The K's In Point
Newest article: Re: Written Statement Following Fans’ Forum Last W…
by Korky1Today 01:07Today at 01:07:24
3 peopleview thread
Oldest article: "Kingslayers" (The Sun)
by Cardiff Ks1/5/2024 14:40Wed May 1 14:40:32 2024 3 peopleview thread
Next thread: S Club Travel by Ks Supporters Club18/11/2025 09:46Tue Nov 18 09:46:50 2025view thread
Mythology
Views: 2914
In a recent post, Ollie commented on Yioryos having “ blocked significant investment and expertise into the club “. I was not a club director at that time and so do not know every detail of what went on. However, as Yioryos only owned 5% of the shares at that time, he could not possibly on his own have blocked anything.
I do personally feel it’s a shame that the previous club directors did not manage to reach some form of agreement with the KBH grouping. However, what was actually formally publicly offered seemed to be in the form of a takeover bid. - as the payments of £30k a year appeared to be conditional upon taking over the majority of shares of the club at a nominal price.
Since 1 June 2024 I have been a club director and so can comment on the basis of much more detailed knowledge about developments since then. For both the 2024/25 and 2025/26 seasons the football club has gained well over double the level of sponsorship that Kingston Bridge Holdings had offered. The sponsorship we have received has given without any conditions.
If members of the former Kingston Bridge Holdings collective are still interested in investing in the Club they would be most welcome to do so. Equally, there are many opportunities to get involved through the new Supporters Trust.
reply to this article | return to the front page
5 people 
10 people
Re: Mythology
Views: 2196
Spot on, John. No time for all these strings attached so-called investors. Why couldn’t the KBH simply show faith in the board and provide the funds upfront?
Yioryos and the board have never been anything but prudent and transparent with the club's finances!
reply to this article | return to the front page
5 people 2 people
Re: Mythology
Views: 1893
You must be on some kind of hallucinatory drug if you believe the guff you have just spouted.
reply to this article | return to the front page
2 people
Re: Mythology
Views: 1908
Korky you must be on some mind bending substance not to spot such an obvious a wind up.
Ksuals
reply to this article | return to the front page
2 people
Re: Mythology
Views: 2330
I'm glad you agree with all my other points highlighting this stewardship has led us to our lowest ever position. Also our lowest crowds on record. And accounts that continue to show us burning through a fund that was meant to secure our future.
I'm pretty sure none of these are myths.
reply to this article | return to the front page
8 people
Re: Mythology
Views: 2340
You can tell the board are getting rattled again if Bangsy’s been sent out on manoeuvres!
reply to this article | return to the front page
7 people
Re: Mythology
Views: 2333
Are you still a director or have you sold your shares,and investor openly told me he acquired your shareholding.
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person
Re: Mythology
Views: 2330
Yes I am still a shareholder and director. Some of my shares will be gifted to the new supporters trust as has already een explained publicly . Some will go to a new investor. The substantial payments for these will be going to the football club and not to myself. However I am still retaining some shares for the time being and remain as a director
reply to this article | return to the front page
5 people 1 person
Re: Mythology
Views: 1953
John Bangs should be applauded, both for his intention to gift some shares to the supporters trust and if he is able to achieve substantial payments for transfer of shares to a new investor that go to the football club and not himself. Publicly available information from Companies House shows the following shareholdings on 9 July 2025: Yoiryos Vasilaras 50 (40%), John Bangs 31 (25%), Paul Forrester 25 (20%), Benjamin Flatt 19 (15%).
The club's current assets, including cash, totalled £615,759 on 31 May 2024 but the liabilities exceeded assets by £345,884. In view of this large deficit, the apparent need for ongoing support from the creditors and the uncertain prospects for the club at this point in time, I am not sure the shares have any intrinsic value from a hard-nosed commercial point of view.
reply to this article | return to the front page
3 people
Re: Mythology
Views: 1790
I hope these figures include my old bosses loan of nearly 30,000 that should have been repaid when Anderson Wainwright and Fenwick sold the club down the river for 150,000 pounds back to AFC W,as per his agreement ,he's still waiting ,Jim Cochrane won't wait forever. As for the clubs uncertainty the writing was on the wall once those three rats left the sinking ship. You can bang on all you like but I think most supporters know there will be no new ground in the foreseeable future ,there will be no money left from the W im money and the club will be struggling in the C/C league.
Edited by Korky1 at 02:56:18 on 19th November 2025
reply to this article | return to the front page
2 people 3 people
Re: Mythology
Views: 1929
Thanks for this. At present the Football Club operates as a private equity company and the shares can be sold by the existing shareholders to who they choose, for whatever price people are willing to pay. I think what you say is largely true although there are significant protections in place relating to the loans from former directors which mean the money is unlikely to be reclaimed and in time may be written off.
When the Club is able to build its new ground though, and consequently has more significant assets, the value of the shares is likely to increase.
Hopefully, the new Supporters Trust may, overtime, be able to add to the initial batch of shares enabling supporters to play an ever increasing role in the running of the club.
reply to this article | return to the front page
5 people
Re: Mythology
Views: 1819
When the Club is able to build its new ground though, and consequently has more significant assets, the value of the shares is likely to increase.
Hope the two recent outsiders investors in the club with no previous connection to Ks have been thoroughly vetted and had their motivations checked then.
Think you've given the game away, John.
reply to this article | return to the front page
5 people
Re: Mythology
Views: 1810
You may have more information than us John but I would be interested to know why you appear so confident that the debts to former directors are likely to be written off in the future. They amount to several hundred thousands of pounds and the obvious question is if the former directors are not expecting to be repaid, why have they not written these loans off already?
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person
Re: Mythology
Views: 1833
I am confident because of written agreements with the former directors and I am sorry but I cannot share these. Suffice it to say I believe I have very strong grounds to be confident these loans will eventually be written off
reply to this article | return to the front page
4 people
Re: Mythology
Views: 1852
The club's current assets, including cash, totalled £615,759 on 31 May 2024 but the liabilities exceeded assets by £345,884.
is there a different interpretation this meaning the club owes about £1million?
i know when we were KBH talking about putting in the £30k a year, there were parts of the accounts we werent able to have access to, so i might be way off the mark. someone tell me why it's not alarming.
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person
Re: Mythology
Views: 1849
Because this is simply not the case . Mark has referenced two separate points. The debt that relates to former directors loans does indeed exceed what we have in the clubs bank own account..This is entirely separate from the escrow account ( which could not in any case were used to pay directors loans) You are putting two and two together and making 105!!
reply to this article | return to the front page
2 people
Re: Mythology
Views: 1812
not intending to put 2 and 2 together and get 105.
but also don't understand the post i reference.
all i've got is that I'm wrong, and not an explanation...
can you explain?
thanks
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Mythology
Views: 1864
What is confusing is that the money in the escrow account is shown both as an asset but also with a matching liability which makes it sound like there’s no money there. The reason it’s shown as a liability is that in the long-term it must be spent on ground development or other approved ground related costs. It is not available for anything else and is shown as a liability even though we haven’t actually spent it yet. Hopefully we will be doing so in the fairly near future
Edited by John Bangs at 16:48:05 on 18th November 2025
reply to this article | return to the front page
4 people
Re: Mythology
Views: 1841
I think the assets must mostly be the AFCW money and that also appears as a liability for the same amount- I think that's what people said in the past anyway.
I guess most of the rest of the difference is directors loans but that info is not available and whether those could be called in.
The net assets less net liaibilities is a bit better than a couple of years ago but I doubt it means the club is making money- might be due to a small write off of directors loans maybe but again that information is not available.
Edited by RichardNW at 16:19:04 on 18th November 2025
Edited by RichardNW at 16:19:30 on 18th November 2025
reply to this article | return to the front page
4 people
Re: Mythology
Views: 2268
Talking of public statements, I'm looking forward to next season being our last ground sharing following our Chairman and his strategic experts telling us that we'd be in our new ground in 18 months at the last update.
Spot the myth.
reply to this article | return to the front page
5 people
Re: Mythology
Views: 2343
Thank you, it's good news that even in trying and uncertain times we have increased our income through the sponsorship the board has secured.
But,
For both the 2024/25 and 2025/26 seasons the football club has gained well over double the level of sponsorship that Kingston Bridge Holdings had offered. The sponsorship we have received has given without any conditions.
You're comparing a standard sponsorship deal with fan investment in to a football club.
KBH didn't just offer investment, as you say they also offered expertise in areas that the club is severely deficient in. It's misleading to only focus on the money raised via sponsorship when the experience and skills being offered had value too.
Of course the sponsorship via minicab dot com didn't come with conditions, why would they be interested in running a non league football club?
"The price of everything and the value of nothing" springs to mind.
reply to this article | return to the front page
10 people
Re: Mythology
Views: 2279
I entirely agree that the people involved in KBH have between them and impressive range of knowledge and experience. However, the offer of this being available was tied up in a takeover bid. It was the takeover bid in the particular form it was made that was rejected. If any of the members of the former KBH are interested in offering their help and expertise the club, it would ,of course ,be most welcome.
reply to this article | return to the front page
4 people
Re: Mythology
Views: 2231
I think it's worth a slight correction here: lots of these people previously *did* contribute their help and expertise in the form of:
website hosting
post-match YouTube interviews
social media
programme contributions
sponsorship
Clearly, those modest contributions were not tied up with anything to do with club ownership. Lots of this was done without any thanks / acknowledgement from the club. Now we have
a substandard website
no post-match interviews
social media which is, let's be honest, lamentably bad
a programme lacking good content
no sponsorship from a very well-known Kingston business who are instead sponsoring a kid's team and displaying that team's shirt in their shop
These people were treated very shabbily over a period of several months when they were trying to get involved with ownership (not solely or exclusively by the current board, it's worth acknowledging) and were so exasperated they gave up the volunteer roles they'd previously been willing to do. It's not about ownership, it's about decency.
But all this is irrelevant really. The main concerns right now are: bizarre managerial merry-go-round, confusing ownership of the club, highyl questionable relationship between club and supporters club, declining attendances, historically low league position, no tangible progress on new ground.
reply to this article | return to the front page
13 people 1 person
Re: Mythology
Views: 2238
highyl questionable relationship between club and supporters club
Explain?
Kingstonian Supporters Club
reply to this article | return to the front page
2 people 2 people
Re: Mythology
Views: 2277
I for one think the supporters club is no longer the critical friend it used to be,
I might be reading that wrong and I don’t doubt the intentions of people involved, and I think Rex was brilliant in the recent vote, but I think there’s been a marked shift recently. and some will believe that’s good.
I’m resigned to the death of Ks so not as animated about this as I might have been in the past
reply to this article | return to the front page
8 people
Re: Mythology
Views: 2140
Thanks, Jon. Much appreciated.
The Supporters Club is whatever its members want it to be. Two years ago, Shaun and I were part of a new approach ("the critical friend") because the members elected us to do so. More recently, we have been exploring the possibility of hybrid ownership, and converting to a Supporters Trust, again because the members asked us to/voted for it. Overwhelmingly.
