Rehashing old stuff | Page 2 | Vital Football

Rehashing old stuff

ExiledViking said:
They weren’t sold until after the end of the season, although I know for a fact Leeds were tapping Gelhardt up from the day Administration was announced (Krasner probably got a kick back off it, with all his Leeds connections).

They didn't need to go so soon...
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter if the season was over or not the wages were due, there was no money - without the fees coming in we'd not be able to cover the wages and every player would've left on a free and we'd have been unlikely to survive that blow.

The sales had to happen.
 
king_dezeeuw06 said:
It doesn't matter if the season was over or not the wages were due, there was no money - without the fees coming in we'd not be able to cover the wages and every player would've left on a free and we'd have been unlikely to survive that blow.

The sales had to happen.
Click to expand...
Could've sold the entire 1st 11 first...
They didn’t need to go. Simple as...
 
ExiledViking said:
Could've sold the entire 1st 11 first...
They didn’t need to go. Simple as...
Click to expand...

As TB said in an earlier post we were given special dispensation to sell the kids to Prem sides before the window opened to raise funds to keep us going. The wages were due and we couldn't afford to wait to sell first teamers, if they didn't go when they did everyone would've gone on a free.
 
king_dezeeuw06 said:
As TB said in an earlier post we were given special dispensation to sell the kids to Prem sides before the window opened to raise funds to keep us going. The wages were due and we couldn't afford to wait to sell first teamers, if they didn't go when they did everyone would've gone on a free.
Click to expand...
The window opened 5 days after the season ended.
All 3 (Gelhardt, Devine and Weir) went in the window, not before.
 
ExiledViking said:
The window opened 5 days after the season ended.
All 3 (Gelhardt, Devine and Weir) went in the window, not before.
Click to expand...
The kids went because they generated pure profit, which went towards bills and wages.
The first team players went ‘cheap’ because that was the sum we needed to pay back the creditors (what we still owned the clubs for the previous transfers - I.e Barnsley, Everton etc)
 
ExiledViking said:
The window opened 5 days after the season ended.
All 3 (Gelhardt, Devine and Weir) went in the window, not before.
Click to expand...

We were negotiating for a while after being granted permission to sell early.

The 2 young lads; Weir signed for Brighton 23rd July, Devine moved to Spurs on 28th July, transfer window opened on the 27th. Both crucially before the end of July when our large wage bill was due.

At this point Geldhardt probably counted as a first teamer and by contrast he moved on the 10th August with Moore on the 12th. The 2 weeks or so difference were critical for our cash flow crisis.

Without permission to sell early the negotiations likely start a couple of weeks later than they did after the window opens and the deals for at Weir and Devine happen early to mid August after wages were due which we simply couldn't afford.

We didn't have the option to wait for August to start raising cash from sales. But even if we did, we sold literally everyone else on the cheap, so those deals at those prices probably would've happened and the young lads themselves would've been offered the chance to move to Prem clubs on bigger money or stay at a club that may go bust in L1 who are trying to push them out of the door to raise the funds. They would've been crazy to turn down the moves.
 
king_dezeeuw06 said:
We were negotiating for a while after being granted permission to sell early.

The 2 young lads; Weir signed for Brighton 23rd July, Devine moved to Spurs on 28th July, transfer window opened on the 27th. Both crucially before the end of July when our large wage bill was due.

At this point Geldhardt probably counted as a first teamer and by contrast he moved on the 10th August with Moore on the 12th. The 2 weeks or so difference were critical for our cash flow crisis.

Without permission to sell early the negotiations likely start a couple of weeks later than they did after the window opens and the deals for at Weir and Devine happen early to mid August after wages were due which we simply couldn't afford.

We didn't have the option to wait for August to start raising cash from sales. But even if we did, we sold literally everyone else on the cheap, so those deals at those prices probably would've happened and the young lads themselves would've been offered the chance to move to Prem clubs on bigger money or stay at a club that may go bust in L1 who are trying to push them out of the door to raise the funds. They would've been crazy to turn down the moves.
Click to expand...
Can't agree here there was a short term cash flow issue not a debt issue - the admins could have done the Moore deal ( and got more than £2m) secured bridging finance for 2 weeks against the asset sale ( as Derbys admins are doing) kept the kids and cracked on.
In fact they could have avoided admin altogether by advising this course.
Millions in fees, agent pals cuts and a firesale to pals clearly came into play to the benefit of everyone bar the club and the unsecured creditors
 
Talking of the SC not really pulling folk into the South Stand bar pre and especially post game.
Maybe too busy working out what the - "not conflicted at all" CT are allocating our gifted £170k to.
Sure they'll publish an itemised cost line list in time though 🤔
 
Im at the stage where there has been no contact from WASC solicitors so unfortunately going to be having to send a formal letter to get them to produce the information required / make referrals to people such as the charities commission. Sad, but people need to be held accountable for incorrect actions.
 
Hampton said:
Talking of the SC not really pulling folk into the South Stand bar pre and especially post game.
Maybe too busy working out what the - "not conflicted at all" CT are allocating our gifted £170k to.
Sure they'll publish an itemised cost line list in time though 🤔
Click to expand...

Saw someone on Twitter last week asking what had happened to the money. I suspect most people haven’t got a clue where it went due to the lack of publicity around it. Even our intrepid local reporter has never mentioned it.
 
Hampton said:
That's exactly what they are hoping for and yourself, the self proclaimed Latics poet and others arre willing to let them crack on.
It's £170k man
Click to expand...

Oh, FFS man, either do summat other than whinge about it, or just drop it.
 
moonay said:
Oh, FFS man, either do summat other than whinge about it, or just drop it.
Click to expand...
You are very well aware I have attempted to do something about it and was met by a wall of silence.
Will I drop anything on your say so ? absolutely not and there are170,000 reasons why I won't.
If you don't agree that "normally" not being transparent is a bad thing I would be surprised -(given the amount of criticism you have directed against the gvt previously) except it seems on this topic.
Along with a real issue of comments being edited off into a thread whose title is dismissively named - on what basis ?.
You'll be signalling that Begbies did a great job and Prince Andrew is a fine fellow next at this rate.
With authority comes responsibility - always.
Be it in transparency on monetary matters originally donated in trust or attempting to close down (for whatever reason) the genuine concerns of some supporters on here.
All the SC need to do is be open about the matter, the potential conflict with the CT and the CT need to itemise their plans and spend of the money gifted to them - be interested on your own view as to why they refuse to do this and enable a line to be drawn.
 
@ Arthur - would request you rename this thread suggest "Supporters and donators genuine financial concerns"
Thanks H
 
You see Hampton, (and I know this will sound condescending, but there's no other way I can say it), this is why it's sometimes hard to have a decent, simple debate with you.

I know you said you tried to meet the SC in the SC, but I'm not sure of what your "wall of silence" looked like. Regardless, you then go on to compare this issue of "transparency" with my posts re the bloody government, bring in the thread title, Begbies and Prince bloody Andrew! Why? What on earth have they got to do with each other? I can't even begin to .........no, never mind, it's just not worth it.

I have no idea whether or not - despite your accusation - the SC or the CT want, or intend to "itemise their plans", but personally, no,. I don't care. I don't suspect the people of running either organisation of being dishonest - and accounts will need to be shown at some point - so I'm not even sure why I should be concerned.

You obviously are though, so I suggest you do something other than whinge on here about it.

For info, I wouldn't have made any response to your post (as I think everything's been said that previously that could be - you'll note I've not responded to Wlatic's post), but seeing as you felt it necessary to rope me into the debate, I thought I'd have my two penn'orth.

:cheers:
 
moonay said:
You see Hampton, (and I know this will sound condescending, but there's no other way I can say it), this is why it's sometimes hard to have a decent, simple debate with you.

I know you said you tried to meet the SC in the SC, but I'm not sure of what your "wall of silence" looked like. Regardless, you then go on to compare this issue of "transparency" with my posts re the bloody government, bring in the thread title, Begbies and Prince bloody Andrew! Why? What on earth have they got to do with each other? I can't even begin to .........no, never mind, it's just not worth it.

I have no idea whether or not - despite your accusation - the SC or the CT want, or intend to "itemise their plans", but personally, no,. I don't care. I don't suspect the people of running either organisation of being dishonest - and accounts will need to be shown at some point - so I'm not even sure why I should be concerned.

You obviously are though, so I suggest you do something other than whinge on here about it.

For info, I wouldn't have made any response to your post (as I think everything's been said that previously that could be - you'll note I've not responded to Wlatic's post), but seeing as you felt it necessary to rope me into the debate, I thought I'd have my two penn'orth.

:cheers:
Click to expand...
No problem - and as the penny didn't drop ....
What is the difference in lack of transparency fm SC / CT which you are supportive of and the lack of transparency fm Begbies and Prince Andrew which I am supposing you would not be in favour of ?
Maybe WLatic will have better luck than I had though I took the doorstep rather than the correspondence route.
One way or another the truth must out. Personally can't for the life of me understand why the details are being withheld and requests for info ignored.
If that doesn't worry you or others no problem but each to their own !
 
You must log in or register to reply here.