Some Tweets Saying We Have Borrowed Against Future Season Ticket Sales

[Saint Charlie]

So I'm thinking we've spent more this year than we're gonna earn from ticket sales and TV money.

 

So if we go down, the first year parachute payments is already gone so we'll probably end up taking a loan against the second year parachute payments to finance a promotion push or whatever. If we still don't go up it's gonna get a bit messy...

 

Best idea is probably not to get relegated. That's what I'd do.

 

 

IMO if we go down the culprits will be Cortese, Les Reed, Adkins, the players, Jeremain Lens and the kid who took the grainy picture of JRod from the window of the Hotel in the New Forest.

[saint si]

Few random thoughts...

 

- from what I can gather, this is borrowing against known, guaranteed, relatively short term sources of income - i.e. TV revenues and/or parachute payments

- so this is entirely different from borrowing "on the never never" and hoping for continued income streams several years out, and also significantly different from taking out a loan secured against the club's fixed assets

- would also therefore expect this to be a relatively low rate of interest as it's a very low risk loan

- I suspect this is more about cash-flow than acquisition of a long term debt. Might also be some accounting advantages.

- that quote from Cortese is pretty interesting and on the face of it, we're now at odds with that view. However, depending on the nature of this loan, then it could simply be a question of context. If we have borrowed against cast-iron guaranteed income, and if it does turn out to be a simple matter of cash-flow, then I don't think that is actually the kind of borrowing Cortese was criticising.

- clearly until we have more details (which may be a long way away) then we are all idly speculating. However, it's good that people look to ask questions of the club and of its management. We must never stick our heads in the sand, like that lot down the road.

[Dig Dig]

Few random thoughts...

 

- from what I can gather, this is borrowing against known, guaranteed, relatively short term sources of income - i.e. TV revenues and/or parachute payments

- so this is entirely different from borrowing "on the never never" and hoping for continued income streams several years out, and also significantly different from taking out a loan secured against the club's fixed assets

- would also therefore expect this to be a relatively low rate of interest as it's a very low risk loan

- I suspect this is more about cash-flow than acquisition of a long term debt. Might also be some accounting advantages.

- that quote from Cortese is pretty interesting and on the face of it, we're now at odds with that view. However, depending on the nature of this loan, then it could simply be a question of context. If we have borrowed against cast-iron guaranteed income, and if it does turn out to be a simple matter of cash-flow, then I don't think that is actually the kind of borrowing Cortese was criticising.

- clearly until we have more details (which may be a long way away) then we are all idly speculating. However, it's good that people look to ask questions of the club and of its management. We must never stick our heads in the sand, like that lot down the road.

 

Spot on

[Window Cleaner]

IMO if we go down the culprits will be Cortese, Les Reed, Adkins, the players, Jeremain Lens and the kid who took the grainy picture of JRod from the window of the Hotel in the New Forest.

 

you forgot Buttner, any player who leaves us with Fox as first choice left back for the sake of a couple of bob more from Man U

where he doesn't actually get a game very often needs to rethink his civic duties.It's like running over a nun on a zebra crossing.

[Saint Charlie]

you forgot Buttner, any player who leaves us with Fox as first choice left back for the sake of a couple of bob more from Man U

where he doesn't actually get a game very often needs to rethink his civic duties.

 

Buttner was a Cortese signing IMO, just like Dany N'Guessan.

[Bearsy]

IMO if we go down the culprits will be Cortese, Les Reed, Adkins, the players, Jeremain Lens and the kid who took the grainy picture of JRod from the window of the Hotel in the New Forest.

 

Also that guy who was in charge of our rectruitment this year. What's his name. Alan Nixon.

[Window Cleaner]

Buttner was a Cortese signing IMO, just like Dany N'Guessan.

 

Or rather he wasn't

[The Kraken]

Few random thoughts...

 

- from what I can gather, this is borrowing against known, guaranteed, relatively short term sources of income - i.e. TV revenues and/or parachute payments

- so this is entirely different from borrowing "on the never never" and hoping for continued income streams several years out, and also significantly different from taking out a loan secured against the club's fixed assets

- would also therefore expect this to be a relatively low rate of interest as it's a very low risk loan

- I suspect this is more about cash-flow than acquisition of a long term debt. Might also be some accounting advantages.

