The Hotel End
January 28, 2022, 16:56:48 pm
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
  Home Help Search Arcade Gallery Links Staff List Calendar Login Register  

New Trust statement on club finances

Pages: 1 ... 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 [33] 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 ... 42   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: New Trust statement on club finances  (Read 19564 times)
singcobb
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2412


View Profile
« Reply #640 on: July 26, 2021, 10:29:40 am »

It strike me that at some point in your life you were starved of oxygen.
Letís see what happens.

Yet again complete failure to answer a question. Thank you for proving my statement about you as correct.
Report Spam   Logged
Melbourne Cobbler
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2106


View Profile
« Reply #641 on: July 26, 2021, 10:40:19 am »

It's a fair (if longwinded  Wink) challenge, CJ.

To frame it another way, though... do you think the club could have shaved, on average, close to £1m per year off its cash outflows and still be where it is now? I don't claim to know the answer, but I do know that's a big old gap to bridge with efficiency savings.

Edit: it is worth noting that the club was in significant debt during the Cardoza era, including before the council loan was drawn down. In fact, at June 2012 the net liabilities were c.£7.6m so greater than the latest set of accounts. Cardoza used to talk about getting close to breaking even, but the club weren't publicly issuing a P&L for most (or all, cba to check!) of his time at the helm.
I would also ask what the average ratio of losses to turnover there is for Div 1/2 clubs to truly evaluate if the owners are over/under performing in terms of their financial management. All I am seeing is subjective opinion at the moment. Any one want to have a crack?
Report Spam   Logged

Chairman, Paul Stratford Fan Club, and proud member of the Steve Massey Appreciation Society. (Although refuse to be in his fan club on account of his crap goal celebration in front of The Hotel End when playing for Wrexham)
Carton Lid
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 762


View Profile
« Reply #642 on: July 26, 2021, 12:03:31 pm »

MC Hammer seems to be ITK so maybe he could answer the questions I posted a few days ago but got no reply. They are as follows:

 Question 1, have KT, DB or NTFC denied that what the Trust said about the Chinese money was true ?
 Question 2, the Trust have took a lot of stick for declining a Zoom meeting, which I personally think was a mistake, but KT has got off scot free for declining to provide written answers, aren't his actions exactly the same ? At least the Trust declined his offer, he didn't even reply to the Trust. What are people's opinion on this ?
 Question 3, Re the East Stand, NTFC said on 25th June 2021 "We are positive about the direction we are heading and felt confident enough that a few months ago we were able to commission these conceptual images to show both the council, supporters and stakeholders what we are trying to achieve with the East Stand". It is a know fact that the plans displayed at the Open Evening are over 5 years old, so isn't that statement a little misleading ?
 Question 4, Re the "Hatchet job" alleged in the leaked letter , isn't it likely that these papers that ran the story, got in touch with the Trust for a comment on the story, rather than the Trust ringing them and asking them to run the story ? This is the Mail and the Athletic we are talking about, not the Chron, where, I've heard that NTFC have been known to mention withdrawal of co-operation if some stories are run.
Report Spam   Logged
BackOfTheNet
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4345


View Profile
« Reply #643 on: July 26, 2021, 12:15:55 pm »

I saw this the other day but bit my tongue because I knew I'd be accused of leaping to defend KT's honour again, but it's this sort of post that irks me a bit. So, as it's been repeated...

MC Hammer seems to be ITK so maybe he could answer the questions I posted a few days ago but got no reply. They are as follows:

 Question 1, have KT, DB or NTFC denied that what the Trust said about the Chinese money was true ?
No. But then nor have the Trust denied that they went to the press with bad intent. It cuts both ways, but sometimes it's better to say nothing than get involved in a petty spat.
 Question 2, the Trust have took a lot of stick for declining a Zoom meeting, which I personally think was a mistake, but KT has got off scot free for declining to provide written answers, aren't his actions exactly the same ? At least the Trust declined his offer, he didn't even reply to the Trust. What are people's opinion on this ?
Presumably he did reply to the Trust, or how else did he offer the Zoom meeting that they refused?
 Question 3, Re the East Stand, NTFC said on 25th June 2021 "We are positive about the direction we are heading and felt confident enough that a few months ago we were able to commission these conceptual images to show both the council, supporters and stakeholders what we are trying to achieve with the East Stand". It is a know fact that the plans displayed at the Open Evening are over 5 years old, so isn't that statement a little misleading ?
No idea. Do we definitely "know" they are over 5 years old? That's a genuine question by the way, I haven't seen where that has been proven beyond the odd person saying they look the same as ones that other people saw years ago.
 Question 4, Re the "Hatchet job" alleged in the leaked letter , isn't it likely that these papers that ran the story, got in touch with the Trust for a comment on the story, rather than the Trust ringing them and asking them to run the story ? This is the Mail and the Athletic we are talking about, not the Chron, where, I've heard that NTFC have been known to mention withdrawal of co-operation if some stories are run.
Utter supposition.
Report Spam   Logged

The Hotelend Grand National* Sweepstake Champion 2020
CJ
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1876


View Profile
« Reply #644 on: July 26, 2021, 12:30:01 pm »

As an example CJ when we started our business over here I put in my own money in the form of a loan. If the business does well I get my money back. If it doesnít Iíve done my money and thatís it. If I borrow the money from a bank, they can pull the plug if they feel itís appropriate and I have little control over that. I would have also probably have put up collateral against the loan so the bank will use that to recoup its money. Therefore under a directors loan you retain full control over whatís going on with the finance of that loan, when getting a loan from an institution you hand an element of control over to them where they get to choose when to pull the plug and what assets to sell as a result often at significant consequence. Also if you are putting up assets from another business as security and that goes belly up they may pull the plug on the business that used the loan even though that may be doing well. Often directors loans are nothing more than a g@mb1e that you get your money back with no mechanism for recovering your money if things go wrong, if that makes sense?
Thanks Melbourne, I do understand the mechanisms you describe but that wasn't really my point.
Report Spam   Logged
random
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1172


View Profile
« Reply #645 on: July 26, 2021, 12:41:02 pm »

Hi Melly, Just had a look and it's a mine field. Some clubs don't issue P&L's, most don't list fixed assets in the millions, like we do. Some have had cup runs or players sales to turn losses to profits etc

Accounts only show a small piece of the picture, it is there if you look hard enough but you also need to look at the business itself, what the trend is, what's coming up around the corner etc.

Generally we all know that most football clubs are badly run and are either:

1. the plaything of their owners, who eventually write off their losses and sail off into the sunset.  - usually for PR purposes, to raise their or their company profile
2. there as they love the club / community,
3. because they want to control the assets within the football club (usually land), and the higher you go up the leagues the more money you lose. (perhaps why we are in L2  Grin)

The worse one for me is the 3. They are there just for their own benefit.  With all honesty, which one are our owners?

Supporters of 1 & 2 can and will go through periods of success and heartache but at least something is happening

The issue for me has always been the potential of NTFC, big catchment area, the history, lack of big, big clubs nearby, central location within the country, 25 acres of land, - all more than enough to support a modest Championship club. At least with 1 & 2 there is a chance this might happen.

Report Spam   Logged
Manwork04
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6484



View Profile
« Reply #646 on: July 26, 2021, 12:44:04 pm »

Yet again complete failure to answer a question. Thank you for proving my statement about you as correct.
Keep calling me a twŗt says a whole lot more about you than me pal.
Report Spam   Logged

Rule Britannia
Manwork04
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6484



View Profile
« Reply #647 on: July 26, 2021, 12:44:44 pm »

Digging this out from a few days ago and not directed at Upton Way especially but this for me lies at the heart of the problem, and I'm repeating myself again.
Without full evidence its going to be open to interpretation and opinion.
IF the Trust had full evidence of wrongdoing they should have presented it in full, not to the fans but to the relevant authorities. The fact they haven't implies two things....
1. They don't have any evidence of wrong doing
2. They just don't like the way the owners have conducted their business.

