OFFISHAL CONFRIMATION of the CONFIMRED

[Brogue]

The current debt is owed to Rob and Todd. The new owners are resolving any currently working through the outstanding “issues” with various 3rd parties (eg. Paying up the car parking schemes, buses etc.) so guess that’s the sort of stuff that’ll sit on the books until the club gets sold on again.

Is that confirmed?

None of the tens of millions of debts accrued by the previous regime are owned to external/third parties...

It's all been picked up by the new owners and is owed to them - so is only an issue when they come to sell - but they control what they do with it?

Just so I am clear what is fact

Yes, that is fact.

is it? info seems a bit flaky to 100% confirm the statement as fact. from couhigs interview with craig, he send there was still 'vendor' debt, and gave an example of not paying for the car park (which he is sorting). What wasn't stated was, is all debt, including vendor debt, owned by couhig now, or is some of it still on the club...

[Esteban]

The current debt is owed to Rob and Todd. The new owners are resolving any currently working through the outstanding “issues” with various 3rd parties (eg. Paying up the car parking schemes, buses etc.) so guess that’s the sort of stuff that’ll sit on the books until the club gets sold on again.

Is that confirmed?

None of the tens of millions of debts accrued by the previous regime are owned to external/third parties...

It's all been picked up by the new owners and is owed to them - so is only an issue when they come to sell - but they control what they do with it?

Just so I am clear what is fact

Yes, that is fact.

In Couhig's most recent interview, he said that he is close to concluding deals with local creditors to clear as much debt as possible. He mentioned 90p in the £, IIRC, and said that everything should be clear on that front by beginning of June - I think that includes the car parking debt issues too. In addition to that, he also said that any redundancies will be sorted by beginning of June too, so that the club has a "clean slate" to work from.

Can only take him at face value at the moment, but he's certainly making all the right moves and saying the right things. Little charmer that he is.

[tidus_mi2]

Is that confirmed?

None of the tens of millions of debts accrued by the previous regime are owned to external/third parties...

It's all been picked up by the new owners and is owed to them - so is only an issue when they come to sell - but they control what they do with it?

Just so I am clear what is fact

Yes, that is fact.

In Couhig's most recent interview, he said that he is close to concluding deals with local creditors to clear as much debt as possible. He mentioned 90p in the £, IIRC, and said that everything should be clear on that front by beginning of June - I think that includes the car parking debt issues too. In addition to that, he also said that any redundancies will be sorted by beginning of June too, so that the club has a "clean slate" to work from.

Can only take him at face value at the moment, but he's certainly making all the right moves and saying the right things. Little charmer that he is.

I do find the talk of redundancies a bit confusing, weren't we already near enough at the bear minimum when it comes to non-player staff, so how are we making further cuts?

As part of UK law, you can't make someone redundant and then put the role up again right? So it's just gone? Thought we should be increasing staff numbers, not further decreasing them.

I agree with increasing revenue streams, reducing waste etc I just don't understand that part.

[Esteban]

Is that confirmed?

None of the tens of millions of debts accrued by the previous regime are owned to external/third parties...

It's all been picked up by the new owners and is owed to them - so is only an issue when they come to sell - but they control what they do with it?

Just so I am clear what is fact

Yes, that is fact.

is it? info seems a bit flaky to 100% confirm the statement as fact. from couhigs interview with craig, he send there was still 'vendor' debt, and gave an example of not paying for the car park (which he is sorting). What wasn't stated was, is all debt, including vendor debt, owned by couhig now, or is some of it still on the club...

I'll have to re-watch the interview, but I believe he said that there is a company within the Redwood group, which is where all the debt sits. Some of that, relating to the car park and local vendors, is currently being worked on and deals agreed to clear it - at slightly less than we owe. The rest of the debt will sit in that company accounts and remain there until the club is sold. He did leave a small amount of wiggle room, but he did state that him and Trosclair cannot see a point in time where they call in any of that debt until the next sale.

[Brogue]

Yes, that is fact.

In Couhig's most recent interview, he said that he is close to concluding deals with local creditors to clear as much debt as possible. He mentioned 90p in the £, IIRC, and said that everything should be clear on that front by beginning of June - I think that includes the car parking debt issues too. In addition to that, he also said that any redundancies will be sorted by beginning of June too, so that the club has a "clean slate" to work from.

