I appreciate you are [I assume] reporting what others think, so I will feel free to say that it's largely a load of ****.
My impression - and given the fact the club was saved with no other rescue in sight, I haven't bothered to check the figures - is that the deal cost Brent several million. That includes the absolutely universal business assumption that if you buy something that brings an obligation to pay past or non-operating costs or debts, then those either increase what you've paid for it or decrease the value of what you've bought - the effect is the same.
It doesn't matter whether those debts are repaid from the business' income as that reduces the cash available to you from current operations. That's the same as putting your hand into your pocket and paying it yourself - just the same as a reduction in your household income is the same as an increase in your household costs - either way, you're worse off.
Now this one nearly made me choke " The wages are being paid out of current earnings ". If you mean current wages rather than historic wages, where else would they be paid from? What business doesn't pay its own wages? But even if it's historic, see above, it reduces the value of what's been acquired.
It's a universal truth that even without past debts, football clubs don't make money unless they happen to be Man Utd or similar. They eat their weight in wages & transfer fees. Consequently, by any sensible method of valuation, they are worth nothing or are even net liabilities. Brent never said he was going to put large sums of cash in and fans should realise that unless the club is self-financing, it'll end up back in administration. If the don't trust Brent to hang around after the hotels are built, then that's an even bigger reason not to become reliant on him by racking up unsustainable costs.
It's not a question of being eternally grateful; the simple matter is that there was no alternative other than liquidation.
My impression - and given the fact the club was saved with no other rescue in sight, I haven't bothered to check the figures - is that the deal cost Brent several million. That includes the absolutely universal business assumption that if you buy something that brings an obligation to pay past or non-operating costs or debts, then those either increase what you've paid for it or decrease the value of what you've bought - the effect is the same.
It doesn't matter whether those debts are repaid from the business' income as that reduces the cash available to you from current operations. That's the same as putting your hand into your pocket and paying it yourself - just the same as a reduction in your household income is the same as an increase in your household costs - either way, you're worse off.
Now this one nearly made me choke " The wages are being paid out of current earnings ". If you mean current wages rather than historic wages, where else would they be paid from? What business doesn't pay its own wages? But even if it's historic, see above, it reduces the value of what's been acquired.
It's a universal truth that even without past debts, football clubs don't make money unless they happen to be Man Utd or similar. They eat their weight in wages & transfer fees. Consequently, by any sensible method of valuation, they are worth nothing or are even net liabilities. Brent never said he was going to put large sums of cash in and fans should realise that unless the club is self-financing, it'll end up back in administration. If the don't trust Brent to hang around after the hotels are built, then that's an even bigger reason not to become reliant on him by racking up unsustainable costs.
It's not a question of being eternally grateful; the simple matter is that there was no alternative other than liquidation.
