Why are they feeding us crap?

There is an interesting but confusing PR-war
going on fuelled by the delay in making the financial-books public.
The amount of debts we carry has been the fundamental discrepancy.

Some stories say we are fine as the debt is managable (approx £45 m) after having renegotiated the terms of the loans down to a level where the turnover (approx £90m) can carry it. One example of this financial optimism is the article by owner pipeline - Jason Burt of the Telegraph - painting a picture of a club in decent economic shape going in the right direction and with a prosperous future.

Other say we're deep in the brown stuff, carrying more debt than the £100 m Straumur wants for us, triggering the Sullivan rumor/offer were he supposedly said he'd take on our huge debts for nothing (if he got the Club along with it).
The Intermarket Group's view seem to be somewhere in between.

This PR war is nowhere as obvious as on KUMB and the "West Ham for sale" thread were posters claiming ITK status are fighting a war to convince the fans that their view is the only reasonable.

But now back to my original question.
The real economic discussion, the evaluation of the Club, the debt and a possible bid for it, is not exactly a public hearing. It is going on inside a few London (?) offices by people having access to all the necessary financial information.
So why are they feeding us all this crap? What good is it for the respective sides to have this going on in the press?

Or are they actually preparing for the situation after this has ended, to gain acceptance for actions to come, may it be transfer funds that never appears or the sale of a player we were supposed to keep?

No comments: