CB Fry Posted 5 November, 2012 Share Posted 5 November, 2012 This is so funny it's untrue. Explain. Probably the fact that this forum is the last place on earth that considers bankers to be infallible business geniuses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 5 November, 2012 Share Posted 5 November, 2012 You know more about this loan than I do Not really. Either we've taken out a loan to spend it based on future income or we've taken out a loan with we are paying an APR on for something to do because Nick Nack was bored and it's sitting in the bank doing nothing with our other billions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 5 November, 2012 Share Posted 5 November, 2012 But you really don't know we are borrowing against future income. You don't know the size of the loan. You don't know the terms. In fact you know sweet fa. There's a world of difference to securing loans against future income and good cash flow against certain income in the current season. Good businessmen will know how to borrow and lend money in a way that gives a financial benefit. It's how banks survive. Now, tell me again, what is Nicola's background? Everton have taken out loans with the same company based on future income. I'm sure it'll be different for us though and they probably didn't ask for any guarantees, what with Cortese being such a great businessman and all that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Saint Posted 5 November, 2012 Share Posted 5 November, 2012 Maybe we still got it Maybe it was to fund the defensive acquisitions that we didn't get away during the window. Maybe we are spending this years income that will not have been paid to us yet, but using next years as collateral. Maybe it is as Turkish suggests and NC has run out of people to terrorise at SMS and got bored so now spend his day ironing crisp fivers, whilst bobbing up and down in his sun seeker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 5 November, 2012 Share Posted 5 November, 2012 Not really. Either we've taken out a loan to spend it based on future income or we've taken out a loan with we are paying an APR on for something to do because Nick Nack was bored and it's sitting in the bank doing nothing with our other billions. The bit you seemed to know more about than me is the term (length) of the loan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greenridge Posted 5 November, 2012 Share Posted 5 November, 2012 You know more about this loan than I do It's a good job he's not SFC's FD. He seems to be able to make 2+2 = 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stepgar Posted 5 November, 2012 Share Posted 5 November, 2012 It can be expensive to have money in the bank for a business. Tax and all that. So some businesses will borrow deliberately to offset of corp tax. It could just be business decisions and nothing to worry about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highfield Saint Posted 5 November, 2012 Share Posted 5 November, 2012 Heading into Groundhog Day territory here (for once) but it depends what people mean by 'debt'. For example, I owe my mortgage company c.£100k but I don't consider myself to be 'in debt'. However, if my assets were less than my loan, then I would consider myself to be 'in debt'. You have " a debt" to your mortgage company which is secured on an asset which on a going concern basis is more than the debt. If your assts were less than your loan you would meet one technical definition of insolvency. Is this what you mean by "in debt"? The ability to service the debt is probably more relevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 5 November, 2012 Share Posted 5 November, 2012 Probably the fact that this forum is the last place on earth that considers bankers to be infallible business geniuses. Yep, this main board forum. But I think you'll find the Lounge a tad more sceptical Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mowgli Posted 5 November, 2012 Share Posted 5 November, 2012 Explain. I think he's talking about the banking crisis. He has a point! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 5 November, 2012 Share Posted 5 November, 2012 You have " a debt" to your mortgage company which is secured on an asset which on a going concern basis is more than the debt. If your assts were less than your loan you would meet one technical definition of insolvency. Is this what you mean by "in debt"? The ability to service the debt is probably more relevant. Yep, that's pretty much it. I'm just looking at my nett position. Assets - "debt" = +ve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 5 November, 2012 Share Posted 5 November, 2012 Yep, that's pretty much it. I'm just looking at my nett position. Assets - "debt" = +ve It's all very well you lot looking at Net Positions. Just wish our farking strikers did it a bit more often tbh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 5 November, 2012 Share Posted 5 November, 2012 It can be expensive to have money in the bank for a business. Tax and all that. So some businesses will borrow deliberately to offset of corp tax. It could just be business decisions and nothing to worry about. Indeed. The 'trouble' with a forum such as this is that its human nature to veer towards one pole or the other when it comes to any given debate. I'm happy to acknowledge that the loan could either be "a complete disaster because we've run out of money" (at one end of the polarised debate) or it could be "a simple business decision and nothing to worry about" at the other end of the scale. My gut