23 replies to this topic

[Doc M]

Last year I received a letter from Yorkshire Water letting me know an extra sum will be added to my bill to finance clearing and unblocking sewage on adjacent property. This sum will be payable by everyone. In this modern world it may seem a good idea but for any property built prior to 1930 this was the responsibility of the water company so in effect those of us who live in such a property are giving a donation direct to the share holders.
Last month it was announced that the privately owned electric companies were to add a sum to our bills to modernise the electricity supply systems . The state of the infrastructure was known when these foreign companies bought the assets from the government and so again we are donating funds to the shareholders as improved infrastructure means the share value increases.
Now our neighbours need new terracing which when completed will bring the ground up to current approved standards. Again as the previous cases, they are going to the customers for the money to finance this project, safe guarding the shareholders funds by increasing the capital asset at no cost to themselves.
In the past, when businesses needed funds to finance projects they required, they adopted rights issues and occasionally scrip issues whereby shareholders bought shares in the company providing the funds for the required work but diluting the value of the shareholding of those who did not participate.
A couple of years ago Batley followed this old established practice and raised funds for essential work by selling shares in the Rugby club which leases and is responsible for the ground maintenance. This method does cause a minor hemorrhage of funds as shareholder meetings are held and free drinks are issued but it was the honest way of raising funds.
So should Batley adopt the seemingly modern practice of fleecing the customer and improving the assets and therefore the income of just three or four shareholders or continue in the old fashioned way.

Edited by Doc M, 06 January 2013 - 09:28 AM.

[grumpyoldram]

Last year I received a letter from Yorkshire Water letting me know an extra sum will be added to my bill to finance clearing and unblocking sewage on adjacent property. This sum will be payable by everyone. In this modern world it may seem a good idea but for any property built prior to 1930 this was the responsibility of the water company so in effect those of us who live in such a property are giving a donation direct to the share holders.
Last month it was announced that the privately owned electric companies were to add a sum to our bills to modernise the electricity supply systems . The state of the infrastructure was known when these foreign companies bought the assets from the government and so again we are donating funds to the shareholders as improved infrastructure means the share value increases.
Now our neighbours need new terracing which when completed will bring the ground up to current approved standards. Again as the previous cases, they are going to the customers for the money to finance this project, safe guarding the shareholders funds by increasing the capital asset at no cost to themselves.
In the past, when businesses needed funds to finance projects they required, they adopted rights issues and occasionally scrip issues whereby shareholders bought shares in the company providing the funds for the required work but diluting the value of the shareholding of those who did not participate.
A couple of years ago Batley followed this old established practice and raised funds for essential work by selling shares in the Rugby club which leases and is responsible for the ground maintenance. This method does cause a minor hemorrhage of funds as shareholder meetings are held and free drinks are issued but it was the honest way of raising funds.
So should Batley adopt the seemingly modern practice of fleecing the customer and improving the assets and therefore the income of just three or four shareholders or continue in the old fashioned way.

Yes

[Griff]

Ultimately, the customers always pay because they're the people who want the service.

[Blind side johnny]

Last year I received a letter from Yorkshire Water letting me know an extra sum will be added to my bill to finance clearing and unblocking sewage on adjacent property. This sum will be payable by everyone. In this modern world it may seem a good idea but for any property built prior to 1930 this was the responsibility of the water company so in effect those of us who live in such a property are giving a donation direct to the share holders.
Last month it was announced that the privately owned electric companies were to add a sum to our bills to modernise the electricity supply systems . The state of the infrastructure was known when these foreign companies bought the assets from the government and so again we are donating funds to the shareholders as improved infrastructure means the share value increases.
Now our neighbours need new terracing which when completed will bring the ground up to current approved standards. Again as the previous cases, they are going to the customers for the money to finance this project, safe guarding the shareholders funds by increasing the capital asset at no cost to themselves.
In the past, when businesses needed funds to finance projects they required, they adopted rights issues and occasionally scrip issues whereby shareholders bought shares in the company providing the funds for the required work but diluting the value of the shareholding of those who did not participate.
A couple of years ago Batley followed this old established practice and raised funds for essential work by selling shares in the Rugby club which leases and is responsible for the ground maintenance. This method does cause a minor hemorrhage of funds as shareholder meetings are held and free drinks are issued but it was the honest way of raising funds.
So should Batley adopt the seemingly modern practice of fleecing the customer and improving the assets and therefore the income of just three or four shareholders or continue in the old fashioned way.

