The Promotion Commotion Transfer Thread 2017

[Worthy4England]

Goes from bad to worse. We are down if Ken can't sweet talk the league. We are as Parky has said 4 players short. We won't get anyone good enough to even sit on a championship bench under these rules. Loans will effectively be only half a season. And then we will be sunk. In January there will be no free transfers.

http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/sport/wa ... alary_cap/

One man to blame here - Dean Holdsworth....

Many more than that let's be honest. Previous regime massively culpable. And Ken has delivered on promise of lifting embargo and he's had enough time.

Hmm not sure either this viewpoint nor the one about Holdsworth has the benefit of much context against the sale of the Club. If memory serves, ED dropped the asking price from £15m to a quid on the grounds that there was going to be a shortfall on working capital at least until the end of the season just past... So don't give me £15m for it, use that for cover yer ass costs.

The initial cash injection that I think paid the tax bill and kept us afloat to the end of the season before last came from Holdsworth's BluMarble loan, Ken put some in to cover cash flow, but took it out again in that first season (think he said this himself)

[Peter Thompson]

Goes from bad to worse. We are down if Ken can't sweet talk the league. We are as Parky has said 4 players short. We won't get anyone good enough to even sit on a championship bench under these rules. Loans will effectively be only half a season. And then we will be sunk. In January there will be no free transfers.

http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/sport/wa ... alary_cap/

One man to blame here - Dean Holdsworth....

Many more than that let's be honest. Previous regime massively culpable. And Ken has delivered on promise of lifting embargo and he's had enough time.

Hmm not sure either this viewpoint nor the one about Holdsworth has the benefit of much context against the sale of the Club. If memory serves, ED dropped the asking price from £15m to a quid on the grounds that there was going to be a shortfall on working capital at least until the end of the season just past... So don't give me £15m for it, use that for cover yer ass costs.

The initial cash injection that I think paid the tax bill and kept us afloat to the end of the season before last came from Holdsworth's BluMarble loan, Ken put some in to cover cash flow, but took it out again in that first season (think he said this himself)

So you think that Ken got 50% of the club for nothing, whilst Holdsworth used the Bluemarble loan for his 50%

Ken has kept the club afloat over the past 12 months with his temporary cash flow loans to cover player & staff salaries, admittedly taking some of these temp loans back when he could - however he must have had to pay a significant sum (similar to the amount of the Bluemarble loan - well £4M of it) to aquire his shareholding initially that he hasn't taken out....he didn't get 50% of the club (and the chairman role) without putting some cash in initially.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Dunno if this is an update on the overnight story - it's datelined 1hr ago - but the BN apiece now says Ken will appeal it today.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

So you think that Ken got 50% of the club for nothing, whilst Holdsworth used the Bluemarble loan for his 50%

Ken has kept the club afloat over the past 12 months with his temporary cash flow loans to cover player & staff salaries, admittedly taking some of these temp loans back when he could - however he must have had to pay a significant sum (similar to the amount of the Bluemarble loan - well £4M of it) to aquire his shareholding initially that he hasn't taken out....he didn't get 50% of the club (and the chairman role) without putting some cash in initially.

As far as anyone can tell from the available substantiated information, neither Holdsworth or Anderson have put any of their own money and left it in, presumably sticking 50p each in to buy the club. Holdsworth put in 4m of the Blumarble loan in and the entire loan is against club assets. So we can legitimately ask Deano what's happened to the million quid (accepting some of it legitimately has covered legal costs and expenses). We can also thank Ken for the temporary loans. We can also bemoan the pay day loan rates of interest. Beyond that I find it hard to see how anyone knows whether it's all Deano's fault or Ken's fault. Without the 4m to cover running costs there would have been administration and we'd likely be looking forward to League 2 right now.

* we know Ken bought some shares in Deano's company, but I'm not sure what that gains or helps anyone at this stage.