As I pointed once before, if anyone doesn't like that, they're free to stand for election, or simply table a motion for debate, or start a new supporters club with its own, distinctive voice. (Or as Gary commented, start a new club!) The next fans forum meeting is planned for w/c Mon 8th December.
reply to this article | return to the front page
6 people
Re: Mythology
Views: 2082
agree it’s an overwhelming percentage of the vote.
don’t accept under 100 people is an overwhelming view of anything for a football club of Kingstonian’s stature, but I guess that’s where we are in 2025
that notwithstanding, I do feel we’re being very patient and accepting of things which aren’t significantly different to how they were when the supporters club was not accepting of the failings
i don’t know the answer (but have resigned myself to the inevitabilie) and I value everyone who is on the SC. thanks for doing the work many others aren’t motivated to do
Edited by jon tolley at 14:03:14 on 15th November 2025
reply to this article | return to the front page
11 people 1 person
Re: Mythology
Views: 2157
Leaking the news of us sacking our manager on this forum before it was announced properly was completely disgraceful and unprofessional. How are we supposed to have any faith in people when this is considered reasonable behaviour?
reply to this article | return to the front page
7 people
Re: Mythology
Views: 2208
I take you’re points and largely agree, but I think there’s also a big irony in saying these people don’t do it anymore, in part at least, due to a lack of thanks.
Then go on to openly criticise the programmes and socials, which clearly some fans are giving up their time and putting a lot of effort into.
Could make the same point without bringing others efforts down.
Edited by PlayupKs at 14:23:47 on 14th November 2025
reply to this article | return to the front page
8 people
Re: Mythology
Views: 2148
I am not talking about a lack of thanks from other supporters, I’m talking about a lack of thanks or acknowledgement from those running the club - there’s no irony here whatsoever.
Look: if you “work” on this kind of thing for years with no acknowledgement, then are treated like muck when you attempt to invest in the club, you’re not going to do it any more. That’s the reality. That’s the only point here.
The programme and social media are miles worse than a couple of years ago when we had people who do this for a living as the volunteers. That’s the reality. We can all pretend this isn’t the case, but if we have a director framing them standing down in a somewhat unreasonable way, I think it’s fair to point out.
Cheers.
reply to this article | return to the front page
7 people
Re: Mythology
Views: 2109
Yeah as I said I get and agree with you’re overall point. But can say we had professionals and former great volunteers who no longer do so because they weren’t thanked enough/ at all by the club (which I fall under), without bringing other current volunteers work down.
And if you really want go there… from the view of someone who is a professional writer and run multiple social media accounts in my career, I don’t know what golden age, nostalgic world of programmes and social media you’re remembering. But neither were markedly better a few years ago. The socials have highlights and goals which they’ve never had previously, the programmes are missing club/squad/manager updates but I don’t think any volunteers would be able change that.
I just personally don’t think anyone who is giving up there time and doing something for free deserves to have there work questioned or criticised., especially if you’re not willing to step in and help yourself And whether that’s the overall point you’re trying to make (which you’re not admittedly), I just find it unnecessary personally.
There is a certain amount irony in this in that I’m not volunteering myself for the similar main point your making, but if I was and saw these comments I would probably just think well *** * you then and stop doing it. And people will complain even more 6months down the line when we have no one to run socials or do programmes.
Yes you can throw at me I’m being over sensitive, there’s much bigger issues at this club, whether we’ll have a club in 6months. But with so many issues at the club, I think the quality of current volunteers work is the very last place to go.
Edited by PlayupKs at 10:08:20 on 15th November 2025
reply to this article | return to the front page
6 people 1 person
Re: Mythology
Views: 2017
I'll say it one more time - we had professionals doing this for free, they were treated appallingly and now no longer do it.
I respect any volunteer giving up their time for Ks but I think we can all agree that posting graphics like the following is really quite embarrassing and frankly it would be better without it, and just text summaries. 
reply to this article | return to the front page
6 people 1 person
Re: Mythology
Views: 2011
Hmm, I'm not sure it's right to criticise a volunteer in public for something you no longer want to do.
reply to this article | return to the front page
7 people 2 people
Re: Mythology
Views: 1933
(a) I am not criticising *them* ("I respect any volunteer giving up their time for Ks"), I am merely saying this content is clearly not worth publishing. It gives no information compared to the text updates and just obviously looks terrible, let's not even get into this, but that graphic above just looks ridiculous.
(b) I have never done this work.
Other than that, spot on.