Clarify for me please the income that the shareholders of Batley or Dewsbury get from their ownership?

[Doc M]

Clarify for me please the income that the shareholders of Batley or Dewsbury get from their ownership?

I am not privy to such information. It may be possible to speak to the Dewsbury chairman today and ask him. It is normal practice, when assets are realised, to divide the proceeds with the shareholders by an amount commensurate to their holding. So for example if a rugby club should sell the lease of parcels of land it itself leases, then that money may be divided between any shareholders. Any profit from monies raised in public areas and not invested in team matters can be, paid in dividends to shareholders. This is why it used to be honest for asset improvement to be paid for by shareholders as they will be the beneficiaries. The Batley way is obviously dated, hence the question in the post. Please share the chairmans views with us.

[grumpyoldram]

I am not privy to such information. It may be possible to speak to the Dewsbury chairman today and ask him. It is normal practice, when assets are realised, to divide the proceeds with the shareholders by an amount commensurate to their holding. So for example if a rugby club should sell the lease of parcels of land it itself leases, then that money may be divided between any shareholders. Any profit from monies raised in public areas and not invested in team matters can be, paid in dividends to shareholders. This is why it used to be honest for asset improvement to be paid for by shareholders as they will be the beneficiaries. The Batley way is obviously dated, hence the question in the post. Please share the chairmans views with us.

I rather think that the chairman would have preferred to get ground improvements paid for by the tax and council tax payer, rather than to have to go cap in hand to the fans, but unfortunately not every club is able to take advantage of that option. Maybe you should be grateful for what you already have, than to worry about what others are seeking to achieve.

[guest from down under]

The Batley club must be so proud to have such a dilligent and concerned individual as Doc M preaching their virtuosity , although such as ronnie earnshaw may well be a little embarrased reading this considering his massive fundraising efforts especialy during the 80`s which contributed significant monies towards such projects as paying for the floodlights and developing the heritage stand when the wooden structure was condemned .
If only ron had known that his efforts were helping to fuel capitalism and self interest rarther than fulfilling his intent of benefiting his beloved club by helping to ensure its survival by intense fundraising from the supporters and public .

[Doc M]

The Batley club must be so proud to have such a dilligent and concerned individual as Doc M preaching their virtuosity , although such as ronnie earnshaw may well be a little embarrased reading this considering his massive fundraising efforts especialy during the 80`s which contributed significant monies towards such projects as paying for the floodlights and developing the heritage stand when the wooden structure was condemned .
If only ron had known that his efforts were helping to fuel capitalism and self interest rarther than fulfilling his intent of benefiting his beloved club by helping to ensure its survival by intense fundraising from the supporters and public .

Do you know, I believe Ron did remortgage his house on at least a couple of occasions to keep the Batley Club going. Eventually it was taken over by an ex Dewsbury player who stripped Ron of the chairmanship just before the centenary final and he sat in the car parading around Wembley. Ron still carried on as he does to this day. Ron is the President of Batley Rugby League Club and probably the most respected person in the game of Rugby League and in 2009 was inducted onto Rugby League Roll of Honour. Funnily enough I believe Ron is a shareholder of Batley Rugby League Club so I dont believe he thinks his efforts have fueled capitalism and self interest. Most shareholders were people who admired the work of Kevin and Ron and invested in their club to allow it to reach the present standard of a debt free existence. These people cannot be classed as capitalist as the price they paid per share would never have been paid by a business man only by true fans. Such a shame you seem to have the same attitude as our former chairman.

[Doc M]

I rather think that the chairman would have preferred to get ground improvements paid for by the tax and council tax payer, rather than to have to go cap in hand to the fans, but unfortunately not every club is able to take advantage of that option. Maybe you should be grateful for what you already have, than to worry about what others are seeking to achieve.

The question was whether Batley should follow this immoral fashion or continue as normal. Not to worry about the ones who do not mind immorality. It was aimed at Batley fans so I will await their comments with interest. Posters up to now have not read what was written and appear to have a not so hidden agenda

[Griff]

It is normal practice, when assets are realised, to divide the proceeds with the shareholders by an amount commensurate to their holding.

No it isn't. Never heard of such a thing. Not while the company still trades, anyway.

Maybe if the company was wound up and there was a surplus left - but that doesn't happen a lot. Even in the everyday world.