- that quote from Cortese is pretty interesting and on the face of it, we're now at odds with that view. However, depending on the nature of this loan, then it could simply be a question of context. If we have borrowed against cast-iron guaranteed income, and if it does turn out to be a simple matter of cash-flow, then I don't think that is actually the kind of borrowing Cortese was criticising.

- clearly until we have more details (which may be a long way away) then we are all idly speculating. However, it's good that people look to ask questions of the club and of its management. We must never stick our heads in the sand, like that lot down the road.

 

I don't follow. He quite clearly stated "Clubs spend money they do not have; they spend next year’s income" and "If we reach the Premier League, I would like to be in a position where we did not need parachute payments". But that's exactly what we've done. Exactly.

 

But yes, you're right that we do need more details and shouldn't stick our heads in the sand, which is why questioning this right now is absolutely the correct thing to do.

[Bearsy]

We obviously don't need parachute payments though Krak. If we did, we wouldn't of spent them already.

[Saint Charlie]

I don't follow. He quite clearly stated "Clubs spend money they do not have; they spend next year’s income" and "If we reach the Premier League, I would like to be in a position where we did not need parachute payments". But that's exactly what we've done. Exactly.

 

But yes, you're right that we do need more details and shouldn't stick our heads in the sand, which is why questioning this right now is absolutely the correct thing to do.

 

Apart from you don't know how much we have borrowed, could be a minor amount. Plus - if the Liebherr's suddenly said they wouldnt put more money in, then NC might not have had much other choice. Clearly we had to spend this summer to be at all competitive, plus the training ground costs were significant - can't do that all on a 30k capacity. As the poster said - it is up front cash when we need it ie now, based on guarenteed future income. If we stayed up we wouldn't need to spend as much next summer to improve.

[Window Cleaner]

We obviously don't need parachute payments though Krak. If we did, we wouldn't of spent them already.

 

Which is just as well because as I'm told were not going down we won't be getting any.

[tajjuk]

Oh we've run out of arguments against the supposed doomsday loan so we'll go off topic to keep the negativity going - am trying to guess if we'll end up bemoaning the lack of summer transfers or trying to predict when NC will chop Adkins.

 

LOL, might as well get all the doom and gloom out in one go, so as I understand it:-

 

- We have a loan that we know no details about but clearly we have no money, have mortgaged our future and will go the way of portsmouth.

 

- The training ground development has stopped, this therefore conclusively proves we have no money.

 

- Cortese is meddling in team affairs and dictating what players have to play, is apparently lying to us at every turn and is the love child of hitler and satan.

 

- Adkins is tactically inept mainly it seems because we lost away to Everton.

 

- We are going to get relegated because we have lost 5 out of the first 6.

 

- We didn't buy enough players in the summer.

 

- We spent too much in the summer.

 

- We bought the wrong players in the summer.

 

- NA will be sacked and Harry Redknapp will replace him.

 

Doomed I tell you, we are all doomed!

 

Have I missed anything?

[Dig Dig]

Buttner was a Cortese signing IMO, just like Dany N'Guessan.

 

Wrong. Buttner was never a Cortese signing hence why he didn't sanction the move. Cortese wanted to bring in some Bolivian kid he had seen whilst on a scouting mission out there during his mysterious "holiday" but the Lymington hotel didn't have the right type of ice tea for his agent so the deal collapsed.

 

Adkins didn't have any say in any signings and doesn't even pick the team. His job is to just stay tanned and smile into the camera, only ever responding to questions with verbatims supplied to him by Les Reed.

[Window Cleaner]

[quote=tajjuk;1493443

 

-

-

- We bought the wrong players in the summer.

-

 

 

This is the real fact, all the rest are incidental

[Bearsy]

Adkins didn't have any say in any signings and doesn't even pick the team. His job is to just stay tanned and smile into the camera, only ever responding to questions with verbatims supplied to him by Les Reed.

 

I'm suspicious of NAs tan. I reckon it's a bottle job. He strikes me as a natural ginger.

[Saint Charlie]

Wrong. Buttner was never a Cortese signing hence why he didn't sanction the move. Cortese wanted to bring in some Bolivian kid he had seen whilst on a scouting mission out there during his mysterious "holiday" but the Lymington hotel didn't have the right type of ice tea for his agent so the deal collapsed.

 

Adkins didn't have any say in any signings and doesn't even pick the team. His job is to just stay tanned and smile into the camera, only ever responding to questions with verbatims supplied to him by Les Reed.

 

Are you referring to Gabriel Valverde? I had heard that Reed went out to Bolivia to watch him?

[Saint Charlie]

This is the real fact, all the rest are incidental

 

It is in no way a fact. We should have brought in a LB granted, and perhaps another CB, but the actual transfers we made are good deals IMO and all the players look better than what we had.

 

Plus all those players have a good sell on value.

Edited 4 October, 2012 by Saint Charlie

[Dig Dig]

Are you referring to Gabriel Valverde? I had heard that Reed went out to Bolivia to watch him?

 

 

20 year old left back? Yes that's him but I think he's now off to Metalist

[The Kraken]

Apart from you don't know how much we have borrowed, could be a minor amount. Plus - if the Liebherr's suddenly said they wouldnt put more money in, then NC might not have had much other choice. Clearly we had to spend this summer to be at all competitive, plus the training ground costs were significant - can't do that all on a 30k capacity. As the poster said - it is up front cash when we need it ie now, based on guarenteed future income. If we stayed up we wouldn't need to spend as much next summer to improve.

 

Whether its a minor or major amount the fact still stands; we have taken a loan against next season's funding, so we are "spending that money", even if the loan is only a minor sum.

 

Your point about the Liebherr's is entirely the point that is being raised. Are we still being bankrolled by the Liebherrs? If it would seem not, therefore we should seek assurances/answers as to what their involvement now is and will be.

 

Clearly we had to spend this summer to be competitive; yes, agreed. Did we really need to spend £30M to do it though? Did we need to have the 7th highest net transfer outlay in Europe? That's debatable, and I would suggest not, that the £12M on Ramirez was very much a luxury purchase. If we stay up, we probably won't need to spend as much to survive, but to improve significantly (towards a Eurpoean chasing spot) I'd say we have to spend a fairly equal amount.

[scotty]

I wouldn't be surprised that after exploring all options with the Ramirez deal and trying to structure payments etc as a last resort we had to stump up more cash than we had available.

 

As such a figure was burrowed to pay Bologna more upfront which we will now pay back in installments to the lender rather than in higher installments to Bologna (which was also gambling on future revenue)

 

 

 

The voice of reason. Well put.

[Window Cleaner]

It is in no way a fact. We should have brought in a LB granted, and perhaps another CB, but the actual transfers we made are good deals IMO and all the players look better than what we had.

 

 

Not J Rod no, I just will not accept that he is any better suited to our immediate needs so far than Billy Sharp, won't won't won't.

[Saint Charlie]

Not J Rod no, I just will not accept that he is any better suited to our immediate needs so far than Billy Sharp, won't won't won't.

 

He is just one player - and clearly JRod is better than Sharp - I didn't know anyone who thought Sharp would look comfortable in the Prem.

 

Of the others Yoshida looks good, Ramirez total class, Mayuka very promising, Davis solid midfield addition, Gazza a very able no 2 keeper, Clyne regular E U21 player...

 

You can argue we could have strengthened other positions but not about the quality of player we have brought in. And you can't buy a whole new team in a summer...

[Window Cleaner]

Whether its a minor or major amount the fact still stands; we have taken a loan against next season's funding, so we are "spending that money", even if the loan is only a minor sum.

 

Your point about the Liebherr's is entirely the point that is being raised. Are we still being bankrolled by the Liebherrs? If it would seem not, therefore we should seek assurances/answers as to what their involvement now is and will be.

 

Clearly we had to spend this summer to be competitive; yes, agreed. Did we really need to spend £30M to do it though? Did we need to have the 7th highest net transfer outlay in Europe? That's debatable, and I would suggest not, that the £12M on Ramirez was very much a luxury purchase. If we stay up, we probably won't need to spend as much to survive, but to improve significantly (towards a Eurpoean chasing spot) I'd say we have to spend a fairly equal amount.

 

 

But as I saw it on the link that Turkish put up we have secured this loan against everything we own or are likely to own in the near future, perhaps I've interpreted that wrongly though.

[Window Cleaner]

He is just one player - and clearly JRod is better than Sharp - I didn't know anyone who thought Sharp would look comfortable in the Prem.

 

Of the others Yoshida looks good, Ramirez total class, Mayuka very promising, Davis solid midfield addition, Gazza a very able no 2 keeper, Clyne regular E U21 player...

 

You can argue we could have strengthened other positions but not about the quality of player we have brought in. And you can't buy a whole new team in a summer...

 

Suited to our immediate needs being the operational phrase.

[Dig Dig]

But as I saw it on the link that Turkish put up we have secured this loan against everything we own or are likely to own in the near future, perhaps I've interpreted that wrongly though.

 

 

Yes

[Saint Garrett]

I heard we've secured the loan against Tommy Forecast.

[Dig Dig]

Suited to our immediate needs being the operational phrase.

 

What would we do without Lambert for 10 games if that situation occured?

[Window Cleaner]

What would we do without Lambert for 10 games if that situation occured?

 

Use Sharp,Lee and Mayuka ?

[Saint Charlie]

Use Sharp,Lee and Mayuka ?

 

Sharp as a lone striker in the Prem?

[Dig Dig]

Use Sharp,Lee and Mayuka ?

 

Do any of those even have the attributes which Lambert provides which is so important to how we play? Like height, strength, hold up play, aerial ability etc etc.

 

Lets face it, Sharp as a lone striker in the prem would be woeful.

[Window Cleaner]

Sharp as a lone striker in the Prem?

 

 

Now if I remember rightly wasn't JRod the one striker against Citeh, how did that work out for us? Subbed a bit after half time wasn't he ?

 

Nothing has so far proven that JRod can adequately replace Lambert in our set up, when he did it was not so good.

Edited 4 October, 2012 by Window Cleaner

[The Kraken]

Now if I remember rightly wasn't JRod the one striker against Citeh, how did that work out for us? Subbed a bit after half time wasn't he ?

 

Guly played up front against City. Rodriguez played LM. Rodriguez hasn't played up front for Saints in the league all season; and certainly not on his own.

[Saint Charlie]

Now if I remember rightly wasn't JRod the one striker against Citeh, how did that work out for us? Subbed a bit after half time wasn't he ?

 

Nothing has so far proven that JRod can adequately replace Lambert in our set up, when he did it was not so good.

 

He didn't play up front vs City etc

 

When he did in the cup his first goal was very tidy. Agree he hasnt showed a great deal otherwise, as hasnt played up there much - but clearly a better option than Sharp - far superior allround game.

[Chez]

It's called being in the Prem league. The numbers both in and out are eye-watering, 'avg' players on 40k-50k a week, 20-30 players per club. You don't think this money comes out of the punters' ticket money do you? Pretty much all clubs in the Prem are run by either a sugar-daddy or on debt, why would we be any different?

 

why not? The club earns a fortune being in this league. Spend that fortune, but no more. if you get relegated you then aren't faced with a negative bank balance. Simple really.

[Saint Charlie]

why not? The club earns a fortune being in this league. Spend that fortune, but no more. if you get relegated you then aren't faced with a negative bank balance. Simple really.

 

Agree - but in reality to compete in the Prem you need to spend at the start. This year is a better league IMO then last year where Wolves, Bolton and Blackburn were woeful.

 

Otherwise you are pretty much making up the numbers - we have spent big and need to stay up. This loan is just about having cash now rather than promised money down the line.

[Window Cleaner]

why not? The club earns a fortune being in this league. Spend that fortune, but no more. if you get relegated you then aren't faced with a negative bank balance. Simple really.

 

Which is kinda what our illustrious chairman said we would be doing, living within our means and not spending money we don't have.

[The Kraken]

Agree - but in reality to compete in the Prem you need to spend at the start. This year is a better league IMO then last year where Wolves, Bolton and Blackburn were woeful.

 

Otherwise you are pretty much making up the numbers - we have spent big and need to stay up. This loan is just about having cash now rather than promised money down the line.

 

You don't necessarily have to spend £30M just to survive in the PL.

[Saint Charlie]

Which is kinda what our illustrious chairman said we would be doing, living within our means and not spending money we don't have.

 

But the money is guarenteed one way or the other - we will 100% be getting it, we have just entered an agreement to have it now while we can do something with it.

[Saint Charlie]

You don't necessarily have to spend £30M just to survive in the PL.

 

Not on fees no, but with wages of big players too that also adds up. You certainly need to spend to give yourself the best chance.

 

Plus as I said this year is particularly tough with only really Wigan and Norwich of the existing teams being early relegation candidates.

 

At least one promoted side will go down this year.

[saint si]

I don't follow. He quite clearly stated "Clubs spend money they do not have; they spend next year’s income" and "If we reach the Premier League, I would like to be in a position where we did not need parachute payments". But that's exactly what we've done. Exactly.