I've only seen from the Trust maybe about a third of the story. They received £6m (cant remember the exact figure) for selling the shares. What I haven't seen, and the bit they is open to interpretation is following the breakdown how much profit, or loss, did our owners make. Because it sure as sh1t isnt £6m (in my opinion, see interpretation). So what is it...?
How much did they pay in legal fees when it broke down to ensure the rebuy of shares we legitimate. What was the agreed buy back rate, what taxes, fees, bank rates did they incur? etc etc
How do you know that they havenít?
Report Spam   Logged

Rule Britannia
Melbourne Cobbler
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2106


View Profile
« Reply #648 on: July 26, 2021, 12:45:04 pm »

Thanks Melbourne, I do understand the mechanisms you describe but that wasn't really my point.
Sorry mate, with regards to your other point I kind of stated this in another post below. Whilst I havenít checked the actual figures they seem to be adding 25% of turnover onto the debt per annum, which seems pretty average on face value. I stand to be corrected though.
Report Spam   Logged

Chairman, Paul Stratford Fan Club, and proud member of the Steve Massey Appreciation Society. (Although refuse to be in his fan club on account of his crap goal celebration in front of The Hotel End when playing for Wrexham)
random
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1172


View Profile
« Reply #649 on: July 26, 2021, 12:48:28 pm »

BOTN, so receiving £6.8m and selling the club without telling anyone,  is just the same in your book, as the Trust supposedly talking to the National media, that our club's owners sold the club for £6.8m to unknown Chinese investors, who run a very very small business, without telling anyone?

Thats why you get accused of support KT, please show me where you have questioned or raised concerns about this or anything else regarding KT/DB bad running of our club



 
Report Spam   Logged
Melbourne Cobbler
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2106


View Profile
« Reply #650 on: July 26, 2021, 12:50:28 pm »

Hi Melly, Just had a look and it's a mine field. Some clubs don't issue P&L's, most don't list fixed assets in the millions, like we do. Some have had cup runs or players sales to turn losses to profits etc

Accounts only show a small piece of the picture, it is there if you look hard enough but you also need to look at the business itself, what the trend is, what's coming up around the corner etc.

Generally we all know that most football clubs are badly run and are either:

1. the plaything of their owners, who eventually write off their losses and sail off into the sunset.  - usually for PR purposes, to raise their or their company profile
2. there as they love the club / community,
3. because they want to control the assets within the football club (usually land), and the higher you go up the leagues the more money you lose. (perhaps why we are in L2  Grin)

The worse one for me is the 3. They are there just for their own benefit.  With all honesty, which one are our owners?

Supporters of 1 & 2 can and will go through periods of success and heartache but at least something is happening

The issue for me has always been the potential of NTFC, big catchment area, the history, lack of big, big clubs nearby, central location within the country, 25 acres of land, - all more than enough to support a modest Championship club. At least with 1 & 2 there is a chance this might happen.


Itís a fair point. For me itís a bit chicken and egg though mate. Do you develop the ground to entice more support and progress, or do it to accommodate the extra demand and a a result of progress. IMO thatís subjective and is probably one of the main reasons that everyone on here spends so much time arguing.
Report Spam   Logged

Chairman, Paul Stratford Fan Club, and proud member of the Steve Massey Appreciation Society. (Although refuse to be in his fan club on account of his crap goal celebration in front of The Hotel End when playing for Wrexham)
West Stand
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 301


View Profile
« Reply #651 on: July 26, 2021, 12:51:46 pm »

MC Hammer seems to be ITK so maybe he could answer the questions I posted a few days ago but got no reply. They are as follows:

 Question 1, have KT, DB or NTFC denied that what the Trust said about the Chinese money was true ?
 Question 2, the Trust have took a lot of stick for declining a Zoom meeting, which I personally think was a mistake, but KT has got off scot free for declining to provide written answers, aren't his actions exactly the same ? At least the Trust declined his offer, he didn't even reply to the Trust. What are people's opinion on this ?
 Question 3, Re the East Stand, NTFC said on 25th June 2021 "We are positive about the direction we are heading and felt confident enough that a few months ago we were able to commission these conceptual images to show both the council, supporters and stakeholders what we are trying to achieve with the East Stand". It is a know fact that the plans displayed at the Open Evening are over 5 years old, so isn't that statement a little misleading ?
 Question 4, Re the "Hatchet job" alleged in the leaked letter , isn't it likely that these papers that ran the story, got in touch with the Trust for a comment on the story, rather than the Trust ringing them and asking them to run the story ? This is the Mail and the Athletic we are talking about, not the Chron, where, I've heard that NTFC have been known to mention withdrawal of co-operation if some stories are run.


Someone will have fed them the story, they wouldn't have found it off their own back.
Report Spam   Logged
CJ
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1876


View Profile
« Reply #652 on: July 26, 2021, 13:01:36 pm »

It's a fair (if longwinded  Wink) challenge, CJ.

To frame it another way, though... do you think the club could have shaved, on average, close to £1m per year off its cash outflows and still be where it is now? I don't claim to know the answer, but I do know that's a big old gap to bridge with efficiency savings.

Edit: it is worth noting that the club was in significant debt during the Cardoza era, including before the council loan was drawn down. In fact, at June 2012 the net liabilities were c.£7.6m so greater than the latest set of accounts. Cardoza used to talk about getting close to breaking even, but the club weren't publicly issuing a P&L for most (or all, cba to check!) of his time at the helm.
You're probably right about the longwinded bit  Cheesy

I'm not aware of the correct figures surrounding spending and budgets during the Cardoza years but my memory of it is that they initially splashed the cash expecting to be able to buy promotion and then stay in a higher league and when this didn't happen and we ended up back where we came from they tightened the purse strings demonstrating in doing so that we could be a self sustaining or almost self sustaining league club. There's probably a clue to be had in looking at those league two clubs that are smaller in terms of turnover than us to see what can be achieved currently on smaller budgets? It may not be a million pound saving a year but I can't help but think that our spending in the past six years has been more profligate than prudent.
Could they have kept us where we are (a professional league club) restricted the losses to 2 million and spent what they 'promised' to on the stand in doing so currying sufficien favour with the necessary parties to get themselves this land deal?
I think on balance most interested parties would have at least been happier with that approach.
« Last Edit: July 26, 2021, 13:04:19 pm by CJ » Report Spam   Logged
Melbourne Cobbler
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2106


View Profile
« Reply #653 on: July 26, 2021, 13:09:40 pm »

Iíve touched on this before but thereís some basic stats about EFL finances here Page 24 onwards.

https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/uk/Documents/sports-business-group/deloitte-uk-annual-review-of-football-finance-2020.pdf
Report Spam   Logged

Chairman, Paul Stratford Fan Club, and proud member of the Steve Massey Appreciation Society. (Although refuse to be in his fan club on account of his crap goal celebration in front of The Hotel End when playing for Wrexham)
MCHammer
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 513


View Profile
« Reply #654 on: July 26, 2021, 13:10:03 pm »

MC Hammer seems to be ITK so maybe he could answer the questions I posted a few days ago but got no reply. They are as follows:

 Question 1, have KT, DB or NTFC denied that what the Trust said about the Chinese money was true ?
 Question 2, the Trust have took a lot of stick for declining a Zoom meeting, which I personally think was a mistake, but KT has got off scot free for declining to provide written answers, aren't his actions exactly the same ? At least the Trust declined his offer, he didn't even reply to the Trust. What are people's opinion on this ?
 Question 3, Re the East Stand, NTFC said on 25th June 2021 "We are positive about the direction we are heading and felt confident enough that a few months ago we were able to commission these conceptual images to show both the council, supporters and stakeholders what we are trying to achieve with the East Stand". It is a know fact that the plans displayed at the Open Evening are over 5 years old, so isn't that statement a little misleading ?
 Question 4, Re the "Hatchet job" alleged in the leaked letter , isn't it likely that these papers that ran the story, got in touch with the Trust for a comment on the story, rather than the Trust ringing them and asking them to run the story ? This is the Mail and the Athletic we are talking about, not the Chron, where, I've heard that NTFC have been known to mention withdrawal of co-operation if some stories are run.

I'm flattered.  However if I really was that much ITK I wouldn't be having to ask all these questions would I?  Funny thing is you were on the Trust Board for many years and are therefore far more likely ITK than me.

I didn't answer cause they were pretty random questions that I'm not really sure add anything we don't already know.  However happy to do so if you do the same.

1. No they haven't that I'm aware of.  Or maybe they have? I don't get to see the "closed" correspondence or the secret meetings the Trust held with him when they asked him about so I don't know.  Maybe you know as this all happened around the time you were still on the board?  What did he say at the time?

2. Did he get of scot free?  I see plenty of people criticising him for not answering you being one of them.  The Trust publicly removed their support and wrote to the council as well so it's hardly like he's not been impacted.  I would also challenge whether he didn't respond.  He just didn't respond in the form the Trust were insisting on which even you admit you thought was a mistake.

