paulwalker71 wrote:
I heard the interview and, to be absolutely accurate he did not say the Administration was a 'certainty' - although he did say that it was still a strong possibility. And he did say that he'd heard rumours that the debt was higher than the £1.25 million that Coulby stated.
It seemed odd when the various sources, including the T&A today, said that we weren't going into Administration and that we would be hearing good news in the next few days.
I'd be surprised if the 'official' T&A guy would be trash talking, even if it only was BCB.
Very worrying
Coulby NEVER stated the debt was £1.25m.
I expect there to be no debt, just the tax liabilities where we appear to have agreed time to pay, and normal creditors.
He stated that the cash requirement was £1.25m, IIRC. Or at least suggested it was.
Not the same thing.
The cash requirement will almost certainly be because income is much less than expenditure, certainly in cash timing terms if not necessarily in terms of how it reflects in the profit and loss account. Its cash needed mainly to pay off future costs not debts accumulated in the past.
I think people need to be careful not to get the two confused, as almost all the sports hacks do. The problem to me is less one of debt inherited from the past, financially, and more one of serious lack of income going forward.
Which is why I keep saying administration would solve nothing beyond getting rid of inconvenient shareholders, albeit an essential objective soehow if we are ever to end the ongoing infighting, and would create a huge load of future problems. Administration is a way out of being unable to pay past debts; it does not of itself resolve ongoing shortfalls in income.
Remember: debt = paying off the past. What we would seem to be suffering from instead is lack of future assured income.
