6.7 million profit

[Sun Tzu]

I don't think I'm the one who has been drinking here Sun Tzu. When all else fails, be rude to someone, is that your latest theory?

Have a word with hubby, it's his modus operandii.

Along with the deceit and this misquotes !!

And where have I been rude to you dear ?

[Royal Lady]

Don't patronise me please. You accused me of being drunk. No need for it. And even if that was my husband's modus operandi, don't you think you're being a bit hypocritical by being just as bad as you reckon he is?

[Sun Tzu]

I think my point is proven !

Hubby accused ME of being drunk, but that seems to be OK. You can't take the same comment....

Luckily it's the season of good will to all and I'm quite happy to extend that to the poster known as Schards/ RL

You do both get very stroppy very quickly though.

Didn't get what you expected from Santa or something ?

[mini _dariusz]

I don't think I'm the one who has been drinking here Sun Tzu. When all else fails, be rude to someone, is that your latest theory?

Schards gets into an arugment and dear old wifey comes to rescue him.

I think you will find that you and especcially your hubby are very much guilty of name calling, insults and offensive remarks on this board when you get into a debate. Pot kettle and black mush.

People in glass houses.......

[mini _dariusz]

Moving on from that offensive interruption, does anyone know the answers to these queries?

Feel free to PM if you don't want run the gauntlet of Sun Tzu's, presumably, drunken tirades.

You love a presumption in your household don't you. Normally you are wrong.

As for patronsing people, RL has expressed above she doesn't like it, so please don't dish it out.

You two are the comedy act of 2008.

[Sun Tzu]

Schards gets into an arugment and dear old wifey comes to rescue him.

Multiple user name syndrome m-d.

Shocking form I'm sure you'll agree

[mini _dariusz]

Don't patronise me please. You accused me of being drunk. No need for it. And even if that was my husband's modus operandi, don't you think you're being a bit hypocritical by being just as bad as you reckon he is?

Oh dear, i love this one.

You accuse people of all sorts on here, there's no need for it.

As for being hypocritical - jesus, i'm not sure how much irony there is here.

Classical stuff from hobnob's resident comedy duo.

What next......... RL complaining we've taken the thread off topic ? That would be genius.

[The 17 Bus]

Without the hotel there would be no Madstad, same as the retail units alongside.

Which is why all new stadia have similar income creating schemes within them. I

I was under the impression that the accounts were separated into the different parts of the business as well, allowing to see each independently.

[Schards#2]

Without the hotel there would be no Madstad, same as the retail units alongside.

Which is why all new stadia have similar income creating schemes within them. I

I was under the impression that the accounts were separated into the different parts of the business as well, allowing to see each independently.

What i'm trying to clarify is whether the hotel is part of the football club or not.

To my simplistic mind, either it is, in which case, the football club is responsible for its debts and partakes in its profits, or, it isn't, in which case, why does anything about the hotel appear in the accounts?

[rabidbee]

Could both be part of the same holding company? Are the accounts purely for the football club business, or for the whole operation?

[The 17 Bus]

It is under the same holding company, as already said. Each will be accounted separately , and the whole as a one as well.

Holding Company

A company may own one or more other companies which are its subsidiaries. The relationship between parent and subsidiary depends on majority control of the voting rights of shares or the ability to appoint the majority of directors. The precise definition of a holding company is in section 736 of the Companies Act 1985.

[rabidbee]

Fair enough - I couldn't be arsed to read th rest of the thread because most of it just seemed to be another get at Schards/RL thread.

[westendgirl]

The hotel appears to be the greater priority

I run the risk of appearing to be having a go at Schards/RL (even though that does seem to be a favourite occupation) but this assumption of the basis of the accounts is way off.

The 7 million increase in land and buildings was 5 on RFC and less than 2 on the hotel. The land expenditure was on the training ground and the media centre as far as I am aware.

You may resent the hotel subsidising the club up until the last 2 seasons but that is exactly what it did as the accumulated losses are still 17 million in Reading Football Club Ltd after 2 years of profits of 6 to 7 million. So despite the perceived lack of spending from a lot of Reading fans the club has still not made enough in the 2 seasons in the Premier League to wipe out the losses from earlier years and so is still not in a financial position to throw money around.

It may not be a great money spinner but there is another company in the holding company and that is Reading FC Community Trust which is there to provide education and training to children in the local community.

I do not get on here very often but I do have copies of the abbreviated accounts for the holding company, RFC and Madejski Hotel so I will try to answer any questions but given that they are abbreviated it may not be possible to be as specific as you may like.

[Royal Lady]

^ thank you. I merely didn't understand the format of the accounts and the situation regarding the hotel and the football club. You have made it a little clearer to me now, without the need to resort to childish antics - so thanks again.

[mini _dariusz]

^ thank you. I merely didn't understand the format of the accounts and the situation regarding the hotel and the football club. You have made it a little clearer to me now, without the need to resort to childish antics - so thanks again.

nibble nibble.

Such pettyness doesn't endear you on this board.

Much love.

[rabidbee]

Oh FFS!

[Sun Tzu]

^ thank you. I merely didn't understand the format of the accounts and the situation regarding the hotel and the football club. You have made it a little clearer to me now, without the need to resort to childish antics - so thanks again.

Just ask Hubby to stop it then and we can all get on in peace....

[Royal Lady]

Stop what? If you re-read the thread, he's asking questions - it wasn't until you told him, rather bizarrely I must say, to take his head out of his @rse, that this all went off at a tangent.

[Sun Tzu]

Stop what? If you re-read the thread, he's asking questions - it wasn't until you told him, rather bizarrely I must say, to take his head out of his @rse, that this all went off at a tangent.

1. Why 'must' you say anything ?

2. If you re read the thread you'll spot that it was actually your alter ego that started the 'abuse'.

3. Sobered up yet dear ?

4. Has he managed to extract his head yet ?

[Royal Lady]

Stop what? If you re-read the thread, he's asking questions - it wasn't until you told him, rather bizarrely I must say, to take his head out of his @rse, that this all went off at a tangent.

1. Why 'must' you say anything ? It's how I talk

2. If you re read the thread you'll spot that it was actually your alter ego that started the 'abuse'. Where? and to whom?

3. Sobered up yet dear ?I resent your constant remarks about me being drunk. I shall have a few tonight, not that it's any of your business.

4. Has he managed to extract his head yet ?You spout absolute rubbish.