Sadly a sport journalist was trying to deal with business issues. Plenty of 'non denial denials' there.
No questions about numerous CCJs (which tend to be common for sport clubs with poor finances).
No questions on whether bailiffs have actually been going to the club itself (rather than a story about debt collectors / Bailiffs seeking individuals and the dubious assertion that these people are "regular visitors to all sporting clubs" _- REALLY? Come off it)
Not a single question on whether all players have been paid their full wages on time every time. Nor questions on whether the club has kept up payments on rents and leases. Nothing re Puletua for example.
In fact no specific questions at all.
Despite that the article does manage to be revealing. First Vickers appears to think that free entrance is proof that there is nothing wrong financially whereas it could be proof that people are utterly clueless. Second Vickers is quoted as saying: ‘‘Club affairs are handled by Marwan’s legal people.’’ Not by CEO Vickers?
The fans of the club deserve better than this mess particularly when owned by one of Britain's most successful businessmen.
Sadly a sport journalist was trying to deal with business issues. Plenty of 'non denial denials' there.
No questions about numerous CCJs (which tend to be common for sport clubs with poor finances).
No questions on whether bailiffs have actually been going to the club itself (rather than a story about debt collectors / Bailiffs seeking individuals and the dubious assertion that these people are "regular visitors to all sporting clubs" _- REALLY? Come off it)
Not a single question on whether all players have been paid their full wages on time every time. Nor questions on whether the club has kept up payments on rents and leases. Nothing re Puletua for example.
In fact no specific questions at all.
Despite that the article does manage to be revealing. First Vickers appears to think that free entrance is proof that there is nothing wrong financially whereas it could be proof that people are utterly clueless. Second Vickers is quoted as saying: ‘‘Club affairs are handled by Marwan’s legal people.’’ Not by CEO Vickers?
The fans of the club deserve better than this mess particularly when owned by one of Britain's most successful businessmen.
If the club are in such a financial mess as reported why would the owner and CEO publicly deny the allegations?
If you consider Salford's current income and expenditure there must be a sizeable shortfall. Therefore it's obvious the club are currently dependant of MK's financial support to balance the books. If there is a problem and the Doc hasn't got the funds to support the club then surely any financial problems would escalate out of control very quickly. I just find it hard to understand why both Koukash and Vickers would poor cold water on a problem if they knew the situation was only going to get a hell of a lot worse.
Vickers either doesn't know his ar5e from his elbow or he is telling porkies when he talks about bailiffs and player's debts. In his position he must surely be aware of the club's recent CCJ's (5 of them for a total of just over £50k). CCJ x Non-payment within 30 days = a visit from the bailiffs to seize goods.
After Marwans rude word tweet on the matter it's hard to see how Vickers considers the clubs response to be discreet. He does make sense with some of the other stuff though. It will all come out in the wash as they say.
All views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the RLFANS.COM or its subsites.
Whilst every effort is made to ensure that news stories, articles and images are correct, we cannot be held responsible for errors. However, if you feel any material on this website is copyrighted or incorrect in any way please contact us using the link at the top of the page so we can remove it or negotiate copyright permission.
RLFANS.COM, the owners of this website, is not responsible for the content of its sub-sites or posts, please email the author of this sub-site or post if you feel you find an article offensive or of a choice nature that you disagree with.
