Wfc Finances

He said himself the aim is to win the league.

 

OK so the logic is that the Holding Co is simply the vehicle by which Pozzo fund the club. The fact they have external debt in there is being painted as their issue rather than the clubs. They won't ever ask for the loan leant on to the club to be repaid by the club, and would just repay that external funding if and when they sold the club. Any interest on that loan to the club is just rolled up and becomes further debt that the club will never have to repay. There has to be interest charged presumably for tax transfer-pricing purposes though I guess it could be imputed for the purpose of the tax returns without ever being actually charged ?

 

Something of a leap. Where did I side with Duxbury?

 

No idea - I don’t have enough information to tell. Which was kinda the point of the post.

 

Where do I say Duxbury’s assertions are correct?

 

It was obviously implied by what you said wasn’t it? Plus your track record on him and the fact that your pod literally rim the guy to get access.

If you don’t agree with him and you don’t believe what he has said is correct, then now is your chance to properly say it? Rather than trying to criticise people for analysing factual information.

 

Well, I suppose you and your pals should have considered this before the infamous tweet was sent out.

 

Um, you inferred. I did not imply. I have no track record with him, and have never met the man. Nor do I possess any kind of pod, not even a sensory deprivation tank. I’m somewhat baffled where you get all this from, but if this is the extent of your deductive prowess, it casts any of your financial conclusions in very dubious light.

Do I believe him? Not all the time, but on this occasion what he says seems sensible from a business standpoint. It seems not dissimilar to the financial model a lot of businesses use when raising internal capital, including some I have run.

As for analysing factual information, that was sort of the point of my post.

 

Nope, lost me there. Not sure what you think you know about my pals, but none of them are Watford supporters. And I have no clue to what tweet you refer.

 

Logic only holds if the holding company debts are never tied to the assets of the club though?

 

Well your analogy was miles off. I’m not an accountant, but I have worked and do work in a capacity where the accounts of a business are assessed to deduce their credit worthiness. The information a company has to file with companies house, whilst of course not the full picture, is certainly more than enough to be able to make such decisions, and if it wasn’t what would be the point? There is obviously a reason companies have to file such information isn’t there? if it was a squinting through a keyhole trying to guess the layout of a room, then it would completely render the information entirely useless for the purposes of what it is made public for.

So you have information that is not entirely complete, but factually accurate Vs a proven serial liar whose job is to spin everything into a positive light and gaslight fans into believing everything is rosy.

I appreciate you value the access of your pod to this drivel, therefore you will always value the word of a liar over actual factual information, but don’t expect the rest of us to, and don’t try and gaslight people into suggesting factual information filed at companies house is somehow not accurate or useful.

 

I feel optimistic we are going to shortly get another belting strap line for the new season from podcast Jon

 

Not the most helpful reply. Even if I were not being truthful with my reply (I was), others reading the thread might not know what you are talking about. For their sake, please eludicate on the tweet to which you refer.

 

I’m sorry, what pod? And yes, accounts can be used to get a sense of the financial situation, but not the level of detail that done on here are extrapolating.
Finally, how can I be gaslighting when I have deliberately not made any assertions on the correctness or otherwise of Duxbury’s comments? “proven liar” is interesting. You not only need proof that a statement is incorrect, but also that it was made in the knowledge that it was incorrect. And using such a pejorative term implies (or perhaps I infer) that you believe such statements have been made on multiple occasions. What proof is this to which you refer?

 

I’m delighted you are optimistic, but what pod are you talking about? Everyone on here seems obsessed with a pod I do not run. Perhaps I should start one.

 

You were gaslighting by saying analysing the accounts was the equivalent of “squinting through a keyhole to work out the plan of a room”

You know full well what you were trying to do, discredit some very useful and worthwhile analysis on the state of the clubs finances to promote your beloved Scot Duxburys latest piece of spin.

 

Serious question. What makes you think that Jon G is the Jon from the Podcasts ? Wouldn't it be a bit daft to join up with his real name if he wanted to retain his anonymity ? Not saying he isn't connected to the club, he may be, but his posts do make a lot of sense.

