I listen through all the stuff Bob, I generally always do because I'd be myopic and biased as the people I criticise, for only wanting to hear one side of the story and believe that to be totally the right one - if I didn't.
I've always been happy to be proven wrong and learn something I didn't know from anyone - Maguire is a high profile university lecturer, specialising in sports (primarily football it seems) financial accountancy - so he clearly has skills and knowledge but as you astutely listed above, you can have all the skills and and knowledge but they are meaningless if you use them with the wrong attitude - the prejudice and bias you bring to the table distorts how you view the things you look at.
Maguire (and the interviewer) were more fixated on abusing the former owners (including Davies and his "£180m soft loan") than looking with a fresh mind about what didn't seem to sit right with these accounts.
But as the saying goes, 'in the kingdom of the blind, the one eyed man is king', and thus because the vast amount of football fans know practically nothing about financial accounts or Company Law, they cling to every word Maguire says as gospel - and he is able to bond with them (unlike any other 'dull and boring' people like us Bob) much deeper and further by often abusing the clubs owners for the mess the clubs in anyway. He builds a connection with the fans - he's playing to his audience by 'being one of them'.
I don't know if he does so deliberately or not but it clearly works for him.
Doesn't mean the one eyed king is any good though just that he can see a bit better than his blind followers who naively trust every word they are being told by him!
As for the clubs account and financial position, my thinking goes something like this.
When FV took on the debt they knew Warburton's £2.5m wasn't an issue as it is set against the awaited sale of a plot of land - they know the end outcome of that.
Same in a way with PBP/Mike James, as their money is tied to the hotel and it doesn't look as though he needs to or desires to sell the hotel anytime soon.
With EDT it looks as though they've bought the debt off by paying £2.5m up front and some performance payments at various stages in the future.
So what purchase costs did the FV consortium have?
The obvious one is the Administration - but I'm unsure who actually pays what here?
The costs for Administration as far as I understand it is in two parts - their fees, for doing the job - and the cost of trading whilst the business goes through the Administration process to the point of sale.
Did EDT and Anderson, who called in the two Administrations, become responsible for their respective fees or not?
Or was the agreement that they took their fees from the sale amount?
Similarly whilst the company was in Administration, it was running at a loss - and again who covered these losses - presumably from money asked from the person wanting to buy the company out of Administration surely?
If I'm right in my thinking(?) then it would make sense for the FV consortium to have taken on a purchase price from the Administrator somewhat greater than the reported amount that I can only find in the press reports - namely £17.4m.
Maybe the true purchase price agreed was £17.5m for the assets/debt and (say) a further £6m for the Administration costs - which is shown in the accounts as 'goodwill'?
If my thinking is right it explains why the Administrators have accepted a secured creditor status against FV assets with EDT waiving their secured creditor status? As FV didn't have the money up front.
At least it sort of fits anyway?
So in a sense FV's only real purchase outlay would be the £2.5m to EDT.
Their remaining costs to them for the year up to June 2020 would be the running costs - and even then they got a government grant for £1m towards them - and the payment of £3m to settle the unsecured creditors amount.
I've no idea what this £8m purchase of intellectual property is but I doubt very much that is simply for the name/'history' of the club- who would want to pay £8m for that???
You could by a Leonardo Da Vinci drawing for that kind of money![You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Which do you think would be the better investment?
So Sharon and co are probably say £5m out of pocket anyway (and still need to clear the debt to the unsecured creditors (£3m or so) and also have presumably a further trading loss up to June 2021, they are still happy to fund the wages of all those players Evatt as wanted for this season and reestablish a reserves side - so no doubt a further trading loss for the year up to June 2022 will be shown as well!
She/FV/her investors must be happy to put in this seemingly unsecured money - for now anyway?
As such it isn't a problem but if they do decide to turn off the money then let us all hope we've reached the point at which the club is financially sustainable before they do!
I can only assume this is some sort of long term plan and maybe some of the investors (Nick Mason?) are investing at a loss in order to claim tax relief against his other companies??
Maybe there is a much bigger picture here than what we are seeing?