[grumpyoldram]

The question was whether Batley should follow this immoral fashion or continue as normal. Not to worry about the ones who do not mind immorality. It was aimed at Batley fans so I will await their comments with interest. Posters up to now have not read what was written and appear to have a not so hidden agenda

Then if the question is aimed at the batley fans, you are asking them whether KN should be abandoning his own business practices in favour of those you consider in some way immoral. You obviously have doubts about the chairmans ability to make his own decisions on how the club should be funded - have you broached the subject with him ? Current interest in the subject from batley posters would indicate they couldn't give a stuff what other clubs do, provided it doesn't affect the status quo at batley.

[Blind side johnny]

I am not privy to such information. It may be possible to speak to the Dewsbury chairman today and ask him. It is normal practice, when assets are realised, to divide the proceeds with the shareholders by an amount commensurate to their holding. So for example if a rugby club should sell the lease of parcels of land it itself leases, then that money may be divided between any shareholders. Any profit from monies raised in public areas and not invested in team matters can be, paid in dividends to shareholders. This is why it used to be honest for asset improvement to be paid for by shareholders as they will be the beneficiaries. The Batley way is obviously dated, hence the question in the post. Please share the chairmans views with us.

You're bul***ing again, as always.

You referred to both improving assets and hence income. The two aren't connected as you know but you continue to imply that CC owners benefit from an income from their ownership, yet when challenged can't substantiate this.

I guess you must have lost a lot of money in someone's betting shop in the past to have generated so much personal bitterness towards Mark Sawyer. Have you ever considered having some counselling? It might just cure you.

[grumpyoldram]

The question was whether Batley should follow this immoral fashion or continue as normal. Not to worry about the ones who do not mind immorality. It was aimed at Batley fans so I will await their comments with interest. Posters up to now have not read what was written and appear to have a not so hidden agenda

Come on admit it - the posting was just an attempt to stir up a bit of debate on a dull day - I suppose you more or less succeeded, so well done you - result.

[Doc M]

You're bul***ing again, as always.

You referred to both improving assets and hence income. The two aren't connected as you know but you continue to imply that CC owners benefit from an income from their ownership, yet when challenged can't substantiate this.

I guess you must have lost a lot of money in someone's betting shop in the past to have generated so much personal bitterness towards Mark Sawyer. Have you ever considered having some counselling? It might just cure you.

Funnily enough I do not gamble and last year when Kevin did a walk and the winner of a prize was the nearest guess to the distance I did not join. I gave a donation instead. Regarding counseling, which is what I assumed you meant, I do indeed meet with a probation officer and discuss my worries with him. Unfortunately he always agrees I am right and you lot who are wrong.
Regarding another post. I do not give a thought to what other clubs do, many do but not me. Never doubted Kevin's integrity and am not privy to his thoughts. Although I think I once wished a happy New Year.

[9' oller]

I do indeed meet with a probation officer and discuss my worries with him.

reg varney were are you, silver hair at 35 isn't something to worry about t'old lad!

[Piggy's mate]

Whilst I seldom agree with Doc M he does have a point. If a commercial business (and the Rams are) ask for contributions to increase the value of the companies assets without recompense to those who donate then he has a point. I am a share holder in Batley and a member of Bissa and there is a clear distinction between the two in my mind and how and why I support both. If the avid Dewsbury fan can contribute to the improvement of the ground or the business then they should have some ownership of this. If and when the owner of Dewsbury sells up to some crackpot Russian Olligart then how will the contributors benefit?

PS - My company would like to open a new patio for its staff behind the office block for BBQ etc. and we will be holding a bucket collection at the next Dewsbury home game.... please give generously

[grumpyoldram]

Whilst I seldom agree with Doc M he does have a point. If a commercial business (and the Rams are) ask for contributions to increase the value of the companies assets without recompense to those who donate then he has a point. I am a share holder in Batley and a member of Bissa and there is a clear distinction between the two in my mind and how and why I support both. If the avid Dewsbury fan can contribute to the improvement of the ground or the business then they should have some ownership of this. If and when the owner of Dewsbury sells up to some crackpot Russian Olligart then how will the contributors benefit?

