CheckATrade Trophy 2018/19

munchymagic wrote: "I do think the club could be run better. The main crime has been the tolerance of under performing managers. Kavanagh, Abbott and Curle were all kept around too long in my book".

We wouldn't have needed Curle to get us out of the crap at all if Abbot and then Kavanagh hadn't wasted big money on some terrible signings, their own actions cost them their jobs.

Then you look at who we have bought in recent years, Bennett may not be everyones cup of tea but he is better than Offiong and the show pony that was Kevan Hurst was a massive disappointment for us, not terrible but not worth the cash.

Bloody hell Munchy you're making it sound like Curle NEVER signed any duds, I'm not going to start making lists, but bloody hell give it some perspective.

Bluedevil wrote:

munchymagic wrote: "I do think the club could be run better. The main crime has been the tolerance of under performing managers. Kavanagh, Abbott and Curle were all kept around too long in my book".

We wouldn't have needed Curle to get us out of the crap at all if Abbot and then Kavanagh hadn't wasted big money on some terrible signings, their own actions cost them their jobs.

Then you look at who we have bought in recent years, Bennett may not be everyones cup of tea but he is better than Offiong and the show pony that was Kevan Hurst was a massive disappointment for us, not terrible but not worth the cash.

Bloody hell Munchy you're making it sound like Curle NEVER signed any duds, I'm not going to start making lists, but bloody hell give it some perspective.

Some would say that Bennett is a dud I was getting at 'bought' players pal.

bruntonpete wrote: I hate the way most of the club's have allowed themselves to be bullied or roll over and have their tummies ticlked by the PL. If the whole shambles had gone on like it is now but had been robustly rejected by the club's in question we would have far more sympathy for the club and recognise they really are on our side fighting for our club. Instead, they couldn't wait to lie down, take a few pennies and say exactly what they are told to say by the big boys. We had a survey where 90% of fans said they didn't want the b teams in. Ignored. Blanked. Forgotten about. NC is saying in one breath the fans are so important and we will listen to them and work for them. In the next breath, we are shat on and patronised.

It is a disgrace of a competition now and the club's in the lower league who allowed this to happen are as bad as the PL bullies.
Surely an extra 1000 on the gate in these early rounds would make up for the pocket money they throw at us. It would certainly keep the integrity of the trophy and keep the fans united. Instead, it is just another bullet in the foot by the club and another reason to mistrust them.

You know that. I know that. The FL know that but they choose to brush over it because it doesn't suit Harvey and his paymasters at the PL.s Agenda.

Markovitch wrote:

franksidebottom wrote:

Markovitch wrote: Yes well Andy, any benchmarking against the worst performers will naturally bring the current Government into the conversation. For the last 6 months I've been challenging you to come up with something, anything, they have done well. Any joy?

Frank, I don't have a new way to explain. I think everyone on the board except you, however grudgingly, understands the situation. To progress up the leagues our club needs very large amounts of investment, money our owner doesn't have. I don't understand why you are incapable of grasping it. Bumble has already posted that when we were in the L1 promotion race Fred was concerned about the sums of money involved because he saw the cost of running Preston in the Championship, that was why he was looking to offload the club. What is there about that not to understand?

I have no idea about the marketing guy. Laffy was on the interview panel that hired him, ask Laffy. But everyone seems to agree he didn't generate his salary so the consensus seems to be that no guy is better than the one we were lumbered with.

You still have the Schrodinger's cat situation where the club isn't formally up for sale so no one is coming forward but there have been a staedy stream of wealthy suitors, all of whom have been knocked back. Really? And we can't find sponsors to pay a couple of hundred quid for a board but people with a few million to invest are 10 a penny. Dear God

Everybody on the board understands your way of interpreting the situation? Really? Strange there’s not many folk agreeing with you then!

To progress out of league 2 you don’t need very large amounts of investment, you need to be well ran and have a decent team. Once again I’ll refer back to Fred Story’s reign, no huge investment, just a professional culture both on and off the pitch. What is it about the FS era that you don’t want to recognise? Why are you talking about the cost of running Preston in the championship when the rest of us are discussing a mid-table league two club?

Are you denying the fact that several interested parties have come forward with an interest in the club over the last few years? Are you denying the fact that every offer put forward has been rejected by the club? You keep on harping on about a potential buyer needing a few million to invest and I keep on telling you this is nonsense as FS proved but once more you continue to ignore this.

