Yawn.Is this the bit where some people say "oh well, back in debt we go"?
Yawn.Is this the bit where some people say "oh well, back in debt we go"?

Is this the bit where some people say "oh well, back in debt we go"?
Because short wiped the debt, hence the questionWhaddya mean ‘back in debt’?.... we are in debt and need this ‘blood sucking’, ‘money sapping’ bastards off the wage bill pronto!!
Because short wiped the debt, hence the question

Because short wiped the debt, hence the question
Yes BUT.
There remain the cashflow.
Players bought on terms. A sort of hire purchase.
There is no indication that these outstanding commitments have been paid up.
And while they were not a problem when we had Prem income, they will be now.
So if we can shift these players away, get these outstanding payments met it means we have more to invest in getting out of this League.
Then of course there is the wages question.
While we don't know how much the likes of N'Dong is being paid (I guessed £40k a week and caused a right stir), we would I'm sure prefer not to have to many players on wages many times above the average for this league
as, once again, this will restrict what will be available for 'investment'.
Because short wiped the debt, hence the question
I've just had a thought
I expect that Pickford's transfer was also done on a 'HP' basis as well.
It POSSIBLY also had add on's, some of which may have clicked in now that he's an International.
So, it's just possible that we may have some funds coming in to compensate for what's going out.
Obviously this is all guesswork.
Because short wiped the debt, hence the question
Thats the price of the club, thats stewart and his mates debt, not the clubsWe owe him 40m secured against para payments.
We owe him 40m secured against para payments.
I took the initial headlines at face value, - Ellis gave the Club away free and cancelled the debt, so this is news to me.
Still a good deal to the new owners but it makes the outlook just a tad less bright.
And while if the £40 mil is secured against the parachute payments it must mean that it's The Club rather than the new owners who owe debt.
(I'm more than a bit out of touch but I don't think that any company can provide security of it's assets for the purchase of it's own shares or for Shareholder or Director personal liabilities, but using the MU Takeover as an example, good Lawyers can achieve a lot).