Gemmel Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 (edited) Steve Grant to provide more information from Companies House Later. andy curtis @saintgert RT @upthesaints Should fans be concerned #saintsfc have taken a loan against future tv revenue ?/yep - that's how leeds went bust Details Expand Collapse Reply RetweetedRetweet Delete FavoritedFavorite 44m Glen DLC @L1minus10 @saintgert @upthesaints not quite. Leeds bet on Champions League qualification every year.... Details Expand Collapse Reply RetweetedRetweet Delete FavoritedFavorite 39m andy curtis @saintgert @L1minus10 @upthesaints Same principle. Leeds bet on future revenue streams that didn't happen. How many years revenue incl in SFC loan? Details Expand Collapse Reply RetweetedRetweet Delete FavoritedFavorite 32m David Up North(ish) @S13SFC @saintgert @L1minus10 Where has all this talk of loan against future income come from?? Details Expand Collapse Steve Grant @SteveGrant1983 @S13SFC Companies House. Will have details when I get home Edited 3 October, 2012 by Gemmel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 Steve Grant to provide more information from Companies House Later. if so.....relegation is not an option...and nigel best start improving results also, pretty normal for clubs...on the other hand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 if so.....relegation is not an option...and nigel best start improving results Depends if the loan covers more than one season's worth of TV revenue or not... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 Not according to companies house. We have a debenture with a company called the Vibrac corporation who appear to be a company based in the British Virgin Islands and they also loaned Everton money a while ago. I am sure there may be a perfectly valid reason for this and I'm sure I'll be accused of being anti Cortese again but it seems we are not debt free like some were claiming only last week. http://www.companiesintheuk.co.uk/ltd/southampton-football-club Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 SFC has borrowed an unspecified amount of money from Vibrac Corporation, registered in the British Virgin Islands, which is secured as a fixed and floating charge on all assets and future revenues. :uhoh: :uhoh: :uhoh: :uhoh: :uhoh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 The only thing you'll be accused of is raising a second thread on the same subject... ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 :facepalm:Didn't see that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ludwig Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 SFC has borrowed an unspecified amount of money from Vibrac Corporation, registered in the British Virgin Islands, which is secured as a fixed and floating charge on all assets and future revenues. :uhoh: :uhoh: :uhoh: :uhoh: :uhoh: http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/everton-fc/everton-fc-news/2011/09/20/everton-fc-insist-new-loan-based-on-next-season-s-premier-league-tv-income-will-not-increase-debt-100252-29456193/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 So not debt free like was claimed on here only last week Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 SFC has borrowed an unspecified amount of money from Vibrac Corporation, registered in the British Virgin Islands, which is secured as a fixed and floating charge on all assets and future revenues. :uhoh: :uhoh: :uhoh: :uhoh: :uhoh: That is very concerning news. I hope there is a simple explanation... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 SFC has borrowed an unspecified amount of money from Vibrac Corporation, registered in the British Virgin Islands, which is secured as a fixed and floating charge on all assets and future revenues. :uhoh: :uhoh: :uhoh: :uhoh: :uhoh: Have they started a Saints Takeover Saga thread on Pompey OnLine yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 :facepalm:Didn't see that. No worries, merged the two threads together Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 This isn't good news at all. Unlike Portsmouth fans, I suspect the majority of saints fans have a brain in their nut and so understand why this would be of concern. Questions need to be asked and we need to know what this is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 http://www.nsno.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=14461.0 Guardian Report on Everton Loan « on: September 19, 2011, 10:29:25 PM » A report on the deal for a loan against future Sky money. Everton's successful start to the season might make you wonder what all the fuss was about. After demonstrations at Goodison Park at the direction the club have been heading in under the chairman, Bill Kenwright, the Toffees have picked up more points per game than anyone outside the Premier League top four. However, off the pitch matters are indeed far less rosy: Digger can reveal that Everton have forward-sold their central Premier League broadcast income not only for this season but for the 2012-13 campaign as well. As Kenwright has privately admitted, Everton's prior lenders, Barclays Bank and Investec, are not prepared to extend their credit lines to his club. But that has not prevented Everton from accessing credit. Last month a mortgage deed was signed with Vibrac Corporation, a company incorporated in the British Virgin Islands. As such it is impossible to determine who the lender is and whether it has any links in football – although it must be stressed that in common with all such assignments of central funds, it has been approved by the Premier League. The loan is a one-year facility for £14m, replacing a mortgage agreed with Investec 12 months