Too quick, the pain would be over too soon. You need one of those belting torture devices, like the ol' rack.
No we aren't, considering that debt was to financial institutions. Very different when the debt is owed to your owners, and they essentially owe themselves money.
He's hardly likely to write the debt off , we still owe him a **** load of cash again probably more than when duffen was here .
Debt's still debt and though it's better to owe it to the owner, rather than an institution, we are currently in three times as much debt as we were under Bartlett.
He may not write it off, but he's also not going to sell unless the buyer is willing to meet his valuation of the club, which will factor in the debt. For what it's worth a few club's owners have written off debt lately, and it may end up beneficial under FFP to do so.
See my follow up reply. AA essentially owes himself money which is handy as he pockets the interest, but also won't sell unless the valuation is met by a buyer. The club itself is not in a precarious position unless he decided to liquidate, which you've already indicated would be a stupid thing to do as he won't get his money back. Would you say Chelsea are in a bad position financially speaking? They have a **** ton of debt.
You know as well as I do that debt is NOT just debt. The Duffen debt almost wiped the club out entirely. The Allam debt won't. The amount is actually irrelevant, Its the condition of the club and who the money is owed to that is the crux, and we are far better off now than we were under Duffen.
It's quite a simple concept. Not sure how OLM can acknowledge that AA won't liquidate the club, but in the same breath complain about the level of debt owed to AA. The only issue with the amount of debt is not finding someone to buy us.
I never suggested otherwise, I'm just pointing out that our debt has trebled under Allams ownership. Any company with a debt three times it's income is in a very bad way, we're not in any imminent danger, but it's still a poor position to be in.
Only if that debt has any chance of being called in. If the debt has no chance of being due any time soon, it has no impact on the financial position. Again, the only impact it has is on the value of the club.
What is? I'm not sure you understand the way owner's debt works if you think it's a big issue. Or else Chelsea and Manchester United are financially nonviable.
To answer the question in the title. The Allams will go quiet for a while then come back as if nothing has changed, you still won't see them using our name anywhere it's just that they can't demand that fixture lists and tv companies use Hull Tigers. They won't sell unless we get promoted but the question is how much are they willing to finance that push for promotion.
The difference is that Chelsea and Man Utd would be bought by someone for a price which would wipe out any debts and still leave the owners with a huge profit if they ever came up for sale.
Man United have a debt three times ours, but a revenue over ten times ours, I'm not sure you even understand basic economics. I don't think we're in any danger at all, as I've stated several times, but the Allams have dug themselves a hole by building up a level of debt far higher than the value of the club. It's fine for us in the short term, as it forces them to keep throwing money at the job until we get back in the Premier League and our income better matches our debt level. It's a dangerous position though, he's a petty vindictive man, if he ever did decide to completely throw his toys out the pram and write off his investment, we'd be in a worse position that we were under Bartlett(I'm not sure why anyone is mentioning Duffen, he never owned the club, nor did he fund anything). I am not concerned about our current debt level causing the demise of the club, but that doesn't mean I'm not concerned about us being £100m in debt.
