I would look at it like this: under his stewardship, SUFC lost £11m. By transfering the ground to his ownership and receiving £3m for it, he has reduced his losses to £8m.
Had he not done that, his losses (which I repeat were accrued when he was owner & chairman of the club) would have remained £11m.
The ‘losses’ can’t be both his AND the club’s though, surely?
Wouldn’t it be a more accurate appraisal to say that he put 11m into the club and got 3m out by selling the ground to Michelle and her CIC..?
Therefore HE lost 8m.
Even then, the term ‘lost’ actually suggests he got nothing for his money. I’d completely disagree. He got plenty. Amongst many other things he got the kudos of being able to say he was a league football club chairman, and the privilege of being able to sit at the head of the Board and direct its future.
So I think ‘spent’ would be a better way to put it, rather than ‘lost’. He spent, in the end, on balance, 8m. An expensive ego trip!
