Doesn't matter who it's owed to - a debt is a debt.

is wilko pulling out?

No idea.



What difference does that make?



£4m owed is £4m owed - doesn't matter who to.

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.

So any sort of criticism is no longer allowed, then?



Most of us on here do care about the club, deeply. However that doesn't mean blind faith and positivity are the route that should be followed, doing that can be far more detrimental than looking at what can be improved. We're all greatful to Wilky and the other directors for keeping the club alive, but in terms of the day-to-day running of the club there has been, and continues to be, some poor decisions and poor implementation of certain things. To point these out, not ignore them and continually ask for them to be improved is all down to wanting the club to survive, improve and thrive. To take the Pravda approach is just asking for trouble.



As for the players, well, after the 'performance' against Widnes and Saturday's capitulation you have to wonder where their heads are at. Are most of them leaving? Are they just happy to pick up a cheque each week? Do some of them not give a monkey's about Salford, the supporters or anyone involved with the club? (That's not applicable to all of them, obviously.) The "rumours" of Vievers having lost the dressing room are interesting as we're currently on a similar slump as when Harrison went, baffling performances and results, arguing on the terraces, players offering fans out and so on. I hope there's nothing to it, but the similarities are there.



As for the ludicrous claims that people won't invest in the club because of the fans - look at city. They were always at odds with their owners, "Forward with Franny", etc, yet someone still came in and pumped their cash into the club. Obviously, that was due to the on-pitch and business potential for them - something which Salford will struggle to match, regardless of how much positive energy we as supporters "radiate".

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,