Re: Salford
 

[QUOTE=davewilli;2258259]It been frustrating in the NL but since the fans took over we have cleared the debt and should now see the benefit of stability that will bring.[/QUOTE]

Most of the debt was incurred because of the complete fixation with owning the club. The debt to the inland revenue was not ours and we should never have paid for fictional values of some players deemed as assets. It should have been in the buy the club for £1 as declared by Moss. Then we had the subsequent lack of investment in the team at odds to the repayment plan.

Lets not try and dress this all up to be more than it was. It put us back years and even January has shown a lack of judgement. BH has to match at least this year or fans are really going to be pissed off. Thats not going to be easy.

The real question is what are the football board doing to make improvements. Spin it up Dave :)

Re: Salford
 

I'm not spinning it up, but people are being defeatist and negative to fan ownership which is slowly improving things compared our boom/bust existence pre NL. There was always a bad news story round the corner, even before the real nightmares started. We should show some faith and not give in. If we start go backwards at any time then it will be time for desperate measures. BH has inherited a better situation than SR and far better than DK, so lets see where he can take us.

Re: Salford
 

I don't think anyone has an issue with fan ownership. I think its more a case of has the current 'model' taken us as far as it can, and is it now time to investigate other 'models'?

That doesn't mean relinquishing fan ownership at all, just maybe evolving it.

Re: Salford
 

[QUOTE=Ooh aah Paskin;2258317]I don't think anyone has an issue with fan ownership. I think its more a case of has the current 'model' taken us as far as it can, and is it now time to investigate other 'models'?

That doesn't mean relinquishing fan ownership at all, just maybe evolving it.[/QUOTE]

Nicely summed up.
Its called progress and I think the structures need to evolve as you say.

Re: Salford
 

[QUOTE=pagl;2258276]Most of the debt was incurred because of the complete fixation with owning the club. The debt to the inland revenue was not ours and we should never have paid for fictional values of some players deemed as assets. It should have been in the buy the club for £1 as declared by Moss. Then we had the subsequent lack of investment in the team at odds to the repayment plan.
[B]
Lets not try and dress this all up to be more than it was[/B]. It put us back years and even January has shown a lack of judgement. BH has to match at least this year or fans are really going to be pissed off. Thats not going to be easy.

The real question is what are the football board doing to make improvements. Spin it up Dave :)[/QUOTE]

What does that statement mean out of interest ? Do you refer to the Hamilton era ? I genuinely don't know what you mean ?

Re: Salford
 

[QUOTE=moynkeepthefaith;2258323]What does that statement mean out of interest ? Do you refer to the Hamilton era ? I genuinely don't know what you mean ?[/QUOTE]

I meant dont dress up the clearing of the debt to be more than it was. It came at a price in the following years when we could have made great inroads into the debt and invested in the team. None of which would have had a detrimental affect to the plan. Plans are meant to be adjusted where circumstances change.

Thats my take on it and I work with Muti-million pound projects that constantly change but still maintain a balance of the original objectives.

Re: Salford
 

[QUOTE=pagl;2258328]I meant dont dress up the clearing of the debt to be more than it was. It came at a price in the following years when we could have made great inroads into the debt and invested in the team. None of which would have had a detrimental affect to the plan. Plans are meant to be adjusted where circumstances change.

Thats my take on it and I work with Muti-million pound projects that constantly change but still maintain a balance of the original objectives.[/QUOTE]

so you would have retained the debt and paid it off more slowly thus incurring one assumes more interest charges.

Re: Salford
 

[QUOTE=moynkeepthefaith;2258331]so you would have retained the debt and paid it off more slowly thus incurring one assumes more interest charges.[/QUOTE]

Given the debt amount and the windfall I would have said 60/40 although there are various considerations that would have needed to be factored into the process that may have changed it. But a balance between the team and repayment was needed.

Did we loan the money or just have to pay it to back to the robbers?
I dont know if interest was in the equation.

Re: Salford
 

[QUOTE=pagl;2258333]Given the debt amount and the windfall I would have said 60/40 although there are various considerations that would have needed to be factored into the process that may have changed it. But a balance between the team and repayment was needed.

Did we loan the money or just have to pay it to back to the robbers?
I dont know if interest was in the equation.[/QUOTE]

If you are working with multi million pound projects, I hope there's someone in your office who knows the difference between Loan and Borrow.