The previous thread has maybe run its course but someone asked for some facts.

1. W gray's shareholding stands at 4225 shares at 21st Dec 2006. He will not have gained any more as all the shares have been taken up. At this level, if the ground sells for 4million, he will be possibly be entitled to £200,000. Assuming all the proceeds of the sale is divided up between the shareholders. A fair old sum even for oor Wullie, and not to be sniffed at!

2. At the end of last financial year (May last year) the club had a considerable amount of cash and I would suggest that much of the money funding the team is coming from this and not WG.

3. This year 3 mortgage charges have been taken by the club. The amounts and from whom I do not know at this time but possibly these are the "soft" loans that are being bandied about.

4. Like many clubs EF only publish abbreviated accounts and although some info can be gleaned from these with some work in comparing with previous years there can still be a lot hidden as I know has been done in Brown's era.

5. This info and more can be gained by anyone from the companies house website with shareholding and accounts available for £1.

6. I believe in openness in dealings and believe that words such as confidentiality ( as Brown often used) are often used to cover up dodgy dealings and/or the fact that nothing is being done.

7.The fact that Brown has now gone was only the start of what some of us were hoping to achieve at the club. Now that we have drawn breath on this maybe we can start to go for the ulimate of the fans owning the club with the first step being a representative on the board.

8. Do not forget the shareholders are mostly the same as when Brown was there with major shareholder Twigg being a shadowy figure in the background still pulling the strings.

Sorry WG's share of the sale would be £100,000, not £200K as stated. My maths is not as good as it was!

Are you The Mole?
Why not identify yourself?

Item 1 - £4 million is purely a guess, so the amount Wullie would get is pure speculation.

Item 2 - Not a fact. It is what you suggest.

Item 3 - 'possibly the soft loans that are being bandied about'. - Speculation.

Item 4 in your list - "comparing with previous years there can still be a lot hidden as I know has been done in Brown's era" - Speculation.

Item 6 in your list - "I believe in openness in dealings and believe that words such as confidentiality ( as Brown often used) are often used to cover up dodgy dealings and/or the fact that nothing is being done" - Speculation because of what you think confidentialty really means.

Item 8 - Maybe a fact, but what are you meaning by it?

In FACT, what is your post trying to say 'told you so'? Not too many facts in it really, after declaring that "The previous thread has maybe run its course but someone asked for some facts".

What's with this identity crisis that everyone keeps bleating about. I have given some facts and told you where to have them confirmed. I do not slag anyone and am just concerned with the future of our club for which we should all be fighting.

You may disagree with what I say. Well put forward reasoned argument. In the past there has been deals done that cost the club tens of thousands and as I said the owners are still the same. My suggestion although it will have its own problems is for the fans to own the club and we should be pushing for this and not getting bogged down in infighting among ourselves and with Raith fans who may have a genuine grievance againstWG.

I am not the mole although I do share some of his concerns but not necessarly his method of putting them across.

Facts? Eh what facts are you talking about 'told you so'? There wasn't very many in your first post as EF Supporter pointed out above!

EF supporter

The facts are there but I have put some speculation for your discussion.

1. Confirmed WG's shareholdig.

2. The club at May 2006 was cash rich.

3. There are motgage charges against the club.

4. The accounts are abbreviated and do not show all the dealings at the club.

6. Are you disputing that when people use the word confidential sometimes they may not mean " that is something I do not want you to know" and not necessarily truely confidential.

8. What is meant is that although Brown has gone any agenda is still the same. By the way I again speculate that working with the Trust to achieve fans representation is still not on the agenda as Brown was so obvious about. The present board are less obvious however.

Come on Angusfifer, you're fooling nobody. You are me and I am you.

Actually I don't give a toss who any of you are.

Well F-off then!

And I certainly don't pay any attention to intellectual heavyweights such as "Big Dunc"

Come on Angusfifer, you're fooling nobody. You are me and I am you.

Actually I don't give a toss who any of you are.

Highly intellectual??

Over your head, Dunky boy!

Told you so
Mole


Unless you identify yourself or give a sensible reason for not doing so then your credibility is next to nil.
The Other Chairman has repeatedly invited you to present your views to the trust. You have declined to do so. I have invited you to Email me in the past. I do so again but I won't hold my breath...

You must be really intelligent Mole? What did you mean like?

When they were handing out guts, mole was last in the line.

Again. What's with this identity problem. I gave some facts and where to verify them. Do you want the club to progress or are you more concerned with this slagging off of, alright unidentified individuals.

Surely those Washinton Poat guys were rightly more concerned with getting the story than the identity of deep throat.

From the amount of slagging I presume you are happy with the way things are at the club. Fair enough but there are a few of us who are unhappy with the way thing are progressing or rather not progressing at the club insofar as attaining our say in the running of the club. Then again you probably just want to sit back and accept that things are in fact hunky dory.

That's just it. You gave no earth shattering facts and you based your original post on pure speculation.

