I have only seen evidence of the sale of their shares for £6.68m.
I would have thought that had there been significant costs reducing what the owners ultimately received they might have wanted to publicise it. They are quite within their rights to retain proceeds of the sale of personal shareholdings, but when the club is in debt to them for a very similar amount it's not the best look and if I were in that situation I would want to set the record straight.
So, if I'm reading this correctly, essentially you've seen evidence of the initial sale, but not of any subsequent transactions that may or may not have followed in the fallout from the breakdown of the deal?
By the way, can I just say that your contributions on here are much more open, honest and polite than we've become used to from some of your colleagues! It's nice to have a constructive debate with someone from the Trust without being talked down to our sworn at.