A guess is different to an estimate. As I said, I actually think the debt could well be higher than 45m in the next accounts so you could be right, it could be an under estimate. EDIT: I actually underestimated the net debt position. My fault for just looking on the balance sheet not the notes. Whilst not quite 45m, as of the 22/23 accounts we had a net debt of 38m: So even just dealing in FACTs and not projections to the next set of accounts, we had a 37.6m debt as at June 2023.
Don't have time to read Acun interview, so asked chatGPT to summarize, bold part is same old story that I don't buy anymore, every interview same bullshit: Hull City owner Acun Ilicali has reaffirmed his support for head coach Tim Walter despite a challenging start to the season, with Hull 19th in the table. He attributes the team's struggles to injuries, bad luck, and refereeing errors. Ilicali acknowledges fans' frustrations but urges them to back the young squad and manager. He remains optimistic, focusing on potential improvements after January transfers and players returning from injury. Ilicali emphasized his commitment to Hull City and dismissed rumors of selling the club, calling for unity and stability.
And one more thing, in Turkish football we have a word: If president says that he is supporting you, that's the moment you are being fired.
Acun has often said he doesn't run the club to make any money, so I wonder if baz could ask him if he intends to eventually write off the debt when he sells. If he is then the debt is irrelevant.
If we are badly in debt, we will sell Hughes and Pandur, they're our two most valuable assets at the moment.
Debt isn't the issue in the context of player sales, that's more if our losses are looking too big. Debt is more an issue in any eventual sale. Even the Allams wrote off a huge chunk of debt to help the sale go through. As someone above said, the debt is directly to acun as things stand, the concern is if he refinances to a third party to "get his money back". The discussion about debt only arose because someone suggested a "worse" owner could get us into 40m worth of debt when the point is a "good" owner will too.
It's probably not directly to Acun. Probably Acun Medya. Which is pretty much the same thing, unless he decides to do a Mel Morris. Is he about to do that Syd? Administration and a bruised reputation to get pennies to the pound out? If so, what's your thinking? Perhaps elaborate?
Unfortunately it's a pretty fundamental element of football these days for better or worse (hint: worse). You've also picked out the only post in the entire discussion to mention ffp.
It is. Our owner can spunk 40 m over 3 years except he's done it in 2. I'm still waiting for Syd to tell us how that's so terrifyingly different to most of the championship, bottom 14 of the premier league and practically the top half of league 1. So where's that 45m "debt" mentioned in the accounts? Do tell... I implore you. We're all ears....?!?
No. We had losses. Where does it mention debt and what is the rate we are servicing that debt at exactly? Surely if we are servicing debt we would be paying interest? You know **** all Syd.
You don't have time to read a HDM article and need AI to do it for you? Really? You absolute ****ing clown shoe. **** off. Literally. You're probably Vern's burner account.
No, you posted losses. To whom this debt do we owe and at what rate is it repayable? Or are you assuming to know the mechanism by which the losses are underwritten? And of course the main question is - what in our accounts is particularly novel in the way we record losses in comparison to the rest of the division, half of the one above and half of the one below? Seems like you're calling scandal so where is it?
I posted our net debt as taken directly from our accounts Where on earth have I called scandal? I've literally said it only matters when the club is sold and acun can wipe the debt. The only reason it came up was someone saying a "wrong un" owner could rack up the debt and I pointed out the good owners do too. Some just want to see outrage and controversy in my posts in order to justify getting worked up. The only reason this discussion has gone so long is people doubting our debt levels, not because of any supposed criticism. I even said it's a symptom of ffp (sorry mauled) that owners target maximising losses which contribute to higher debt.