Can only take him at face value at the moment, but he's certainly making all the right moves and saying the right things. Little charmer that he is.

I do find the talk of redundancies a bit confusing, weren't we already near enough at the bear minimum when it comes to non-player staff, so how are we making further cuts?

As part of UK law, you can't make someone redundant and then put the role up again right? So it's just gone? Thought we should be increasing staff numbers, not further decreasing them.

I agree with increasing revenue streams, reducing waste etc I just don't understand that part.

You don’t make people redundant you make roles redundant. And yes you cannot recruit to that role again for 3 years I think. But there are way around it you just change the job title and add some different responsibilities and you can say it’s not the same job you are advertising.

[Uke]

Yes, that is fact.

In Couhig's most recent interview, he said that he is close to concluding deals with local creditors to clear as much debt as possible. He mentioned 90p in the £, IIRC, and said that everything should be clear on that front by beginning of June - I think that includes the car parking debt issues too. In addition to that, he also said that any redundancies will be sorted by beginning of June too, so that the club has a "clean slate" to work from.

Can only take him at face value at the moment, but he's certainly making all the right moves and saying the right things. Little charmer that he is.

I do find the talk of redundancies a bit confusing, weren't we already near enough at the bear minimum when it comes to non-player staff, so how are we making further cuts?

As part of UK law, you can't make someone redundant and then put the role up again right? So it's just gone? Thought we should be increasing staff numbers, not further decreasing them.

I agree with increasing revenue streams, reducing waste etc I just don't understand that part.

If he doesn't make the redundancies then the club will probably have to fold. Especially if the employees are on a full time wedge and are unable to reduce hours, etc.

It may be that the roles can be contracted out to third parties that provide the roles "as needed"

It's more about how you resource the needs than the person - aka"it's just business"

Hope they have been paying their union memberships

[Esteban]

Yes, that is fact.

In Couhig's most recent interview, he said that he is close to concluding deals with local creditors to clear as much debt as possible. He mentioned 90p in the £, IIRC, and said that everything should be clear on that front by beginning of June - I think that includes the car parking debt issues too. In addition to that, he also said that any redundancies will be sorted by beginning of June too, so that the club has a "clean slate" to work from.

Can only take him at face value at the moment, but he's certainly making all the right moves and saying the right things. Little charmer that he is.

I do find the talk of redundancies a bit confusing, weren't we already near enough at the bear minimum when it comes to non-player staff, so how are we making further cuts?

As part of UK law, you can't make someone redundant and then put the role up again right? So it's just gone? Thought we should be increasing staff numbers, not further decreasing them.

I agree with increasing revenue streams, reducing waste etc I just don't understand that part.

Certainly one we need more info on, but my guess is that it will be people like Howe, Pang and that level of role. I know that Pang resigned as a director when the sale happened, but it's possible that he's still on the payroll. You're right that you can't then recruit for the same role once it's been made redundant for a period of time, so I expect there'll be some golden handshakes.

[Brogue]

In Couhig's most recent interview, he said that he is close to concluding deals with local creditors to clear as much debt as possible. He mentioned 90p in the £, IIRC, and said that everything should be clear on that front by beginning of June - I think that includes the car parking debt issues too. In addition to that, he also said that any redundancies will be sorted by beginning of June too, so that the club has a "clean slate" to work from.

Can only take him at face value at the moment, but he's certainly making all the right moves and saying the right things. Little charmer that he is.

I do find the talk of redundancies a bit confusing, weren't we already near enough at the bear minimum when it comes to non-player staff, so how are we making further cuts?

As part of UK law, you can't make someone redundant and then put the role up again right? So it's just gone? Thought we should be increasing staff numbers, not further decreasing them.

I agree with increasing revenue streams, reducing waste etc I just don't understand that part.

Certainly one we need more info on, but my guess is that it will be people like Howe, Pang and that level of role. I know that Pang resigned as a director when the sale happened, but it's possible that he's still on the payroll. You're right that you can't then recruit for the same role once it's been made redundant for a period of time, so I expect there'll be some golden handshakes.

actually i got it wrong, just googled it, There is no legally defined time period for which a business must wait before re-hiring after a redundancy

[Crusader Royal]

I do find the talk of redundancies a bit confusing, weren't we already near enough at the bear minimum when it comes to non-player staff, so how are we making further cuts?

