surrey__exile

Members
  • Content count

    3,063
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

surrey__exile last won the day on December 5 2016

surrey__exile had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

645 Excellent

About surrey__exile

  • Rank
    Donor 2016/17
  • Birthday 04/06/54

Personal Information

  • Location
    south of Watford
  1. I think they have been discussed on here previously. In any case they've been in the public domain on the Companies House website for some time: https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/00053268/filing-history
  2. Does anybody know where the actual ST sales figures can be found on the official website where the club said they were going to be published? https://www.buryfc.co.uk/tickets/season-tickets/
  3. I'd highly recommend "Bury FC 1985-1999 The Official History" by Peter Cullen. It's extremely comprehensive with a detailed review of each season and all the usual stats you'd expect though obviously doesn't cover the last 17 years. Don't know where you can get a copy from but maybe Bury Library, emailing the club or searching online? This too comes highly recommended: http://www.theforgottenfifteen.co.uk/ It's a fascinating insight into a promotion season, still vivid in the memory of many fans.
  4. You make some good points. The only "fact" I'd quibble with is your comment about nobody wanting to buy/bail us out. My view is that the sale was rushed through and it's possible alternative buyers could have been found. Anyway, that's been debated to death in other threads so moving on..... The fanbase can simplistically be characterised as being divided into two broad camps. The first, and I suspect a smallish minority, is concerned not so much with WHAT Day has achieved but HOW he has achieved it. These fans have grave misgivings about the CCJs, the WUPs, the many broken promises, the contempt for shareholders, and a preference to engage with the moneyed rather than ordinary fans. The other group, in contrast, is quite happy to effectively brush such matters under the carpet with the belief that the ends justify the means and ultimately success on the pitch is all that matters. My feet are very firmly in the former camp FWIW.
  5. Not sure Theresa's May election slogan is a good sign!
  6. If that's the best defence the club can come up with in court for non-payment of bills, its hardly any wonder so many cases are lost.
  7. How come we didn't incur so many CCJs when crowds were lower, there was far less sponsorship, and we weren't receiving fees from selling players? And how come other clubs who have lower ST sales than us don't incur so many CCJs?
  8. There's a huge difference between Ray Pointer and the CCJs. As Pete Cullen's Official History says "The truth of the matter was that the Shakers were simply unable to pay the wages over the Christmas period..." In other words, the club had little choice but to sell Ray. This is in sharp contrast to the situation with the CCJs where the stark reality is that the club has chosen a particular route - which could readily be avoided - that BuryR clearly has profound misgivings about. To then imply it is an "excuse" for him not to buy a season ticket is somewhat disingenuous IMO.
  9. Hopefully, somebody in the club's hierarchy might just might, read BuryR's post, sit up and take notice......and who knows?.....admittedly, that's an extremely long shot but even the longest journey has to start with just a single step.
  10. I believe this is the latest, posted yesterday in the Rolling the Dice thread: 00053268 : BURY FOOTBALL CLUB COMPANY LIMITED(THE) There has been a new CCJ filed against this business for a value of £10,455. It's one of three to have emerged in the last couple of weeks.
  11. Maybe postcorvus was referring to Hamlet's advice to the players (ie actors), including: "O, it offends me to the soul to hear a robustious periwig-pated fellow tear a passion to tatters, to very rags, to split the ears of the groundlings, who for the most part are capable of nothing but inexplicable dumb shows and noise." ? Read more at http://www.monologuearchive.com/s/shakespeare_003.html#0m9WHxBso5T075xM.99 My bold, italics.
  12. Yep, February was my understanding. Hopefully, FB - as the major minority shareholder - will be putting pressure on the club to hold the meeting ASAP. I think the FB Board is meeting this evening. Day's relationship with shareholders is like most people's visits to their dentist: something to put off as long as possible in the knowledge that you'll really have to go at some time in the future.....and that's rather a polite way of putting it!
  13. Serious question: why do you - or anyone else, for that matter - think there's a backer? 4 years on and not a scrap of evidence has emerged that there is. Day has categorically denied there's a backer. If there were a backer do you believe there'd have been all the CCJs and WUPs? Also, why are there 3 outstanding charges on the ground? Links between Peter Lim and the Nevilles hence, given their well-known Bury connections, Lim must be backing Bury is tenuous in the extreme. It's public knowledge PL is acting as a benefactor to Salford so why wouldn't that be the same if he were backing Bury too? Surely, all the evidence is against there being a backer, certainly one with any substantial wealth?
  14. MESSAGE FOR THE MODS (?) Anyone else noticed that the last update from the OS is 20 May, presumably because the link is out-of-date. Would it be possible for this to be tweaked?
  15. N8URY's question was a perfectly reasonable one. You've given a perfectly plausible reasonable explanation for redundancies. A couple of equally possible ones IMO are : - hiring staff in anticipation of an upturn in business which never actually materialises - when a business deems cutbacks are required, the choice of those staff undertaking desirable as opposed to necessary duties is an obvious choice