Edited by MC at 16:19:29 on 17th November 2025
reply to this article | return to the front page
2 people
Re: Mythology
Views: 1955
You can be respectful of the time and effort put in and also be critical of the output.
As a volunteer at a well run and harmonious non league club ( obviously not Ks) I''m more than ok with others having an opinion,either positive or negative about how I carry out my voluteer role.
Ksuals
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Mythology
Views: 1896
Phew, just as well you provided those clarifications!
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Mythology
Views: 2273
You're comparing a standard sponsorship deal with fan investment in to a football club.
Exactly this. Can't work out if John, or whoever told him to post, is being willfully misleading, or worryingly ignorant.
reply to this article | return to the front page
5 people
Re: Mythology
Views: 2241
Well, if we are to have a sensible discussion about this, what exactly is it that I have said that you contend is misleading? ….. and why do you argue that this is the case?
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person
Re: Mythology
Views: 2233
Give it a rest. You know it’s wilfully misleading.
The £30k per year was just from the KBH group, as a minimum.
We would OF COURSE have gone out and got sponsorship on top of that. And if Yioryos can get £60k, given he doesn’t know how to work an email mailing list, I can absolutely guarantee you we’d be getting more than that.
IN ADDITION TO the £30k on top.
IN ADDITION TO the expertise of how to do things like…operate a Mailchimp email list, for starters.
But you crack on.
reply to this article | return to the front page
5 people
Re: Mythology
Views: 2176
It's misleading to compare recent sponsorship purely to the proposed investment, as if to suggest that if KBH had been successful the group would not have also brought in further sponsorship as well as the promised investment.
reply to this article | return to the front page
7 people
Re: Mythology
Views: 2295
18th in Step 4
2nd bottom of the form guide since Deano and Gough were sacked with no explanation
A managerial merry go round that made us the laughing stock of non league
No guarantee over where we're playing next season
Feels like a bold time for the board to try and take a victory lap.
reply to this article | return to the front page
14 people
Re: Mythology
Views: 2235
If anything it points to another failing, we’ve taken xyz this season in sponsorship, the best since… but still find ourselves sitting 1place above the relegation zone.
If there was any competetent communication coming out of this club maybe it could be argued that it’s being ringfenced for future projects/stadiums but who knows.
Again this in essence seems to say ‘every decision is made in the best interest of Kingstonian FC, trust us’ when every logical and known piece of evidence suggests the board have been incapable of making decisions that lead to positive outcomes and thus the right to ask for trust hasn’t been earned.
And if there are private, unknown wins, they’re incapable of communicating them effectively. This being case and point. The sponsorship this season seems like a win, but instead communicating or creating anything around that via official channels to build positivity or attract other sponsors, it’s been used on a forum to point score against one singular fan. At best it’s professional neglegance.
Edited by PlayupKs at 14:16:18 on 14th November 2025
reply to this article | return to the front page
3 people
Re: Mythology
Views: 2245
The mythological world of the Greeks George is a (bubble and squeak,)a greek seems he still lives there.
Edited by Korky1 at 11:26:37 on 14th November 2025
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person
Re: Mythology
Views: 2149
This thread is a pretty good insight into why a lot of us can't really be arsed with K's anymore.
reply to this article | return to the front page
9 people
Re: Mythology
Views: 2009
Well on a more somber note Ks offcially in the relegation zone. And didn't play a game to get there.
Edited by Korky1 at 18:14:01 on 15th November 2025
reply to this article | return to the front page
4 people
Re: Mythology
Views: 1962
That is where we will end up relegated and the
final nails into the coffin of our great club.
we can only hope that before that scenario
becomes fact the chairman gets bored and
finds some other pastime.
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person
Re: Mythology
Views: 1936
Some pangs of conscience wold be acceptable ,let him hand it over to someone who could make it work,and get the club back to some respectability,
reply to this article | return to the front page
Previous thread: 4th Round League cup draw by KsOllie19/11/2025 07:51Wed Nov 19 07:51:26 2025view thread