previously, in which this season's central funds were signed over to the bank. That Investec loan was a departure from the terms of the 2009 agreement with Barclays, in which only the same season's Premier League funds were borrowed against to assist with cashflow. To sell future seasons' income is intrinsically more risky, both for the lender and the mortgager. There can be no guarantees that Everton will even be in the Premier League next season, and although there has been no disclosure of the interest-rate terms, that risk is normally priced into what yield the creditor must pay, making the rate more expensive. Everton are insouciant about the deal, insisting that even if the worst happens they could cover it from the bumper parachute payments from the Premier League. But that income is meant as a relegation cushion, not to cover cashflow difficulties Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearsy Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 andy curtis @saintgert RT @upthesaints Should fans be concerned #saintsfc have taken a loan against future tv revenue ?/yep - that's how leeds went bust Details Expand Collapse Just out of interest or whatever, ain't all loans against future income? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 Just out of interest or whatever, ain't all loans against future income? Not necessarily. If you or I went to a bank and asked for a loan, it probably wouldn't be secured against anything. Obviously that's different from business lending, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dig Dig Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 That is very concerning news. I hope there is a simple explanation... Why is it so concerning? It's common practise among a number of premier league clubs. We have no divine right to be 100% debt free and reliant upon Markus' coffers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 This isn't good news at all. Unlike Portsmouth fans, I suspect the majority of saints fans have a brain in their nut and so understand why this would be of concern. Questions need to be asked and we need to know what this is. That is indeed the difference between us and Pompey fans. We'll investigate and question this to the hilt whereas Pompey fans would, as ever, stick their heads in the sand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colinjb Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 Why is it so concerning? It's common practise among a number of premier league clubs. Common practise does not always equal wise. To me, this indicates that we have gambled on survival. All of a sudden the season has taken a different light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 Common practise does not always equal wise. To me, this indicates that we have gambled on survival. All of a sudden the season has taken a different light. You can only come to that conclusion once we know the sums involved, surely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dig Dig Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 Common practise does not always equal wise. To me, this indicates that we have gambled on survival. All of a sudden the season has taken a different light. It all depends on how much we have actually borrowed. It may be to the same value as 1 or 2 player assets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 I see this as a potentially good thing. It indicates that Cortese is trying to run the club as a self sufficient business rather than dipping into a fund that Markus may or may not have left for a rainy day or whatever. The fact that we may have leveraged guaranteed income via a bridging loan to aid cash flow (if indeed that is what has happened) is 'business as usual' in my book and nothing to be alarmed about. Probably... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colinjb Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 You can only come to that conclusion once we know the sums involved, surely? The very behaviour has me worried. But yes, the sums involved will shed light on how important our performance this season is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John D Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 Common practise does not always equal wise. To me, this indicates that we have gambled on survival. All of a sudden the season has taken a different light. Bit of a leap there to be fair. You may well be right but as an alternative we could have borrowed £10m to fund the Ramirez deal up front. Given we now have guaranteed income over the next 4 years from Sky of circa £100m (again don't quote me if this in only £80m) but either way it would not be a big deal if this was the case If it was £100m I may be worried but I'll let the experts and nutjobs find the facts out before deciding if we are toast or not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 Don't forget that NEXT season will signal a massive windfall for PL clubs with the new TV deal with Sky and BT Vision kicking in, with domestic broadcasting rights having increased by 71%. The team finishing 17th this season can expect to receive a guaranteed £13.8m as their equal share of 50% (5% of that 50%, obviously) of the total domestic broadcasting pot, plus £3m as the "merit payment", i.e. based on finishing position, plus facility fees for each time they're televised, plus around £20m as their equal share from the overseas TV rights deals. NEXT season, those figures will leap to £22.6m for the domestic "equal share" and £4.9m "merit payment". The overseas rights are renegotiated at different times so there's no definitive figure for that, but it would seem reasonable to assume that that figure will increase as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 Why is it so concerning? It's common practise among a number of premier league clubs. We have no divine right to be 100% debt free and reliant upon Markus' coffers. It is concerning because it is how Leeds went bust, it is concerning because it signals the end to our much publicised (at the time) method of doing business. Taking loans out on future income is not a good path to go down (see Rangers and the skates as prime examples.