I could apologise though I may not actually mean it, those with perception may be able to apply that principle to my original post. Others can get stuffed. The views expressed in my posts are not necessarily mine.
Litigation? The amount is supposedly in the hundreds... So Small Claims Court, no? Not sure going public will affect the magistrates decision. It's ****ty for the business owner, if true, but is it really Acun stopping the relatively small payment, whilst paying out hundreds of thousands a week in salaries? Doesn't make total sense to me why it would need to be a secret.. if I do some work for someone and they welch on payment, I'm embarrassing them publicly until I'm paid.
I believe the 500k per week loss is just due to a Baz-ism. I believe he initially referred to a monthly loss on the 1904 club as 300k. In later episodes he lazily referred to the loss as ‘near on half a million’. This then became his own fact, despite originally revealing it was around 300k.
Not true, most of us know. Nothing like that, the club just can’t afford to pay a 3 figure sum. It’s as simple as that.
I don't really need an apology though? Just think you're carrying on a tad. The eye roll emoji button on your phone must be worn thin.
Indeed! I get more and more bemused every time it is repeated as each time it is repeated it becomes more and more seen as a fact when it was never the case at any stage.
Although listening to the Price of Football, I was astounded to hear Prestons owner is putting in £1million/month. They have also written off some debt recently. Kieran Maguire did suggest the possibility of making the clubs more attractive to buyers. If Prestons form falls away they are in big trouble as their squad is really poor.
You seem to be under the impression it was a single supplier for.a small amount. It wasn't. When you have the EFL independent panel stating we didn't pay 1m of footballing debt and were kicking the can down the road to avoid paying villa 'because we couldn't pay' then what makes you believe it wasn't the same for non footballing suppliers also?
Presumably because the EFL confirmed that, and despite the rumours swirling, nobody has actually stepped forward and provided anything concrete for non-football creditors. Not even a company name, just rumours. (although I'm aware that conversations have been happening via PM) Regardless, I wouldn't be too surprised if small payments weren't made, but that can happen regularly in business
Footballing debt is always prioritised though, cos that's what gets you in the ****. So if a club is not meeting footballing obligations due to cashflow, you can bet your life suppliers aren't getting paid either. It's hardly ever in isolation.
There is more than one, including local contractors not paid for work. The hundreds one is the one that made me disgusted. She is a small business. The fact the money disappears the minute it comes into the club is the issue, staff cannot pay bills because the money is gone before they can act.
Baz based the weekly cost to Acun as our operating loss divided by 52 weeks. Therefore 20.6million divided by 52 weeks (£396,000 per week) which is what I found in Baz’s old article - this didn’t include profit on player sales which was £15.2million in 2023 - so £100,000 per week (if you base it on total profit/loss). In 2024 this would be £510,000 per week (Operating loss) or £360,000 p/w (net loss). The operating loss obviously shows you the state of our core business, which is poor and heading in the wrong direction and explains cash shortfalls and the need to supplement with player transfers.
...except ....and once again to say i'm not defending the **** up of not paying in line with EFL rules ...we could pay, proven by the FACT that we did pay once the **** hit the fan, and continue to pay for all sorts of 'discretionary' spending on and off the pitch. The EFL were looking at money within the club at that time. It's been proven, and continues to be proved, that required money was and is available to the club, exactly as we've been continually assured. Cash management and Admin **** up.
You mean Acun reluctantly paid the footballing debts after the EFL sanctioned us and most of the suppliers got paid when the solidarity/TV money came in. As the Independent ruling established, we didn't have cash at hand to pay when things were due, so this was deliberate as opposed to administrative. "We didn't pay because we couldn't pay" And they dismissed the club's argument (and by extension yours) it was an admin error stating it was a ""house of cards which did not and never could withstand the most general winds of proper analysis."
Jesus. All that proves is that we are now able to find the money to pay football related debts (which carry a penalty if not paid). It certainly doesn't prove that we have the money to pay non-football related debts which is the point which was being made. If you bend over backwards any further you'll complete a circle.