You may be suspicious of the EFFC boards intentions, but why do you think they are spending money on improving the team? Why waste money on that if they are only really wanting to make a killing on the surrounding land sale? It doesn't matter one iota where EF are in the Scottish leagues to the value of the land, so why waste money on the team? Please explain?

Sorry EF supporter. I did not say the club was wasting money on building up the club. I was only trying to clarify speculation about WG's involvement re his shareholding which was in dispute. Also that the money may not be coming from WG as stated but from the club which was "cash rich".

The point about the land sale was raised to highlight roughly how much WG could gain from its sale. The two items are not related but were raised before and again I tried to clarify.

No earth-shattering facts I admit but thought it was opportune to put them forward. You may use them or not to gain a greater understanding of what is going on at the club.

Fair enough, but what difference does it make whether WG is using his own or the surplus cash we are supposed to have? At the end of the day, it will be affecting him financially whether he is using his own money or if it is the clubs money. If it is the clubs money and it eventually cripples the club, he is going to lose anyway.

The arguments being put up against WG don't hold water. One thing is certain and that is the fans are being given a whole lot of hope in having a successful East Fife team to support, which wasn't there before WG arrived!

I sincerely believe WG has come to Bayview and found out what a great history the club has and wants to be associated with it, and help to put it back where it belongs, which isn't the 3rd division!

I hope you don't mind me interjecting here, but one thing seems to be getting lost in the point-scoring that is going on. Namely, that wherever the money is coming from - the splashing of club funds, or a loan from Willie Gray - we are spending a fortune and yet the football is crap.

People seem to be defending Gray on the basis that he is prepared to lavish funds on the first team squad. That happened all last season, and look at us. A lot of money has been wasted.

Told you so. I assume that the "few of us are unhappy" are the same group I have already referred to on another thread. Quite amusing that you compare what you are doing to the Washington Post case.The ego has landed.
The difference seems to be that they acted on their information. As before are you and your friends going to rise up,take action and save the club ? Answers on a postcard please.

Told you so - Thanks for taking the time and trouble to post some answers / facts / speculations.

Have to agree that the board are showing ambition in making money available for players. Also, on a personal level i'm more hopeful than i've been for many years about the coming season.
Have to also agree that i will be very disappointed if there is no supporters rep on the board very soon....and that's in addition to Dave Marshall and at least one other associate director as they're EF men through and through.

Refering to your origional post, by my reckoning, you've stated 2 facts:

"W gray's shareholding stands at 4225 shares at 21st Dec 2006."

"This info and more can be gained by anyone from the companies house website with shareholding and accounts available for £1."

So, WG's shareholding is under 20K - in the grand scheme of things, that's bugger all. How many individuals have a bigger shareholding than WG - 15, 20? - surley these people would stand to make more - why are they not mentioned in the conspirecy theroy? Still think he's after land-sale profits???

I also asked you (in the other thread) for you to hazard a guess as to where the money for the players wage's is coming from, and how much you think that wage bill is? Question still open if you want to answer.....

Probably the same place he got the money to pay Rovers' players' wages. This is the worrying thing

To told you so ........

You are peeing in the wind trying to get the head in the sand brigade to listen. Now that Broon has gone, their life is complete. Reasoned arguments and articulate questions are not what they want to hear.

Superbreak - why speculate? Come up with facts and the questions relating to the facts, not questions on what your suspicious minds are conjuring up.

Let's get one thing straight. Ihave no ax to grind re oor Wullie. I have found him reasonably up front and whether or not he is putting money into the club well good on him. I only put the facts of his shareholding because it was asked.

TOC you have completely missed the point. I was not comparing myself to the Washington reporters but rather comparing them to you and others of like mind.

As far as taking action I thought that was why the Trust was set up. Although from past experience there is little action to come from that area. The removal of Brown had little to do with the trust although individual members contributed much.

My main concern is the way forward, the first step of which is to get a rep on the board. After some prodding from mole and others it did appear on the trust's agenda. I suspect as far as the trust is concerned that is where it will stay as past experience indicates.

As for the other conspiracy theories well they are just theories but they do give some food for thought. But why after all this time is there no progress on appointing of new board members both from the fans and the associate directors?

Here's the most inmportant 'fact'.

Raith Rovers nearly went out of existence under Willie Gray.

Wille Gray is our chairman.

We are throwing money about like we are a first division club. I seem to remember Rovers doing the same at one time.

Those are facts for all of you.

Now surely someone should answer them ? Without burying their heads in the sand.

Ps, I'm not against Willie Gray - just shitting myself about the long term future of our team.

Answer what exactly?? I don't see any questions in your post.

ah, the old 'see no evil' approach works at many levels

ah, the old 'see no good' approach works at many levels

unlike your attempt at parody, which doesn't even work at base level

unlike your attempt at sarcasm, which also doesn't work......... at any level.

a pity, but i don't suppose much works at your level