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

If they have to fully disclose their financial position then where’s the £400k gone and are we getting it back?

Staring at us straight in the face is a potential bond repayment of upto £2.5m with only £0.6m so far secured and you say there is no risk!

Deflection - it's the current modus operandi.

TF - the club has to fully disclose their current financial position and risks when selling the bonds. They cannot hide anything they know that would prevent them repaying the bond. Does this means the bonds are safe? No. But they would have to go into the sale with an honest belief that they will be safe.

Chill ,apparently we are going to be rich soon.

Not sure that really makes much logical sense Silk but I’m sure they appreciate your effort.

As the club is selling a financial product then they should by law have to disclose anything they know that would prevent the bond from being repaid. This would mean unless they do not have anything other than the usual bumf about risk they do not have anything to indicate there is a risk.

For Old Isthmian - We are top of the league, say we are top of the league ...

5-1

Now it's 4-1

I suspect the minority investors may be Mr JG and more of his wealthy friends.

Whoops ... not yet.

4-1

3-1

"Blank check" should be "Blank cheque" there - sorry, it was a mis-typing rather than me suddenly turning American.

OI - you can also argue that if we become dependent on an investor to fund our ongoing losses then they will have "de facto" control of the club, as they could always get their way by simply threatening to cut off the funding tap. That said, I agree that any rational investor who is funding our ongoing losses is going to want some form of operational control agreement, whatever the theoretical voting rights attached to their shareholding, nobody gives a blank check to an organisation they can't control.

Nick raises an interesting point about what safeguards the investors would demand if they haven't run for the hills given recent events. As he says, they need to know they are effectively in control even if it looks like we have more than 50%. You don't leave a relatively big investment in the hands of those, who with the best will in the world, are effectively amateurs. I wonder if some form of agreed Pre-Pack Administration would be possible where if at some point we go into administration, they quickly own the company on favourable terms.

Hence if the "bond market" eg buyers of debr, perceive the UK Govt will breach its debt ceiling (see Liz Truss ...) the marjet will price up Gilts and our debt servicing exp will go even higher

Now 2-1 ...