Sussex Shrimper
Manager
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2004
- Messages
- 1,674
Ok I was reluctant to post this but isn't this a case of bigger picture time? The CCJ and PFA assistance appears to be linked to a cashflow problem. I am making assumptions here but I don't believe that these two issues are not directly linked and it doesnt take a finance genius to realise the severity of this.
Not being able to satisfy creditors as and when they fall due is the main reason companies fail. There's a lot of rumour and speculation about bonuses not being paid and whilst I appreciate that managing the finances of a lower league football club is an extremely difficult job we must all be aware of how easy it is for a club to fall into the chasm of administration.
I apologise if the post is a bit melodromatic, however, as I've said before I am extremely concerned about the financial security of the club.
The CCJ arose as a result of a dispute in which the club believed that they were correct to withhold payment, but coughed up when judgement went against them.
We have no idea what the story is behind the past payments to player(s) from the PFA. It might be prudent to ask the question through the proper channels, but what's the benefit in then assuming the worst before the club have had a chance to respond? If after a reasonable period there's either no answer from the club or an unsatisfactory one then yes, that would be cause for concern. Given the openness is explaining how the CCJ came about why do we need to assume the worst without any substantial reason to do so?
I'll continue to support the club and the people who have done right by it until I'm given a real reason not to do so.
EDIT: If the players look to you like a bunch who are being messed around, missing out on payments and so on then you're watching a different team to me.
Last edited: