Oops! My mistake - we have a hire purchase liability on the stadium, the repayments on which depend on which league we are in. At 31st May 2005 we owed £15,796,000 regarding the stadium. The stadium was valued at £18,289,000. We also had bank borrowings of £400,000. As far as I am aware, we are servicing those liabilities in line with the contractual liabilities we entered in to. As for a restructuring, I would have thought the club would keep its options fully open to try to get new finance, or reduce the cost of existing finance. It will be interesting to see what the accounts to 31st May 2006 reveal.Chrysalis said:We are not servicing ok its rising each year and a restructure is been done to keep the club competitive, that doesnt sound healthy to me.
Chrysalis said:Their are benefits as well.
portsmouth
wigan
blackburn
birmingham
leeds
colchester
fulham
nottingham forest
Surley thats the whole point of football. This is what determines your income. Full Fookin' Stop. It can't be ignored. If this is all the investor can achieve, it needs another investorChrysalis said:yes, ignore their league position that is not as a result of financial status but instead on field factors.
If they didnt have their chairman investing the level he has been doing for the last few years they would be in a lot of bother financially and have a much weaker squad as a result.
LeeH said:The only thing keeping Forest going is the fact that the City council hasn't forced them to pay all the rent they still owe, isn't it?
Bugger, that thought has been keeping me going for a long while now.EMC Fox said:No.. Doughty sorted that out a while ago..
Chrysalis said:yes, ignore their league position that is not as a result of financial status but instead on field factors.
If they didnt have their chairman investing the level he has been doing for the last few years they would be in a lot of bother financially and have a much weaker squad as a result.
1966 said:This is all rubbish, his investment in the team is pathetic, don't forget that they have sold well over £10 million worth of talent over the last couple of seasons and spent about £2/3 million. Furthermore they have let others who were out of contract leave without a fight.
Their chairman famously commented a couple of seasons ago, having just missed out on the play-offs the last time we went up, that he would only invest in the team if they were in the play-off positions when they were about eigth. That same season they just avoided relegation and subsequently dropped the year after, when a million or so may have got them promoted.
If we had sold as much talent as they have and spent so little, you would have slughtered all associated with the club, and rightly so.
Lboro fox said:They did sign King and Taylor for a combined £1.75 million after that, they just turned out to be complete poo for them.
1966 said:Last 4 years, the years that Doughty has been in charge, has seen him spend £4,025,000 and recoup £12,000000, making him £7,975,000 better off.
Where's the money gone !
Lboro fox said:They did sign King and Taylor for a combined £1.75 million after that, they just turned out to be complete poo for them.
1966 said:Last 4 years, the years that Doughty has been in charge, has seen him spend £4,025,000 and recoup £12,000000, making him £7,975,000 better off.
Where's the money gone !
EMC Fox said:Better than being an AOFP
P | Pld | Pts | |
1 | Liverpool | 21 | 50 |
2 | Arsenal | 22 | 44 |
3 | Nottm F | 21 | 41 |
4 | Newcastle | 22 | 38 |
5 | Chelsea | 21 | 37 |
6 | Bournemouth | 22 | 37 |
7 | Aston Villa | 22 | 36 |
8 | Manchester C | 21 | 35 |
9 | Fulham | 22 | 33 |
10 | Brighton | 21 | 31 |
11 | Brentford | 22 | 28 |
12 | Palace | 22 | 27 |
13 | Manchester U | 21 | 26 |
14 | West Ham | 22 | 26 |
15 | Tottenham | 21 | 24 |
16 | Everton | 20 | 17 |
17 | Wolves | 21 | 16 |
18 | Ipswich | 21 | 16 |
19 | Leicester | 22 | 14 |
20 | Southampton | 21 | 6 |