PIF and RB Sports & Media

[Geordie Ahmed]

10 minutes ago, Lotus said:

I would think it’s perfectly legitimate to at least ask why, if we’re owned (in the majority) and one would think financed by PIF why we would be taking a bank loan for cash flow.

I’m not saying it’s necessarily indicative of anything any of us propose but is at least worthy of discussion, is it not?
 

And, just because our new owners have definitely talk the talk so far, let’s have our eyes open. I read lots and lots of posts saying the Saudis won’t settle for 2nd best, etc. That may be so but, let’s just temper our excitement with the actual evidence of what they do rather than our dreams of what they might do.

 

From my own POV football has been horribly f**ked by sugar daddies but given that it is so, I hope we go mad with it. I really do. The game in total has been ruined anyway. 

 

I agree, I'd like to know why they are doing it this way but that's just purely out of curiosity, more knowledge is never a bad thing

 

My post was more aimed at those that think it's worrying or looking at it as proper doom and gloom

[Happinesstan]

1 minute ago, Kid Icarus said:

 Speculating, but £80m I think?

I thought we got in excess of £100million.

[Geordie Ahmed]

3 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

 Speculating, but £80m I think?

 

[Manxst]

“Each club is given an equal share of £79million from the domestic and overseas TV deals, with an extra facility fee depending on how many times they are broadcast. They then receive a £5.6million share of the Premier League’s combined commercial income.

Premier League clubs also receive an extra share of overseas TV rights income, with the value increasing depending on how high up the table they finish and this is referred to as merit payments.”

 

https://www.planetfootball.com/quick-reads/premier-league-prize-money-2021-22-club-by-club-breakdown-man-city-liverpool-chelsea/

[Geordie Ahmed]

2 minutes ago, Happinesstan said:

I thought we got in excess of £100million.

We did but the rest of that is made up of league position and how often we are on TV

 

A guess you can almost guarantee a certain amount as there is a minimum amount each club needs to be shown (think it's around 9 but I could be wrong)

[STM]

What PIF does, is acts as a safety net. Which is quite handy when you intend on showing ambition and maximising every revenue stream going. 

 

It's clear that our owners intend on building sustainable investment, which takes a little bit of time. Our new CEO hasn't even got his arse through the door.

 

If in 5 years we can have comparable income to the likes of Spurs, that will do me, thank you very much.

[madras]

Apparently the club finishing bottom this coming season will be guaranteed 106mill.

 

https://www.sportspromedia.com/news/report-premier-league-tv-rights-revenue-to-pass-uk10bn-over-next-three-years/

[relámpago blanco]

7 minutes ago, Happinesstan said:

I thought we got in excess of £100million.

140, PIF stuck in 40 after the takeover as well

[Abacus]

1 minute ago, Lotus said:

I would think it’s perfectly legitimate to at least ask why, if we’re owned (in the majority) and one would think financed by PIF why we would be taking a bank loan for cash flow.

I’m not saying it’s necessarily indicative of anything any of us propose but is at least worthy of discussion, is it not?
 

And, just because our new owners have definitely talk the talk so far, let’s have our eyes open. I read lots and lots of posts saying the Saudis won’t settle for 2nd best, etc. That may be so but, let’s just temper our excitement with the actual evidence of what they do rather than our dreams of what they might do.

 

From my own POV football has been horribly f**ked by sugar daddies but given that it is so, I hope we go mad with it. I really do. The game in total has been ruined anyway. 

 

I think where he is absolutely right is that this is not some sly dodge around FFP.

 

But also, that there are plenty of reasons you might set up such a facility instead of asking for an equity or shareholders loan. As has been said, it's common practice in terms of how clubs are run, and running us normally is what we've all wanted.

 

I think that, to then go on to question the owners ability or willingness to fund the club is probably what some people are reacting to, because that part of it is not based on anything at all.

 

I'm not all that fussed if it's a slow build, for what it's worth. But we have already spent a relative fortune on transfers, started to sort out our back office infrastructure and started looking at expensive training ground revamps for just three. 

 

Given all that tangible progress and spend, it seems a bit odd to then question the owners motives. Either way, keep going like this and however we choose to fund it, that's fine by me.

[Ken Boon]

23 minutes ago, Geordie Ahmed said:

Anyone worried that this signifies the owners aren't serious or that they don't have the money or are unwilling to invest money only need to look at what they've done since they've been here

 

Their actions from replacing the manager, getting in numerous coaching staff, getting in a well respected sporting director, a CEO with a solid record, spending money on the stadium, improvements to the training ground and the most important of them all, £150m on improving the squad tells you about their intent 

 

So people need to calm down, what this loan means I'm not sure but I'll trust it's for the benefit of the club/squad 

 

No doubt grumpy will be telling us that we are bring liquidated the doylem that he is 

 

Appointing the like of Ashworth, Eaves and Devine is not the act of a club that is in any financial bother or is unwilling to invest as the Mackem Houthi's hope. They will be furiously dribbling into their blue pop and cheesy chips when NUFC make at least 2 more major signings before the end of this window because of this deal.