We can’t find sponsors because we currently have nobody looking for them, how do you expect the sales and marketing department to flourish when you don’t employ a sales and marketing person??? Also, as a few have already mentioned on here (although you’re probably conveniently ignoring them aswell), businesses don’t want to be associated with the current amateurish organisation that is CUFC. A change of leadership and a change of direction would see fans, businesses and sponsors flocking back. How hard is that to understand.

Frank, I don't know why I'm bothering but come on then.


1]We employed a marketing guy. Remember all the way back to my post. His name was Phil King. So when we employed him how many sponsors came? People were just flooding through the door to invest in club promotions. Were they Frank? Were they?

2]When Fred took over the club he had to guarantee the overdraft which was required to pay the wages. That means he had to guarantee £1.2m even though the debt didn't exist at that time. So he needed money. In addition football clubs, like toy and whiskey manufacturers have periods of time when they have surplus cash and times when they have cash deficits. During the deficits he had to plug the gap.


3]I don't doubt that there are weekly offers for the club. I also believe none of those offers had enough finance to run the club.

4]You are willing argue that supporters would flock back with a change of ownership and running a club at a profit is easy. So put your money where your mouth is, go buy it for a pound. You are so convinced anyone can do it, try it. See how far you get

1]Yes and what a waste of [censored] space and 65k a year he turned out to be Nobody at the club with the balls to call him out when he spent 18 months hiding from the fact that people didn't want to do sponsorships and he hadnt the persuasive powers to convince them otherwise or the gumption to go out and find others.

2] And why was there a deficit to guarantee in the first place? Try asking JC for the answer to that one and i.m sure he.ll answer you with two words Fred Story and no idea were your 1.2 million is coming from I can assure you that CUFC has never had an overdraft of anywhere near that.

3] Of course there have been offers to buy the club But if the current owners don't want to sell there will never be a sale will there? And I can tell you now that if Jenkins were to write off what he.s owed and a ten-year naming rights deal with the Pioneer debt be done [ Assuming, of course, EWM don't become hostile due to whatever their plans may or may not be ] Publically put it up for sale with a half-page ad in FB Magazine. There would be a queue of people around the block wanting to buy. Anybody with a half decent knowledge and understanding of how lower league football finance works will tell you that CUFC is a more than viable proposition, After all, a guy called Knighton who people will tell had nothing managed to run a thriving club, employ proper people in the vital positions build a new stand and have 2k fans locked out one bank holiday things your mate Jenkins hasn't managed on a single occasion in two spells totalling well over 20 years clearly proves it doesn't it.

4] We all know that that won't happen tho don't we because you mate simply won't sell hes just determined for whatever reason to cling on till he pops his clogs dragging the club further and further into the gutter while clubs with enlightened owners like Messers Pilley and Holt piss themselves laughing while they take our place in League One.

franksidebottom wrote:

Bruntonpasty wrote: Do they REALLY want to sell the club? I'm not so sure they do, if they do, they are, I would suspect, looking or expecting too much for it. If you are someone looking to buy a football club, but the club you want to buy is owned by folk who say they want to sell, but in reality don't want to sell, Is it worth wasting your time fighting to try and buy it?Especially when there are other clubs you could probably buy more easily?

Would a new owner need a lot of money? Without doubt, any new owner would need a fair wedge or at least the ability to service the finances required. But how much is this mystery amount? Marko suggests that to climb the leagues we would need a lot of cash, this I agree with to a degree but, how much does getting out of league two require? Obviously some clubs have been able to chuck more at it than others but, it's not always about the cash as Accy have proven. Even in the PL strange things happen, how much did Leicester spend in comparison to City, Chelsea or united? They won the PL though, how did that happen? It goes to show, you don't always have to be the biggest spender, like Accy weren't at our level. We do need an owner who has some cash but more importantly we need an owner who has the right sort of attitude to move the club forward, the three amigos have proven beyond doubt that they do not have this sort of drive and ambition. Things are changing, sort of, since the intervention of EWM, only time will tell where this takes us.

Marketing? Hmmmmm? I know someone who was privy to how things were , marketing wise, when story took over. Their opinion? Slow! That did change, quite clearly, under story but In my opinion has gone backwards since the three amigos got the reins. Did they have any plan to appoint a Marketing guy before Laffy came on the scene? Who knows? Was PK doing a good job? It seems he maybe wasn't or wasn't given the scope to do a good job? Look at the sponsor's we had when story was here and some that came after, Stobart (gone) Virgin Trains (gone) raplaced by?............................................. EWM! who basically have the club by the balls anyhow! That's not a new sponsor attracted to the club, it's the feckin life jacket that's keeping it alive! the point here is, the club does not look attractive to sponsors, why would you associate your business with a club so obviously stagnating? A tough job for any marketeer I would say, but then the leadership at the club hardly look very aspirational or inspiring do they?

