Bompeter Posted July 27, 2022 Share Posted July 27, 2022 1 minute ago, ponsaelius said: Do find it a bit alarming that they wouldn't just put their own cash in like other club owners do. Unless there is FFP benefits I am missing. There’s no FFP element here. It doesn’t distinguish between finance raised externally or finance raised via the owners. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NWMag Posted July 27, 2022 Share Posted July 27, 2022 Could be nothing to do with PIF perhaps? Say we want to spend another £100 million on transfers but don’t have the money, PIF may put their 80% in but maybe PCP and/or Rueben don’t have that cash so are taking a loan for their 10% shares? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Prophet Posted July 27, 2022 Share Posted July 27, 2022 I wonder if it's a way of injecting cash without falling foul of FFP and "related party transactions"? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest reefatoon Posted July 27, 2022 Share Posted July 27, 2022 (edited) Don't be so blue Bompeter Edited July 27, 2022 by reefatoon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yorkie Posted July 27, 2022 Share Posted July 27, 2022 Can't say I've any great sadness in not being totally Man City'd by the Saudi PIF. Just being ambitious again was all I wanted. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bompeter Posted July 27, 2022 Share Posted July 27, 2022 Just now, The Prophet said: I wonder if it's a way of injecting cash without falling foul of FFP and "related party transactions"? Related party transactions relate to revenue or expenditure earned/levied by related parties, not the injection of capital. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ponsaelius Posted July 27, 2022 Share Posted July 27, 2022 PIF could put their own money in and then take back out again at a far better rate than what they're going to get off HSBC. That's the alarming thing to me - not sure I see any reason to do it this way. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest reefatoon Posted July 27, 2022 Share Posted July 27, 2022 1 minute ago, Yorkie said: Can't say I've any great sadness in not being totally Man City'd by the Saudi PIF. Just being ambitious again was all I wanted. Totally agree. We are at last being ran like a professional club, yet it still isn't enough for some people. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeordieT Posted July 27, 2022 Share Posted July 27, 2022 1 minute ago, NWMag said: Could be nothing to do with PIF perhaps? Say we want to spend another £100 million on transfers but don’t have the money, PIF may put their 80% in but maybe PCP and/or Rueben don’t have that cash so are taking a loan for their 10% shares? Taking a personal loan secured against the clubs future revenue? Would hope not. It is hard to fathom the rationale really, obviously cash flow, but can’t see why PIF couldn’t have provided a facility. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanji Posted July 27, 2022 Share Posted July 27, 2022 5 minutes ago, ponsaelius said: Do find it a bit alarming that they wouldn't just put their own cash in like other club owners do. Unless there is FFP benefits I am missing. I'm fairly certain MOST PL clubs take advantage of the broadcast money by setting up a facility like this to advance those streams early to use for whatever means necessary. I think in the past, MA never or rarely did this. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Prophet Posted July 27, 2022 Share Posted July 27, 2022 1 minute ago, Bompeter said: Related party transactions relate to revenue or expenditure earned/levied by related parties, not the injection of capital. Fair enough, I was just speculating. I'm not qualified enough to know whether this is good, bad or neither. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yorkie Posted July 27, 2022 Share Posted July 27, 2022 Putting the debate about who is bankrolling us to one side, didn't we do this right before we signed Miggy? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Icarus Posted July 27, 2022 Share Posted July 27, 2022 2 minutes ago, ponsaelius said: PIF could put their own money in and then take back out again at a far better rate than what they're going to get off HSBC. That's the alarming thing to me - not sure I see any reason to do it this way. Are you sure this is definitely the case? The guy who posted it seems to think other clubs do it this way too. Can't say I care too much either way tbh, just curious. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bompeter Posted July 27, 2022 Share Posted July 27, 2022 I just think if we’re going to suffer the reputational damage of being associated with the Saudis, the least they could do is bankroll us and not quibble over £20m here or there given how profligate they are in other areas (e.g. golf). Instead the club is forced into raising external debt? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Prophet Posted July 27, 2022 Share Posted July 27, 2022 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
54 Posted July 27, 2022 Share Posted July 27, 2022 Weren't there recent rule changes to FFP that meant owners couldn't pump money into the club for transfer related activities in the form of a "Loan"? Whereas borrowing from a bank is allowed? May be making that up mind. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Icarus Posted July 27, 2022 Share Posted July 27, 2022 1 minute ago, Bompeter said: I just think if we’re going to suffer the reputational damage of being associated with the Saudis, the least they could do is bankroll us and not quibble over £20m here or there given how profligate they are in other areas (e.g. golf). Instead the club is forced into raising external debt? You're guessing though aren't you? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yorkie Posted July 27, 2022 Share Posted July 27, 2022 Surely this is close as anything to proof that our spending this window is far from over? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
et tu brute Posted July 27, 2022 Share Posted July 27, 2022 13 minutes ago, Bompeter said: This suggests we really aren’t being bankrolled by the Saudis in any way. Pretty disappointing. I’d love to know what exactly the funding agreement is between PIF and the minority owners. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
HaydnNUFC Posted July 27, 2022 Share Posted July 27, 2022 13 minutes ago, Bompeter said: This suggests we really aren’t being bankrolled by the Saudis in any way. Pretty disappointing. I’d love to know what exactly the funding agreement is between PIF and the minority owners. Alreet Penn/IMTTS/Baldwards? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackie Broon Posted July 27, 2022 Share Posted July 27, 2022 9 minutes ago, The Prophet said: I wonder if it's a way of injecting cash without falling foul of FFP and "related party transactions"? I don't think so. In fact the rules specifically prohibit loans being used as secure funding to offset losses for FFP. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
r0cafella Posted July 27, 2022 Share Posted July 27, 2022 Just now, Yorkie said: Surely this is close as anything to proof that our spending this window is far from over? I mean our spending isn’t done but this isn’t the reason. The club will likely bleed money on a month to month basis in cash flow terms. also this facility will surely result in us patient interest to hsbc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
54 Posted July 27, 2022 Share Posted July 27, 2022 3 minutes ago, The Prophet said: So all we've done is bought forward the payments from the Premier League for the upcoming season via a bank loan, so we can use it in the short term. Given we're being told we're bound by FFP, and don't have the revenue streams set up yet. It seems like a completely logical thing to do. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bompeter Posted July 27, 2022 Share Posted July 27, 2022 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said: You're guessing though aren't you? Guessing about what - that we aren’t being bankrolled by the Saudis? Not really. If we were the club wouldn’t be raising external debt secured against future TV revenue, and needlessly incurring more interest costs as a result. Edited July 27, 2022 by Bompeter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Icarus Posted July 27, 2022 Share Posted July 27, 2022 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Bompeter said: Guessing about what - that we aren’t being bankrolled by the Saudis? Not really. If we were the club wouldn’t be raising external debt secured against future TV revenue. Guessing about everything you said. About why the money's being borrowed, about quibbling over money, about us being 'forced' to take a loan out - you're just guessing and then drawing a conclusion from your guesswork. Edited July 27, 2022 by Kid Icarus Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now