feel is pulling me towards the latter. One thing I guess we can all agree on is that such pragmatism is a bit dull for a forum such as this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 5 November, 2012 Share Posted 5 November, 2012 It can be expensive to have money in the bank for a business. Tax and all that. So some businesses will borrow deliberately to offset of corp tax. It could just be business decisions and nothing to worry about. The insight in this post is thoroughly illuminating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jam Posted 5 November, 2012 Share Posted 5 November, 2012 I think he's talking about the banking crisis. He has a point! yup Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bartosz Bialkowski Posted 5 November, 2012 Share Posted 5 November, 2012 And a Sunseeker, a house and numerous cars all of which came part of the job. Ive worked it out....... You're jealous! Thats it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Without a Halo Posted 5 November, 2012 Share Posted 5 November, 2012 We have been through this a few times Fact 1 We intend to spend money on players to improve our squad and have spent 30m or so to date! (we can argue whether we got the right ones) Fact 2 Most clubs require a fair amount up front on deals (Bologna wanted 100% upfront) Fact 3 Our revenue now we are promoted will come in gradually over this year based on TV money, Gate money and commercial deals Therefore we needed to bring some of this money upfront to fund our deals! Not really a problem and a typical business transaction as long as the cashflow funds the loan! In Pompeys case the loans were far greater than the cash flow merited given the salaries and deals they made It is all a matter of financial prudence The difference is we have a Swiss banker in charge they had a gun runner! Which of the two is most likely to get his business case right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 5 November, 2012 Share Posted 5 November, 2012 (edited) The difference is we have a Swiss banker in charge they had a gun runner! Which of the two is most likely to get his business case right? Or which of the two would most effectively get their money back out should the gamble not pay off. I'm far from an expect in these things but it makes no sense for the Liebherrs to borrow money off anyone so I expect the BVI company is theirs. So whatever happens to SFC after their little gamble they are guaranteed their cash back plus whatever interest they decided to put on. Edited 5 November, 2012 by aintforever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puddings and Monkeys Posted 5 November, 2012 Share Posted 5 November, 2012 We have been through this a few times Fact 1 We intend to spend money on players to improve our squad and have spent 30m or so to date! (we can argue whether we got the right ones) Fact 2 Most clubs require a fair amount up front on deals (Bologna wanted 100% upfront) Fact 3 Our revenue now we are promoted will come in gradually over this year based on TV money, Gate money and commercial deals Therefore we needed to bring some of this money upfront to fund our deals! Not really a problem and a typical business transaction as long as the cashflow funds the loan! In Pompeys case the loans were far greater than the cash flow merited given the salaries and deals they made It is all a matter of financial prudence The difference is we have a Swiss banker in charge they had a gun runner! Which of the two is most likely to get his business case right? Shut up! We want wrist-slitting, bed wetting and scapegoat finding on here, not logic and a reasoned perspective FFS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Without a Halo Posted 5 November, 2012 Share Posted 5 November, 2012 Or which of the two would most effectively get their money back out should the gamble not pay off. I'm far from an expect in these things but it makes no sense for the Liebherrs to borrow money off anyone so I expect the BVI company is theirs. So whatever happens to SFC after their little gamble they are guaranteed their cash back with whatever interest they decided to put on. All successful businesses borrow money to invest grow and prosper no matter how rich their owners are the idea is to make even greater profits downstream! That is why we have a crisis when banks stop loaning! The problem is unsuccessful buisnesses like Pompey also borrow too! The question should be not whether we have borrowed money, but have we borrowed sensibly given our financial position and can the cashflow more than cover any changes in the interest rates! another factor will be has the borrowing made us more successful (if we stay up yes if we go down probably not). Also have the players we bought maintained their asset values (i.e can we flog them and get our spend back at least should the worst happen and we go down) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 5 November, 2012 Share Posted 5 November, 2012 All successful businesses borrow money to invest grow and prosper no matter how rich their owners are the idea is to make even greater profits downstream! That is why we have a crisis when banks stop loaning! The problem is unsuccessful buisnesses like Pompey also borrow too! The question should be not whether we have borrowed money, but have we borrowed sensibly given our financial position and can the cashflow more than cover any changes in the interest rates! another factor will be has the borrowing made us more successful (if we stay up yes if we go down probably not). Also have the players