Miggys First Goal Posted November 5, 2021 Share Posted November 5, 2021 3 hours ago, 54 said: That's actually mental Who’d own a football club. Jesus. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yorkie Posted November 5, 2021 Share Posted November 5, 2021 So club owners are just allowed to give their money to the club they own? I'd come to assume that this wasn't such straight-forward practice; not because Ashley never did (other than in terms of loans), but because I thought there had to be some 'manufactured' way of getting that money in - i.e. through revenue streams? If PIF is allowed to just give its money to NUFC, why bother arranging disproportionately inflated sponsorship deals, etc? Christ knows how the club is £40million down on basic running costs. That's a truly obscene amount of money. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LV Posted November 5, 2021 Share Posted November 5, 2021 (edited) These guys must have so much to do right now. The club is an absolute corpse. Edited November 5, 2021 by LV Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MagCA Posted November 5, 2021 Share Posted November 5, 2021 5 minutes ago, Yorkie said: So club owners are just allowed to give their money to the club they own? I'd come to assume that this wasn't such straight-forward practice; not because Ashley never did (other than in terms of loans), but because I thought there had to be some 'manufactured' way of getting that money in - i.e. through revenue streams? If PIF is allowed to just give its money to NUFC, why bother arranging disproportionately inflated sponsorship deals, etc? Christ knows how the club is £40million down on basic running costs. That's a truly obscene amount of money. From my understanding an owner can invest as much as they want but revenues need to offset losses to stay within FFP. So you can't spend 200m on transfers because that counts as a loss, you have to have revenue incoming (sponsorships, prize money etc). However, I could be very wrong. FFP doesn't count towards training grounds, stadiums etc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanji Posted November 5, 2021 Share Posted November 5, 2021 Good question @Yorkie, wonder if funding operating costs is OK to do, perhaps it has to do with building a bank balance outside of the TV money. IE: Many clubs take overdraft (loan) from Barclay's (due to relationship with league) and basically use the TV money as collateral to pay the overdraft back. I wonder if the club is not going that route and just funding the bank balance up front. IDK, just spitballing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
STM Posted November 5, 2021 Share Posted November 5, 2021 3 minutes ago, Yorkie said: So club owners are just allowed to give their money to the club they own? I'd come to assume that this wasn't such straight-forward practice; not because Ashley never did (other than in terms of loans), but because I thought there had to be some 'manufactured' way of getting that money in - i.e. through revenue streams? If PIF is allowed to just give its money to NUFC, why bother arranging disproportionately inflated sponsorship deals, etc? Christ knows how the club is £40million down on basic running costs. That's a truly obscene amount of money. It's to do with FFP. Sponsorships are legit sustainable ways of running businesses. Having someone pump money in, leading to higher wage bills etc, leads to the PL wondering what would happen if the owner decided to sell. So in short, yes you can put money in but only to an extent. I imagine it's a 40m investment, rather than paying off on debts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abacus Posted November 5, 2021 Share Posted November 5, 2021 (edited) 27 minutes ago, Yorkie said: So club owners are just allowed to give their money to the club they own? Two ways to put money into a club directly. The first is a loan, like Ashley did, which you expect to be repaid and might attract interest charges. The second, which based on the Athletic article looks to be the case here, is to do it through equity (i.e. buy more shares). In order to keep the same 80/10/10 ownership split, all parties would need to buy the same proportion of new shares - that's what looks to have happened. It's all based on an assumption that Stavely putting in c.£4m means the rest of the consortium match it. As she has 10%, that means the other 90% owners must be putting in c. £36m That essentially means the club gets more cash, debt free. So, as it hasn't come by way of a loan, it doesn't attract interest charges. Though, the owners might take money back out through dividends - but that's a discretionary choice the board makes. In saying that it doesn't mean you can then just keep doing that, ignore FFP and just spend an extra £40m. My reading of the article is that it is cash to cover existing running costs, i.e. which you'd have spent anyway. One reason for that might be for cashflow reasons - I.e. to avoid going to the bank instead for an overdraft / loan. The benefit of that being that you don't then incur extra external interest costs, and those costs would count against your results from a FFP perspective. Edited November 5, 2021 by Abacus . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisMcQuillan Posted November 5, 2021 Share Posted November 5, 2021 Would it be optimistic to assume it could involve buying out Sports Direct from the advertising deal at SJP? The Chronicle said earlier in the week that they were looking into ways of wiping those contracts clear. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abacus Posted November 5, 2021 Share Posted November 5, 2021 It could be for anything, I suppose. Including paying off Bruce, buying out commercial contracts like that, or just funding things day to day. I'd love it if it was the Sports Direct signs too, though! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PauloGeordio Posted November 5, 2021 Share Posted November 5, 2021 2 minutes ago, ChrisMcQuillan said: Would it be optimistic to assume it could involve buying out Sports Direct from the advertising deal at SJP? The Chronicle said earlier in the week that they were looking into ways of wiping those contracts clear. They did? Hope so. The last blight of Ashley. Another #cans day when they go! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted November 5, 2021 Share Posted November 5, 2021 I’d like it if they could rig the SD signs to come down just before kick off. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yorkie Posted November 5, 2021 Share Posted November 5, 2021 Thanks for the responses, folks. @Abacus what shares are left for the consortium to purchase when they already own the club outright? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awaymag Posted November 5, 2021 Share Posted November 5, 2021 (edited) it cant be for the SD advertising contract unless there is a massive early termination clause. The contact was worth £150k a year (seen it reported) and this season is its last year. It could be £40M to cover sprucing up stadium, more staff, cleaning it, updating the corporate areas, covering the payoffs for Bruce and his merry men, sign on fees for new manager and his merry men etc! Edited November 6, 2021 by Awaymag Mustype Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PauloGeordio Posted November 5, 2021 Share Posted November 5, 2021 4 minutes ago, Awaymag said: it can be for the SD advertising contract unless there is a massive early termination clause. The contact was worth £150k a year (seen it reported) and this season is its last year. It could be £40M to cover sprucing up stadium, more staff, cleaning it, updating the corporate areas, covering the payoffs for Bruce and his merry men, sign on fees for new manager and his merry men etc! Cherry picker for the “Gallowgate Pigeon”….. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abacus Posted November 5, 2021 Share Posted November 5, 2021 41 minutes ago, Yorkie said: Thanks for the responses, folks. @Abacus what shares are left for the consortium to purchase when they already own the club outright? A company can always just issue more shares. It's quite a common way to be raise cash. I'm basing that this is what they've done based on the Athletic article having not checked companies house myself just yet, but it makes sense as otherwise they wouldn't all be putting equal amounts as each other, to keep their proportion of shares the same between the three parties. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HTT II Posted November 5, 2021 Share Posted November 5, 2021 I seriously doubt the club has needed such a huge amount of a cash injection, money laundering… Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abacus Posted November 5, 2021 Share Posted November 5, 2021 Nah. There's probably just lots of short term costs they need to cover, or some immediate spending on the ground etc. Like I say, there's £8m out the door on Bruce alone. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cosmic Posted November 6, 2021 Share Posted November 6, 2021 If the new training complex and nenovations and/or relocation of SJP costs another few hundred million quid, Amanda may have difficulty keeping up as she is a mere millionaire compared to Reubens' billions Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HTT II Posted November 6, 2021 Share Posted November 6, 2021 13 hours ago, Abacus said: Nah. There's probably just lots of short term costs they need to cover, or some immediate spending on the ground etc. Like I say, there's £8m out the door on Bruce alone. Sports laundering then… I wasn’t being serious anyway, I do doubt that figure though or if indeed true, it’s been put in for running costs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HTT II Posted November 6, 2021 Share Posted November 6, 2021 1 hour ago, cosmic said: If the new training complex and nenovations and/or relocation of SJP costs another few hundred million quid, Amanda may have difficulty keeping up as she is a mere millionaire compared to Reubens' billions The bigger outlay of capital investment into the club will come from PIF Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abacus Posted November 6, 2021 Share Posted November 6, 2021 5 hours ago, HTT II said: Sports laundering then… I wasn’t being serious anyway, I do doubt that figure though or if indeed true, it’s been put in for running costs. Whereas I think it's totally believable. In fact, I'd be surprised if it's that little. Our last set of accounts (to July 2020) showed us making a loss of £22.5m due to Covid. Our short term debts also increased, by around £40m, even leaving aside the reclassification of Ashley's loan. The next year's haven't been filed yet, but I'm guessing they will make even grimmer reading. Wouldn't be at all surprised if Ashley has left us with a few unpaid bills in all of that, since the thick fool only understands cash. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RS Posted November 6, 2021 Share Posted November 6, 2021 Getting dismantled on sky sports news Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Prophet Posted November 6, 2021 Share Posted November 6, 2021 2 minutes ago, RS said: Getting dismantled on sky sports news Naturally, but who cares? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stifler Posted November 6, 2021 Share Posted November 6, 2021 5 hours ago, TotalWar said: Ending the Shirt sponsorship maybe. Didnt someone say that there had been no progress with the plans for the land next to the metro that Ashley sold to his son in law? Maybe we are buying that land back. The company who owned it almost went bust and to save themselves, they had to sell that land. No one know who owns the company who bought that land, it has been suggested that it could be another Reuben’s company. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rafalove Posted November 6, 2021 Share Posted November 6, 2021 7 minutes ago, RS said: Getting dismantled on sky sports news Saying what exactly? 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