Admin Fees Revealed

[Yorkshire Blue]

motor running/travel/entertainment at £75k and £90k???

Did you take advantage of the free and/or subsidised coach travel?

 

[united we stand]

Ah, assuming again... so you must of course be right. After all, the figures have been public for some time now and far more knowledgeable people than you or I have analysed them and wouldn't have picked anything up, would they?

The trouble with assumptions is that if the original assumption is wide of the mark then every logical conclusion drawn from that assumption will be wrong as well.

Which is why, when I look in the mirror, I can see someone carrying a few extra pounds who is certainly far from perfect but who at least tries NOT to make judgements about people or events based on assumptions which then run the risk of coming back to make you look daft, as graysbluejnr did.

I'm also not afraid to admit I'm wrong and apologise if necessary; I have done to gbj both on this thread and by PM (which I'm sure he will confirm) for appearing rude, curt, patronising or whatever. But my opinion hasn't changed and we are all entitled to our opinion. Therefore when someone makes a judgement based on totally incorrect information following another incorrect assumption, then I'm afraid I tend to take that persons future views and comments with a rather large pinch of salt. This is especially the case when the thread starts with the phrase "Admin fees revealed" which indicates some sort of revelation, and then the next line contains the words
which at the very least is a judgement that has been made when absolutely no fine detail about the headline figures shown in the fees are known.

Questioning is one thing, which I have no problem with; passing judgement without the requisite knowledge or information to make that judgement is another matter.

I Like this a lot - this applies to an awful lot of posts on here - which TBH is to be expected as supporting the club is such an emotional thing and far too often the heart takes precedent over the brain

 

[Hotman]

Ah, assuming again... so you must of course be right. After all, the figures have been public for some time now and far more knowledgeable people than you or I have analysed them and wouldn't have picked anything up, would they?

The assumption is of course that the stands are included in RHL and not SUFC - I struggle to see how they can be included in SUFC and as such have assumed that they aren't. I reckon there's a 99.9%, or higher, chance of me being right. A fair assumption on my part in my opinion.

The trouble with assumptions is that if the original assumption is wide of the mark then every logical conclusion drawn from that assumption will be wrong as well.

See above

Which is why, when I look in the mirror, I can see someone carrying a few extra pounds who is certainly far from perfect but who at least tries NOT to make judgements about people or events based on assumptions which then run the risk of coming back to make you look daft, as graysbluejnr did.

See above

I'm also not afraid to admit I'm wrong and apologise if necessary; I have done to gbj both on this thread and by PM (which I'm sure he will confirm) for appearing rude, curt, patronising or whatever. But my opinion hasn't changed and we are all entitled to our opinion. Therefore when someone makes a judgement based on totally incorrect information following another incorrect assumption, then I'm afraid I tend to take that persons future views and comments with a rather large pinch of salt. This is especially the case when the thread starts with the phrase "Admin fees revealed" which indicates some sort of revelation, and then the next line contains the words


which at the very least is a judgement that has been made when absolutely no fine detail about the headline figures shown in the fees are known.

I think Graysbluejnr was correct to question the totality. Similar situation - if there are x thousand murders in a year which appears too high, you can make a judgement about it without knowing the fine details. If there are £x spent in MP's expenses which appear too high, you can make a judgement about it without knowing the fine details. I could carry on with similar scenarios, but I think you get my drift.

The only valid point you have made in the above is the misleading title of the thread, which should actually have read "Trading and profit and loss accounts of Southend United..." - apart from that, I feel the reaction from GBJ was justified, and struggle to see how you can object to it?

Questioning is one thing, which I have no problem with; passing judgement without the requisite knowledge or information to make that judgement is another matter.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

[Hotman]

After all, the figures have been public for some time now and far more knowledgeable people than you or I have analysed them and wouldn't have picked anything up, would they?

And to be fair FBM - not wishing to blow my own trumpet, but in respect of analysing the figures, I'm kind of a big deal :) But I acknowledge that others with my ability and qualifications would have certainly been involved in the review, sign off and subsequent analysis of the numbers from all angles, and the fact that there has been no major news headlines in the press about the sale of assets in RHL to SUFC Ltd just confirms my 99.9% certain assumption!!

Moral of the story - don't pick on "assuming" as the basis of your argument, as I am sure that you acknowledge that there are different levels of assumption / certainty (ie I assume that I will die sometime vs I assume that I will win the lottery) - perhaps you should consider that, as otherwise it makes the rest of your argument rather weak if you focus on that.

