We won't know for sure, but one could use exactly the same "logic" and say that we don't know how the current situation will pan out either.
Or one could look at the facts and try and draw sensible conclusions based on the financial situation and the most likely outcomes. Whether you look at it now or pre-Ron Martin, the club's finances have been in a precarious position for some time.
Err, we've had plenty of chairman who have borrowed on dreams - dreams of maintaining second tier football or getting promoted. And is that not why we are in the situation we are in? Was that not why the South Bank was sold off for flats and then why Roots Hall itself was sold to Roots Hall Ltd? By the time Ron Martin got involved the debts he inherited were such that he had to sell the ground.
The assets borrowed against are irrelevant (although it is reassuring if someone sees Fossets as having value to borrow against) as you don't borrow with the intention of using that security to pay. You borrow on the belief that that asset will pay for itself. The security is only to satisfy the lender that you have the means to pay if it fails.
I'm sure RM does want help. He accepted the Trust's help, but who else has offered to help? The consortium did not offer to help RM, they offered to buy him out for a pound. There are also as many questions unanswered about the consortium as there are about RM.
People certainly like to view things in black and white. RM (and Geoff King) bad, Steve Tilson good. The truth is a bit more complicated than that.
I still think Steve Tilson is in credit, despite his mistakes though.
YB - As you know, I agree with a lot of what you say, but wanted to come back on some of this:
1 The finances deteriorated significantly at the end of the Vic Jobson era, when he took his eye off the financial ball. What the then manager was able to get away with was scandalous and should never have been allowed to happen at SUFC.
2 However, our finances have since deteriorated further. Never in our history have we made such ridiculous losses as £2.4m in one year. What on earth was our board playing at? A complete lack of future planning and throwing money around that we clearly didn't have. Was all of it spent wisely for the club's benefit? The losses are amazing considering the extra revenues the club has been enjoying compared to previously.
Even if certain fans were baying for signings, we should only have signed players for fees and on wages that we could afford and that were sustainable. I may have wanted us to sign players in the Championship, but I'd have only wanted us to sign players in a manner that we could afford. I'm not just saying that with hindsight. I saw what had happened in the mid to late 90s and hoped that would never happen to us again. If I knew how much some of the players we signed cost of course I'd never have wanted to sign them (regardless of whether they turned out to be good or bad signings).
3 The finances are now worse than when Vic Jobson left (and that's saying something), because the annual losses are bigger and the club now has few assets left to sell or borrow against if necessary. What's more, Vic Jobson made smaller losses despite having had much lower attendances (because the regime then had alienated so many fans from attending). The club had to sell off much of the South Bank (although didn't make money from that because of the property crash), but they also made Roots Hall all-seater and bought the training ground, plus refurbished the ground in other ways. Over a long period of time before the last two or three years under Vic Jobson, the club managed to not lose much money and on much lower revenues.
I still can't understand this: how comes we have made such huge losses recently when attendances have shot through the roof, TV money, cup runs, etc? And the squad has been so threadbare. Remember the supposed "break-even" attendance figure? Why has such a dreadful position happened? Does anyone really believe that Vic Jobson is to blame for the RECENT massive losses? The club has apparently not been charged rent or interest, so that makes the recent losses even more staggering and nothing to do with the previous regime.
4 Which brings me onto the consortium. Whilst I agree that they have a lot of questions to anwer, who's to say that they couldn't be the saviours? Let's not just
assume that they'll save the day, but surely it must be possible to run the club better with all those extra revenues coming in that we've had recently? A well-attended club like ours (as ours has recently been compared to others in the division and its historical position) should be able to at least break even on gates of 8,000. If the club makes such huge losses at that level of support, something is seriously wrong with the club's financial management. Will we ever find out exactly how the club has made such huge losses?
The people in the consortium have run businesses as going concerns profitably and have not just been property developers. Is that a reason to trust the consortium without asking further? No. Is that a reason to suspect that the club
COULD be run profitably on what are historically very high attendances? Yes.
You have to wonder also, with the consortium's combined wealth and connections, are they more likely to realise the move to Fossetts Farm?
What's more, if the consortium really are fans and want what's best for the club long-term, is that a reason to be hopeful that they will want to secure the club's long-term financial interests at Fossetts Farm and not just look after themselves? Let's not forget, we've still not been told by the current owners how the club would benefit financially from the move.
It's not all black and white, but there must be a brighter future than the painful slow decline we're all witnessing right now.
