I thought it was 2, but then I think it was Alan C, who pointed out it was 2.92, up to last summer.
It's funny, 2m almost sounded reasonably clearable, with 600-700 coming from the Ingram sale and extra cup revenue, but it almost feels like it's not even taking us to the figure we believed now!
@Malone said:
Not sure how this flows into the convo Micra,
That's because it doesn't! But, in view of @richmayes999 perfectly reasonable comments above and noticing that we were experiencing one of your multi-thread flurries of activity, I thought it opportune to make the point. That's all and I think further reference would be superfluous. Off out with the dog now as he doesn't seem to appreciate the importance of the Arsenal v Chelsea match!
Makes sense to comment on a few threads when making the effort to sign in doesn't it old son.
Forum went through a spell where it barely had any turnover, so we probably need more posters I think.
So which season was the blip, 2013-14, when we made a miracle escape from relegation and there were chants of 'Ainsworth Out' after the last home game (defeat to Bristol Rovers), or 2014-15, when we were top 3 virtually all season and just missed out in the play-off final? At the start of last season we'd have all settled for mid-table so what's changed?
"@DevC hang on, we've got nearly £3m of debt, and you're saying none of that is due to Hayes? Surely that's not true."
All the debt owed to Hayes relating to the period under his sole control was written off. So none of that debt forms part of whatever is currently owed. If that is your question , the answer is no.
You can blame Hayes for some of the debt in two possibly three respects
1) He was involved as one of the four running the club prior to his sole ownership. I believe debt for cash put in by the four of them does still remain in place ( I don't think it was just the debt before he got involved at all that was left in place??). This is the Hayes debt being repaid now.
2) While Hayes was in charge, costs were running at a level at revenues plus cash he was putting in. take away the cash he was putting in and costs were exceeding cash coming through the door. When Hayes left and no cash was coming from that source, costs needed to be reduced. That inevitably takes some time and some cost (eg expensive player contracts run down, closing the academy may have incurred redundancy costs etc). You may well consider debt relating to those costs as being "due to Hayes"
3) It is possible that there may have been some third party debt that was incurred on Hayes sole watch that was not written off. I don't believe this was very large however, if it exists at all.
to me you can blame some of the debt on Hayes, but not to the extent that is now commonly applied. Of course what nobody knows is what would have happened to the club if that debt had not been incurred. Would the club have survived in Lg2 on its reduced resources, would it have flourished. Would it have been relegated into the Conference or even below or simply ceased to be. That question we will never know.
Club is in massive debt - I don't know how much we got for Ingram - not much I would expect but the lad deserves a move. We just have to get on with it - that's the way it is. Sad but true
@DevC - I remember reading somewhere (either old Gasroom or CoTN) that, whilst Steve Hayes wrote off the majority of his debts (which were significantly more than £3m as you probably know), it was agreed that the remainder would be paid back to him via future transfer fees.
Hence the Bristol Rovers "third party ownership" saga.
So I don't think you can make out that the debt has been entirely written off. Unless you know what the figure which the club agreed with Hayes was, and whether we have reached this amount yet?
My understanding is that all debt incurred in his sole ownership was written off.
All debt incurred before his involvement at all remained (I believe he paid off for example Beeks, so the debt is due to him)
I believe (but I cant remember) all debt incurred while he was a 25% shareholder also remained (similarly now due to him) but I may be wrong on that one.
The transfer fees you mention, applies I believe to a few defined players but that simply relates to the timing of repayments.
So for example, if debt pre Hayes was £2m , during Hayes was £5m, the £5m was written off, the £2m is repayable at £200k per year over 10 years but if certain player transfer fees are realised of say £500k, I believe he gets 50% of that up front, reducing the debt repayable over ten years to £1750k etc.
Don't take this as gospel, but that was my understanding.
@DevC Thanks for that explanation in your reply to @Malone - don't think you are far off the mark, especially with the last para - just what would have happened to the club if that initial debt had not been allowed to increase. We might all be watching Marlow FC now. However, no matter what you say some on here will still blame Hayes (and Beeks to some extent) for all the clubs ills and that of most of the world, probably including the syrian conflict the 2008 economic crash and, worse, the creation of MK Dons!
I don't have richmayes sources, but I heard that we may be getting a keeper from QPR on loan...not sure if he will be number 1 or back-up though. Green has had a big falling out with Jimmy Floyd...but I doubt that means he is coming here! Again, I am not bet your house on it richmayes so this may turn out to be bull.
I thought Lynch was fine, but goalkeeper is always a tricky position. I'm glad he got a lot of suport from the fans on Saturday. I think Matty got a chance to develop as for a while as we were distracted by the fact everyone was sooo bad...
Joe Lumley might come here on loan yes but won't be as number 1. Lynch has the shirt and no reason to take it away from him yet, he talks well could hear him most of the game and kicks the ball better than MI already in my opinion.
I also agree but it's a shame our keeper keeps hoofing it down the pitch for the front two to lose out on their headers and look visibly frustrated as the ball is in our end of the pitch in an instant
He is a good keeper, and will only improve by playing, I think we should give him the season unless he has a very bad run and see where he can take himself.
Comments
I thought it was 2, but then I think it was Alan C, who pointed out it was 2.92, up to last summer.
It's funny, 2m almost sounded reasonably clearable, with 600-700 coming from the Ingram sale and extra cup revenue, but it almost feels like it's not even taking us to the figure we believed now!
That's because it doesn't! But, in view of @richmayes999 perfectly reasonable comments above and noticing that we were experiencing one of your multi-thread flurries of activity, I thought it opportune to make the point. That's all and I think further reference would be superfluous. Off out with the dog now as he doesn't seem to appreciate the importance of the Arsenal v Chelsea match!
Makes sense to comment on a few threads when making the effort to sign in doesn't it old son.
Forum went through a spell where it barely had any turnover, so we probably need more posters I think.
So which season was the blip, 2013-14, when we made a miracle escape from relegation and there were chants of 'Ainsworth Out' after the last home game (defeat to Bristol Rovers), or 2014-15, when we were top 3 virtually all season and just missed out in the play-off final? At the start of last season we'd have all settled for mid-table so what's changed?
Malone
"@DevC hang on, we've got nearly £3m of debt, and you're saying none of that is due to Hayes? Surely that's not true."
All the debt owed to Hayes relating to the period under his sole control was written off. So none of that debt forms part of whatever is currently owed. If that is your question , the answer is no.
You can blame Hayes for some of the debt in two possibly three respects
1) He was involved as one of the four running the club prior to his sole ownership. I believe debt for cash put in by the four of them does still remain in place ( I don't think it was just the debt before he got involved at all that was left in place??). This is the Hayes debt being repaid now.
2) While Hayes was in charge, costs were running at a level at revenues plus cash he was putting in. take away the cash he was putting in and costs were exceeding cash coming through the door. When Hayes left and no cash was coming from that source, costs needed to be reduced. That inevitably takes some time and some cost (eg expensive player contracts run down, closing the academy may have incurred redundancy costs etc). You may well consider debt relating to those costs as being "due to Hayes"
3) It is possible that there may have been some third party debt that was incurred on Hayes sole watch that was not written off. I don't believe this was very large however, if it exists at all.
to me you can blame some of the debt on Hayes, but not to the extent that is now commonly applied. Of course what nobody knows is what would have happened to the club if that debt had not been incurred. Would the club have survived in Lg2 on its reduced resources, would it have flourished. Would it have been relegated into the Conference or even below or simply ceased to be. That question we will never know.
Club is in massive debt - I don't know how much we got for Ingram - not much I would expect but the lad deserves a move. We just have to get on with it - that's the way it is. Sad but true
@DevC - I remember reading somewhere (either old Gasroom or CoTN) that, whilst Steve Hayes wrote off the majority of his debts (which were significantly more than £3m as you probably know), it was agreed that the remainder would be paid back to him via future transfer fees.
Hence the Bristol Rovers "third party ownership" saga.
So I don't think you can make out that the debt has been entirely written off. Unless you know what the figure which the club agreed with Hayes was, and whether we have reached this amount yet?
I don't believe that is right, Scotty.
My understanding is that all debt incurred in his sole ownership was written off.
All debt incurred before his involvement at all remained (I believe he paid off for example Beeks, so the debt is due to him)
I believe (but I cant remember) all debt incurred while he was a 25% shareholder also remained (similarly now due to him) but I may be wrong on that one.
The transfer fees you mention, applies I believe to a few defined players but that simply relates to the timing of repayments.
So for example, if debt pre Hayes was £2m , during Hayes was £5m, the £5m was written off, the £2m is repayable at £200k per year over 10 years but if certain player transfer fees are realised of say £500k, I believe he gets 50% of that up front, reducing the debt repayable over ten years to £1750k etc.
Don't take this as gospel, but that was my understanding.
Ok @DevC thanks for explaining. So we are still paying him off, but not for debts incurred during his tenure of sole ownership.
@DevC Thanks for that explanation in your reply to @Malone - don't think you are far off the mark, especially with the last para - just what would have happened to the club if that initial debt had not been allowed to increase. We might all be watching Marlow FC now. However, no matter what you say some on here will still blame Hayes (and Beeks to some extent) for all the clubs ills and that of most of the world, probably including the syrian conflict the 2008 economic crash and, worse, the creation of MK Dons!
I don't have richmayes sources, but I heard that we may be getting a keeper from QPR on loan...not sure if he will be number 1 or back-up though. Green has had a big falling out with Jimmy Floyd...but I doubt that means he is coming here! Again, I am not bet your house on it richmayes so this may turn out to be bull.
I thought Lynch was fine, but goalkeeper is always a tricky position. I'm glad he got a lot of suport from the fans on Saturday. I think Matty got a chance to develop as for a while as we were distracted by the fact everyone was sooo bad...
Joe Lumley might come here on loan yes but won't be as number 1. Lynch has the shirt and no reason to take it away from him yet, he talks well could hear him most of the game and kicks the ball better than MI already in my opinion.
I have to agree with richmayes, I think Lynch's kicking is better than Matty. I'm now going to lie down.
And he comes off the line and catches/punches
I also agree but it's a shame our keeper keeps hoofing it down the pitch for the front two to lose out on their headers and look visibly frustrated as the ball is in our end of the pitch in an instant
since the play off games lynch has improved massively credit to Baz for that. he was a skinny little boy when he arrived here.
I say, steady on @richmayes999 - you'll be losing your reputation. Seriously, more power to your elbow. You'll not get a red card from me.
Richie, he's hardly Arnie now!
People have to be patient. I'm sure things will improve when our finances are more stable.
He is a good keeper, and will only improve by playing, I think we should give him the season unless he has a very bad run and see where he can take himself.