3. Not sure what the issue is here and what you have a problem with.  I'm assuming by conceptual images he means the photographic style ones that show how the front and back of the stadium will look.  Are you saying you had seen these before and they are 5 years old?  Sorry struggling with this one as I'm not sure what issue you have with this anyway and why others would be concerned.

4. You can probably answer this question far better than me.  In fact I'd be suprised if you didn't know the actual answer as some of this stuff definitely happened while you were still on the board.  KT was pretty clear in his allegations that the Trust or representatives on their behalf were approaching media outlets with this information not the way you describe it?  He also said he had evidence to back this up.  So did they?  

In fact let me put this scenario to you and you can comment as I answered your questions.  If a Supporters Trust organisation came about information of potential financial wrong doing by the clubs owners what do you think they should do?  Approach the press?  Report to the relevant authorities?  Approach the owners directly?  And if they did any or all of the previous at what stage should their membership be informed?
Report Spam   Logged
guest3359
Guest
« Reply #655 on: July 26, 2021, 13:20:53 pm »

How do you know that they havenít?
You've proven my point.
I / we dont so its opinion and assumption based on my own interpretations of what has been released.
Report Spam   Logged
MCHammer
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 513


View Profile
« Reply #656 on: July 26, 2021, 13:21:43 pm »

How do you know that they havenít?

Do you know whether they have or haven't reported something?  Not trying to throw you under the bus here.  None of us know because they won't tell us whether they have or not.  In fact they won't even tell you if they even have a problem with any of it.  It's fairly clear they do as they wrote to KT last summer saying something.  We just don't know what because we are not allowed to know.  Open and honest remember the mantra.  According to them they are "just stating facts" and allowing individuals to "draw their own conclusions".

Frankly I don't understand why you or any other supporter would be comfortable with this kind of approach from an organisation that is representing you.
Report Spam   Logged
Carton Lid
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 762


View Profile
« Reply #657 on: July 26, 2021, 13:57:09 pm »



1. No they haven't that I'm aware of.  I wondered if I had missed it, so they haven't disputed it ?

2. Did he get of scot free?  I see plenty of people criticising him for not answering you being one of them.  The Trust publicly removed their support and wrote to the council as well so it's hardly like he's not been impacted.  I would also challenge whether he didn't respond.  He just didn't respond in the form the Trust were insisting on which even you admit you thought was a mistake.I thought it was a mistake by the Trust and NTFC but on here KT has received very little criticism compared to what the Trust has

3. Not sure what the issue is here and what you have a problem with.  I'm assuming by conceptual images he means the photographic style ones that show how the front and back of the stadium will look.  Are you saying you had seen these before and they are 5 years old?  Sorry struggling with this one as I'm not sure what issue you have with this anyway and why others would be concerned.So you don't think  NTFC were attempting to give the impression that the Open Evening was to discuss the "progress" of the East Stand ? 

4. You can probably answer this question far better than me.  In fact I'd be suprised if you didn't know the actual answer as some of this stuff definitely happened while you were still on the board.  KT was pretty clear in his allegations that the Trust or representatives on their behalf were approaching media outlets with this information not the way you describe it?  He also said he had evidence to back this up.  So did they?  There were no allegations from the Trust board whilst I was on there.

In fact let me put this scenario to you and you can comment as I answered your questions.  If a Supporters Trust organisation came about information of potential financial wrong doing by the clubs owners what do you think they should do?  Approach the press?  Report to the relevant authorities?  Approach the owners directly?  And if they did any or all of the previous at what stage should their membership be informed?You've said yourself that the Trust were in contact with KT, but I haven't seen anyone being accused of "Financial wrong doing" As far as I can see the Trust have put figures out there, NTFC have not denied them, so it's up to everyone to make up their own minds.
Report Spam   Logged
Manwork04
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6484



View Profile
« Reply #658 on: July 26, 2021, 14:32:34 pm »

Do you know whether they have or haven't reported something?  Not trying to throw you under the bus here.  None of us know because they won't tell us whether they have or not.  In fact they won't even tell you if they even have a problem with any of it.  It's fairly clear they do as they wrote to KT last summer saying something.  We just don't know what because we are not allowed to know.  Open and honest remember the mantra.  According to them they are "just stating facts" and allowing individuals to "draw their own conclusions".

