Well done binners

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Don't wish to nit pick and I might have got it wrong BUT - They would not be allowed to lose more than £8m and only lost £7.2m. The owner loaned them another £3m - without that would they have lost £10m? If so it just seems an obvious way of flouting the rules.
 
1950canary said:
Don't wish to nit pick and I might have got it wrong BUT - They would not be allowed to lose more than £8m and only lost £7.2m. The owner loaned them another £3m - without that would they have lost £10m? If so it just seems an obvious way of flouting the rules.
Click to expand...

No, the loans don't count against the loss. Irrespective of whether he loaned them the money, the difference between expenditure and income was £7.2m. The additional loan was to help plug the gap.

The frustrating thing for Binners has been that of that £7.2m loss, it looks like well over half was in interest payments on the existing debt to ME. So by putting in another £3m to plug the gap, he's merely adding to the amount of interest the club is paying.

That won't matter if they get promoted of course, but it does mean that when you're turning over £14m, having £5m in interest payments on your existing debt means it's quite difficult to trade players
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back