 

Agreed if the Pozzo loans in Holding Co were secured against the club's assets. Do we know if they are ? (can't be arsed to check myself ) . In which case Pozzo could walk away from the HC loan and the creditors would come after club assets. It's clearly not the intention though.

 

Well, that’s opinion, not gaslighting. I think you might want to check the definition of that word.

There has been analysis, certainly, but whether it is worthwhile and useful depends on its purpose. Certainly it works to support a toxic narrative that those who run the club are incompetent/criminal, which narrative can be supported by out-of-hand dismissal of the club’s alternative, better-informed, explanation of the financial situation.

As a clear explanation of the actual financial situation, less useful and worthwhile.

My beloved Scott Duxbury? As I said before, I’ve never met the man and I have not said that his explanation of the accounts is correct, so I don’t understand your insistence on repeatedly insisting that I have some sort of allegiance there. It’s almost as if you’ve decided on a scenario and are resolutely clinging to it, despite a complete lack of supporting evidence and the repeated denial of the individual involved.

 

They make a lot of sense if you’re John from the FTRE pod.

 

As I’ve said repeatedly, I do not have a podcast and, for the avoidance of doubt, have no connection to the club other than being a season ticket holder for more than 30 years.

 

The accounts are a matter of public record, it’s not a scenario, it’s a matter of public record.

What Duxbury has most recently said has been proven to be inaccurate based on what we already know, but the purpose of what he said is to gaslight people like you who don’t want to face reality, and would rather support a couple of men you’ve supposedly never met over the club you’ve supposedly had a season ticket for for 30 years.

 

You seem to have some difficulty reading. I used the word “scenario” in relation to your statements about me, not about the accounts.

“Proven to be inaccurate” is not the same as “proven to be a lie”. The second half of your statement about Duxbury allegedly gaslighting people like me (I prefer to avoid statements that might be libellous) is an assertion, not proven.

“Supposedly never met” and “supposedly had a season ticket” is fairly reductive. If we don’t accept members’ factual statements about themselves, the discussions become untethered from any sense of perspective.

I could equally say that you “supposedly” have worked and do work in a capacity where the accounts of a business are assessed, and thus dismiss your following arguments out of hand. But I saw no reason to believe you lied, accepted you were making the statement in good faith, and attempted to answer your point reasonably.

It would be civilised if you extended the same courtesy to others on the forum.

 

I don’t to be honest. Just playing along.

That said he does post in same sanctimonious irritating way as the FTRE sycophants so wouldn’t rule it out.

As for whether his posts make sense, agree to differ on that one. Not for me.

 

I see. "Jon G" and "John". Must be the same guy then ? Thanks for answering my question .

 

I believe Mr 48 said that is no longer the case if you ignore transfer fees owed to us as an asset. (They don’t have charges over ground etc)

 

In summary - you don’t agree with me. Fair enough.

 

You may recall he popped up to defend the podcast at the exact same time as we started criticising it on here and also seems to hold the exact same sycophantic views as the person he was defending so vociferously.

The fact they have the same name is probably the least coincidental thing about it.

 

I had no idea it was the same time as you guys started giving FTRE a kicking, so that’s simply a happy coincidence. Not sure I have exactly the same views as the guys from that podcast, but I certainly like to take a more supportive optimistic line on the club than some, as do they. But that does not make my approach uncritical, so I dispute the “sycophancy” charge.

 

For what it’s worth, I’m pretty sure the podcast guy goes by Jon, rather than John.

 

Your dispute is noted but you’re still being charged with sycophancy in the WFC kangaroo court.

 

GOTEM

 

Scott Duxbury has told The Watford Observer that Josh King has left Watford and only had a 1yr deal.

The Official Watford website said Josh King had a 2yr deal when he signed. Scott Duxbury has stated he runs the vast majority of the club so you'd easily figure he knows what gets communicated on the clubs website.

Clinical proof? Maybe not. But you could easily make a case for him being caught in a lie here.