Sean has p.m'd me this post and I feel obliged to respond on here as well as p.m. him:
Simple points which seem to form the substantial parts of Sean's rhetoric:
1. Where did I say all of this? :
a) valuation re 'one club that finishes one place higher than another'
b) to ignore past audited accounts figures?
c) to give financial advice without seeing the books?
d) that I can value the business? Where did I 'throw the gauntlet?
As regards the date of audited accounts, Sean knows that by the time audited accounts are published there is a further year to add to the 6 months dated figures - hence my '18 months'.
As regards defining the' sliding scale', it was my suggestion that there will be a mechanism in the owners' legal agreement to reflect the level of investments by each owner in subsequent years. The division of the value of the club, if crystallised, by nature has to be a live, moving feast until crystallisation. The method of valuation of the club will have been outlined in that owners' agreement as will the proportional division of that value. If it is true that the owners have carefully matched each others' investments then it is not necessary. However KM did gift the prince 50% of the shares of the club and that half must have had strings attached if the owners always intended to match subsequent investments. Another constantly changing aspect is player valuations e.g. how much is Brooks worth this month? How much was he worth a year ago? Is he now worth less than he was the night of the Hillsborough Derby? Sean knows player valuations cannot be reflected in company accounts by the way.
As regards 'smarting over my failed petition'. Honestly Sean, do you think there was even a 5% chance that the petition would materialise? The whole point is getting the issues debated. 'Cutting up season tickets' - sound bite headline. Thing is I'm prepared to raise ideas and unpopular opinions in attempts to get people thinking about things I consider important for debate. One thing is for certain, the first fans' petition is that bit nearer following the discussion. Fans have power and I think Foxy will be a bit nearer to actually doing something one day. I did not 'bully' Foxy by the way, any new concept has to be driven a bit.
Sean also gave me a lecture in the p.m. about 'likes'.I must have said once that I appreciate 'likes', well of course I do and I think the number of 'likes' is one measure of the value of a post. A point of approval given from one member to another. Even 'likes' by morons for posts by other morons are a gesture in an open forum of course. To suggest I, of all members, court 'likes' is absurd. I spend plenty of my time berating moronic behaviour on here and holding up 'mirrors' for people to take a look at their behaviour. No I do not play the popularity game, I try to stimulate debate in areas I think are important and I call out bad behaviour from time to time.
For this exercise I took Sean off ignore and frankly I am shocked at the number of posts he has been rattling off about me. A lot of slander and mis-information. I do not hurl insults at people, especially Blades. If I can't debate then I back off. Names and insults are below me.
I do ask any reader of this to reflect for a moment or two why an accountant of obvious intelligence spends so much time agitating against a 70 year old Blade day in day out, numerous times every day when he knows he is on my 'ignore' list. He has regularly quoted things I said on Bladesmad; he knows better than me about things I'd forgotten long ago and churns it out. It's years since I was on Bladesmad !! He knows I'm not 70 until next week, he once challenged me when I said I was a 70 year old instead of 'in my 70th year'!! How sad is that?
Why don't I leave? I've flounced twice but will not be driven away. Sean did suggest a petition the other day though. Nobody has ever reported me actually.