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheaf Saint Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 Do we know if this 'future revenue' refers to next season or just further payments for this season that are still outstanding? I think that makes a big difference. If we have borrowed against next season's TV money, on the assumption we will stay up, then that might be quite concerning. It could, of course, relate to parachute payments that we will be entitled to if we are relegated this season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dig Dig Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 The very behaviour has me worried. But yes, the sums involved will shed light on how important our performance this season is. Without expecting our owners to pump significant sums of cash into the club whenever a cash flow is needed, this behaviour is perfectly normal in football. The value and the terms of the loan is unknown so there really is not much to speculate about at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 You can only come to that conclusion once we know the sums involved, surely? That is a good point. Though if it were a tiny amount, what would be the point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 Do we know if this 'future revenue' refers to next season or just further payments for this season that are still outstanding? I think that makes a big difference. If we have borrowed against next season's TV money, on the assumption we will stay up, then that might be quite concerning. It could, of course, relate to parachute payments that we will be entitled to if we are relegated this season. I doubt we would be stupid enough to borrow against future TV revenue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faz Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 It does indeed depend upon how many seasons we've mortgaged up. It might be a loan, or it might be a facility we can draw on as and when needed. The EPL monies get paid in two or three tranches. The club has a regular monthly commitments. It might just be there to even out cashflow. No problem. On the other hand....... Then again, whatever the indignation on here, I can't see NC letting us in on the secret. Is the charge against the club, or the holding company? Big difference you know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Draino76 Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 What this means is we do not have as much backing from the Liebherr estate as we thought we had. It maybe cheaper financing than what is available through the normal banking channels, but it is what it is; BORROWING. I bet our 'yield' is a bit higher than that of Evertons too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheaf Saint Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 I doubt we would be stupid enough to borrow against future TV revenue. That would be my conclusion as well, which is why I'm not going to get too worried about this 'revelation' as yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dig Dig Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 It is concerning because it is how Leeds went bust, it is concerning because it signals the end to our much publicised (at the time) method of doing business. Taking loans out on future income is not a good path to go down (see Rangers and the skates as prime examples.) It isn't quite how leeds went bust. They borrowed against expected Champions League money. We may have borrowed against known and guarenteed revenue....big difference. You can cite pompey, rangers or whoever you like but fact is, plenty if clubs borrow money against future revenue without going bust. Not every business which takes a loan ends up owning 10's of millions to the inland revenue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 I see this as a potentially good thing. It indicates that Cortese is trying to run the club as a self sufficient business rather than dipping into a fund that Markus may or may not have left for a rainy day or whatever. The fact that we may have leveraged guaranteed income via a bridging loan to aid cash flow (if indeed that is what has happened) is 'business as usual' in my book and nothing to be alarmed about. Probably... No problem with the bit in red if true, although the summer transfer spending doesn't really support that idea, IMO. Regarding the bit in orange, the fact that we're borrowing from a mysterious fund in a tax haven would suggest to me that any sort of Liebherr "rainy day" fund has already been used and that Cortese and the rest of us are now on our own. If that wasn't the case, why wouldn't we be using that rather than leveraging the entire club in order to get a loan which is presumably interest-bearing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John D Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 I doubt we would be stupid enough to borrow against future TV revenue. May not be stupid - again cannot conclude without knowing numbers but it will be cheaper to finance with a security than without. Most businesses don't always have the luxury of guaranteed income streams. By taking a security on future income the finance company reduces its risk so lending costs will be less Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 with the amount we have spent and fans desire for such "quality" signings....... is this a surprise..