As part of UK law, you can't make someone redundant and then put the role up again right? So it's just gone? Thought we should be increasing staff numbers, not further decreasing them.

I agree with increasing revenue streams, reducing waste etc I just don't understand that part.

Certainly one we need more info on, but my guess is that it will be people like Howe, Pang and that level of role. I know that Pang resigned as a director when the sale happened, but it's possible that he's still on the payroll. You're right that you can't then recruit for the same role once it's been made redundant for a period of time, so I expect there'll be some golden handshakes.

actually i got it wrong, just googled it, There is no legally defined time period for which a business must wait before re-hiring after a redundancy

There’s a good chance the staffing being inherited it just wrong for what we actually need. We’ve probably not recruited for ages but have lost people who have jumped ship. We’ve probably got people covering multiple roles for which they aren’t skilled.
Coughing may want to keep his staffing budget the same but spend it differently. So instead if one Project Director on £500k he’ll get some cleaners, a groundsman, a receptionist, a communications manager and an IT. Technician for the same money.

[tidus_mi2]

Based on soundbites from Couhig and JJ, it seems the goal next season will be top 6, a lot of pressure on Hunty then I would imagine.

[Forbury Lion]

Based on soundbites from Couhig and JJ, it seems the goal next season will be top 6, a lot of pressure on Hunty then I would imagine.

But also alot of support from management and no stress about players wages not being paid, players being sold against his wishes and money available for necessary/sensible transfers. I think also league one without big spenders Wrexham and Birmingham will favour the rest of us.

[MartinRdg]

Based on soundbites from Couhig and JJ, it seems the goal next season will be top 6, a lot of pressure on Hunty then I would imagine.

Well, we were 7th this season so it's only a slight step up......

[Royal Rother]

Is that confirmed?

None of the tens of millions of debts accrued by the previous regime are owned to external/third parties...

It's all been picked up by the new owners and is owed to them - so is only an issue when they come to sell - but they control what they do with it?

Just so I am clear what is fact

Yes, that is fact.

is it? info seems a bit flaky to 100% confirm the statement as fact. from couhigs interview with craig, he send there was still 'vendor' debt, and gave an example of not paying for the car park (which he is sorting). What wasn't stated was, is all debt, including vendor debt, owned by couhig now, or is some of it still on the club...

He is settling trading debts that remain on the books, but not monies owed to Dai for his capital injections.

I thought that was the question being asked - probably my misunderstanding.

(I must have zoned out (or crunched too hard on my cornflakes) when he said 90p in the £ on those trading debts that others have referred to, as I don't recall him saying that.)

[From Despair To Where?]

Is that confirmed?

None of the tens of millions of debts accrued by the previous regime are owned to external/third parties...

It's all been picked up by the new owners and is owed to them - so is only an issue when they come to sell - but they control what they do with it?

Just so I am clear what is fact

Yes, that is fact.

In Couhig's most recent interview, he said that he is close to concluding deals with local creditors to clear as much debt as possible. He mentioned 90p in the £, IIRC, and said that everything should be clear on that front by beginning of June - I think that includes the car parking debt issues too. In addition to that, he also said that any redundancies will be sorted by beginning of June too, so that the club has a "clean slate" to work from.

Can only take him at face value at the moment, but he's certainly making all the right moves and saying the right things. Little charmer that he is.

I read that 90p bit as saying that we will be able to negotiate better terms with suppliers because we won't oxf*rd them about any more and they won't be factoring in things like the cost of debt recovery. Basically we're going to be a reliable customer and be in stronger position to negotiate terms.

I thought he said he would settle all external debt and start with a clean slate.

[Linden Jones' Tash]

Yes, that is fact.

is it? info seems a bit flaky to 100% confirm the statement as fact. from couhigs interview with craig, he send there was still 'vendor' debt, and gave an example of not paying for the car park (which he is sorting). What wasn't stated was, is all debt, including vendor debt, owned by couhig now, or is some of it still on the club...

He is settling trading debts that remain on the books, but not monies owed to Dai for his capital injections.

I thought that was the question being asked - probably my misunderstanding.

(I must have zoned out (or crunched too hard on my cornflakes) when he said 90p in the £ on those trading debts that others have referred to, as I don't recall him saying that.)

Sorry, I'm even more confused.

I wasn't talking about trading debt, but rather the £90M or so that are on the books and presumably owed to institutions that DY borrowed it from or DY himself

[Linden Jones' Tash]

is it? info seems a bit flaky to 100% confirm the statement as fact. from couhigs interview with craig, he send there was still 'vendor' debt, and gave an example of not paying for the car park (which he is sorting). What wasn't stated was, is all debt, including vendor debt, owned by couhig now, or is some of it still on the club...

He is settling trading debts that remain on the books, but not monies owed to Dai for his capital injections.

I thought that was the question being asked - probably my misunderstanding.

(I must have zoned out (or crunched too hard on my cornflakes) when he said 90p in the £ on those trading debts that others have referred to, as I don't recall him saying that.)

Sorry, I'm even more confused.

I wasn't talking about trading debt, but rather the £90M or so that are on the books and presumably owed to institutions that DY borrowed it from or DY himself

Do we know for sure that this is what has been acquired by Redwood Investments?

[Greatwesternline]

Is that confirmed?

None of the tens of millions of debts accrued by the previous regime are owned to external/third parties...

It's all been picked up by the new owners and is owed to them - so is only an issue when they come to sell - but they control what they do with it?

Just so I am clear what is fact

Yes, that is fact.

is it? info seems a bit flaky to 100% confirm the statement as fact. from couhigs interview with craig, he send there was still 'vendor' debt, and gave an example of not paying for the car park (which he is sorting). What wasn't stated was, is all debt, including vendor debt, owned by couhig now, or is some of it still on the club...

All the clubs debts are the clubs debts. Some are to the owners, some are to suppliers.

In the interview he says they are dealing with the suppliers debts now, and won't seek repayment of the debt owed to them, the owners.

So if you think he tells the truth, those are facts.

[Brogue]

Yes, that is fact.

is it? info seems a bit flaky to 100% confirm the statement as fact. from couhigs interview with craig, he send there was still 'vendor' debt, and gave an example of not paying for the car park (which he is sorting). What wasn't stated was, is all debt, including vendor debt, owned by couhig now, or is some of it still on the club...

All the clubs debts are the clubs debts. Some are to the owners, some are to suppliers.

In the interview he says they are dealing with the suppliers debts now, and won't seek repayment of the debt owed to them, the owners.

So if you think he tells the truth, those are facts.

But the question was ‘is all debt now owned by couhig’ and it appears to me some is, some isn’t.

[Linden Jones' Tash]

is it? info seems a bit flaky to 100% confirm the statement as fact. from couhigs interview with craig, he send there was still 'vendor' debt, and gave an example of not paying for the car park (which he is sorting). What wasn't stated was, is all debt, including vendor debt, owned by couhig now, or is some of it still on the club...

All the clubs debts are the clubs debts. Some are to the owners, some are to suppliers.

In the interview he says they are dealing with the suppliers debts now, and won't seek repayment of the debt owed to them, the owners.

So if you think he tells the truth, those are facts.

But the question was ‘is all debt now owned by couhig’ and it appears to me some is, some isn’t.

Maybe I am being thick/pedantic, but they might now own the 'debt', but it might still sit with a 3rd party institution - otherwise what has happened to the £90M that was in the latest figures...?

[Brogue]

All the clubs debts are the clubs debts. Some are to the owners, some are to suppliers.

In the interview he says they are dealing with the suppliers debts now, and won't seek repayment of the debt owed to them, the owners.

So if you think he tells the truth, those are facts.

But the question was ‘is all debt now owned by couhig’ and it appears to me some is, some isn’t.

Maybe I am being thick/pedantic, but they might now own the 'debt', but it might still sit with a 3rd party institution - otherwise what has happened to the £90M that was in the latest figures...?

Not at all, I’ve no idea also. Which is why I’ve called out people using the word fact. As nobody actually knows. Where is ian when we need him. We need someone who knows nothing about anything to talk authoritatively as if they do.