PS - My company would like to open a new patio for its staff behind the office block for BBQ etc. and we will be holding a bucket collection at the next Dewsbury home game.... please give generously

Think you are missing the point PM. The improvements behind the stand were asked for by the fans themselves, The RFL has not insisted on them, nor have the H and S regulators. It is not unreasonable therefore, to ask the fans to contribute. Nobody has been forced to attend the organised dinner function, or chuck money in the bucket - it's voluntary. I would also think that adding a path and a couple of rows of terracing would not add much to the value of the ground if it were sold to a mad russian - he'd replace it anyway, and it would be an added inconvenience if it was earmarked for development. I think maybe you should only start worrying when the club start organising bag packs at sainsbury's (something much loved of teachers organising freebies for them and their charges to junior football tournaments in europe). As for your patio - have you submitted an application for lottery funding ? - you'd be amazed at what they will pay for.

[Doc M]

Think you are missing the point PM. The improvements behind the stand were asked for by the fans themselves, The RFL has not insisted on them, nor have the H and S regulators. It is not unreasonable therefore, to ask the fans to contribute. Nobody has been forced to attend the organised dinner function, or chuck money in the bucket - it's voluntary. I would also think that adding a path and a couple of rows of terracing would not add much to the value of the ground if it were sold to a mad russian - he'd replace it anyway, and it would be an added inconvenience if it was earmarked for development. I think maybe you should only start worrying when the club start organising bag packs at sainsbury's (something much loved of teachers organising freebies for them and their charges to junior football tournaments in europe). As for your patio - have you submitted an application for lottery funding ? - you'd be amazed at what they will pay for.

Wow. So it is a fact that the stadium met the requirements of the RFL. I am surprised. I know Batley had to pay enormous amounts of money last year to keep their place in the championship. Any chance the pitch could be lengthened before the concrete goes in? Not sure why you mentioned a major supermarket chain and employee's of the education system. Naming names doesn't seem right somehow. Have no others been guilty of the offence you seem to see or is it confined to them?

[grumpyoldram]

Wow. So it is a fact that the stadium met the requirements of the RFL. I am surprised. I know Batley had to pay enormous amounts of money last year to keep their place in the championship. Any chance the pitch could be lengthened before the concrete goes in? Not sure why you mentioned a major supermarket chain and employee's of the education system. Naming names doesn't seem right somehow. Have no others been guilty of the offence you seem to see or is it confined to them?

Wow. So it is a fact that the stadium met the requirements of the RFL


Well we must meet RFL requirements or we would be out of the league wouldn't we ?


I know Batley had to pay enormous amounts of money last year


So what were the enormous ammounts payed out by batley to stay in the championship and how did you pay for them ?


any chance thepitch could be lengthened



don't thing length is an issue



supermarket chain and employee's of the education system



There are a lot of laudable reasons for bag packs and bucket collections in supermarkets - I just don't think that financing what are essentially holidays for kids and their teachers is one of them - a bucket collection towards new terracing in sainsburys would be equally inappropriate.


Batley' s impressive ground improvements have, at least in part, been funded by grants. Nothing wrong there, they were available and batley took advantage which is smart business. Those grants were paid for by the taxpayer and or council tax payers without consultation to those taxpayers - again perfectly legitimate and good luck to you. Dewsbury were never given that option because we were'nt eligible - our bad luck. Those publicly funded improvements will have undoubtedly added considerable value to the club and it's shareholders, and I doubt those monies will be refunded if the club gets sold, but hey - that's business. I have no complaints about batleys good fortune - but really doc gruckstrichboots girl, at least demonstrate a little less hypocracy.

[grumpyoldram]

Wow. So it is a fact that the stadium met the requirements of the RFL


Well we must meet RFL requirements or we would be out of the league wouldn't we ?


I know Batley had to pay enormous amounts of money last year


So what were the enormous ammounts payed out by batley to stay in the championship and how did you pay for them ?


any chance thepitch could be lengthened



don't thing length is an issue



supermarket chain and employee's of the education system



There are a lot of laudable reasons for bag packs and bucket collections in supermarkets - I just don't think that financing what are essentially holidays for kids and their teachers is one of them - a bucket collection towards new terracing in sainsburys would be equally inappropriate.


Batley' s impressive ground improvements have, at least in part, been funded by grants. Nothing wrong there, they were available and batley took advantage which is smart business. Those grants were paid for by the taxpayer and or council tax payers without consultation to those taxpayers - again perfectly legitimate and good luck to you. Dewsbury were never given that option because we were'nt eligible - our bad luck. Those publicly funded improvements will have undoubtedly added considerable value to the club and it's shareholders, and I doubt those monies will be refunded if the club gets sold, but hey - that's business. I have no complaints about batleys good fortune - but really doc gruckstrichboots girl, at least demonstrate a little less hypocracy.

hypocracy

must start using spellcheck