we bought maintained their asset values (i.e can we flog them and get our spend back at least should the worst happen and we go down) But surely it makes more sense to borrow from the Leibherrs via the BVI, then if we go bust they get every penny plus interest back - guaranteed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colinjb Posted 5 November, 2012 Share Posted 5 November, 2012 Also have the players we bought maintained their asset values (i.e can we flog them and get our spend back at least should the worst happen and we go down) A key point. There is no doubt in my mind that both Clyne and Ramirez will at least hold their value, if relegation occurs and Matt Jarvis can go for a fee of £7.5 mil upwards, we will get our money back on Gaston. Clyne should be worth even more, was an absolute bargain. Rodriguez may be the exception to this but in the championship he would be a key player and I wouldn't expect him to hand in a transfer request. The only player who will probably lose value in the short term is Rickie Lambert, that is purely due to his age. We havn't sunk our money into journeymen with no resale value (like QPR and the Skates). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swannymere Posted 5 November, 2012 Share Posted 5 November, 2012 It can be expensive to have money in the bank for a business. Tax and all that. So some businesses will borrow deliberately to offset of corp tax. It could just be business decisions and nothing to worry about. That makes too much sense to be believed, i mean where's the conspiracy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chez Posted 5 November, 2012 Share Posted 5 November, 2012 an ex Swiss banker with a history of running profitable companies acan you give me a little more detail about these profitable companies Cortese has run? As far as I understood he worked for a bank flagging up sports companies that billionaires could invest in and has never run a company before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 5 November, 2012 Share Posted 5 November, 2012 Frankly, who cares what the skates are suggesting about us? There have been enough sensible suggestions on here to counter their allegations, even if there was any substance in them, which is unproven. It probably irks the hell out of them that we can comment on their situation with the benefit of historical evidence and hindsight, whereas all they have in response is conjecture based on rumour and innuendo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chez Posted 5 November, 2012 Share Posted 5 November, 2012 Clearly if NC is in it for personal gain, he'd probably still be better off as a banker in Switzerland. So that's probably not the reason. Although he obviously has a very healthy salary and shares in the company. do you know what is salary was before and after his moves? He got paid £600,000 for 6 months work at SFC according to the first set of accounts, Lowe eat your heart out. I'm not sure we ever found out whether his annual wage was £1.2m or not. Was he on more than that at Credit Swisse? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 5 November, 2012 Share Posted 5 November, 2012 The bit you seemed to know more about than me is the term (length) of the loan. You seem to know it all, care to enlighten us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
landford.saint Posted 5 November, 2012 Share Posted 5 November, 2012 This is what I was told. No idea of truth/accuracy etc. but for what its worth. SFC are and will continue to be funded by Liebherr Family, this is to a certain amount every year, until a specified time in the future when SFC is expected to be self funding. Staplewood and other capital projects are a funded seperately and are not part of the annual funding. An amount for transfers were accounted for in the annual funding calculations. However to acquire Ramirez we needed about £12 million upfront. As this was outside the finance allowed for this year, this was the monies loaned against next years funding. Hope this makes sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 5 November, 2012 Share Posted 5 November, 2012 A key point. There is no doubt in my mind that both Clyne and Ramirez will at least hold their value, if relegation occurs and Matt Jarvis can go for a fee of £7.5 mil upwards, we will get our money back on Gaston. Clyne should be worth even more, was an absolute bargain. Rodriguez may be the exception to this but in the championship he would be a key player and I wouldn't expect him to hand in a transfer request. The only player who will probably lose value in the short term is Rickie Lambert, that is purely due to his age. We havn't sunk our money into journeymen with no resale value (like QPR and the Skates). Except it isn't though it it COlin. Think back to our relegation, six months before we sold Beattie for £6m, after relegation we made a £5m profit on Crouch and six months later made a £10m profit on Walcott- although admittedly we didn't get it all in on hit. Even so, you're looking at a £20m profit on just three players yet we still were in the deep sh*t financially following relegation. Lets not delude ourselves into thinking that it'll all be okay because we'll get our money on the players we've brought, our history shows that that is not automatically the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 5 November, 2012 Share Posted 5 November, 2012 This is what I was told. No idea of truth/accuracy etc. but for what its worth. SFC are and will continue to be funded by Liebherr Family, this is to a certain amount every year, until a specified time in the future when SFC is expected to be self funding. Staplewood and other capital projects are a funded seperately and are not part of the annual funding. An amount for transfers were accounted for in the annual funding calculations. However to acquire Ramirez we needed about £12 million upfront. As this was outside the finance allowed for this year, this was the monies loaned against next years funding. Hope this makes sense. It makes perfect sense. Thanks for sharing. Although it still goes against what Cortese said in March 2010 about not borrowing against future income. However in true spazboard style Where is the proof? I demand a source and proof otherwise it isn't true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colinjb Posted 5 November, 2012 Share Posted 5 November, 2012 Except it isn't though it it COlin. Think back to our relegation, six months before we sold Beattie for £6m, after relegation we made a £5m profit on Crouch and six months later made a £10m profit on Walcott- although admittedly we didn't get it all in on hit. Even so, you're looking at a £20m profit on just three players yet we still were in the deep sh*t financially following relegation. Lets not delude ourselves into thinking that it'll all be okay because we'll get our money on the players we've brought, our history shows that that is not automatically the case. I'm in no way saying that relegation would be conclusive to financial progress, but through buying young talents they have a far better resale value. It's astonishing to think that Steven Fletcher cost Sunderland 14 million pounds. Following on from relegation we were only in the 'deep sh*t' when Michael Wilde sanctioned Burley's multi-million pounds worth of player purchases. Rupert Lowe's prudence would have stiffled us on the pitch, but the club wouldn't have been put into anything like the risk it was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 5 November, 2012 Share Posted 5 November, 2012 A quick observation.... When the news broke about this loan malarkey on the 3rd October 2012 the companies house website showed the following: However, a week later (on the 10th October 2012) another "Statement of Capital" was posted: This latest 'SOC' shows £500,000, which is the same as the 'SOC' declared a year earlier. So, the loan didn't have any effect whatsoever on our capital position. Does this tell us anything we don't already know? Whilst I know next to nothing about company finances (does it show?), to me this tells us either (a) the loan was never drawn down into the company accounts or (b) the loan was drawn down but went out again within c.3 weeks of being granted. If (a) is correct then perhaps this is money that was earmarked for the alluded to central defender purchase that supposedly fell through at the last minute. If (b) is correct then does this confirm the cash was required for Ramirez because Bologna were insisting on payment upfront? Or perhaps it means sod all and we're none the wiser.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
landford.saint Posted 5 November, 2012 Share Posted 5 November, 2012 It makes perfect sense. Thanks for sharing. Although it still goes against what Cortese said in March 2010 about not borrowing against future income. However in true spazboard style Where is the proof? I demand a source and proof otherwise it isn't true. Sorry cant give you source, but it was an accountant of a major highstreet business. As for borrowing against future income, yes he has contradicted himself, and I understand it was borrowed against parachute payments. However if we are relegated we are still in the fortunate financial situation of having an independent source of income not relient on football related items like TV, gates etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 5 November, 2012 Share Posted 5 November, 2012 You seem to know it all, care to enlighten us? No, quite the opposite. I know nothing about it, hence I've only ever expressed my gut feel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 5 November, 2012 Share Posted 5 November, 2012 Sorry cant give you source, but it was an accountant of a major highstreet business. As for borrowing against future income, yes he has contradicted himself, and I understand it was borrowed against parachute payments. However if we are relegated we are still in the fortunate financial situation of having an independent source of income not relient on football related items like TV, gates etc. It's okay, i was joking. You wont be expected to provide a source as it's a positve report on what you were told. If you've been told something that sounded negative a source and proof would have been demanded. Thanks for sharing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 5 November, 2012 Share Posted 5 November, 2012 (edited) It makes perfect sense. Thanks for sharing. Although it still goes against what Cortese said in March 2010 about not borrowing against future income. Without wishing to descend into tiresome pedantry....Cortese said: "If we reach the Premier League, I would like to be in a position where we did not need parachute payments. In good years you should put money away for the bad years.” Which, to me, says that when we have our first "good year" in the Premier League we will put some of the profits from that year to one side rather than spend it all on the next season. As such, we haven't actually got to the point yet where Cortese can put aside the money reaped from a "good year" in the premier league. Indeed, in the same article Corteses says: "But we’ll have some success and bring in more cash to cover the shortfall" which, again my interpretation, is basically saying "until such time we establish ourselves as a successful side in the premier league we'll need to 'over spend' in the short term to get to that point" In other words, we can accuse Cortese of going against his word if he starts spending money we can't sustain after our first "successful" season in the premier league. IMHO of course. Edited 5 November, 2012 by trousers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 5 November, 2012 Share Posted 5 November, 2012 Without wishing to descend into tiresome pedantry....Cortese said: "If we reach the Premier League, I would like to be in a position where we did not need parachute payments. In good years you should put money away for the bad years.” Which, to me, says that when we have our first "good year" in the Premier League we will put some of the profits from that year to one side rather than spend it all on the next season. As such, we haven't actually got to the point yet where Cortese can put aside the money reaped from a "good year" in the premier league. Indeed, in the same article Corteses says: "But we’ll have some success and bring in more cash to cover the shortfall" which, again my interpretation, is basically saying "until such time we establish ourselves as a successful side in the premier league we'll need to 'over spend' in the short term to get to that point" In other words, we can accuse Cortese of going against his word if he starts spending money we can't sustain after our first "successful" season in the premier league. IMHO of course. What about this bit? "clubs spend money they don't have, they spend next years money. They spend money that will not arrive for two years and say 'But we'll have some success and bring in more cash to cover the shortfall' it cannot be sustained, in good times you need to save money for bad time" Spending money they dont have, spending next years money. Isn't this what we are doing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 5 November, 2012 Share Posted 5 November, 2012 Why did you cut quite an important bit out from what Cortese actually said? Edit: what he said ^^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 5 November, 2012 Share Posted 5 November, 2012 What about this bit? "clubs spend money they don't have, they spend next years money. They spend money that will not arrive for two years and say 'But we'll have some success and bring in more cash to cover the shortfall' it cannot be sustained, in good times you need to save money for bad time" Spending money they dont have, spending next years money. Isn't this what we are doing? Yes, but that's the bit I interpret as a longer term aspiration once the club has actually reached the point where it can put said aspiration into practice. In the same article Cortese acknowledges that it's not something you can achieve on "day 1". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 5 November, 2012 Share Posted 5 November, 2012 Why did you cut quite an important bit out from what Cortese actually said? Because that bit had already been quoted (and the rest left out). I just added the bits that had been left out previously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scummer Posted 5 November, 2012 Share Posted 5 November, 2012 Spending money they dont have, spending next years money. Isn't this what we are doing? As far as I can tell, no that's not what we're doing. When you get promoted you get a lot of money. However you don't get a lump-sum cheque on the day the fixture list comes out, it gets drip fed over time. However, in part due to the transfer window, you may need to spend cash before you've been paid it. A loan would help in this situation. We've secured the loan against next years money, that's not the same as paying it back out of next years money. My mortgage is secured against my house, doesn't mean I intend to sell my house to repay the mortgage. As I've said before, the loan being secured against future revenue is actually proof that the intention is to pay it back before then. What use to a bank is security if by the time they'd be forced to call it in you'd have already spent it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 5 November, 2012 Share Posted 5 November, 2012 Edit: actually, the bit I'm quoting Cortese re: "covering shortfall" is actually him criticising others for doing this....so, ignore my citation of that bit! I still think he's stating it as an aspiration once the club have had a good first season though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 5 November, 2012 Share Posted 5 November, 2012 As far as I can tell, no that's not what we're doing. When you get promoted you get a lot of money. However you don't get a lump-sum cheque on the day the fixture list comes out, it gets drip fed over time. However, in part due to the transfer window, you may need to spend cash before you've been paid it. A loan would help in this situation. We've secured the loan against next years money, that's not the same as paying it back out of next years money. My mortgage is secured against my house, doesn't mean I intend to sell my house to repay the mortgage. As I've said before, the loan being secured against future revenue is actually proof that the intention is to pay it back before then. What use to a bank is security if by the time they'd be forced to call it in you'd have already spent it? Ah...someone who can articulate my interpretation much better than I can! Thank you kind sir. Time for me to return to the comfort zone of the PTS thread me thinks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 5 November, 2012 Share Posted 5 November, 2012 As far as I can tell, no that's not what we're doing. When you get promoted you get a lot of money. However you don't get a lump-sum cheque on the day the fixture list comes out, it gets drip fed over time. However, in part due to the transfer window, you may need to spend cash before you've been paid it. A loan would help in this situation. We've secured the loan against next years money, that's not the same as paying it back out of next years money. My mortgage is secured against my house, doesn't mean I intend to sell my house to repay the mortgage. As I've said before, the loan being secured against future revenue is actually proof that the intention is to pay it back before then. What use to a bank is security if by the time they'd be forced to call it in you'd have already spent it? Its proof of absolutely nothing, actually. Like anything else on here its an opinion (albeit likely a valid one). But if some sides of the debate are going to get lambasted for portraying opinion as fact then lets at least be consistent across the board. And the loan is actually secured against next year's prize money / parachute payments AND the assets of Southampton Football Club; you missed that bit out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 5 November, 2012 Share Posted 5 November, 2012 Yes, but that's the bit I interpret as a longer term aspiration once the club has actually reached the point where it can put said aspiration into practice. In the same article Cortese acknowledges that it's not something you can achieve on "day 1". So when Cortese said in 2010, whilst we were in League One, that clubs spend money they dont have and if we get to the premier league he would hope not to need paracute payments; what he meant was that if we reach the premier league several seasons later then we wont be spending money against money that will arrive in two years and wont need the parachute payments? Not really correlating with talk of European football in 3 years time like he has been on about is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 5 November, 2012 Share Posted 5 November, 2012 As far as I can tell, no that's not what we're doing. When you get promoted you get a lot of money. However you don't get a lump-sum cheque on the day the fixture list comes out, it gets drip fed over time. However, in part due to the transfer window, you may need to spend cash before you've been paid it. A loan would help in this situation. We've secured the loan against next years money, that's not the same as paying it back out of next years money. My mortgage is secured against my house, doesn't mean I intend to sell my house to repay the mortgage. As I've said before, the loan being secured against future revenue is actually proof that the intention is to pay it back before then. What use to a bank is security if by the time they'd be forced to call it in you'd have already spent it? Sorry, so what are we paying it back with if it's not next years money? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scummer Posted 5 November, 2012 Share Posted 5 November, 2012 Its proof of absolutely nothing, actually. Like anything else on here its an opinion (albeit likely a valid one). But if some sides of the debate are going to get lambasted for portraying opinion as fact then lets at least be consistent across the board. And the loan is actually secured against next year's prize money / parachute payments AND the assets of Southampton Football Club; you missed that bit out. Fair enough. But as the purpose of security is to give the lender something to recover against in the event of a default, it would seem logical for that security to be against something which post-dates the expected loan term? Instead of the word 'proof', would you accept 'very strong indication'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 5 November, 2012 Share Posted 5 November, 2012 So when Cortese said in 2010, whilst we were in League One, that clubs spend money they dont have and if we get to the premier league he would hope not to need paracute payments; what he meant was that if we reach the premier league several seasons later then we wont be spending money against money that will arrive in two years and wont need the parachute payments? Not really correlating with talk of European football in 3 years time like he has been on about is it? Perhaps not. I agree that he does seem to be covering a scenario that he hopes will never happen (i.e. putting money aside from the "good" premier league years in case we ever get relegated). There again, I've got all sorts of personal and household insurances despite taking measures to try and make sure I'll never need to call upon them. But if all we're doing here is accusing Cortese of covering a scenario he hopes will never happen then I'm sure there are worse things that he could be accused of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scummer Posted 5 November, 2012 Share Posted 5 November, 2012 Sorry, so what are we paying it back with if it's not next years money? This years money? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 5 November, 2012 Share Posted 5 November, 2012 Sorry, so what are we paying it back with if it's not next years money? This year's money (when it arrives later in the season) 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