Leppardized2001 0 Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 Well to throw the proverbial spanner in the works.....from what I've heard it was Martin Bain who was keen for Hutton to be sold. Having been approached by Spurs and been told what he was going to be offered Hutton went to Bain and asked for improved terms to his contract. Bain turned round and told Hutton in not so many words that he didn't feel that he deserved them. Walter wasn't happy about prospect of losing one of his star players but basically had his hands tied. And Calscott...take it cos its late that you thought it was Kanu Arsenal sold for �£22 million. Was yet another grumpy Frenchy...Anelka they sold. Was probably best bit of business they ever did. Malky 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earl of leven 0 Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 The �£9m from Hutton is going to SDM's company. SDM our Chairman put in place a 'revolving credit facility' which we used and have to repay now. Many may question why this was done. Calscot is right to suggest that it is one less debt we have, but this was never in our formal debtors list in balance sheet. BUT the morality is unclear; like Edmiston House, and Albion Ground, how did we end up in hoc to our 'glorious leader' after his disasterous mismanagement? That is the question. The next money we spend will be the season ticket money / CL money should we win league. This �£9m from AH will never be seen again. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earl of leven 0 Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 In summation we'd need someone like Frankie to sort it out but: 1. Without any credit facility we'd still have made a small loss on trading, despite CL football 2. With this in mind there is no way we could have repaid Murray's company 3. Hutton money used to repay this 'revolving facility' 4. Calscot says that we may as well use that money as debt still needed repaid anyway, does it matter what money we use 5. I say the debt was immoral, but that is irrelevant 6. It would seem that this money won't be available in summer, nor will any 'freed up money' as there is none...we will still post a loss for the financial year 7. The onlt 'splurge' will therefore come if we win league and have some guaranteed CL money coming...even then, we'll need to sell. Any advances? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,150 Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 I think in some ways - as I wrote in the article below last week, it's obvious the money was always going to service the debt. In many ways it had to. However, by the same token, if we can win the league and qualify for the CL again, that means we can once more spend decent cash. Obviously this is a high risk, short-term outlook on strategy. That's been the core of SDM's reign. His lack of genuine investment (not in monetary terms but in visionary, future-proof systems) means we're paying now for the lack of vision in the last. http://www.gersnetonline.net/newsite/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=587&Itemid=2 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
elderslieblue 0 Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 Obviously injury and suspension comes into it but, had we held on to Hutton and Cousin [ok, he wanted away] we would not have needed to bring in more players for next seasons League. I have absolutely NO doubt we would have won the League this season by a mile. Chesney would be on his way over the border and large sections of the mhanks support would have imploded. This is the most disappointing thing about the whole affair as far as I'm concerned. The days of strengthening our pool for a challenge in the C.L. are over. That will never happen again. The money just ain't in the Scottish game to allow it. Still think we WILL win the League this year. It's just gonny be a wee bit harder. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian1964 10,415 Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 Obviously injury and suspension comes into it but, had we held on to Hutton and Cousin [ok, he wanted away] we would not have needed to bring in more players for next seasons League. I have absolutely NO doubt we would have won the League this season by a mile. Chesney would be on his way over the border and large sections of the mhanks support would have imploded. This is the most disappointing thing about the whole affair as far as I'm concerned. The days of strengthening our pool for a challenge in the C.L. are over. That will never happen again. The money just ain't in the Scottish game to allow it. Still think we WILL win the League this year. It's just gonny be a wee bit harder. Agreed,it would have been great to keep Hutton for the rest of the season,however he's gone now and I still think we'll win the league as we have a better team than the unwashed 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earl of leven 0 Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 Have we? We did. My worries: 1. Walter came out and said Cousin was his main striker, and the formation was based on him. We have no-one like him. 2. Adam is sh***, sorry to be blunt, and yet is a favourite. 3. Hutton struck fear into McGeadie...the next OF game would have seen no danger....now? Who knows? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian1964 10,415 Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 Well IMO we have a better team,with or without Hutton,as for McGready fook him,let them worry about us, which i'm in no doubt they are 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,195 Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 The �£9m from Hutton is going to SDM's company. SDM our Chairman put in place a 'revolving credit facility' which we used and have to repay now. Many may question why this was done. Calscot is right to suggest that it is one less debt we have, but this was never in our formal debtors list in balance sheet. BUT the morality is unclear; like Edmiston House, and Albion Ground, how did we end up in hoc to our 'glorious leader' after his disasterous mismanagement? That is the question. The next money we spend will be the season ticket money / CL money should we win league. This �£9m from AH will never be seen again. Regarding the revolving credit facility - it wouldn't be in your debtors list anyway but your creditors list. Further though, a revolving credit facility has no need to be in the balance sheet and, in fact, in ANY company, would not be in the balance sheet until such time as the facility has been drawn upon. A revolving credit facility by definition is simply an instrument that a company can tap into if it needs it or would like to utilise it. And it also makes an awful lot of sense to have one as it gives you a resource to tap into should you need it. It only hits the balance sheet when you use it and draw funds upon it. However, if you have the facility in place then a company should also be disclosing it in their financial statement notes. Often the notes to the financial statements is where you see the REAL situation of a company. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earl of leven 0 Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 Okay, well as Frankie revealed....we did use ours, and it is due to be repaid in March. Sorry about creditors/debtors, I do know that but was typing fast. It is treated as a bank loan etc. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.