The only sustainable solution is really for the 'market' to correct itself which will need footballers to accept that they can't be paid 4k per week plus to play L1 football any more. Maybe even having to go part time outside of the championship.

We're currently establishing that the current owners can't/won't pay to cover losses. I find it hard to believe "50%+1" investors will cover losses for long whilst not having control and effectively with their money at the mercy of 7,000 individuals. Would a majority owner cover losses? Probably for at least a while but eventually that bubble will burst and the EFL will have to face the fact that you can't lose money forever.

Hash- you are absolutely right- in effect all clubs are only sustainable with an “investor” to support their losses- the only problem for us is that we don’t yet have an investor on board.

Morning all. Hash - it's basically a general lament about us going to 50+1, not blaming us for it but more the football financial culture these days. Basically a bit like something you'll probably see in a football podcast run by hipsters.

Neither will selling completely as we would still be running at a loss (like every other club) and dependent on an individual 'investor' (or investors) to bail us out every year

A lot of words there to say that going to 50.01% probably won’t solve our financial problems in the longer term, which anyone who thinks about it can see already.

Thanks OI!

To add: there are many excellent quotes from Bush Womble of this parish in the article.

I can get at it but too long to copy all. Three key paras though - "The fan-owned model is right if the environment itself is healthy. But if the environment is unsustainable, the fan-owned model itself actually loses out first. And that model is already harder to maintain practically. My nagging doubt: compromise is typically more of a spectrum than a line in the sand. The salient question is not whether 75 per cent fan ownership hampered progress, but whether reducing that to 50.01 per cent will make a great enough difference to please those who voted for it. That depends upon interested private investors but also the direction of travel for the finances of EFL clubs as a whole. It is hardly unreasonable to suggest that the model itself is at risk. That has to be the fear: that a majority sale to private investment (because those investors seek greater control and thus security) becomes a consideration in the future. Then you really do risk becoming just another club."

[Link]

Correction DT not DTb membership change

RE. the disclosure of the £400,000 missing. If we were a "sold to private buyer" club, it would be a like to know issue. But since its a "owned by fans" club, one would think is an issue that has a shelf life of secrecy until its settles or not. Unless there's an agreed NDA, and a settlement of sorts, one would expect periodical updates of the debts status of this account. Even a still with lawyers remark would at least keep the notion alive that its still live in terms of it not being written off under a radar.

How can the Trust expect ongoing funding of the club through bonds. Seriousy doing a survey and then planning the repayment of debt on the results shows how damn stupid they are! We are living in a world of rising prices future interest rate hikes and probable tax increases. People will put their families and finances first. Fact! Something the trust cannot comprehend.

I’ve changed my stance on the bond budgeting. I was behind the DTB logic until I slept on it and thought you can’t be taking a survey so seriously if £2.3m of the £3m expected to be pledged ultimately wasn’t. If we fell 100-200k short then yeah, logic works. But I now feel the DTB has cocked up here and a little bit been let down by the membership

Silk, they probably do but that wasn't quite the point I was raising

This bond thing is like someone saying “we are going to walk the streets picking up dropped coins that are lying around, and we expect to find at least five pounds worth of coins within a week, half of what we need overall for a couple of burger and chips suppers”, only to post after that week of hunting, “unfortunately, due to not enough people dropping loose change on pavements, we only found twelve and a half pence, so I’m afraid we will be going hungry for a while…”.

I see Argentine Grill is up for sale. Fully fitted restaurant lease available on Haydons Road, London SW19 8JZ. Furniture and kitchen equipment included.

Wow I’ve just seen the reaction from the Facebook fan groups to the latest bond update. When that lot turn on you the game is up.

I imagine somewhere in the small print there are the warnings about default. I've no criticism of anyone who believes 5% is fair for the risk, that is their decision. I think it is well into double figures. Personally it isn't an issue as I make no 5 year commitments any more, wine has to be drinkable in fewer years!

Where is it shown in the accounts Timmy? Be good to see how it is shown.

Accounted for yes. Explained no.

There is plenty of stuff out there to disclose our financial position- not least the annual accounts. They make it quite clear that we are structurally loss-making and have substantial cash outflows. If someone buys the bond then the club will simply (and truthfully) say that the financial position has been disclosed to them- realistically only someone who isn’t paying attention to the risks, or doesn’t care because they want to support the club, will buy the bond, hence the poor take up.

I think the 400k has been accounted for in full already, so won’t impact going forward.

TF - I am not too sure we have to disclose where it went and especially if it is being kept quiet for legal reasons. We just have have to disclose its loss.

RK - in order to sell this bond then I would believe the club believes it can meet that the upcoming bond repayment. Because selling a new bond when you know you cannot meet the current one is in the illegal territory and could land people being behind bars IYSWIM