 

[fbm]

And to be fair FBM - not wishing to blow my own trumpet, but in respect of analysing the figures, I'm kind of a big deal :) But I acknowledge that others with my ability and qualifications would have certainly been involved in the review, sign off and subsequent analysis of the numbers from all angles, and the fact that there has been no major news headlines in the press about the sale of assets in RHL to SUFC Ltd just confirms my 99.9% certain assumption!!

Moral of the story - don't pick on "assuming" as the basis of your argument, as I am sure that you acknowledge that there are different levels of assumption / certainty (ie I assume that I will die sometime vs I assume that I will win the lottery) - perhaps you should consider that, as otherwise it makes the rest of your argument rather weak if you focus on that.

Well, we'll agree to differ then. My point isn't just asbout assumptions, it's about judgements made on incorrect assumptions, and actually, reading your two definitions I'm not actually certain you understand what an assumption is, because neither of the two examples you quote are. One is a certainty (you can't assume you'll die - you know you will) and the other is just a hope.

An assumption is to come to a conclusion about something without having proof and is well known to come back and bite people when they are wrong. That's why there are well known phrases such as "If you assume it makes an *** of U and ME, and (I think from the film Lock Stock) "Assumption is mother of all **** ups). Perhaps that's where you're going wrong.

Moral of the story - if you're going to preach, understand your sermon.

 

[Hotman]

Well, we'll agree to differ then. My point isn't just asbout assumptions, it's about judgements made on incorrect assumptions, and actually, reading your two definitions I'm not actually certain you understand what an assumption is, because neither of the two examples you quote are. One is a certainty (you can't assume you'll die - you know you will) and the other is just a hope.

An assumption is to come to a conclusion about something without having proof and is well known to come back and bite people when they are wrong. That's why there are well known phrases such as "If you assume it makes an *** of U and ME, and (I think from the film Lock Stock) "Assumption is mother of all **** ups). Perhaps that's where you're going wrong.

Moral of the story - if you're going to preach, understand your sermon.

Ok - Let's see if my assumption of Roots Hall Limited still owning the stands of Roots Hall comes back to bite me. I think it is a fair assumption :)

 

[Firestorm]

Assume : to take for granted or without proof;

This does not nessecarily mean a guess.

I recall my physics a level using the words Assuming when using a known formula without having to prove the formula

There are also assumptions used regularly in accounting
to quote :
The International Accounting Standards Committee (lASC) as well as the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) treat (vide IAS-I & AS-I) the following as the fundamental accounting assumptions:

These are also not treated as guesswork either.

Assuptions are not all one assumes they are.......

 

[fbm]

Assume : to take for granted or without proof;

This does not nessecarily mean a guess.

I recall my physics a level using the words Assuming when using a known formula without having to prove the formula

There are also assumptions used regularly in accounting
to quote :
The International Accounting Standards Committee (lASC) as well as the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) treat (vide IAS-I & AS-I) the following as the fundamental accounting assumptions:

These are also not treated as guesswork either.

Assuptions are not all one assumes they are.......

Of course... and when one "assumes the position" it means something different entirely...

;)

 

[Beefy]

To the tune of £60k?

A lot of that will be credit card fees. If thy club pay a 1.5% fee to their Card Company and we take, at a guess £2m a year in card payments, then that's £30,000 right there.And that's before any charges that the Card Company make for the security that they will hold. And then there's the charges that are due to whoever they Bank with.

I know this thread is a month old but I've only just seen it and actually I think that these figures should reassure those fans who were convinced that we were going bust because of money being spent on the new ground. I know these figures are now stale but they look reasonable to me. As with any set of accounts I've ever looked at there are questions to be asked but these figures would have been signed off by an Auditor and by the Bank so you'd think that they are legit.

 

[Hotman]

Ok - Let's see if my assumption of Roots Hall Limited still owning the stands of Roots Hall comes back to bite me. I think it is a fair assumption :)

I'll consider myself half bitten... it'll soon be Sainsbury's!! :)

 

[The Big Shrimp]

A lot of that will be credit card fees. If thy club pay a 1.5% fee to their Card Company and we take, at a guess £2m a year in card payments, then that's £30,000 right there.And that's before any charges that the Card Company make for the security that they will hold. And then there's the charges that are due to whoever they Bank with.

I know this thread is a month old but I've only just seen it and actually I think that these figures should reassure those fans who were convinced that we were going bust because of money being spent on the new ground. I know these figures are now stale but they look reasonable to me. As with any set of accounts I've ever looked at there are questions to be asked but these figures would have been signed off by an Auditor and by the Bank so you'd think that they are legit.

Like the ones for SEL Ltd that have severe audit qualifications every year for at least 5/6 years?!