Frankly I don't understand why you or any other supporter would be comfortable with this kind of approach from an organisation that is representing you.
Again I think thatís a question for the Trust, I fully agree that the trust could be a bit more inclusive and transparent BUT these meetings are highly confidential and probably commercial sensitive so most likely under NDA therefore not for public consumption.
Report Spam   Logged

Rule Britannia
claretparrot
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 548


View Profile
« Reply #659 on: July 26, 2021, 14:33:20 pm »

Unless I've missed something that report uses a very broad brush stroke. The two figures which stand out for me are the average league two playing wage bill of 3 million and the average turnover per club of 4 million.
Do we really have a wave bill of 3 million? Take out 500k out and give the rest to the 22 senior pros and you average wages for them become 113k pa each.  Am I being naive about something here, they don't get awarded that much on average do they? I fully accept that football is in the **** financially generally but that's like saying your average aussie drinks 30 units (or however many) per week and extrapolating from that they all do. That average is not representative in terms of the effect it'll have on the health of those boring fckuers who don't drink at all, but reading a similar statistical average you might believe that all Aussie male are living ten years less than they should because they are fcuking their livers and any other organs that care to join in.
There will be examples within the 24 league two clubs I'm sure of ones who's wage ratio to turnover is nothing like 75%. Shouldn't we be taking a lesson  from their book?
And the other thing I think people are forgetting is that DB took control of this club not for ego or because he's a fan, he took over because he wanted to turn a profit in the form of a land deal, so why has he let his chairman and ceo get away with such a flagrant overspend when all that was needed on his account was league status?

With respect, CJ, this last bit of your post is symptomatic of the second biggest problem in the way this debate is being conducted. I'm not having a go at you personally but there are a couple of themes that dictate we're all just going round in circles.

The #1 biggest problem is one lots of other posters have touched on - absolutism. The second is something you've just done and it's also common elsewhere on social media: the tendency to say whatever one likes with no sense of duty to justify or back it up.

Who says there is an overspend? Who says it is flagrant? That is based on your own assumptions & calculations and, by your own admission, you are no expert.

Who says all the current ownership wants is to maintain league status? I would say there is significant evidence to the contrary and, even if that is their sole aim, to drop to the most shoestring business model out there would seem to me to be a very risky strategy indeed. You might even call it reckless - just like spending £1m more each year than 'you really need to'?
Report Spam   Logged
Pages: 1 ... 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 [33] 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 ... 42   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Parental guidance is urged as this messageboard may not be suitable for all persons especially those under the age of 16 as the forums may contain words, phrases and expressions not considered appropriate for a younger audience so please express caution. If any posts in the forums offend you, please let us know and we will look at them and if we agree with your complaint, we will remove them. You are personally responsible and potentially liable for the contents of your posting and may be sued should your posting contain content of a defamatory or other illegal nature. Every message posted leaves a traceable IP number. We check the forums at various times of the day and remove offending posts. Other supporters are welcome but abusive or silly posts will be removed and the offenders potentially barred from future access to the site. We advise that you never reveal any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example: telephone number, home address or email address), and please do not include postal addresses of any kind. This messageboard is not endorsed or in any way affiliated with Northampton Town FC. All postings on this board become copyright of The Hotel End & may not be reproduced without the permission of the board administrator. By signing up to this message board you agree to this. The Hotel End cannot be held liable for the actions or postings of its members. The Hotel End reserve the right to edit, delete, move or close any thread for any reason. The Hotel End may disclose user information to government authorities at their discretion or when required by law. The Hotel End may also disclose user information when The Hotel End has reason to believe that someone is causing injury to or interference with its rights or property, other The Hotel End users, or anyone else that could be harmed by such activities. By registering for The Hotel End, you agree to indemnify The Hotel End its representatives, and agents, and hold them harmless from any and all claims (including claims for legal fees) which may arise from your participation on the The Hotel End. You also agree that The Hotel End is not responsible for the materials posted by users of The Hotel End. In addition, you grant The Hotel End and its affiliates, worldwide, royalty-free perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive right and license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display any message or content posted on The Hotel End and/or e-mail sent by you to The Hotel End (in whole or in part). The Hotel End reserves the right to make the rules up as it goes along. Thank you - The Hotel End I love Quidco
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMFServer.com - Create your own Forum

Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy