|
Flashheart
|
 |
« Reply #570 on: Sunday, June 2, 2013, 15:03:21 » |
|
It was said at the time by Watkins that selling Ritchie would enable the club to keep running (i.e. cover losses) until the end of the season. So unless you think Watkins was lying, it's not "highly unlikely" it's what happened. After the end of the season of course they've had the season ticket money to cover the running costs. If there is to be a crunch it will come in the autumn when that runs out and the general revenue streams don't match the ongoing running costs. So they've got between now and then to find someone to buy it off them, find a source of investment to cover the losses or increase the revenue streams/cut the costs so the two are a bit closer to matching. An organisation like the Trust would manage to keep the club running by doing much the same, I'd imagine.
I know Watkins said that and I don't think he was lying at all. I know that Black was no longer willing to fund the club and that the sale of Ritchie was done to continue funding the club until the end of the season. But that was the Black administration and the money from Ritchie would have kept the club afloat while Black was still in charge. The proceeds from the sale would have gone into Andrew Black's account so that ANDREW BLACK had funds to cover the losses until the end of the season. Do we think that Andrew Black handed over the Ritchie Money to the new lot? Why would Andrew Black be willing to effectively continue funding the club after he had sold it, especially considering he was so keen to stop funding it in the first place? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
ChalkyWhiteIsGod
TOLD YOU SO
 Offline
Posts: 6504
|
|
« Reply #571 on: Sunday, June 2, 2013, 15:11:41 » |
|
The money would have gone in to the clubs account, not Andrew Black's and the chances of him taking that out contrary to Nick Watkins claims is slim. It was quite clearly said it covered the ongoing monthly losses until the end of the season because Andrew Black was no longer prepared to fund this.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Flashheart
|
|
« Reply #572 on: Sunday, June 2, 2013, 15:13:57 » |
|
The money would have gone in to the clubs account, not Andrew Black's and the chances of him taking that out contrary to Nick Watkins claims is slim.
I know that. I underestimated how pedantic some people may be. The point remains. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Flashheart
|
|
« Reply #573 on: Sunday, June 2, 2013, 15:20:28 » |
|
It was quite clearly said it covered the ongoing monthly losses until the end of the season because Andrew Black was no longer prepared to fund this.
It doesn't say that here. “Luckily we were successful in identifying new owners to take over the majority shareholding of the club but there is now a short period of time between the transaction and the Football League agreeing to the owners and directors tests.
“During that time there is a requirement to fund the club and it was agreed between the current shareholders and the prospective new shareholders that the way to achieve that was to accept an offer from AFC Bournemouth from Matt Ritchie. It quite clearly says funding was required for the period during the takeover. http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/10200710.Why_we_had_to_sell_Ritchie/But that's besides the point anyway. Do people think that when Jed et al took over the club they had access to money from the Ritchie sale so they could pay the bills? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
sonicyouth
Offline
Posts: 22352
|
|
« Reply #574 on: Sunday, June 2, 2013, 15:23:28 » |
|
I do.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
sonicyouth
Offline
Posts: 22352
|
|
« Reply #576 on: Sunday, June 2, 2013, 15:25:44 » |
|
I don't understand what point you're trying to make here. Are you suggesting that the 450k covered the period during the takeover only and no money was left over from it?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
ChalkyWhiteIsGod
TOLD YOU SO
Offline
Posts: 6504
|
|
« Reply #577 on: Sunday, June 2, 2013, 15:28:00 » |
|
It's reasonable to think Black decided to take the Ritchie dosh, he was writing off a huge amount of debt after all, but I just don't think that's what happened based on what Watkins said and even Black himself on Twitter.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Flashheart
|
|
« Reply #578 on: Sunday, June 2, 2013, 15:30:38 » |
|
I don't understand what point you're trying to make here. Are you suggesting that the 450k covered the period during the takeover only and no money was left over from it?
No. I'm suggesting that money was left over but am questioning why Andrew Black would choose to leave that balance on the books to continue funding the club when the takeover was complete. Why would he agree to continue funding the club once he no longer owned it? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Flashheart
|
|
« Reply #579 on: Sunday, June 2, 2013, 15:32:37 » |
|
It's reasonable to think Black decided to take the Ritchie dosh, he was writing off a huge amount of debt after all, but I just don't think that's what happened based on what Watkins said and even Black himself on Twitter.
Where did Watkins say the money was to fund the club until the end of the season? I've looked but can't find it. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
sonicyouth
Offline
Posts: 22352
|
|
« Reply #580 on: Sunday, June 2, 2013, 15:33:52 » |
|
No.
I'm suggesting that money was left over but am questioning why Andrew Black would choose to leave that balance on the books to continue funding the club when the takeover was complete. Why would he agree to continue funding the club once he no longer owned it?
Why would he walk away with the change from the sale of a player that was contracted to the club? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
ChalkyWhiteIsGod
TOLD YOU SO
Offline
Posts: 6504
|
|
« Reply #581 on: Sunday, June 2, 2013, 15:38:25 » |
|
I don't have the article to hand but it seems to be the general consensus of what was said unless the vast majority of people have either horribly misunderstood or remembered wrong.
I also thought Black said something similar on Twitter.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Flashheart
|
|
« Reply #582 on: Sunday, June 2, 2013, 15:40:02 » |
|
Why would he walk away with the change from the sale of a player that was contracted to the club?
Because he owned the club at the time of the sale and it was therefore his money? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
ChalkyWhiteIsGod
TOLD YOU SO
Offline
Posts: 6504
|
|
« Reply #583 on: Sunday, June 2, 2013, 15:40:40 » |
|
Reading through some of Black's old tweets to try and find some clarification there....just read again that when the other backers pulled out and he had to "stand alone" it was when the club had just been relegated to League 2. His timing may not have been quite as bad as first thought.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
sonicyouth
Offline
Posts: 22352
|
|
« Reply #584 on: Sunday, June 2, 2013, 15:47:21 » |
|
Because he owned the club at the time of the sale and it was therefore his money?
I know that he could but if he was willing to plug the gap for so long, walk away waiving debt he owed, why would he bother with the Ritchie fee? It doesn't really make sense to me that he'd waive any debt but trouser a few thousand on the sale of a player. It's fairly obvious that his intentions were to stop wasting his own money and nothing whatsoever to do with making money out of the club. I don't really see why it's relevant either who funded the club during that period, it's of more concern who is actually running the club at the present moment. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