 

 

Edited July 27, 2022 by Ken Boon

[Guest HTT II]

I’ve already mentioned it, but once the WC is over, we have all our ducks in a line which we are already doing now with the CEO, DOF and a legal counsel, PIF will spend big. I say big, just look at what has already been spent, over 150m on transfers, probably another 50m on wages and training ground and stadium improvements and of course over 300m to buy the club and half a billion to get the thorny issue of BEIN sports removed. People shouldn’t worry about anything, not least a business using what is basically a line of credit facility for immediate cash flow purposes, especially with FFP in mind, it’s all good!

 

 

Edited July 27, 2022 by HTT II

[Happinesstan]

Just now, Abacus said:

 

I think where he is absolutely right is that this is not some sly dodge around FFP.

 

But also, that there are plenty of reasons you might set up such a facility instead of asking for an equity or shareholders loan. As has been said, it's common practice in terms of how clubs are run, and running us normally is what we've all wanted.

 

I think that, to then go on to question the owners ability or willingness to fund the club is probably what some people are reacting to, because that part of it is not based on anything at all.

 

I'm not all that fussed if it's a slow build, for what it's worth. But we have already spent a relative fortune on transfers, started to sort out our back office infrastructure and started looking at expensive training ground revamps for just three. 

 

Given all that tangible progress and spend, it seems a bit odd to then question the owners motives. Either way, keep going like this and however we choose to fund it, that's fine by me.

I don't think we need any dodge around FFP. We were supposedly clear to spend £500 million over the next 3 years. Seems we just don't have the cashflow and this is an easy solution.

 

[Guest HTT II]

Mind if that fake accountant on RTG delves deeper into this, we could do a Leeds, or a Portsmouth, or a sunlan!

[Manxst]

Just now, HTT II said:

Mind if that fake accountant on RTG delves deeper into this, we could do a Leeds, or a Portsmouth, or a sunlan!

Wonder if his letter to company house to complain about us got delivered….? 

[Guest HTT II]

1 minute ago, Happinesstan said:

I don't think we need any dodge around FFP. We were supposedly clear to spend £500 million over the next 3 years. Seems we just don't have the cashflow and this is an easy solution.

 

Most of Man City’s early massive spending wasn’t just their owners pumping cold hard cash in, it was bankrolled with loans, debt (to the owners for equity) and such, but back then there wasn’t FFP. This is honestly 100% sensible business and I for one am fucking glad we are now ran, operated and owned based on such parameters. In 3 years time I guess, then we will see us spending big and going for it big time, but because we will have the revenues, the predicted future massive income and the right people on board at every level to make it all work, especially legally. It’s no surprise we are making this kind of move right now having appointed a legal counsel…

[Guest HTT II]

3 minutes ago, Manxst said:

Wonder if his letter to company house to complain about us got delivered….? 

Them and letterboxes… they are probably overwhelmed with the letters from Exile right now!

[Abacus]

38 minutes ago, TRon said:

 

 

We need more posts like this.

OK, some positive pure speculation then.

 

In the early days of the takeover, the consortium were accused of being slow to act, with every decision needing to be signed off by the head of the giant PIF.

 

But let's say you wanted access to potential funds fast, without bureaucracy or alerting people as to how much you had to spend via Companies House filings on loans or shares etc. 

 

You might set up a facility like that, to get commercially sensitive deals like transfers done fast, for example. Well, it's a thought anyway. Might just be a payday loan for washing those windows.

[LV]

1 hour ago, Lotus said:

Is Bompeter making any particularly outrageous observations here? 
Reads a little like people are just trying to shout down a dissenting voice from an established narrative that we’re loaded now.

Must fully admit to knowing nothing about accounting or money in general but it does seem like Bompeter has made some points here that are worthy of open minded discussion. 
 

ah wel…..npw….

 

 

 

For starters, he said this suggests we aren’t being bankrolled by the Saudis in any way.

 

Which is as wrong as anything wrong I’ve ever heard. 

[McCormick]

29 minutes ago, Abacus said:

OK, some positive pure speculation then.

 

In the early days of the takeover, the consortium were accused of being slow to act, with every decision needing to be signed off by the head of the giant PIF.

 

But let's say you wanted access to potential funds fast, without bureaucracy or alerting people as to how much you had to spend via Companies House filings on loans or shares etc. 