Folk suggest that a new Stadium would be the answer, would it? We've no money or enthusiasm from anyone else locally to do this so it ain't gonna happen under this regime. Also, there's no guarantees that a new development will be the golden ticket to anywhere, look at Morecambe for example?

All of the above highlights the uncertainty, the lack of real leadership, the backward attitudes that are prevailing over our club.

Discuss.

Good post, which I agree with just about everything. As previously mentioned though we are talking about making a decent sized league two club self sustainable, not a championship club or, at this stage, a club moving through the leagues. Although FS did get us through the leagues without having to spend the fortunes Markovitch keeps harping on about.

The best point you make though is the “do the owners REALLY want to sell?” and on what terms - I think this has been the stumbling block all along and the real reason why all interested parties have been given short shrift.

If Knob End can attract away followings of 4 to 6k 8 or ten times a season why can't we and therefore before you even do anything else theres 1.25 million onto your bottom line. Add a couple of grand onto the home figures and theres another million a year into the pot its not rocket science the laws of lower league football are the more you spend on the pitch the more you will get back thru the turnstiles its really not difficult its just down to having a bit of ambition, the right people in the right jobs and not be afraid to put your money where your mouth is when its needed.

Markovitch wrote:

franksidebottom wrote: Like I said Markovitch, “why don’t you have a go?” is a pathetic argument with little meaning. I must remember to use this phrase next time you dare to be critical of a player on a match thread and see what your response is! I’m not criticising everyone or gobbling off about what a failure everyone is, I’m criticising the current custodians and saying what a failure they’ve been at running the club. Surely even you can’t argue they haven’t been a failure!!

Also like I said, it wouldn’t be easy turning the club around hence why I wouldn’t dream of having a go. I haven’t got the expertise, business experience, contacts or balls to undertake such a task. Unfortunately many of these skills are sadly lacking in our current owners too. However this isn’t to say it’s not achievable as previous owners have proved.

Do you get that toy manufacturers have to borrow large sums of money to build up stock through September, October, November then in January they have great wads of cash? Football clubs have similar seasonal cash fluctuations. You can fund with an overdraft but the bank will need it guaranteed and to do that you need assets for security. Even if Fred's net investment was nil there will have been points in time when he was in for large sums of money.


I do think the club could be run better. The main crime has been the tolerance of under performing managers. Kavanagh, Abbott and Curle were all kept around too long in my book. They have a way to go but I like clibbins, the club is already better run. They lost 700k last year but generated positive cash without raising extra loans, that is not easy to do

Maybe youd like to explain that one because I can tell you for a fact that if they hadn't done the slight of hand trick where Jenkins reduced his and therefore the clubs debt in exchange for supposedly worthless b shares or EWM putting more money in they would undoubtedly have been trading insolvently at a number of times during the past 18 months.

Now no doubt they will pull the same stroke again this year but after that Jenkins won't have any more debt to convert hence the fact that this season the club is been run on the finances of one in conference north.

Exchanging debt for deferred shares doesn't have any cash effect. You hand over one piece of paper, get another in exchange. No money changes hands. A company is insolvent when it can't pay its debts, they paid the debts, so not insolvent, its pretty simple

Markovitch wrote: Exchanging debt for deferred shares doesn't have any cash effect. You hand over one piece of paper, get another in exchange. No money changes hands. A company is insolvent when it can't pay its debts, they paid the debts, so not insolvent, its pretty simple

No, they didn't pay the debts at all. The outstanding debt from the previous year's results rose by nearly three-quarters of a million pounds.

And remember the figures have for the past 3 years being subject of a Auditors warning so i.d say if Jenkins hadn't pulled off that trick its highly likely they would have taken that warning to the next step.

And I don't see how Jenkins can agree to cover the losses when he can't or won't fund the club properly on a day to day basis Either he has the money under his bed or he doesnt ?

Markovitch wrote: Exchanging debt for deferred shares doesn't have any cash effect. You hand over one piece of paper, get another in exchange. No money changes hands. A company is insolvent when it can't pay its debts, they paid the debts, so not insolvent, its pretty simple

Totally incorrect.