[BWFC_Insane]

Dunno if this is an update on the overnight story - it's datelined 1hr ago - but the BN apiece now says Ken will appeal it today.

Said that last night. Ken has responded on't official site with a statement saying "nah not true". Though Iles claims the information came directly from an EFL press release.

Not looking good at all.

[LeverEnd]

Dunno if this is an update on the overnight story - it's datelined 1hr ago - but the BN apiece now says Ken will appeal it today.

Said that last night. Ken has responded on't official site with a statement saying "nah not true". Though Iles claims the information came directly from an EFL press release.

Not looking good at all.

Like all his press releases its about controlling the information to his benefit not transparency. Absolute bullshitter. Believe nothing he says or writes.
We took the piss out of the EFL last season to be honest. Probably with a string of broken promises/deadlines. Like a dodgy cabbie who is 'just coming down your street chief'. If they screw us over now then it will be a massive shame for Parky and the team and fans but Ken has had it coming.

[Worthy4England]

Goes from bad to worse. We are down if Ken can't sweet talk the league. We are as Parky has said 4 players short. We won't get anyone good enough to even sit on a championship bench under these rules. Loans will effectively be only half a season. And then we will be sunk. In January there will be no free transfers.

http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/sport/wa ... alary_cap/

One man to blame here - Dean Holdsworth....

Many more than that let's be honest. Previous regime massively culpable. And Ken has delivered on promise of lifting embargo and he's had enough time.

Hmm not sure either this viewpoint nor the one about Holdsworth has the benefit of much context against the sale of the Club. If memory serves, ED dropped the asking price from £15m to a quid on the grounds that there was going to be a shortfall on working capital at least until the end of the season just past... So don't give me £15m for it, use that for cover yer ass costs.

The initial cash injection that I think paid the tax bill and kept us afloat to the end of the season before last came from Holdsworth's BluMarble loan, Ken put some in to cover cash flow, but took it out again in that first season (think he said this himself)

So you think that Ken got 50% of the club for nothing, whilst Holdsworth used the Bluemarble loan for his 50%

Ken has kept the club afloat over the past 12 months with his temporary cash flow loans to cover player & staff salaries, admittedly taking some of these temp loans back when he could - however he must have had to pay a significant sum (similar to the amount of the Bluemarble loan - well £4M of it) to aquire his shareholding initially that he hasn't taken out....he didn't get 50% of the club (and the chairman role) without putting some cash in initially.

To the first part, PT, neither. The cost (purchase price) of the Club was a quid. So Deano and Ken got their disputed share of 47.5% of the Club each for ten bob. That's what bought the shareholdings. That's not "I think", "you think", "he, she or it thinks" - that's a matter of record.

Had the Club been making a small loss, break even or a profit, no one would have batted an eyelid if Davies had asked for a consideration in return for selling it. It wasn't and he didn't (in the final analysis). The downside for the buyers was they had to cover the cash-flow shortfall.

Up to the point of the previous accounts (which effectively show the first three months post takeover), they tell us that £4m from the Blumarble loan went into the Club - this bit didn't seem to be ever disputed by Deano and Ken, only the other £1m. They also showed that Ken put some in and took it out again (that's not a criticism). He said this himself at the time.

I have little doubt that Ken has almost certainly put in money this year just gone, as the world, his wife, the ELF and the Taxman know we have a cash problem. He didn't get 50% without putting money in, initially, but that money was the ten bob. In return for it only costing them ten bob each, they took on the debt position that the company was in as a known quantity - that's why it cost them ten bob each.

We have no idea whether at the time the company was taken over, whether Ken had £2.2?m hanging around to pay off the taxman. What we do know is because of the actions of the takeover, that debt got paid.and that Deano's loan put £4m in.

It's easy with hindsight to bluster on and point to the Blumarble loan being the problem now. At the time, it might have been the only option on the table (bearing in mind Ken was a late addition to the takeover because Deano's money men had walked off the pitch). The chances at that point of ED being able to say the takeover has fallen through would have been exceedingly limited, with the taxman aggressively circling.

We know from the last Accounts we were still loss making (~£7m) - a position that Ken has said has improved over the last 12 months (it'd have to). We also know that we've sold or not bought back some assets (Holding, Clough and a number of smaller undisclosed's - might have been in the 10k's sort of brackets but it all helps - Car Park that was sold with a buy back option has gone)

So we're not at all clear how much Ken has put in at this point other than it should be shy of £7m on a like for like basis less the assets we've sold. He's almost certainly had to put some in.

[BWFC_Insane]

Goes from bad to worse. We are down if Ken can't sweet talk the league. We are as Parky has said 4 players short. We won't get anyone good enough to even sit on a championship bench under these rules. Loans will effectively be only half a season. And then we will be sunk. In January there will be no free transfers.

http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/sport/wa ... alary_cap/

One man to blame here - Dean Holdsworth....

Many more than that let's be honest. Previous regime massively culpable. And Ken has delivered on promise of lifting embargo and he's had enough time.

Hmm not sure either this viewpoint nor the one about Holdsworth has the benefit of much context against the sale of the Club. If memory serves, ED dropped the asking price from £15m to a quid on the grounds that there was going to be a shortfall on working capital at least until the end of the season just past... So don't give me £15m for it, use that for cover yer ass costs.

The initial cash injection that I think paid the tax bill and kept us afloat to the end of the season before last came from Holdsworth's BluMarble loan, Ken put some in to cover cash flow, but took it out again in that first season (think he said this himself)

Previous regime left us in this mess. They got us into the embargo and left us with huge debts that we couldn't service and the need to sell off assets.

Since then it has been a repair job. To say the previous regime (whoever you ascribe blame to) is faultless is ridiculous. We are mainly in this mess because of that. Sure events after that have further contributed. Like the Ken and Dean dispute. Holdsworth walking off with a million quid secured against club assets isn't exactly a good thing either....

[Prufrock]

Goes from bad to worse. We are down if Ken can't sweet talk the league. We are as Parky has said 4 players short. We won't get anyone good enough to even sit on a championship bench under these rules. Loans will effectively be only half a season. And then we will be sunk. In January there will be no free transfers.

http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/sport/wa ... alary_cap/

One man to blame here - Dean Holdsworth....

Many more than that let's be honest. Previous regime massively culpable. And Ken has delivered on promise of lifting embargo and he's had enough time.

Hmm not sure either this viewpoint nor the one about Holdsworth has the benefit of much context against the sale of the Club. If memory serves, ED dropped the asking price from £15m to a quid on the grounds that there was going to be a shortfall on working capital at least until the end of the season just past... So don't give me £15m for it, use that for cover yer ass costs.

The initial cash injection that I think paid the tax bill and kept us afloat to the end of the season before last came from Holdsworth's BluMarble loan, Ken put some in to cover cash flow, but took it out again in that first season (think he said this himself)

Previous regime left us in this mess. They got us into the embargo and left us with huge debts that we couldn't service and the need to sell off assets.

Since then it has been a repair job. To say the previous regime (whoever you ascribe blame to) is faultless is ridiculous. We are mainly in this mess because of that. Sure events after that have further contributed. Like the Ken and Dean dispute. Holdsworth walking off with a million quid secured against club assets isn't exactly a good thing either....

Depends who's saying it and what they're blaming them for.

If it's fans saying the previous regime are not at all to blame for us being financially f*cked then yes, that seems ridiculous.

If it's the current regime trying to argue that the previous lot are to blame for their failures to get us out of the embargo, well no I'm not buying. I certainly appreciate Ken stepping in and the work he has done, but he doesn't get a free pass. It's all well and good saying he doesn't have millions and millions and it's his own money. Well fine, but I don't have millions and millions either, so I didn't decide to take on a business losing £7m a year alongside a spiv who'd leveraged his half against everything not nailed down (and some things that were).

[TANGODANCER]

Not sure if the Bolton News is talking bollox or somebody is telling porkies? Quite frankly, in view of Ken's denial of the report, if I were him I'd be having a few strong words with the B.N. They sourced the report, so surely it's up to them to publish either an apology or a confirmation. Right now it's all making us look pretty bad as a club.

[BWFC_Insane]

Not sure if the Bolton News is talking bollox or somebody is telling porkies? Quite frankly, in view of Ken's denial of the report, if I were him I'd be having a few strong words with the B.N. They sourced the report, so surely it's up to them to publish either an apology or a confirmation. Right now it's all making us look pretty bad as a club.

Read Ken's statement. At no point in it does he say the story is wrong.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Not sure if the Bolton News is talking bollox or somebody is telling porkies? Quite frankly, in view of Ken's denial of the report, if I were him I'd be having a few strong words with the B.N. They sourced the report, so surely it's up to them to publish either an apology or a confirmation. Right now it's all making us look pretty bad as a club.

Read Ken's statement. At no point in it does he say the story is wrong.

Eh?

Ken:

In relation to the Bolton News article which has been published online this evening, I feel it is important that I clear up some points.

BN:

A new directive issued last week more than halves the wage Phil Parkinson’s side will be able to offer new signings.

Ken:

No new directive was issued to us last week

BN:

The Whites will be limited to contracts of £4,500-a-week, which is a significant drop on the £600,000-per-annum (£11,500-a-week) level set previously at the end of the 2015/16 campaign.

Ken:

I am not sure where the figure quoted of £11,500 a week for 2015/16 has originated from.

BN:

chairman Ken Anderson is set to argue his case with league officials on Thursday

Ken:

I have regular dialogue with the EFL on a number of matters but there are no plans to meet up at the present time.

Ken may be obfuscating and throwing shade but I don't understand how you can say "At no point in it does he say the story is wrong".

Tango: as detailed on the Ken's Kolumn thread, Iles got the story from people within the club and has happily stated via Twitter. He's allowed to stand up his story if he likes. For all the dislike of overly cosy relationships between clubs and media, it's rarely pleasant to watch them bicker.

[BWFC_Insane]

Not sure if the Bolton News is talking bollox or somebody is telling porkies? Quite frankly, in view of Ken's denial of the report, if I were him I'd be having a few strong words with the B.N. They sourced the report, so surely it's up to them to publish either an apology or a confirmation. Right now it's all making us look pretty bad as a club.

Read Ken's statement. At no point in it does he say the story is wrong.

Eh?

Ken:

In relation to the Bolton News article which has been published online this evening, I feel it is important that I clear up some points.

BN:

A new directive issued last week more than halves the wage Phil Parkinson’s side will be able to offer new signings.

Ken:

No new directive was issued to us last week

BN:

The Whites will be limited to contracts of £4,500-a-week, which is a significant drop on the £600,000-per-annum (£11,500-a-week) level set previously at the end of the 2015/16 campaign.

Ken:

I am not sure where the figure quoted of £11,500 a week for 2015/16 has originated from.

BN:

chairman Ken Anderson is set to argue his case with league officials on Thursday

Ken:

I have regular dialogue with the EFL on a number of matters but there are no plans to meet up at the present time.

Ken may be obfuscating and throwing shade but I don't understand how you can say "At no point in it does he say the story is wrong".

Tango: as detailed on the Ken's Kolumn thread, Iles got the story from people within the club and has happily stated via Twitter. He's allowed to stand up his story if he likes. For all the dislike of overly cosy relationships between clubs and media, it's rarely pleasant to watch them bicker.

At no point does he say "we are not under any new rules". Iles sourced this via a press release from the EFL themselves.

Ken is playing fast and loose here for some reason. "We received no new directive last week and there was no appeal from us last week".