 

But yes, you're right that we do need more details and shouldn't stick our heads in the sand, which is why questioning this right now is absolutely the correct thing to do.

 

My take on Cortese's quote is that he's referring to borrowing against "uncertain" future income streams - i.e. income driven by achieving success on the field (aka the Leeds model), such as prize money, CL TV money, and spectator revenues to a large extent. As opposed to the income that (it appears) we have borrowed against which is as close to certain as you can get (barring something like the collapse of Sky in the fashion of ITV Digital).

 

The second part of the quote sounds like an aspiration, rather than a policy. I.e. wouldn't it be great if we didn't need parachute payments? And yes, it would. But we need to stabilise as a premier league club first.

[Window Cleaner]

You don't necessarily have to spend £30M just to survive in the PL.

 

don't think we've spent 30 million anyway but as I've said before i don't think what we have spent so far has been particulary wisely spent. Fonte and Hooiveld were limit against good attacking sides in the NPC, that was the first move to make along with a top rate keeper to start the season. Why hang about until mid September to sign a free agent like Boruc.

[alpine_saint]

Well I for one am shocked that we need to borrow money; I thought we still had a nice thick financial cushion from Markus behind us.

 

I am wondering if this was part of the reason why we spectacularly failed to reinforce the weakest part of the team - our defence - over the summer. NC clearly had his mind set on sexy attacking signings, and there was not much money left for defence so we either didnt bother and crossed our fingers the defence was up to it or we were tight-fisted in negotiations over defenders.

 

Either way, it seems the party is over....

[trousers]

that quote from Cortese is pretty interesting and on the face of it, we're now at odds with that view. However, depending on the nature of this loan, then it could simply be a question of context. If we have borrowed against cast-iron guaranteed income, and if it does turn out to be a simple matter of cash-flow, then I don't think that is actually the kind of borrowing Cortese was criticising

 

[Window Cleaner]

Not on fees no, but with wages of big players too that also adds up. You certainly need to spend to give yourself the best chance.

 

Plus as I said this year is particularly tough with only really Wigan and Norwich of the existing teams being early relegation candidates.

 

At least one promoted side will go down this year.

 

 

Wigan beat us at home though, they obviously identified us as one of the teams they needed to beat to stay up again.

[doddisalegend]

why not? The club earns a fortune being in this league. Spend that fortune, but no more. if you get relegated you then aren't faced with a negative bank balance. Simple really.

 

Spot on for me

[Dig Dig]

Spot on for me

 

The problem NOW is that this fortune isn't available up front to newly promoted teams

[Window Cleaner]

The problem NOW is that this fortune isn't available up front to newly promoted teams

 

remind me again, what are we supposed to have borrowed this money against, is it this year's ST sales and TV revenue or is it next year's as well ? The title says FUTURE SEASON TICKET SALES, the link Turks put up says future revenue and current assets I think.

[trousers]

Well I for one am shocked that we need to borrow money; I thought we still had a nice thick financial cushion from Markus behind us.

 

Maybe we still do....

 

Taking out a short term loan on favourable terms might be a more prudent fiscal move than taking some of the stuffing out of your cushion. If you keep taking the stuffing out of your cushion then you won't end up with a very plump cushion.

[The Kraken]

My take on Cortese's quote is that he's referring to borrowing against "uncertain" future income streams - i.e. income driven by achieving success on the field (aka the Leeds model), such as prize money, CL TV money, and spectator revenues to a large extent. As opposed to the income that (it appears) we have borrowed against which is as close to certain as you can get (barring something like the collapse of Sky in the fashion of ITV Digital).

 

The second part of the quote sounds like an aspiration, rather than a policy. I.e. wouldn't it be great if we didn't need parachute payments? And yes, it would. But we need to stabilise as a premier league club first.

 

Then I disagree. Even if we are loaning money to provide interim cashflow, its is still being borrowed from next year's income streams. I didn't read into Cortese's comments that he was criticising "gambled borrowing", if you like; money that wasn't guaranteed. Simply that he was criticising clubs who were supplementing their cash flow from next year's income, full stop, rather than living within the confines of this year's income streams.

[The Kraken]

remind me again, what are we supposed to have borrowed this money against, is it this year's ST sales and TV revenue or is it next year's as well ? The title says FUTURE SEASON TICKET SALES, the link Turks put up says future revenue and current assets I think.

 

It is specified as season 2013-14 TV revenues or parachute payments.