The unofficial AFC Rushden & Diamonds messageboard

But a bit worse given that under questionning by certain people in the open fans forum (can anyone remember Tony Jones questionning how the club could accrue so much debt in a few short months?) KC categorically answered that question by saying the club was debt free when he passed it over to the Beasants. Now maybe I'm not wise enough in business matters to fully understand the "business speak" - but if you're debt free (which is what he said) doesn't that mean you don't owe any money? No wonder this country is in the state it is when business people applying this kind of thinking :roll:

I just feel sorry for all the people who have lost money throught this !

So do I, a shocking state of affairs. How could anybody sit there taking even more money at that last meeting knowing full well it would not make a blind bit of difference. Like you, I genuinely feel sorry for those who lost there hard earnt money. SS

I would love to know how much the Bee-zants took out the club during their short tenure, despite there being no future for the survival of the club after the handover from KC.

I remember somebody saying that they had proof of misuse of club funds. I wonder if that is being taken further.

PigmanRDFC wrote:But a bit worse given that under questionning by certain people in the open fans forum (can anyone remember Tony Jones questionning how the club could accrue so much debt in a few short months?) KC categorically answered that question by saying the club was debt free when he passed it over to the Beasants. Now maybe I'm not wise enough in business matters to fully understand the "business speak" - but if you're debt free (which is what he said) doesn't that mean you don't owe any money? No wonder this country is in the state it is when business people applying this kind of thinking :roll:

I just feel sorry for all the people who have lost money throught this !

It's a bit like buying an old car advertised as "rust free" when you get it home you notice a rust hole in the floor, "we didn't charge for that, the rust was free". :lol:

Didn't KC say that it was debt free because the money that was to come in equalled that we owed?

wewantourdarbyback wrote:Didn't KC say that it was debt free because the money that was to come in equalled that we owed?

His claim:

Debtors = Creditors

My novice business mind wonders, aside from the fact that this was all a clear stitch up, could the debtors be those needing payment immediatly and the creditors be those promising money in the more distant future (i.e. sell on fees that may never come, or come in many years?) and thus KC's claim would be misleadingly accurate?

Everyweeker wrote: thus KC's claim would be misleadingly accurate?

Either way you look at it we were never given the true full facts of the situation, whilst we were asked to raise £250k in 2 weeks to stave off administration for what was effectively a lost cause.

Everyweeker wrote:

wewantourdarbyback wrote:Didn't KC say that it was debt free because the money that was to come in equalled that we owed?

His claim:

Debtors = Creditors

My novice business mind wonders, aside from the fact that this was all a clear stitch up, could the debtors be those needing payment immediatly and the creditors be those promising money in the more distant future (i.e. sell on fees that may never come, or come in many years?) and thus KC's claim would be misleadingly accurate?

A debtor is someone who owes you money whilst a creditor is someone that you owe money to.
Either way the whole saga is right mess and the Bee-zants clearly didn't have a clue about the state of debt when they took over and clearly didn't have any capital to pay ongoing creditors,wages etc.
In hindsight, any effort/time spent by fans after the 10th May was a complete waste of time and it's a shame that a decision to set up AFC wasn't taken immediately following that meeting.

Trek wrote:

Everyweeker wrote:

wewantourdarbyback wrote:Didn't KC say that it was debt free because the money that was to come in equalled that we owed?

His claim:

Debtors = Creditors

My novice business mind wonders, aside from the fact that this was all a clear stitch up, could the debtors be those needing payment immediatly and the creditors be those promising money in the more distant future (i.e. sell on fees that may never come, or come in many years?) and thus KC's claim would be misleadingly accurate?

A debtor is someone who owes you money whilst a creditor is someone that you owe money to.

I knew that...honest...complete mug now :oops: