Forgot that one!

A huge difference you massive nobber. That £4m ONLY matters if Wilko wants to recoup some / all on a potential sale. He may be happy to write it all off. Frankly, none of us have any idea what his plans are.

How rude!

A debt is a debt, whether called in or not, it's a debt. Why is that so hard to grasp?

The Wilkinson estate may well write that off in the future, in which case you won't have that debt. Until then it is on your balance sheet and is live.

I have a debt , it's called a mortgage , everyone who has a mortgage isn't technically bankrupt .. or in trouble , or living beyond their means.

it's the ability to honour repayments and/or interest on those debts. that's the issue , and who it's owed to makes alot if difference

like the way you slipped in a Smith's tune though ,
So Dboy it was really nothing ..

Absolutely 100% correct.

I never said otherwise.

The rather rude poster seems to think that because the debt is to JW, it doesn't count.

Of course, rather than a mortgage, the simili of a business loan or overdraft would be more apt.

Whilst ability to pay to schedule is initially the foremost consideration, if such facilities are called in, the poop can hit the fan.

I think Harrison had 5 years at the club with players he had brought in.A bit different from the current situation.

City always maintained their attendances,even when relegated.The potential to match their nearest rivals was on offer and it came from abroad.The potential for investors in soccer is worldwide - again different for Salford.

You laughed on the other thread about investment from London - Hughes at Broncos is from the north west and was a director at Charlton Athletic football club.It may be that someone else in London originates from the area and may be willing to invest.It won't be,as in the case of Manchester City,because of high attendances but it may be like Wigan and a couple of decades ago at Blackburn,someone born in the area wanting to assist the sporting club.

Quality mate

they didn't, Dec 1998 3007 against Mansfield,

I was talking about the similarities in terms of the player's reactions to defeat, not how long he's been at the club.



City's attendances have been all over the place - only the most hard faced blue would try to argue otherwise. Attendances even now are up and down (that's not a dig before anyone starts) which shows that, even with investment and success you're not guaranteed an instant jump in regular weekly crowd numbers. The potential was there mainly because of the new stadium and Manchester already being well known in football terms. I fully understand that the potential for investors is different in football and rugby league, I don't think anyone expects someone with billions to take over at Salford. But the basics are still there, just on a lower scale.



I'm willing to be proven wrong, but I doubt it. Wilkinson has made it known for a number of years that he'd like someone to come in who could take the club forward with the best interests of Salford at heart. Even North West based businessmen won't get involved, why would someone based down south get involved with a small club in a minority sport?



We've already dealt with that particular gem.



Again, Wilky's been asking for people to come forward for years. Where are they? And why the hell would they be based down south? And, even more ridiculously, why on Earth would they be dissuaded by a handful of p*ssed up bellends acting up?

Basically we need to wait For Diavlo to get a few years of his bonus's in then he can come and take over the club

I don't want to prolong this but my point was City maintained their attendances despite a lack of on-field success.I found this 'gem' on Wikipedia - [iEven in the late 1990s, when the club were relegated twice in three seasons and playing in the third tier of English football (then Division Two, now Football League One), home attendances were in the region of 30,000, compared to an average for the division of fewer than 8,000.[60] Research carried out by Manchester City in 2005 estimates a fanbase of 886,000 in the United Kingdom and a total in excess of 2 million worldwide.[/i

reasonably safe to invest when a well stocked club shop and other revenue streams would be well supported.

The guy who invested in a poorly supported club - in comparison - Who I thought made his money in Canada,but I was mistaken,if the link attached is correct.He was born in the place but did not invest until he had made many millions rlLinkrl

My point was that an individual,perhaps born in the north west but making his money/residing elsewhere in the world,may wish to invest.
I am aware,but cannot immediately recollect,of individuals/consortiums who declined to invest in sports clubs,mainly soccer,because of the conduct of some people.I concede that the behaviour was directed at them,but I think the principle still applies.