another is used, it’s unlikely the Directors will financially profit from the experience. I’ve little doubt if financial profit was their motivation then owning a football club is not the answer. But if they do, well done. I genuinely believe NT involvement is his pure love for orient and making money was not the deal. However attracting new investors will not have NT love they may have an attraction based on how the agent representing orient sells the idea but it will be a commercial decision and then it be clear the investment is a loan just like I am sure BH structured his investment.NT is unique. Well past your bed time eca |
|
|
|
Post by billericayo on Oct 16, 2024 9:29:55 GMT
Fair point. My quess is in reality, however you describe it, and their maybe tax reasons why one term or another is used, it’s unlikely the Directors will financially profit from the experience. I’ve little doubt if financial profit was their motivation then owning a football club is not the answer. But if they do, well done. I genuinely believe NT involvement is his pure love for orient and making money was not the deal. However attracting new investors will not have NT love they may have an attraction based on how the agent representing orient sells the idea but it will be a commercial decision and then it be clear the investment is a loan just like I am sure BH structured his investment.NT is unique. Well past your bedtime eca |
|
|
|
Post by eca on Oct 16, 2024 9:32:27 GMT
I have been in bed all day - not feeling great
I guess what you Billericay O is saying is that it’s totally irrelevant whether NT investment is a loan or a debt (non recoverable)
|
|
|
|
Post by Fisch on Oct 16, 2024 9:38:28 GMT
I been in bed all day - not feeling great I guess what you Billericay O is saying is that it’s totally irrelevant whether NT investment is a loan or a debt (non recoverable) Very relevant. NT has done a sterling job but if he sells his shares he'll want to see some form of ROI. It's like buying an old banger for £100, then spending a fortune on it to make it a dream car... you woudn't sell it on for £100 no matter how much you loved it. |
|
|
|
Post by billericayo on Oct 16, 2024 9:42:21 GMT
I been in bed all day - not feeling great I guess what you Billericay O is saying is that it’s totally irrelevant whether NT investment is a loan or a debt (non recoverable) I was more concerned for your welfare than NT's money, However like you, I have total confidence in NT and I'm sure He will get some return eventually, money and enjoyment from our club along with KT |
|
|
|
Post by redshank on Oct 16, 2024 10:17:22 GMT
NTs welfare is our welfare,keep him happy keep him at Orient.Get some wins for the board and it may get more investors interested.
|
|