What I love Frank is your ability to be completely wrong but carry on anyway. Is the football club still trading
, yes. So are insolvent? Well? You would know if they were because the gates would be closed.

In the accounts there is a little section called the cash flow statement. It has 5 sections. One of those sections is sources of loan finance. The last one published showed that loans had not been raised in the year. In fact the cash flow showed that cash had risen without the need for loan finance. But you seem to be determined to argue that cash going up is bad.


Top tip to know when your post is both shite and imbecilic, Alan likes it

It’s all in page 5 of the 2017 Accounts.

It’s pretty clear,because it says so, that new loans were introduced of £205k and £450k, the latter from EWM-that is new cash.Of course some of the AJ related debt was converted so net debt stayed much the same.

Rumour has it that since year end,the EWM debt could be as high as £2m.

In summary,cashflow is basically going in one direction-backwards.To the layman,the Club has been losing £600/£700k pa-of this, Some is depreciation but the vast majority is hard cash which means more loans and the jiggery pokery of debt conversion.

Judgement day is coming

Nope look at the cash flow. Stayed the same. I haven't got the accounts in front of me, I'm at a breakfast, but if loans stayed the same then new loans paid off old ones. Nothing to do with converting, that is not a cash transaction

I’m on train to Test match-James Martin inspired first class breakfast menu consists of apples and oranges.No wonder the NE line is screwed.


AJ converted £450k of loans to dead equity.It was replaced by £450k of EWM loan so the loans would stay broadly same-it says so in the Accounts.That means new cash of £450k.It explains why they went cap in hand in early 2017 to PD who then proclaimed he saved the Club.

Of course we know that further new cash has been needed and injected-probably another £1m,to meet trading shortfalls ie cash.

Suzanne Kidd must have been working wonders with keeping creditors at bay but we all have limits

Put a link to the accounts up and I'll have a look. I'm waiting for they spey side steam train, how do we get roped into these things?

Just type carlisle united 1921 beta in Google

Steam train or test match?-mmmm

Found it. Look on page 21. They have repaid loans and leases of 27700. Then look at the last line, overdrafts and creditors of greater than 1 year have risen by about 31k. So the increase in loans is about 3500. But cash has risen by some 30k. The narrative is just to inform that there is finance for next year.

There is a young guy here from Yorkshire. He has sat with his hands down his trousers all through dinner last night and all the way to Broomhill today. Outrageous

Markovitch wrote: Nope look at the cash flow. Stayed the same. I haven't got the accounts in front of me, I'm at a breakfast, but if loans stayed the same then new loans paid off old ones. Nothing to do with converting, that is not a cash transaction

Exactly and therefore if Jenkins hadn't written off 450k in exchange for the b shares the debt would be 450k higher than it actually was increasing the chances of the Auditors note being one step up from what it was previously which I understand would be advice to consider the ramifications of trading while being insolvent Be very interesting to see how much Jenkins has to write off this year to cover the extra EWM money thats gone in and how high the money owed to football/trade debtors as risen ? Another 750k perhaps?

504 at Fleetwood v Leicester U-21s last night!

Coventry City
Coventry City Verified Account


@Coventry_City

61' - ATTENDANCE: 2,375 with 183 visiting supporters. Thank you for your support this evening at the Ricoh [0-1] #PUSB

Bit steep.

I would have liked to have gone to that if it had been a proper game.

A big [censored] off to it all from me

Sent from my SM-J320FN using Tapatalk

Even if they gave me a free ticket and travel I still wouldn't go. When/If it reverts back to the real format I'll gladly pay my own expenses. For the time being they can shove it.....

Just had a look, I live 16 miles from the Stadium of Light.

Still not going.

Big no from me. Under normal circumstances I'd have liked to have gone. Never mind.

2 lower league teams playing so ill be there

Dancingbear wrote: 2 lower league teams playing so ill be there

I despise what they have made the competition become but loved its previous guise which makes going to a game depressing in a way but can see your point of view.

For me the Morecambe game was the first since the Brentford one at Wembley in this competition, have to go now when I am able as I could be layed up for months so take the games when I can, I wanted to avoid this one for obvious reasons but what do you do when your little lad asks if he can go to the game, say no because of principles that he does not care about or understand?

I fully get folks attitudes and if it were not for it being Morecambe and if it was an under 23 team from the Premier League then I probably would not have gone.

munchymagic wrote:

Dancingbear wrote: 2 lower league teams playing so ill be there

I despise what they have made the competition become but loved its previous guise which makes going to a game depressing in a way but can see your point of view.