 

You might set up a facility like that, to get commercially sensitive deals like transfers done fast, for example. Well, it's a thought anyway. Might just be a payday loan for washing those windows.

Might be the case. Trying to get money out of PIF takes ages (usually months but honestly, sometimes years) with all the bureaucracy. *
 

*Clamping down on all of the fraud and corruption was one of MBS’s main charges when he came into ascendency. Publically funded projects, in particular, were riddled with it. All of this shady shit was costing the country an absolute fortune and greasing palms was even seen as part and parcel of doing business in Saudi. He came down particularly hard on the Bin Laden Group which caused a massive shake-up in the country. More transparency, more use of technology and greater controls have seemingly put a stop to it though.

 

TLDR; Ben Arfa is mint.

 

 

Edited July 27, 2022 by McCormick

[B-more Mag]

54 minutes ago, madras said:

If that's so has anyone an idea of how much that would be ?

The technically correct answer is we don’t know for sure. The amount of the loan facility would be in the loan agreement, but that document is not filled in Companies House (the point of filing security agreements in Companies House is just to put “the world” on notice that the receivable are subject to the existence of the lender’s interest, not the specific amount). But the answers about it being no more than the amount of the relevant streams are conceptually correct. 

[relámpago blanco]

50 minutes ago, HTT II said:

I’ve already mentioned it, but once the WC is over, we have all our ducks in a line which we are already doing now with the CEO, DOF and a legal counsel, PIF will spend big. I say big, just look at what has already been spent, over 150m on transfers, probably another 50m on wages and training ground and stadium improvements and of course over 300m to buy the club and half a billion to get the thorny issue of BEIN sports removed. People shouldn’t worry about anything, not least a business using what is basically a line of credit facility for immediate cash flow purposes, especially with FFP in mind, it’s all good!

 

 

 

Well put

[Jackie Broon]

3 hours ago, Bompeter said:

Owner’s directly injecting cash into the club isn’t a related party transaction and wouldn’t need approval from the PL. PIF could put a billion into the club and it wouldn’t have anything to do with FFP (actually spending that amount and incurring the subsequent amortisation obviously would though). But there are no limitations on equity injections.

Basically, there’s no reason to do this if PIF were willing to put (more) cash into the club. If you think that’s a desirable or undesirable thing is everyone’s own personal opinion. 

 

 

I think you're wrong there, directly injecting cash would be an associated party transaction as far as I can see from the PL's rules:

 

Rule A.1.17 An “Associated Party” is a Person that is associated with the Club.

1. A Person is associated with a Club if that Person:

(a) has Control or joint control over the Club;

(b) holds a Holding in excess of 5% of Shares;

 

A.1.18. “Associated Party Transaction” means, in respect of any Club, a Transaction that is, whether directly or indirectly, between: (a) a Club and an Associated Party;

 

E.51. Each Associated Party Transaction must be submitted to the Board (in such form and including such detail as required by the Board) in order for the Board to conduct a Fair Market Value Assessment of it.

 

Although, indirectly injecting cash through payment for shares would not be.

 

Neither would make a difference to FFP other than providing secure funding to cover the allowed losses. But it does seem to make sense for the club to have a credit facility to have cash immediately available. 

 

 

Edited July 27, 2022 by Jackie Broon

[JonBez comesock]

10 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

I think you're wrong there, directly injecting cash would be an associated party transaction as far as I can see from the PL's rules:

 

Rule A.1.17 An “Associated Party” is a Person that is associated with the Club.

1. A Person is associated with a Club if that Person:

(a) has Control or joint control over the Club;

(b) holds a Holding in excess of 5% of Shares;

 

A.1.18. “Associated Party Transaction” means, in respect of any Club, a Transaction that is, whether directly or indirectly, between: (a) a Club and an Associated Party;

 

E.51. Each Associated Party Transaction must be submitted to the Board (in such form and including such detail as required by the Board) in order for the Board to conduct a Fair Market Value Assessment of it.

 

Although, indirectly injecting cash through payment for shares would not be.

 

Neither would make a difference to FFP other than providing secure funding to cover the allowed losses. But it does seem to make sense for the club to have a credit facility to have cash immediately available. 

 

 

 

Didn’t Tottenham just do this ? Pumped £150 in directly

[Jackie Broon]

8 minutes ago, JonBez comesock said:

Didn’t Tottenham just do this ? Pumped £150 in directly

 

It was indirectly through issuing and purchasing shares. So did our owners earlier this year.

 

But that probably takes a bit longer to organise than having an immediately available loan facility.

 

 

Edited July 27, 2022 by Jackie Broon

[Gaztoon]

3 minutes ago, JonBez comesock said:

Didn’t Tottenham just do this ? Pumped £150 in directly

 

 was a loan from the owner I think.