Ok, what about the week before? Or this week? Clearly there has been a new directive otherwise the EFL's press team wouldn't have sent it out as a press release.

Ken doesn't deny the story in the sense of saying "there is no new directive the rules haven't changed". He contradicts some details, using very specific wording.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

OK. That's what I meant by obfuscating. Clearly by "the story" you mean the central idea - New Directive Threatens Us - whereas I meant the report Iles filed, in which Ken's picking whatever holes he can in the hope that enough people will believe him: the "he who shouts last or loudest" idea. Which, sadly, often works.

[kagni]

The most obvious statement he completely avoids is the one that says we are limited to contracts of £4,500 a week.

Iles -

The Whites will be limited to contracts of £4,500-a-week, which is a significant drop on the £600,000-per-annum (£11,500-a-week) level set previously at the end of the 2015/16 campaign.

All Ken has to say on that statement is-

I am not sure where the figure quoted of £11,500 a week for 2015/16 has originated from.

[Worthy4England]

Goes from bad to worse. We are down if Ken can't sweet talk the league. We are as Parky has said 4 players short. We won't get anyone good enough to even sit on a championship bench under these rules. Loans will effectively be only half a season. And then we will be sunk. In January there will be no free transfers.

http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/sport/wa ... alary_cap/

One man to blame here - Dean Holdsworth....

Many more than that let's be honest. Previous regime massively culpable. And Ken has delivered on promise of lifting embargo and he's had enough time.

Hmm not sure either this viewpoint nor the one about Holdsworth has the benefit of much context against the sale of the Club. If memory serves, ED dropped the asking price from £15m to a quid on the grounds that there was going to be a shortfall on working capital at least until the end of the season just past... So don't give me £15m for it, use that for cover yer ass costs.

The initial cash injection that I think paid the tax bill and kept us afloat to the end of the season before last came from Holdsworth's BluMarble loan, Ken put some in to cover cash flow, but took it out again in that first season (think he said this himself)

Previous regime left us in this mess. They got us into the embargo and left us with huge debts that we couldn't service and the need to sell off assets.

Since then it has been a repair job. To say the previous regime (whoever you ascribe blame to) is faultless is ridiculous. We are mainly in this mess because of that. Sure events after that have further contributed. Like the Ken and Dean dispute. Holdsworth walking off with a million quid secured against club assets isn't exactly a good thing either....

Let's look at this a little more closely. Debt and Cashflow are not the same thing.

In terms of debt, at the point in time the takeover went through we had ~£190m (call it) of Debt. The majority of this was owed to Eddie Davies and he effectively wrote it off as part of the transaction - other than the £15m equity stake he left in - which Ken himself has said ED's unlikely to ever see. The residuary of it was Brett Warburton (£2.5m), the Car Parks dudes Prescot Business Parks? (£5.5m - since written off as we're relinquished the asset) - this asset will show as £4.4m income in the next Accounts. So let's be clear - there is bugger all debt. Way less than when ED took over (memory serves we were stood at about £35m).

There is a cashflow problem. It's not in any on-going sense a debt related issue (although historical debt such as the Nucleus Finance Loan will have contributed in the previous Accounts - that'd been paid off prior to takeover), as we're not paying any interest on on-going debt (apart from smallish amounts (5%) to Brett Warburton on £2.5m). ED waived the £9.5m he was due in interest payments as he had for a number of years.

This is why the Club sold for a nominal fee - a quid. On the basis that the incoming party would need to meet the cash-flow shortfall. Can we say the previous regime were responsible for the problem that caused the cash-flow to be fecked? Yes. I don't have a problem with that.

Let's move onto the embargo and takeover. The embargo was caused by us not filing our Accounts on time which in turn lead us to not being able to submit our FFP Return to the EPL (Christmas 2015) - previous regime "at fault". No doubt about it. During the takeover, Ken spoke many times about being monitored by the League and having to put in a month by month plan showing how we'll meet the bills to get the embargo lifted. There was also some commentary around us being over the wage-cap (which we were told last Christmas we were now below - by Ken)

So if the statements by Ken are good (and I have no particular reason to doubt them), then the issue is still being caused by our ability to meet committed (predominantly non-debt related) cash-flow, which the incoming party agreed to sort out, in return for getting the business asset for a quid. That's easier said than done, so I'm not having a hissy fit in Ken's direction - will take time.

What we do know is at the last Accounts we reported an operating loss of £6.7m (against an initial comment from Ken that it'd be £18m which he said they'd got down to £9/£10m - remarkable in 2 months - and that since then it had improved further). We also sold (for the next Accounting period after the one we just reported) Holding, Clough, Proctor, Lussey and a few others and have the £4.4m Rev to book from PBP. I guess I'm a little confused if as Ken tells us we've improved since the £6.7m operating loss and have sold assets which will show as at least £4.4m + player sales - why we still have a problem...

[Peter Thompson]

I get the impression that we've been operating under these new EFL rules for some time i.e. £4,500 per week. I've read / seen something somewhere whereby this sum / weekly wage can be increased on a pro rata basis i.e. by offering a lesser term contract. That may be why most of this summer's signings are on a 1 year basis, with some with an option for a further year. So perhaps we can offer £6,000 / £7,000 / £8,000 per week wages if its only over 12 months as opposed to a 3 year contract.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

I've read / seen something somewhere whereby this sum / weekly wage can be increased on a pro rata basis i.e. by offering a lesser term contract. That may be why most of this summer's signings are on a 1 year basis, with some with an option for a further year. So perhaps we can offer £6,000 / £7,000 / £8,000 per week wages if its only over 12 months as opposed to a 3 year contract.

It's an interesting theory but it doesn't make sense, PT.

For one, it doesn't make sense as a rule because the problem is month-to-month; this escape clause would allow clubs to frontload their debt and pay more now than in the future, which would surely only exacerbate or accelerate the financial f*cktastrophe. It would in effect punish long-term planning.

For another, we've given more two-year contracts than one-years: to Will Buckley, ALF, Andrew Taylor, Gary Madine, Mark Little, Stephen Darby and Jake Turner (Wheater, Dervite, Karacan, Morais and Ameobi got one year). I'd guess the two-year deals were given to the players with most options, those whose agents were better at playing hardball. I doubt Buckley and ALF are on half what Dervite is, or indeed half of anything; surely they'd just accept a one-year deal rather than playing twice as long for the same money. Maybe the confusion comes because it's an annual salary cap, so we could theoretically pay a player 12 months' wages in six months.

[BWFC_Insane]

I've read / seen something somewhere whereby this sum / weekly wage can be increased on a pro rata basis i.e. by offering a lesser term contract. That may be why most of this summer's signings are on a 1 year basis, with some with an option for a further year. So perhaps we can offer £6,000 / £7,000 / £8,000 per week wages if its only over 12 months as opposed to a 3 year contract.

It's an interesting theory but it doesn't make sense, PT.

For one, it doesn't make sense as a rule because the problem is month-to-month; this escape clause would allow clubs to frontload their debt and pay more now than in the future, which would surely only exacerbate or accelerate the financial f*cktastrophe. It would in effect punish long-term planning.

For another, we've given more two-year contracts than one-years: to Will Buckley, ALF, Andrew Taylor, Gary Madine, Mark Little, Stephen Darby and Jake Turner (Wheater, Dervite, Karacan, Morais and Ameobi got one year). I'd guess the two-year deals were given to the players with most options, those whose agents were better at playing hardball. I doubt Buckley and ALF are on half what Dervite is, or indeed half of anything; surely they'd just accept a one-year deal rather than playing twice as long for the same money. Maybe the confusion comes because it's an annual salary cap, so we could theoretically pay a player 12 months' wages in six months.

Nothing the football league does makes sense.

[BWFC_Insane]

One man to blame here - Dean Holdsworth....

