aintforever Posted 24 March, 2018 Share Posted 24 March, 2018 Doesn't the fact they changed their rules to allow it kind of suggest it was being blocked on a technicality rather than any outrageous breach of them? Sent from my SM-J330FN using Tapatalk They changed the rules straight after. I believe they couldn’t block it because he didn’t have a criminal conviction, he only didn’t have a conviction because he cut a deal and testified against the person he bribed who ended up being executed. He sounds like the sort of person who wouldn’t hesitate to do a Pompey on us if that’s the only way he get his money back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Posted 24 March, 2018 Share Posted 24 March, 2018 BIB - Exactly this, except maybe a once a season "payday loan" is a more appropriate comparison than a mortgage as the funds borrowed are used for day to day running costs i.e player wages. player purchase etc and repaid from the club's "salary" - i.e. the already agreed and known amount of money to be received in installments rom the PL No way would an arrangement like that have been used to secure a £220m loan to buy the club. Now if we saw similar charges over stadium, training ground and everything else made at the time of the take-over we would have cause for concern. Agree - was too late to think of a better example :-) I am still concerned why the Echo (presumably led by the club) are trying to play down the profit? We all assume this is the model moving forward, and we are not going to spunk it all on player sales etc. so why bother? May just more spin for the "dumb" fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Munster Posted 24 March, 2018 Share Posted 24 March, 2018 Technically non-existent if we went down - assuming the 'parachute' payments are not classed as 'premier league (TV rights) money' Perhaps that's the master plan after all??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pluto Posted 24 March, 2018 Share Posted 24 March, 2018 I dont see anything of note to be concerned about from the financial report. The aussie bank charge is simply to get money upfront to pay the monthly wage bills ! What we dont want to see is the owner taking money out of the club from these profilts. Mr Jisheng cannot take one penny out of the club, if it does then we need to find a new owner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
verlaine1979 Posted 24 March, 2018 Share Posted 24 March, 2018 Might be difficult for Gao to refinance his personal debt onto the club while our PL status is still in the balance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VectisSaint Posted 24 March, 2018 Share Posted 24 March, 2018 I dont see anything of note to be concerned about from the financial report. The aussie bank charge is simply to get money upfront to pay the monthly wage bills ! What we dont want to see is the owner taking money out of the club from these profilts. Mr Jisheng cannot take one penny out of the club, if it does then we need to find a new owner. You won't see anything related to Jisheng Gao and his dealings in these accounts. The accounts are to June 2017, Gao acquired Sainsts in August 2017. need to wait another year before anything becomes public in terms of his "dealings", shady or otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charliemiller Posted 24 March, 2018 Share Posted 24 March, 2018 Gents , I have just read through the comments ...its like a payday loan , its to manage cashflow , its nothing to be concerned about , I would be worried if it was against the stadium and training ground . Lets be very clear it is nothing like a payday loan or to cover cash flow and it is a lien and charge against every single asset including the stadium and training ground and every single receivable the club is going to receive is assigned to be paid to McQuarrie bank . IF you dont believe me read the document !!!!!!!! Dated 21/9 /2018 one month after the takeover by Gao. Gao took a loan from Mc Quarrie Bank to buy the club personally not secured against Lander but personally and the money he borrowed went into Kats pocket to pay off , he then had a debt that he had to secure against future receivables and asset of southampton football club limited. This is the document that secures this , it is not a cashflow protection , because when a club needs funds in may , june and july to get through the close season and buy players they assign part of the PL payment and draw that down , they do not undertake to pay ALL the premiership money to the bank direct !!!! we are not going to see a penny of that its going direct to the bank . Clause 5.2 .....The borrower is the sole owner of all the secured assets ...stadium training ground etc everything included. Clause 6.9 .1 Proceeds from recievables ALL monies recieved in relation to the recievables at any time will be Paid directly to the lender (Macquarrie bank) by the premier League , to be applied in accordance to the facility loan agreement . Nothing to worry about though , just like a payday loan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patred44 