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 It isn't quite how leeds went bust. They borrowed against expected Champions League money. We may have borrowed against known and guarenteed revenue....big difference. You can cite pompey, rangers or whoever you like but fact is, plenty if clubs borrow money against future revenue without going bust. Not every business which takes a loan ends up owning 10's of millions to the inland revenue. It is a marked change from our previous way of doing business, it is significant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 It does indeed depend upon how many seasons we've mortgaged up. It might be a loan, or it might be a facility we can draw on as and when needed. The EPL monies get paid in two or three tranches. The club has a regular monthly commitments. It might just be there to even out cashflow. No problem. On the other hand....... Then again, whatever the indignation on here, I can't see NC letting us in on the secret. Is the charge against the club, or the holding company? Big difference you know. The club (according to companies house) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 Is the charge against the club, or the holding company? Big difference you know. It's lodged by Southampton Football Club Limited, not the holding company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dig Dig Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 It is a marked change from our previous way of doing business, it is significant Our previous way of doing business was abnormal. This isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 This isn't good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 No problem with the bit in red if true, although the summer transfer spending doesn't really support that idea, IMO. Regarding the bit in orange, the fact that we're borrowing from a mysterious fund in a tax haven would suggest to me that any sort of Liebherr "rainy day" fund has already been used and that Cortese and the rest of us are now on our own. If that wasn't the case, why wouldn't we be using that rather than leveraging the entire club in order to get a loan which is presumably interest-bearing? I'm clutching at hypothetical straws here but maybe Markus made the availability of his 'rainy day' funds conditional on Cortese running the business on its own two feet (and as with any decent business that usually involves taking out loans to manage cash flow etc in the most efficient fashion) I've no idea if there is still a Markus fund to dip into or not but if there was I'd be surprised if he'd approve of it being used to prop up a club that couldn't run within its own means. Maybe the fund (if it exists) is earmarked for infrastructure projects only? Who knows... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 This isn't good. Source? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Marco Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 Be interesting to see how much was borrowed and what is used for. Dont really think you can say it is a positive or negative thing until that happens. But I will enjoy reading the resident mongs theories on how it is the end of the world! More interestingly if you think about it if Markus family no longer wish to put funds in why have they not sold up? Would be the best time to do it with the club debt free. The value drops the further in debt you get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 This isn't good news at all. Unlike Portsmouth fans, I suspect the majority of saints fans have a brain in their nut and so understand why this would be of concern. Questions need to be asked and we need to know what this is. Just shut and sing the Cortese song, he'd have done the research, we aren't following the Chelsea model at all and we have no debt. Oh...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 Worth noting that the timing of this means that we might not find out the amount of the loan until the end of March 2014 when the 2012/13 accounts are filed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 It could just have been a quick loan for the Ramirez deal, after all, Bologna wanted most of the money up front. However it's very worrying we need to do this considering all the talk of continued investment and support from the Liebherrs and we've been told they don't do debt. Not good at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanadaSaint Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 (edited) I trust Cortese (and Markus's family) to run the club prudently and responsibly. However, and they are big "howevers" IMO: I was really pleased with the acquisition of Ramirez, but that was based on the assumption that we were signing him from Markus's "pot of gold" - not loan funding. If I'd thought we were borrowing money to sign him I would have been far less enthusiastic. This revelation adds question marks to the issue of whether we'll be able to significantly upgrade our defence in January, as we absolutely must. I can't help but wonder whether there's any connection between this and the decision to suspend Stapelwood development. Having said that, it does make sense to step outside this year's business model because next year's (assuming that we survive) has a major income increase. Yes, it's a risk because it has a potentially deep downside but it also has a very high upside. Cortese obviously has big gonads for a little guy. Edited 3 October, 2012 by CanadaSaint Afterthought Link to comment 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