by Royal Lady » 01 Oct 2014 09:25
01 Oct 2014 09:25by Ian Royal » 01 Oct 2014 10:43
01 Oct 2014 10:43Because the Thais had assumed / cleared the debts we were unable to pay.Sutekh wrote:Well ALF paid the tax bill bill and stopped administration. But the other money would have gone towards the new recruits.
by tidus_mi2 » 01 Oct 2014 10:46
01 Oct 2014 10:46ALF was sold before the Thai's came in to pay the tax bill, Norwood was £1.5m iirc, also potential loan fees for Murray and Mackie, potentially we may be reserving some money for a deal for Murray in January if there is indeed an agreed fee for him.Royal Lady wrote:What did we use the money for ALF, McCarthy and Morrison for? Or did that pay our debts? Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking the Thai consortium (yet lols) but don't make the mistake of thinking it's all THEIR money that has brought in other players - we did get a few million for the three players mentioned...
by Royal Lady » 01 Oct 2014 11:27
01 Oct 2014 11:27by Who Moved The Goalposts? » 01 Oct 2014 11:41
01 Oct 2014 11:41Great saviours in the sense that they have thrown money at the team? No.Royal Lady wrote:So, basically, the Thai's are not the great saviours.....yet. I'm erring on the side of caution here again I'm afraid - time will tell though and I do hope they will be able to help us to improve the team and push on.
by ZacNaloen » 01 Oct 2014 12:04
01 Oct 2014 12:04by Who Moved The Goalposts? » 01 Oct 2014 12:17
01 Oct 2014 12:17Indeed. The 106 team was cheap by comparison to some of the teams today.KC Royal wrote:I'm not sure what people expect. We're not going to spend millions when we've got FFP to think about, plus wages of the current playing staff.
Tbh, I've never thought you need to spend loads to succeed in the Championship anyway though.
by Ian Royal » 01 Oct 2014 13:35
01 Oct 2014 13:35The question was have they done anything positive. That statement and being 'great saviours' are entirely different things. No one has said they are great saviours.Royal Lady wrote:So, basically, the Thai's are not the great saviours.....yet. I'm erring on the side of caution here again I'm afraid - time will tell though and I do hope they will be able to help us to improve the team and push on.
by Royal Lady » 01 Oct 2014 14:30
01 Oct 2014 14:30Yeah and your contribution was : they allowed us to purchase some players. My view is that we got money in from other players which would have countered that outlay.Ian Royal wrote:The question was have they done anything positive. That statement and being 'great saviours' are entirely different things. No one has said they are great saviours.Royal Lady wrote:So, basically, the Thai's are not the great saviours.....yet. I'm erring on the side of caution here again I'm afraid - time will tell though and I do hope they will be able to help us to improve the team and push on.
Although their involvement has stopped the club going deeper into financial trouble and probably administration / selling off all our decent players.
by winchester_royal » 01 Oct 2014 14:57
01 Oct 2014 14:57But we wouldn't have been able to use that money from bringing players in if the Thais hadn't arrived in the first place. The ALF sale covered 1 month's worth of tax bills, it didn't cover the massive losses we made from last season, nor the many more tax bills still to come. What part of we were days away from administration do people not understand? If the club was still in the ownership position it was in 3 months ago we'd have brought in no players, sold plenty more, and still probably be in administration. I don't think anybody is suggesting that we can be 100% certain that things are completely rosy now, but to suggest that their arrival didn't massively contribute to the business we were able to do this season is, imho, pure folly.Royal Lady wrote:Yeah and your contribution was : they allowed us to purchase some players. My view is that we got money in from other players which would have countered that outlay.Ian Royal wrote:The question was have they done anything positive. That statement and being 'great saviours' are entirely different things. No one has said they are great saviours.Royal Lady wrote:So, basically, the Thai's are not the great saviours.....yet. I'm erring on the side of caution here again I'm afraid - time will tell though and I do hope they will be able to help us to improve the team and push on.
Although their involvement has stopped the club going deeper into financial trouble and probably administration / selling off all our decent players.
by tidus_mi2 » 01 Oct 2014 16:38
01 Oct 2014 16:38What questions need to be asked? The previous regime under-estimated the costs of running a football club and almost bankrupt us, we're in the middle of picking up the pieces, step 1) Drenthe's contract expires this summer.JIM wrote:OK, So if they did all that, where the money for all our top players we were forced to sell, in order to pay off the tax man,This is a bigger conspiracy than ROSWELL. JM said the new owners bought new players . WRONG no players were transfer paid poss COX but all the rest were loans or free, start asking questions, ITS YOUR CLUB
by Ian Royal » 01 Oct 2014 16:58
01 Oct 2014 16:58This. It's really not that hard. Also, my contribution was they cleared / assumed our debts and allowed us to buy players. Not just they allowed us to buy players. As winch says, one contributed to the other.winchester_royal wrote:But we wouldn't have been able to use that money from bringing players in if the Thais hadn't arrived in the first place. The ALF sale covered 1 month's worth of tax bills, it didn't cover the massive losses we made from last season, nor the many more tax bills still to come. What part of we were days away from administration do people not understand? If the club was still in the ownership position it was in 3 months ago we'd have brought in no players, sold plenty more, and still probably be in administration. I don't think anybody is suggesting that we can be 100% certain that things are completely rosy now, but to suggest that their arrival didn't massively contribute to the business we were able to do this season is, imho, pure folly.Royal Lady wrote:Yeah and your contribution was : they allowed us to purchase some players. My view is that we got money in from other players which would have countered that outlay.Ian Royal wrote: The question was have they done anything positive. That statement and being 'great saviours' are entirely different things. No one has said they are great saviours.
Although their involvement has stopped the club going deeper into financial trouble and probably administration / selling off all our decent players.
by melonhead » 01 Oct 2014 19:41
01 Oct 2014 19:415 million. TotalWho Moved The Goalposts? wrote:Indeed. The 106 team was cheap by comparison to some of the teams today.KC Royal wrote:I'm not sure what people expect. We're not going to spend millions when we've got FFP to think about, plus wages of the current playing staff.
Tbh, I've never thought you need to spend loads to succeed in the Championship anyway though.
by melonhead » 01 Oct 2014 19:44
01 Oct 2014 19:44JIM wrote:WRONG no players were transfer paid... poss COX
by Extended-Phenotype » 02 Oct 2014 14:16
02 Oct 2014 14:16Looks like your quote hit the post but went in.melonhead wrote:]JIM wrote:WRONG no players were transfer paid... poss COX![]()
Brilliant
by winchester_royal » 03 Oct 2014 20:08
03 Oct 2014 20:08