Ouch. But all that really tells us is that the club is not being run on a sustainable basis (not surprising given the lack of TV money and parachute payments) and that the owners are putting money in to make up the gap. As long as the brothers are still interested and solvent (their dad is a billionaire apparently) we're fine, but it's not healthy to be so dependent.

Another takeaway is the 220k in transfer fees - presumably what we paid upfront for Langstaff and Scott?

I'd be interested in the overall squad budget. We had a pretty solid League One-sized budget when we went down, I wonder how it compares now?

Plus, nobody seems to be trying to cover things up or sweep it under the carpet.

To me, I think the Reedtz brothers are content with the club's spending. It would make little sense for them to run a club at a loss, without plans on how they can turn it around. Keep in mind we're trying to become a club that maximises their income and outcome via the transfer market. Was previous owners really going to see their investments return with the various and many styles of recruitment we went through - no.

Some fans will allow this to be a negative, should we be concerned? I don't think so; it's only something to be mindful about.