AH Twitter account

[lunaspie]

What A Sad Man You Are.
Can you not see we are winding you up. ������������

He's truly a bitter lemon.

[lunaspie]

How good are you at maths Driller? The figures tell their own story.

It has been painfully obvious, to even the hard of thinking, what has happened here. In simple terms: The money that has gone into Notts came from "other businesses", not much, if any from private/personal sources. (Or do you want/need exact figures?). Consequently, one of those businesses went belly up - you can fill in the blanks.

You can bet any hint of impropriety will be Schwepped under the carpet.

[drillerpie]

How good are you at maths Driller? The figures tell their own story.

It has been painfully obvious, to even the hard of thinking, what has happened here. In simple terms: The money that has gone into Notts came from "other businesses", not much, if any from private/personal sources. (Or do you want/need exact figures?). Consequently, one of those businesses went belly up - you can fill in the blanks.

From other businesses like Paragon Leisure, but if AH was the sole owner of these businesses which have now gone bust isn't it as if he effectively put the money in himself?

[Old_pie]

From other businesses like Paragon Leisure, but if AH was the sole owner of these businesses which have now gone bust isn't it as if he effectively put the money in himself?

That would be the case if he was a Sole Trader but these are Limited companies. Limited means they, or rather, their directors, have limited liabilities. Shareholders don't have liabilities anyway. So as these businesses were making a profit from which AH was benefitting and are now not making a profit so he isn't benefitting, the loss is being made up by not paying other people what is owed.

You can be sure that AH's pension, house etc are well protected from being touched and unless he is found guilty of gross misconduct he'll just walk away with pride hurt.

It helps if you understand that Limited Companies are entities in their own right. They are owned by shareholders, run by directors but unlike partnerships and sole traders no-one has a direct liability and it often amuses me that people feel they are better of doing business with Joe Bloggs Ltd rather than Joe Bloggs & Son.

[SwalePie]

it often amuses me that people feel they are better of doing business with Joe Bloggs Ltd rather than Joe Bloggs & Son.

Me too. I've always thought the big clue was in the word 'limited'

[Old_pie]

Me too. I've always thought the big clue was in the word 'limited'

Reminds me of my Dad, god bless him, who said the loan he had taken out was a good one because it was secured!

[drillerpie]

That would be the case if he was a Sole Trader but these are Limited companies. Limited means they, or rather, their directors, have limited liabilities. Shareholders don't have liabilities anyway. So as these businesses were making a profit from which AH was benefitting and are now not making a profit so he isn't benefitting, the loss is being made up by not paying other people what is owed.

You can be sure that AH's pension, house etc are well protected from being touched and unless he is found guilty of gross misconduct he'll just walk away with pride hurt.

It helps if you understand that Limited Companies are entities in their own right. They are owned by shareholders, run by directors but unlike partnerships and sole traders no-one has a direct liability and it often amuses me that people feel they are better of doing business with Joe Bloggs Ltd rather than Joe Bloggs & Son.

I understand that it was a limited company and that AH won't be visiting a food bank anytime soon whereas Paragon's sub contractors and employees were left in the lurch (something I don't condone at all) but my point is that before getting involved with Notts AH had a successful business making a tidy profit each year (wasn't it 2m the year before last?) so isn't unfair to say he hasn't put his own money in?

Genuine question, I'm not trying to be controversial.

[Old_pie]

I understand that it was a limited company and that AH won't be visiting a food bank anytime soon whereas Paragon's sub contractors and employees were left in the lurch (something I don't condone at all) but my point is that before getting involved with Notts AH had a successful business making a tidy profit each year (wasn't it 2m the year before last?) so isn't unfair to say he hasn't put his own money in?

Genuine question, I'm not trying to be controversial.

You can look at it several ways:

1) He's certainly restricted his ability to take any more money out and in good times he no doubt was taking good benefits

2) If he hadn't funded Notts out of the profits then:

a) He could have spent the money on other things he wanted to spend money on
b) He could have used the money to continue to build the business

3) It is unlikely that he took money from his own bank a/c and put it into the business, and if he did it would only have been at the beginning.

4) If he now uses the money he's got in his bank and other interests that he's taken out back into the business to pay the debts of then yes, he would have put his own money in. But he won't.

So rather than say he's put his own money in I'd turn it around and say he's severely curtailed his opportunity to take any more money out and left others, unpaid and out of pocket in the process.

[Pies4u]

Driller - as Old pie says, the sad fact is that any reserves or profits generated in the Paragon businesses were curtailed by the sums taken out to sustain NCFC, amongst other issues it would seem. Consequently, there are now no profits, no reserves and only debts & no business in one case!

Money generated within a business should properly used to invest in the development of that business, secure the employment of the staff and further the organisations best interests - as such, it is not legitimate to put it all on the 2.30 at Kempton Park, for example.

[60YearsAPie]

Driller - as Old pie says, the sad fact is that any reserves or profits generated in the Paragon businesses were curtailed by the sums taken out to sustain NCFC, amongst other issues it would seem. Consequently, there are now no profits, no reserves and only debts & no business in one case!

Money generated within a business should properly used to invest in the development of that business, secure the employment of the staff and further the organisations best interests - as such, it is not legitimate to put it all on the 2.30 at Kempton Park, for example.

He'd have probably had a better chance of a return by putting his dosh on the 2.30 at Kempton Park, rather than sinking it into the Notts black hole.

My guess is that his plan was to sell out at a profit once his 5-year-plan to reach the Championship had taken place.

To fund this his other businesses had to be making enough money to cover Notts' annual losses. Once they weren't the domino effect would take place. Paragon administrators calling in debts would result in Paragon Leisure going into administration. Their administrators calling in debts would result in Notts going into administration.

The only reason this has not happened yet is the Paragon administrators have so far held fire, waiting for the sale of Notts to go through.