For the love of ****ing Satan, why do you keep repeating this?! You even acknowledged the explanation I wrote out in response to you, yet you keep repeating that same claim over and over. Did that post not exist to you? Do I need to dig it out? Because, handily, it hasn't actually changed so I could just copy and paste it for you over and over. We're less in debt. Hooray. Only £65m more to go and then we can crack the champagne open to celebrate being exactly where we were financially three ****ing years ago. It's a good thing we are in less debt, but we're still in debt. But to answer your question, a lot. A lot of evidence is needed that he isn't a snake oil salesman, especially after this Summer. I still remember thousands of fans wearing fez hats to celebrate the Allams and how that turned out, so you'll have to forgive my lack of blind optimism until we're in the clear. I want to enjoy watching the team without worrying about whether we can actually afford the players on the pitch long term. In fact, I want my football club to be normal, not some omnishambles that mass produces **** ups like we're trying to one up Manchester United.
No they didn't! Football clubs are protected by corporate law which has prevented sales in the past. I would agree that they can ensure owners fund clubs, or divest their investment, etc. The EFL has strong powers but cannot a sale.
They definitely can create a situation where the owner has no option but to sell. The EFL told the Reading owner that he'd failed the owners test and either had to sell, or the club would be expelled from the league.
OK now this maybe a little simplistic, but is it possible the owner has had his fingers burned, and his name soiled, given what's happened recently. He may have injected the cash to give himself and the club a little headroom, knowing if we fk up again there won't be any coming back, and his reputation among his peers will be heavily tarnished ?
Well, he has, a lot of it, but you are right in relation to this specific transaction (in that it isn't a cash injection).
I acknowledged your post Steven, in that you'd taken the time to come up with a reasoned response and without resorting to childish insults etc. HOWEVER, as I said at the time, I didn't agree with (much of) it.
No, the English Football League (EFL) generally cannot force an owner to sell a club, but it can disqualify an owner if they are found to have failed the Owners' and Directors' Test due to issues like financial misconduct or lack of integrity. This disqualification typically requires the owner to sell their shares within a deadline, or the club could face further sanctions, such as expulsion from the league. Such action is normally after many months of discussions with options explored by both The EFL and the owner/s. We're sharing semantics.
No, I'm fine thanks. However, I sense a small handful on here are having a bit of a struggle with accepting the ongoing positive news that's been breaking on a near daily basis!! I'd worry more about them - I'm not sure they can handle it.
Genuinely, what bar him converting the debt ( which he's only doing because of how much he's ****ed up ) , has been good news? Players we signed, having to go back and sign with others etc due to Acuns **** ups isn't good news no matter how you try to frame it. We're in this situation due to one thing and one thing only, Acun ****ing up massively. It's ok to admit that and accept the fall out from it all is an absolute embarrassment, but then again it takes a strong character to admit their wrong after digging in so deep and so hard and you obviously aren't that character
That's the thing that's really interesting. Certain people just can't admit the sun doesn't shine bright from Acun's arse. He's fiddled with the finances a lot otherwise what happened this summer wouldn't have happened. Or is it just a case of GFAW that the EFL just decided to sanction us through dislike? I mean that has to be case in your mind as Acun is the Messiah and can do no wrong... I read pages and pages of you wanting verifiable evidence to what people say whilst yourself producing more outlandish claims that you heard from your sister's,(apologies if you dont have a sister its irrelevant though) neighbour's, friends, colleague and we're all just supposed to believe it... But, you for some reason cant believe the things others say that through a few google searches can atleast find some references to...
Is there much point in that distinction? Whether he's put funds into the club's bank account or onto the balance sheet in the form of writing off debts for funds he previously paid in, it's the same thing ultimately isn't it?
No **** I'm talking about the topic of this thread and the person who I'm responding to. You really are quite painful.
There's a huge point. If he's put 14.5m cash into the club's accounts then it almost guarantees we can't trigger a third window penalty. If he's just writing off a chunk of debt it could well be to prepare the club for sale or investment.
