PIF, PCP, and RB Sports & Media

[Bompeter]

2 minutes ago, Abacus said:

Where you can't just issue more equity to one party only without diluting the ownership percentage of the others, is all.

 

You do it via capital contributions, which don't dilute ownership stakes. Extremely common. 

[Keegans Export]

4 minutes ago, Abacus said:

 

What you're describing is a loan to the business. He was talking about investment through share capital rather than a loan.

 

Where you can't just issue more equity to one party only without diluting the ownership percentage of the others, is all.

Right, but what we're talking about here is whether PIF putting money into the club directly would force Staveley & Reuben to do the same. If its a loan then no they wouldn't.

 

The quote was 

53 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

Why are people assuming that if the club needs £100m it would have to be funded 80/10/10 between PIF/the Reubens/Staveley?

...to which I'm saying it wouldn't have to be funded 80/10/10

 

 

Edited July 27, 2022 by Keegans Export

[Keegans Export]

I should also add that, although Bompeter is right about the 80/10/10 thing I don't agree with his conclusion that this loan shows that PIF are not fully invested (financially or otherwise).

 

It's a quick, easy and uncomplicated (in terms of the PL getting pissy) way of getting some cash into the bank account. What we're going to do with it or how much it's actually worth, who knows.

[et tu brute]

 

12 minutes ago, Bompeter said:

 

He didn't. He was responding to a question which assumed this was a given, but didn't say that that happened to be the funding arrangement in place at NUFC (how would he have any knowledge of that any way? It's not like any reputable source has ever reported on it).

 

That sort of arrangement would be completely unworkable here - Staveley is a relative pauper compared to the billionaire Reubens or the Saudis. It would massively restrict the scope of the business' operations. 

 

 

 

PCP are for sure, which could be one of the reasons they have went down this route. As for Maguire, he didn't correct them on that point, so maybe he has inside information.

 

 

Edited July 27, 2022 by et tu brute

[Abacus]

15 minutes ago, Keegans Export said:

Right, but what we're talking about here is whether PIF putting money into the club directly would force Staveley & Reuben to do the same. If its a loan then no they wouldn't.

 

The quote was 

...to which I'm saying it wouldn't have to be funded 80/10/10

 

 

 

Yes, you're right, if it was a loan then no it wouldn't need to be matching.

 

But the debate at that point was about investing through shares, so we're just slightly talking at cross purposes there.

 

 

Edited July 27, 2022 by Abacus

[Matt]

Lots of excitement over what is effectively NUFC changing their account bank from Barclays to HSBC and replacing the blanket security agreement. Someone like Maguire should be more switched on to what he's posting.

 

We won't have visibility of whether the borrowings secured against these assets is substantial or not until the next accounts are available. But there is nothing unusual here and no conclusions or inference can be drawn about the owners or the clubs plans.

[Abacus]

3 hours 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...

 

 

Yes, I read it the same way.  You're just describing a loan from the owner (or someone linked to them) and that would indeed be an associated party transaction.

 

Nothing wrong with doing that, of course, and it wouldn't be stopped, but the loan would be assessed at open market value.

 

If you made the loan interest free as many previous owners have done, under these new anti-NUFC rules, I suspect it would fall foul of that.

 

So, they would assume an interest charge similar to if you'd got a loan on the open market. That notional interest charge would then count towards your profit and loss for FFP.

 

So, in some ways, you might as well just get an actual loan as it makes no difference to FFP, and you might be able to sort it quicker and without the whole hassle. But I think you probably get all that already, apologies if so.

[midds]

4 minutes ago, Matt said:

Lots of excitement over what is effectively NUFC changing their account bank from Barclays to HSBC and replacing the blanket security agreement. Someone like Maguire should be more switched on to what he's posting.

 

We won't have visibility of whether the borrowings secured against these assets is substantial or not until the next accounts are available. But there is nothing unusual here and no conclusions or inference can be drawn about the owners or the clubs plans.

Here's the man I trust

[Coffee_Johnny]

Pages and pages of Financial Times stylee speculation… we so need a signing. 

[et tu brute]

19 minutes ago, Matt said:

Lots of excitement over what is effectively NUFC changing their account bank from Barclays to HSBC and replacing the blanket security agreement. Someone like Maguire should be more switched on to what he's posting.

 

We won't have visibility of whether the borrowings secured against these assets is substantial or not until the next accounts are available. But there is nothing unusual here and no conclusions or inference can be drawn about the owners or the clubs plans.

 

Tbf he did state that he didn't know how much the amount was and couldn't speculate on that.

 

 

Edited July 27, 2022 by et tu brute

[Srt29]

3 hours ago, Bompeter said:

 

You do it via capital contributions, which don't dilute ownership stakes. Extremely common. 

Capital contributions aren’t recognised in UK company law. Regardless of that, there’s different ways they can get money into the club. The credit facility is one way. Issuing shares is another and this is something they did in January when they put £40m in. 
 

In terms of ownership structure, the club is wholly owned by PZ Newco Limited and in turn, this company is 80% owned by PIF (NCUK Limited) and 20% by PCP/Reuben’s under their joint venture, JV1 Limited. In January, you can see the issue of 40m shares at £1 per share in PZ Newco in order to inject the £40m. You can also see that JV1 issued 8m shares at £1 each which would be their £8m part of the 20% split so the 80/20 split remained (PIF would have put in £32m I assume).

 

However something that I don’t think has been picked up on (at least from what I’ve read) is the special resolution filed in January from JV1 which looks like the 8m shares were paid by RB Sports & Media. You can also see that RB became the major shareholder in JV1 taking more than the 50% split after this resolution. Therefore, PCP’s holding would be diluted to ~45% of JV1 which in turn means their shareholding of NUFC is diluted to ~8.96%.

 

I could be very wrong with this analysis as I’m no expert but Staveley did mention that diluting was very possible back in February I think during a summit.

[elbee909]

It's no surprise they'd move from Barclays, after the case between them and Staveley.

[Geordie Ahmed]

1 hour ago, Srt29 said:

Capital contributions aren’t recognised in UK company law. Regardless of that, there’s different ways they can get money into the club. The credit facility is one way. Issuing shares is another and this is something they did in January when they put £40m in. 
 

In terms of ownership structure, the club is wholly owned by PZ Newco Limited and in turn, this company is 80% owned by PIF (NCUK Limited) and 20% by PCP/Reuben’s under their joint venture, JV1 Limited. In January, you can see the issue of 40m shares at £1 per share in PZ Newco in order to inject the £40m. You can also see that JV1 issued 8m shares at £1 each which would be their £8m part of the 20% split so the 80/20 split remained (PIF would have put in £32m I assume).

 

However something that I don’t think has been picked up on (at least from what I’ve read) is the special resolution filed in January from JV1 which looks like the 8m shares were paid by RB Sports & Media. You can also see that RB became the major shareholder in JV1 taking more than the 50% split after this resolution. Therefore, PCP’s holding would be diluted to ~45% of JV1 which in turn means their shareholding of NUFC is diluted to ~8.96%.

 

I could be very wrong with this analysis as I’m no expert but Staveley did mention that diluting was very possible back in February I think during a summit.

 

Aye, she did say that, this article has the quotes 

 

https://www.tribalfootball.comstaveley-might-dilute-newcastle-stakes-to-allow-more-saudi-pif-investment-4406323/

 

 

Edited July 28, 2022 by Geordie Ahmed

[Cattletrucked]

Well according to The Sun 🤮 our owners are skint and need the money…so it must be true if it’s in that shitrag! …no I don’t read it, I saw someone post it on fb 

[Decky]

We've spent £170m on players in the last 8 months (and we're not done yet), spent God knows what on doing up SJP and our current training ground development, and we're actively looking to build a new world class training facility. Skint indeed. 

 

 

Edited July 28, 2022 by Decky

[gdm]

1 hour ago, Cattletrucked said:

Well according to The Sun 🤮 our owners are skint and need the money…so it must be true if it’s in that shitrag! …no I don’t read it, I saw someone post it on fb 

Just looked at while the headline says we are ‘poor’ the article doesn’t actually say that at all. 
 

Financial Fair Play rules have restricted the amount owners can pump in directly for transfers and they also have to wait until next season to bring in lucrative sponsorship deals with Saudi-linked businesses.

So the moneybags Tynesiders have opened up a credit facility with HSBC to pocket cash due from next season up front.

Using Premier League TV revenue and ticket sales to secure the borrowing, the cash injection will hand boss Howe a huge boost in his quest to land a new striker and winger in the final month of the window.

[Hovagod]

48 minutes ago, gdm said:

Just looked at while the headline says we are ‘poor’ the article doesn’t actually say that at all. 
 

 

 

Judging by that, I think the Sun may have been playing the waggish scamp with the headline. As is their wont. 

[RodneyCisse]

6 hours ago, elbee909 said:

It's no surprise they'd move from Barclays, after the case between them and Staveley.

Loads of banks use HSBC for large transfers anyways so makes sense to just be with them.

[Nucasol]

2 minutes ago, RodneyCisse said:

Loads of banks use HSBC for large transfers anyways so makes sense to just be with them.

Great client pick up for their Commercial bank at a time they are all greening their lending to lower financed emissions. Football clubs aren’t exactly heavy emitters.

[LV]

34 minutes ago, Nucasol said:

Great client pick up for their Commercial bank at a time they are all greening their lending to lower financed emissions. Football clubs aren’t exactly heavy emitters.

Eh? 

[54]

Guess we arn't going to be getting backrolled after all:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jul/27/saudis-unveil-eye-popping-plan-for-mirrored-skyscraper-eco-city

[Decky]

2 minutes ago, 54 said:

Guess we arn't going to be getting backrolled after all:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jul/27/saudis-unveil-eye-popping-plan-for-mirrored-skyscraper-eco-city

 

Seen a few people ask who would want to live there? I think it looks unreal. Would love to live there. 

[McCormick]

Ah, The Line . The less I say about that the better (I’m actually not legally allowed to say anything anyway, if that gives you a clue).

[Menace]

Go on....

[relámpago blanco]

1 hour ago, Nucasol said:

Great client pick up for their Commercial bank at a time they are all greening their lending to lower financed emissions. Football clubs aren’t exactly heavy emitters.

I imagine one of the first things on Staveley list would be to change from barclays.