Open Letter from Acun

[1MoreAgain]

If £100m came in, it would mean we could sell players like Charlie Hughes and not have to worry about signing a replacement while simultaneously having to find quality for other positions as well.

Say Hughes goes for £20m in January. We then need to find a replacement who is ready for the Championship, fits the style of play we have and doesn't demand the earth in wages. That player costs say, £5m. The other £15m then goes into other costs - some of it will be wages, some of it will service debts, some will be spent on transfer fees (assuming we can spend money again by that point).

With an investor on board, we don't have to worry about servicing debts from the proceeds of player sales, nor do we have to worry about funding future signings or projects. Without one, we're wholly reliant on one avenue of income outside of Acun Medya, which is selling our best players.

If 100m come in you would not have to worry about Acun,we would have new owners, then worry about them instead.

 

[Steven Toast]

We would still need to regularly sell to raise FFP headroom if we wanted to invest more than an average of 13m a year (or whatever the limit is currently).

I get your point about financial resilience, but whether permitted losses are funded by Acun or a potential investor it makes no difference to PSR.

No that's true, but thinking about it, it's less about transfer funding and more about paying for other stuff that an investor would help with.

 

[petersaxton]

What "investor" is stupid enough to give the club £100m when they could buy the club for less?

 

[SydneyTiger14]

Irrelevant anyway, as he isn't selling up and won't be selling up even were we to get promoted (which realistically isn't going to happen for a while). Be told. Why continue to make stuff up and continue the unsettling narrative. Bizarre.

If he's here for the long term perhaps he could start thinking about/making more serious noise about improving the infrastructure of the club.