Many more than that let's be honest. Previous regime massively culpable. And Ken has delivered on promise of lifting embargo and he's had enough time.

Hmm not sure either this viewpoint nor the one about Holdsworth has the benefit of much context against the sale of the Club. If memory serves, ED dropped the asking price from £15m to a quid on the grounds that there was going to be a shortfall on working capital at least until the end of the season just past... So don't give me £15m for it, use that for cover yer ass costs.

The initial cash injection that I think paid the tax bill and kept us afloat to the end of the season before last came from Holdsworth's BluMarble loan, Ken put some in to cover cash flow, but took it out again in that first season (think he said this himself)

Previous regime left us in this mess. They got us into the embargo and left us with huge debts that we couldn't service and the need to sell off assets.

Since then it has been a repair job. To say the previous regime (whoever you ascribe blame to) is faultless is ridiculous. We are mainly in this mess because of that. Sure events after that have further contributed. Like the Ken and Dean dispute. Holdsworth walking off with a million quid secured against club assets isn't exactly a good thing either....

Let's look at this a little more closely. Debt and Cashflow are not the same thing.

In terms of debt, at the point in time the takeover went through we had ~£190m (call it) of Debt. The majority of this was owed to Eddie Davies and he effectively wrote it off as part of the transaction - other than the £15m equity stake he left in - which Ken himself has said ED's unlikely to ever see. The residuary of it was Brett Warburton (£2.5m), the Car Parks dudes Prescot Business Parks? (£5.5m - since written off as we're relinquished the asset) - this asset will show as £4.4m income in the next Accounts. So let's be clear - there is bugger all debt. Way less than when ED took over (memory serves we were stood at about £35m).

There is a cashflow problem. It's not in any on-going sense a debt related issue (although historical debt such as the Nucleus Finance Loan will have contributed in the previous Accounts - that'd been paid off prior to takeover), as we're not paying any interest on on-going debt (apart from smallish amounts (5%) to Brett Warburton on £2.5m). ED waived the £9.5m he was due in interest payments as he had for a number of years.

This is why the Club sold for a nominal fee - a quid. On the basis that the incoming party would need to meet the cash-flow shortfall. Can we say the previous regime were responsible for the problem that caused the cash-flow to be fecked? Yes. I don't have a problem with that.

Let's move onto the embargo and takeover. The embargo was caused by us not filing our Accounts on time which in turn lead us to not being able to submit our FFP Return to the EPL (Christmas 2015) - previous regime "at fault". No doubt about it. During the takeover, Ken spoke many times about being monitored by the League and having to put in a month by month plan showing how we'll meet the bills to get the embargo lifted. There was also some commentary around us being over the wage-cap (which we were told last Christmas we were now below - by Ken)

So if the statements by Ken are good (and I have no particular reason to doubt them), then the issue is still being caused by our ability to meet committed (predominantly non-debt related) cash-flow, which the incoming party agreed to sort out, in return for getting the business asset for a quid. That's easier said than done, so I'm not having a hissy fit in Ken's direction - will take time.

What we do know is at the last Accounts we reported an operating loss of £6.7m (against an initial comment from Ken that it'd be £18m which he said they'd got down to £9/£10m - remarkable in 2 months - and that since then it had improved further). We also sold (for the next Accounting period after the one we just reported) Holding, Clough, Proctor, Lussey and a few others and have the £4.4m Rev to book from PBP. I guess I'm a little confused if as Ken tells us we've improved since the £6.7m operating loss and have sold assets which will show as at least £4.4m + player sales - why we still have a problem...

Guessing cash flow. And still believe Ken said that the next year will still show a small loss.

I agree with most of that. The previous regime left us in a position where we had to sell the club or be wound up. To say that isn't a large part of the problem is wrong. Subsequently though I agree that things should have been sorted far more quickly. To still be in embargo is a nonsense. Believe we've been under embargo longer than any other English club.