Club statement...

[redrobo]

Makes no sense that the Board seemed keen to pay off all the loans during the last couple of years, to the detriment of having money to give Derek to bring in some decent players, which would have avoided relegation. Now the damage is done, it looks like we're taking on debt again. What was the point in losing our L1 status, just to start borrowing again, when we could have paid off, say, half of the debt, and kept a bit of cash for Derek to bring in a few decent players to keep us in L1?

On the face of it have to agree BUT maybe the BoD had no option under the requirements of the owners OR did the BoD want rid of Bond ASAP and by paying of loans it would make any prospective sale a more attractive proposition having a club almost debt free.

Let's hope that Mazuma continue with their current support and possibly even more.....

[KenH]

Makes no sense that the Board seemed keen to pay off all the loans during the last couple of years, to the detriment of having money to give Derek to bring in some decent players, which would have avoided relegation. Now the damage is done, it looks like we're taking on debt again. What was the point in losing our L1 status, just to start borrowing again, when we could have paid off, say, half of the debt, and kept a bit of cash for Derek to bring in a few decent players to keep us in L1?

Assuming that the majority of the debt was to Bond perhaps they were calling in the debtwhenthey thought they were going to sell to Sarb? Does that make sense?

It's a reason, but doesn't make sense. Why risk relegation and the inevitable reduction in value, just for the sake of keeping a small amount of debt. It wouldn't have taken much. We were only one win short of survival, which could have just been avoided by maybe spending a few tens of thousands on a better player or two in the January transfer window instead of the "one in one out" that meant we couldn't do anything within the deadline window and had to bring in a couple of out of contract players instead. Instead of paying off the entire £2.5million of debt over the past couple of years in undue haste. Why didn't they pay it off over 3 years, or 5 years? Makes no sense at all to repay all debt to the detriment of the rest of the club.

[Gone_Shrimping]

We are shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. What's done is done.

If the games at home to Forest Green who were absolute rubbish and Oxford had been wins those extra 4 points would have had us home and hosed. Also Cambridge away , if that hadn't been cancelled due to a tiny bit of wind damage when they couldn't buy a goal or a win that might have been another 2 points.

All ifs and buts I'm afraid.

[Billy bodger]

I’m thinking the club was skint because we paid back the loan to the Bond Group with interest. So with the money they got back, I know I know but it was what it was, the Bond Group has loaned the Club some more money. I wonder if their hoping to repeat what they got back off the first loan?!! Anyway it secures the future, makes my decision to get my season ticket early, a good one. Derek has now got a workable budget and hopefully he will get Cole,Ryan and Liam to resign for the Shrimps. For the other fans that liked him even get Conner back. Then let’s see who else he can bring in to make up the squad.
23 matches for £175 + a badge or something not bad this day and age. Come on you Shrimps.

[Billy bodger]

The Bond group have loaned more money to the club after calling in their previous loan made them a tidy profit. The Club was left with next to nothing, so they’ve been given back money the Club had made. Everything going on between the Bond group and Sarbjot is something we will never know and the same goes for the league. We have another year of football and let’s hope we do well on the pitch and hopefully a new buyer will come that can last the FA test. Fingers crossed. Legs, arms, toes, eyes, ears.

[Zip It Shrimpy]

I'm not confused by the Owner's statement.

Here's what we know.
1. Bond Group are the Owners
2. The Board confirmed the Owners have committed to a break even budget.
3. The Owners have spun the budget as being our biggest ever L2 budget. Not difficult since income should be higher than three years ago, and there's likely to be a parachute payment.

Why does this mean the club has been saddled with debt or that Sarbjot Johal has pulled out, or invested in Bond Group?

Also why would you keep a high interest loan when you can afford to pay it off? It's only hindsight that says pay for more players. Maybe Sarb Capital's loan to pay wages is not high interest. As far as we know this is our only loan as things stand.

My best guess is that we'll still have a player budget in the lower half of L2. Personally I trust Derek Adams to wring the best out of that budget and it wouldn't surprise me if we're safely top half next season. If we are, Bond Group have protected some of the value of their asset.

[burple]

I think the most important part in the wording of the statement is "largest LEAGUE TWO budget we've had" that implies it's smaller than last years budget... which wasn't good enough for league 1 so therefore a league 2 budget (how good a league 2 budget is anyone's guess.

So it could still well be the lowest league 2 budget... all be it slightly higher for us. Doesn't mean its competitive

[black morse]

I think the most important part in the wording of the statement is "largest LEAGUE TWO budget we've had" that implies it's smaller than last years budget... which wasn't good enough for league 1 so therefore a league 2 budget (how good a league 2 budget is anyone's guess.

So it could still well be the lowest league 2 budget... all be it slightly higher for us. Doesn't mean its competitive

I think the key to the size of budget is the question of whether Derek is staying. If he is, as seems to be the case from the wording of the statement, then I don't believe he would if he didn't think the budget was enough for him to work from. He's not a fool and he's not going to go through his 'most traumatic season' again this year. I certainly don't expect it to be the lowest in League 2.

[Gone_Shrimping]

I think the most important part in the wording of the statement is "largest LEAGUE TWO budget we've had" that implies it's smaller than last years budget... which wasn't good enough for league 1 so therefore a league 2 budget (how good a league 2 budget is anyone's guess.

So it could still well be the lowest league 2 budget... all be it slightly higher for us. Doesn't mean its competitive

I think the key to the size of budget is the question of whether Derek is staying. If he is, as seems to be the case from the wording of the statement, then I don't believe he would if he didn't think the budget was enough for him to work from. He's not a fool and he's not going to go through his 'most traumatic season' again this year. I certainly don't expect it to be the lowest in League 2.

I agree with BM. Pretty sure Derek is staying as there was an option for a further year and I don't think he would if it was a pitiful budget.

Also when you are negotiating with players , it wouldn't make sense to say you have a huge budget or their wage demands would go up.

[jbc.shrimp]

If as people are suggesting D.A. is staying, could this budget have been negotiated by him as a standby minimum in case of relegation no matter who was supplying the funds. The likes of Connor Ripley had already stated he didn't want to play L2, but having a half decent budget could persuade him to stay and D.A could have already been speaking to players he wanted so had already had an approx figure in mind for putting his squad together.

[mrpotatohead]

The owners will be providing the minimum neccessary to protect their investment, who wouldn't on their position.