Depends on a few things Soggy, the source and consequence of the debt followed by the time frame and amount of return on investment. Dependant on the answers it might be exactly how to run it and may end very well. The first 2 are not an issue, the third is a concern and the fourth is unknown from where I’m sitting. But then access to the full picture is limited and I am a bit dim so can you elaborate on your thoughts please?
Can you explain to me why the consequence of the (any) debt is not an issue Melbourne in the business sense because I struggle with this.
My brain stretches as far as understanding that if the club had no debt to speak of having been run prudently in the knowledge that it has no real assets to speak of there would likely be suitors out there willing to buy it off the current owners at a realistic price and that these suitors could range from anyone between a local estate agent and his mates to Sheikh Mansour, but because the current owners have run up a debt of 6 million on day to day costs when it was demonstrated by Cardoza that this need not be the case and that this debt to the current owners needs to be repaid to them before they are willing to sell even the Sheikh might think twice.
How can building up a debt in the name of day to day running costs which purchases nothing permanent be exactly how to run anything, ever? I only understand the business practice that involves speculating to accumulate by building something that has a permanency and a guaranteed return, no matter how small. I this case that would be stuff like the infrastructure of stands and boxes etc.
If you wanted to hold the council, the people of Northampton, the fans, and anyone else interested in the welfare of the club to ransom in the pursuit of a land deal which would make you millions richer, i do however absolutely understand the logic in building up an apparent massively unsustainable debt that can get passed off as 'necessary for running costs' in order to win a very high stakes game of poker. The slight of hand that some seem to be suggesting now being that actually no real personal debt has been accrued by the owners.
How to get from a promise of 4 million ring-fenced to complete the stand with no attaching clauses to where we are now. Is this what some people are having trouble with, I wonder?
