Yes, I'm serious. They voluntarily paid down the debt after we first got promoted under Steve Bruce. The debt went down by about £5.5m. The following year the debt went back up again to £78 million. They repaid just over a million of that leaving a debt of £77 million. The fair paly rules reduced the debt further as they converted the loan into shares. They then took that money out when they reduced the share capital. Given how much they are owed I'd say they haven't shown any sign of asset stripping the club, unlike Bartlett who owed us over £2 million when he sold the club.
I think we sold Livermore and Snodgrass to pay the wages of the loan players Marco Silva wanted as well as the transfer fees for the players we bought. Any cash left over paid for the share reduction.
The sales this season are to reduce the wage bill so we don't get caught under the fair play rules again and to pay for whatever strengthening we can afford. The Allams are not going to get anywhere near the £70 million they are owed from the sale of Clucas, Robertson, Harry and the Jak. The transfer fees will be paid in instalments and may include fairly substantial add-ons. Do you think we'll receive any money from Snodgrass' add-ons? I doubt it. Which shows how quickly what seems like an asset can become worthless.
Knocking £20 or £30 million off the debt doesn't make sense and is contrary to how they have run the club in the past. That doesn't mean its not possible but I don't think its probable.
We've taken £40m in player sales so far this season and not replaced them, yet you don't think there's any asset stripping?
We have an income of £60m this season, taking no account of transfer income, we are absolutely nowhere near a FFP issue, our wage bill is currently not even half our income.
Last season we had an income of £120m and a net transfer spend of **** all.
I find your summary to be ridiculous, inaccurate, nonsense, they can walk away tomorrow with all their money.