For me the Morecambe game was the first since the Brentford one at Wembley in this competition, have to go now when I am able as I could be layed up for months so take the games when I can, I wanted to avoid this one for obvious reasons but what do you do when your little lad asks if he can go to the game, say no because of principles that he does not care about or understand?

I fully get folks attitudes and if it were not for it being Morecambe and if it was an under 23 team from the Premier League then I probably would not have gone.

Tbh I prob won’t go as it’s a bit of a trek on a school night. I haven’t been to any games since the under 21s have been in the competition but I’m not really boycotting and reserve the right to go if I can be arsed.

Did Sunderland enter as a B team before their collapse? Wonder how they are viewing it now if they did.
£3 to get in just shows the importance they give it. I bet you pay more to watch their B team or ladies team.

I'm looking forward to the game. I've never been to the Stadium of Sh..... before. I've booked the Hilton for afterwards for about £49.

I fully understand the objections to the way this competition has been bastardised but the way the fixtures have fallen this season there is a big gap in Saturday away matches in the South in between Cambridge and Swindon in November. Going to Sunderland ticks off another ground, I can see my folks beforehand and it should be a good game. £3 to get in makes it even better. COYB

munchymagic wrote:

Dancingbear wrote: 2 lower league teams playing so ill be there

I despise what they have made the competition become but loved its previous guise which makes going to a game depressing in a way but can see your point of view.

For me the Morecambe game was the first since the Brentford one at Wembley in this competition, have to go now when I am able as I could be layed up for months so take the games when I can, I wanted to avoid this one for obvious reasons but what do you do when your little lad asks if he can go to the game, say no because of principles that he does not care about or understand?

I fully get folks attitudes and if it were not for it being Morecambe and if it was an under 23 team from the Premier League then I probably would not have gone.

You sit him down and explain the principles of fan ownership parents taking this stance can do nothing but speed of to returning the game to the people who morally own it.

And don't forget to drum into him what a [censored] Harvey is too

Markovitch wrote: What I love Frank is your ability to be completely wrong but carry on anyway. Is the football club still trading
, yes. So are insolvent? Well? You would know if they were because the gates would be closed.

In the accounts there is a little section called the cash flow statement. It has 5 sections. One of those sections is sources of loan finance. The last one published showed that loans had not been raised in the year. In fact the cash flow showed that cash had risen without the need for loan finance. But you seem to be determined to argue that cash going up is bad.


Top tip to know when your post is both shite and imbecilic, Alan likes it

What the hell are you waffling on about man? You said they paid the debts, which is incorrect, simple as that. Argue away and keep digressing with your nonsense but it won’t change the fact that the club hasn’t paid its debts!!

But we beat Spain 3-2 away last night so its obviously working.

CCU wrote: Congratulations to Bury. A new lowest ever record despite cheap tickets!

Bury Football Club ✔ @buryfcofficial

ATTENDANCE: Tonight’s attendance is 454, with 18 Leicester City supporters here to support their side #buryfc

16 Oct 2025 20:55

20 Retweets 50 favorites

• Reply
• Retweet
• Favorite

Wonder what shirt Number Tyrese Shade is for Leicester?. If its over 30 then their starting 11s shirt numbers were higher than the attendance. I make it 424 for the other 10 but cant see his number on flashscores. Middlesbrough totalled 489 btw.

I think Harvey thought the Premier League away followings would swell the attendance figures.
The exact opposite has occurred.

Would you not think if Man Utd entered a team and were playing at BP thered be a few in the away end?

Aye just thought with the ammount of Cumbrians that support Man U and no doubt Liverpool thered be plenty there. Obv if Leeds were in it the away end would be full. Only joking CW

Some big crowds tonight!

Tranmere v Man C 747 (47)
Oldham v Everton 1004
Plymouth v Chelsea 1504
Cheltenham v Arsenal 1431 (431)

I think the Mail got the Accy crowd wrong 7,772. I can believe 772 more like it

Yeovil v West Ham United 720 with 83 travelling @WestHamUtd fans.

Northampton v Fulham 1,059 with 38 Fulham supportersl

Wycombe v Oxford Utd 1,313 (239 @OUFCOfficial)

Wimbledon v Stevenage -

Accrington v West Bromwich Albion 772

Barnsley v Everton 2300

Lincoln City v Wolverhampton 2723 (149)

Is it just me or are attendances starting to creep up a little?