Posted 24 March, 2018 Share Posted 24 March, 2018 as a Saints fan, I would like to ask.. Should I be worrried about this bank, and it's involvment? simple yes or no ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 24 March, 2018 Share Posted 24 March, 2018 Gents , I have just read through the comments ...its like a payday loan , its to manage cashflow , its nothing to be concerned about , I would be worried if it was against the stadium and training ground . Lets be very clear it is nothing like a payday loan or to cover cash flow and it is a lien and charge against every single asset including the stadium and training ground and every single receivable the club is going to receive is assigned to be paid to McQuarrie bank . IF you dont believe me read the document !!!!!!!! Dated 21/9 /2018 one month after the takeover by Gao. Gao took a loan from Mc Quarrie Bank to buy the club personally not secured against Lander but personally and the money he borrowed went into Kats pocket to pay off , he then had a debt that he had to secure against future receivables and asset of southampton football club limited. This is the document that secures this , it is not a cashflow protection , because when a club needs funds in may , june and july to get through the close season and buy players they assign part of the PL payment and draw that down , they do not undertake to pay ALL the premiership money to the bank direct !!!! we are not going to see a penny of that its going direct to the bank . Clause 5.2 .....The borrower is the sole owner of all the secured assets ...stadium training ground etc everything included. Clause 6.9 .1 Proceeds from recievables ALL monies recieved in relation to the recievables at any time will be Paid directly to the lender (Macquarrie bank) by the premier League , to be applied in accordance to the facility loan agreement . Nothing to worry about though , just like a payday loan The loan was taken out by the club. Read the ****ing document. The borrower is the club, not Gao. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 24 March, 2018 Share Posted 24 March, 2018 We registered an identical charge in November 2016 as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 24 March, 2018 Share Posted 24 March, 2018 as a Saints fan, I would like to ask.. Should I be worrried about this bank, and it's involvment? simple yes or no ? Probably not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whelk Posted 24 March, 2018 Share Posted 24 March, 2018 Wonder whether these Chinese fckers are going to hike ticket prices? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wurzel Posted 24 March, 2018 Share Posted 24 March, 2018 Gents , I have just read through the comments ...its like a payday loan , its to manage cashflow , its nothing to be concerned about , I would be worried if it was against the stadium and training ground . Lets be very clear it is nothing like a payday loan or to cover cash flow and it is a lien and charge against every single asset including the stadium and training ground and every single receivable the club is going to receive is assigned to be paid to McQuarrie bank . IF you dont believe me read the document !!!!!!!! Dated 21/9 /2018 one month after the takeover by Gao. Gao took a loan from Mc Quarrie Bank to buy the club personally not secured against Lander but personally and the money he borrowed went into Kats pocket to pay off , he then had a debt that he had to secure against future receivables and asset of southampton football club limited. This is the document that secures this , it is not a cashflow protection , because when a club needs funds in may , june and july to get through the close season and buy players they assign part of the PL payment and draw that down , they do not undertake to pay ALL the premiership money to the bank direct !!!! we are not going to see a penny of that its going direct to the bank . Clause 5.2 .....The borrower is the sole owner of all the secured assets ...stadium training ground etc everything included. Clause 6.9 .1 Proceeds from recievables ALL monies recieved in relation to the recievables at any time will be Paid directly to the lender (Macquarrie bank) by the premier League , to be applied in accordance to the facility loan agreement . Nothing to worry about though , just like a payday loan FFS you couldn't get it more wrong if you tried. The borrower who gave the charge is Southampton Football Club Ltd. Their only concern is the playing side of the club. They can't give a charge over the stadium as that is owned by a different limited company. They can't give a charge over the training ground, that is owned by yet another limited company. The catering is owned by , guess what, yet another limited company. And so on. Can't be arsed to look up all the different company names. Yes they are all owned by one umbrella company but one company can't give a charge over the assets of another. That is one of the reasons businesses split their affairs between separate companies. SFC Ltd can only give a charge over its own assets . The only assets that company has are the players and the guaranteed income from the PL. Nothing but a normal cashfliw enabling transaction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 4 April, 2018 Share Posted 4 April, 2018 From the Swiss ramble All about to come crashing down mind. Well done SFC.... https://t.co/1joPNaeMIq Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperSAINT Posted 4 April, 2018 Share Posted 4 April, 2018 From the Swiss ramble All about to come crashing down mind. Well done SFC.... https://t.co/1joPNaeMIq @SwissRamble: Following the growth, #SaintsFC £112m wage bill is the 8th highest in the Premier League, just behind Leicester £113m and only £15m lower than Tottenham, but ahead of Everton £105m. Crikey! Wages are going to drop like a stone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 4 April, 2018 Share Posted 4 April, 2018 (edited) Crikey! Wages are going to drop like a stone. What a pitiful situation we are in when we are just behind spurs in wages. Fuk sake, look at them!!! Also, she didn’t do too bad out of us.. @SwissRamble The loans previously provided to #SaintsFC by Katharina Liebherr carried a 5% interest charge, which meant the club had to pay £2m interest in 2016/17. By no means the highest in the top flight, but many owners provide interest-free loans Edited 4 April, 2018 by Batman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperSAINT Posted 4 April, 2018 Share Posted 4 April, 2018 What a pitiful situation we are in when we are just behind spurs in wages. Fuk sake, look at them!!! Also, she didn’t do too bad out of us.. @SwissRamble The loans previously provided to #SaintsFC by Katharina Liebherr carried a 5% interest charge, which meant the club had to pay £2m interest in 2016/17. By no means the highest in the top flight, but many owners provide interest-free loans Kat's loving it!! 5% interest on loans & then a £210m payout!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 4 April, 2018 Share Posted 4 April, 2018 Crikey! Wages are going to drop like a stone. If we haven't got relegation clauses we could be ****ed financially. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 4 April, 2018 Share Posted 4 April, 2018 Don't forget that these results are for the season ending under Puel. I suspect the gap with Spurs is bigger now and Everton will have overtaken our wage bill. Still, though, it does show that relegation will cause serious problems if we can't shift players and don't come back up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Garrett Posted 4 April, 2018 Share Posted 4 April, 2018 Literally no idea how this works with us having such high wages. Whats happened? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperSAINT Posted 4 April, 2018 Share Posted 4 April, 2018 Literally no idea how this works with us having such high wages. Whats happened? Loads of the 1st team squad got big new contracts. I think people always forget about wages when they say: "Where's all the money gone?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Garrett Posted 4 April, 2018 Share Posted 4 April, 2018 But we dont have that many "high earners"...especially compared to teams like Everton & West Ham. Would love to see our wages by player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperSAINT Posted 4 April, 2018 Share Posted 4 April, 2018 But we dont have that many "high earners"...especially compared to teams like Everton & West Ham. Would love to see our wages by player. So would I. I reckon we've got a fair few on 60-70k. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Garrett Posted 4 April, 2018 Share Posted 4 April, 2018 Wesley Hoedt 80k Mario Lemina 80k Manolo Gabbiadini 80k Ryan Bertrand 80k Fraser Forster 80k Sofiane Boufal 70k Charlie Austin 60k Oriol Romeu 60k Shane Long 50k James Ward-Prowse 50k Pierre-EmileHøjbjerg 50k Cédric Soares 50k Guido Carrillo 50k Dušan Tadić 50k Maya Yoshida 40k Steven Davis 40k Nathan Redmond 40k Alex McCarthy 35k Jérémy Pied 30k Jack Stephens 20k Jan Bednarek 20k Sam McQueen 20k Josh Sims 20k Jake Hesketh 20k Matt Targett 20k Stuart Taylor 10k = £1.2m week = £62.6m a year (+bonuses not that any of them deserve any) Probably underestimating some of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shurlock Posted 4 April, 2018 Share Posted 4 April, 2018 Literally no idea how this works with us having such high wages. Whats happened? When you're having to replace so many players on an annual basis, like we do, you'll have pay the market rate. More stable squads with players on older contracts aren't as exposed to those inflationary pressures, though they will get hit when it comes to contract renewals as Tottenham are finding out Alderweireld and others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shurlock Posted 4 April, 2018 Share Posted 4 April, 2018 Wesley Hoedt 80k Mario Lemina 80k Manolo Gabbiadini 80k Ryan Bertrand 80k Fraser Forster 80k Sofiane Boufal 70k Charlie Austin 60k Oriol Romeu 60k Shane Long 50k James Ward-Prowse 50k Pierre-EmileHøjbjerg 50k Cédric Soares 50k Guido Carrillo 50k Dušan Tadić 50k Maya Yoshida 40k Steven Davis 40k Nathan Redmond 40k Alex McCarthy 35k Jérémy Pied 30k Jack Stephens 20k Jan Bednarek 20k Sam McQueen 20k Josh Sims 20k Jake Hesketh 20k Matt Targett 20k Stuart Taylor 10k = £1.2m week = £62.6m a year (+bonuses not that any of them deserve any) Probably underestimating some of them. Jack Stephens, the next Beckenbauer, is on more than 20K, i thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperSAINT Posted 4 April, 2018 Share Posted 4 April, 2018 Jack Stephens, the next Beckenbauer, is on more than 20K, i thought. I'm sure there was an article speculating that his new contract was around 40k. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Garrett Posted 4 April, 2018 Share Posted 4 April, 2018 I'm sure there was an article speculating that his new contract was around 40k. Mad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chez Posted 4 April, 2018 Share Posted 4 April, 2018 David Gold said Charlie Austin's agent wanted £100k a week and I think from the size of our wage bill its clear that he got it (or damn near it). It's important to note that that wage bill is for last year. It's probably even higher now. Could things get any more depressing? God help us if we don't have 50% reduction clauses on the event of relegation. If not the £35m (year 1), £35m (year 2) and £14m (year 3) parachute payments are not going to get even remotely close to covering the wage bill. Financial meltdown will beckon. Hopefully they are, but don't count on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperSAINT Posted 4 April, 2018 Share Posted 4 April, 2018 David Gold said Charlie Austin's agent wanted £100k a week and I think from the size of our wage bill its clear that he got it (or damn near it). It's important to note that that wage bill is for last year. It's probably even higher now. Could things get any more depressing? God help us if we don't have 50% reduction clauses on the event of relegation. If not the £35m (year 1), £35m (year 2) and £14m (year 3) parachute payments are not going to get even remotely close to covering the wage bill. Financial meltdown will beckon. Hopefully they are, but don't count on it. Around 16 players will leave anyway. They will need to. Austin already being linked with Cherries / Leicester / Villa etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shurlock Posted 4 April, 2018 Share Posted 4 April, 2018 David Gold said Charlie Austin's agent wanted £100k a week and I think from the size of our wage bill its clear that he got it (or damn near it). It's important to note that that wage bill is for last year. It's probably even higher now. Could things get any more depressing? God help us if we don't have 50% reduction clauses on the event of relegation. If not the £35m (year 1), £35m (year 2) and £14m (year 3) parachute payments are not going to get even remotely close to covering the wage bill. Financial meltdown will beckon. Hopefully they are, but don't count on it. Would be the biggest f**k up of them all if we don't have relegation clauses, though I'm pretty confident we do. Aren't they more or less standard practice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie Wayman Posted 4 April, 2018 Share Posted 4 April, 2018 Literally no idea how this works with us having such high wages. Whats happened? We woz a well run club! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie Wayman Posted 4 April, 2018 Share Posted 4 April, 2018 Leon Crouch to the rescue once again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 4 April, 2018 Share Posted 4 April, 2018 I'm sure there was an article speculating that his new contract was around 40k. 48k Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
labibs Posted 4 April, 2018 Share Posted 4 April, 2018 Wesley Hoedt 80k Mario Lemina 80k Manolo Gabbiadini 80k Ryan Bertrand 80k Fraser Forster 80k Sofiane Boufal 70k Charlie Austin 60k Oriol Romeu 60k Shane Long 50k James Ward-Prowse 50k Pierre-EmileHøjbjerg 50k Cédric Soares 50k Guido Carrillo 50k Dušan Tadić 50k Maya Yoshida 40k Steven Davis 40k Nathan Redmond 40k Alex McCarthy 35k Jérémy Pied 30k Jack Stephens 20k Jan Bednarek 20k Sam McQueen 20k Josh Sims 20k Jake Hesketh 20k Matt Targett 20k Stuart Taylor 10k = £1.2m week = £62.6m a year (+bonuses not that any of them deserve any) Probably underestimating some of them. Source for all of the above? The figures for some of the players we signed from non-premier league clubs seems pretty high. Hoedt for example Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Garrett Posted 4 April, 2018 Share Posted 4 April, 2018 Source for all of the above? The figures for some of the players we signed from non-premier league clubs seems pretty high. Hoedt for example Literally made them up as a best guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKD Posted 4 April, 2018 Share Posted 4 April, 2018 Around 16 players will leave anyway. They will need to. Austin already being linked with Cherries / Leicester / Villa etc. Austin would be a massive loss. He's one of a few I would 100% keep, his goals could get us back - I think you can pretty much rule out Leicester as he won't go there if Claude is still their manager. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Garrett Posted 4 April, 2018 Share Posted 4 April, 2018 Austin would be a massive loss. He's one of a few I would 100% keep, his goals could get us back - I think you can pretty much rule out Leicester as he won't go there if Claude is still their manager. Tedious link tbf, Puel old boss, Bournemouth up the road, Villa pay big wages in the Championship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 4 April, 2018 Share Posted 4 April, 2018 (edited) Do these findings back up the narrative that Cortese was financially destroying the club? Edited 4 April, 2018 by Batman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chez Posted 5 April, 2018 Share Posted 5 April, 2018 Would be the biggest f**k up of them all if we don't have relegation clauses, though I'm pretty confident we do. Aren't they more or less standard practice?jack Rodwell didn't have one, so I guess exceptions are made. I notice that Sunderland had 40% reductions, not 50%. If we mirror that then you can see them financial problems we face when we go down. The drop in income is huge. We have been here before and as I recall the sale of Crouch was all that kept our heads above water. Crown Jewels seem to be thin on the ground this time round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chez Posted 5 April, 2018 Share Posted 5 April, 2018 Do these findings back up the narrative that Cortese was financially destroying the club?not sure I follow. The financial results are decent, but pretty much what you'd expect given that the club gets such a huge amount from TV and the player sales we have made. The financial results don't show anything about Cortese? There you go, I've set the pins up for you and now you knock them down... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
labibs Posted 5 April, 2018 Share Posted 5 April, 2018 Literally made them up as a best guess. Okay fair. That's the problem I guess, it's all speculation unless you have the spreadsheet in front of you. I'm sure Saints will have modelled income v expenditure if we go down next season and will know who we can and can't afford to keep. I do think we will recoup more than people think though - JWP for example will have a host of prem clubs after him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nordic Saint Posted 5 April, 2018 Share Posted 5 April, 2018 not sure I follow. The financial results are decent, but pretty much what you'd expect given that the club gets such a huge amount from TV and the player sales we have made. The financial results don't show anything about Cortese? There you go, I've set the pins up for you and now you knock them down... Yes, they do. They include our first season back in the Premier League. Cortese did incredibly well to build the new Academy and buy the new players yet manage to keep our loss in our first year back in the Premier League down to just £7m. I doubt that any other newly promoted team has managed its finances as well.. As an investment banker, Cortese was very shrewd with money, and Markus Liebherr's initial incvestment of . As an investment banker, Cortese was very shrewd with money, and Markus Liebherr's initial incvestment of £12m to buy the club was turned into quarter of a billion pounds for Kat: a phenomenal return. Kat must be incredibly grateful to Cortese for helping her so much money. Swiss Ramble @SwissRamble #SaintsFC made a £7m loss in their first season after promotion to the Premier League in 2012/13, but since then they have delivered £91m of profits in the last four years. Between 2005/06 and 2011/12, they reported losses (smallish) in the Championship and League One. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 5 April, 2018 Share Posted 5 April, 2018 Yes, they do. They include our first season back in the Premier League. Cortese did incredibly well to build the new Academy and buy the new players yet manage to keep our loss in our first year back in the Premier League down to just £7m. I doubt that any other newly promoted team has managed its finances as well.. As an investment banker, Cortese was very shrewd with money, and Markus Liebherr's initial incvestment of . As an investment banker, Cortese was very shrewd with money, and Markus Liebherr's initial incvestment of £12m to buy the club was turned into quarter of a billion pounds for Kat: a phenomenal return. Kat must be incredibly grateful to Cortese for helping her so much money. Swiss Ramble @SwissRamble #SaintsFC made a £7m loss in their first season after promotion to the Premier League in 2012/13, but since then they have delivered £91m of profits in the last four years. Between 2005/06 and 2011/12, they reported losses (smallish) in the Championship and League One. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Benali Posted 5 April, 2018 Share Posted 5 April, 2018 And thus dies the whole Kat never took a penny from us thing. Which is fair enough, it was her company and she had every right to do so. But hopefully people will now stop talking about her like she pumped money in expecting nothing in return. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 5 April, 2018 Share Posted 5 April, 2018 And thus dies the whole Kat never took a penny from us thing. Which is fair enough, it was her company and she had every right to do so. But hopefully people will now stop talking about her like she pumped money in expecting nothing in return. I don't think anyone says she expected nothing in return. I think everyone expected her to sell at some point. She did write off £33m of loans and could have taken more out if she wanted. She's not some Saint but she wasn't taking huge amounts out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chez Posted 5 April, 2018 Share Posted 5 April, 2018 Yes, they do. They include our first season back in the Premier League. Cortese did incredibly well to build the new Academy and buy the new players yet manage to keep our loss in our first year back in the Premier League down to just £7m. I doubt that any other newly promoted team has managed its finances as well.. As an investment banker, Cortese was very shrewd with money, and Markus Liebherr's initial incvestment of . As an investment banker, Cortese was very shrewd with money, and Markus Liebherr's initial incvestment of £12m to buy the club was turned into quarter of a billion pounds for Kat: a phenomenal return. Kat must be incredibly grateful to Cortese for helping her so much money. Swiss Ramble @SwissRamble #SaintsFC made a £7m loss in their first season after promotion to the Premier League in 2012/13, but since then they have delivered £91m of profits in the last four years. Between 2005/06 and 2011/12, they reported losses (smallish) in the Championship and League One. Batman used the term `findings' and I assumed that related to the recently released 2016/17 figures and the discovery of a registered loan of an unconfirmed amount, that may or may not indicate that Gao was using the Glazier method of buying a football club. I don't see how either `finding' confirms or refutes the suggestion that Cortese was taking us towards financial ruin. If he meant the Swiss Ramblings info, then yes it includes the earlier premier season financial figures, thus showing the results of Corteses' work, but I am still unsure how to determine whether Cortese would have ruined us or not had he be retained. How can you extrapolate that? In the end does it matter? We are where we are. The current situation is not down to Cortese. All that matters is the future and that doesn't look rosie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graffito Posted 5 April, 2018 Share Posted 5 April, 2018 I don't think anyone says she expected nothing in return. I think everyone expected her to sell at some point. She did write off £33m of loans and could have taken more out if she wanted. She's not some Saint but she wasn't taking huge amounts out. Assume you mean the conversion of debt to equity. Isn’t there an argument that in foregoing interest on the loans she allowed the club to invest and grow thereby getting her money back when she sold? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFC Forever Posted 5 April, 2018 Share Posted 5 April, 2018 she did well selling up when she did. Maybe she had advisers telling her the was right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Marco Posted 5 April, 2018 Share Posted 5 April, 2018 I don't think anyone says she expected nothing in return. I think everyone expected her to sell at some point. She did write off £33m of loans and could have taken more out if she wanted. She's not some Saint but she wasn't taking huge amounts out. I find this 'write off' thing quite interesting as she didn't really did she? She owned an asset and put money into that asset which increased the value of that asset. It's like putting an extension on your house and then when you sell adding the value of that extension to the house price. As others have alluded too when Cortese did that (training ground/youth set up) some see it as wasting loads of money that supposedly almost killed us. Kat does it and its all good. She owned an asset its normal for someone who owns something to put their own money into their own asset. We all do it with the various things we own. If she didn't do that then she wouldn't have received anywhere near the amount she has because chances are we wouldn't have been successful. So not only did she recoup the money you say she wrote off (in the sale) she also recouped +5% from the 'loan' she gave us. As stated in that report most football owners do that, it isn't anything new. But many do it interest free. The thing that worries me as I said in the les post before all these numbers came out was the amount of money we were paying players and staff (including Les). If we have the 8th highest Wage bill and below Spurs by £15m then whoever is in charge of contracts has been handing them out recklessly. Especially when the belief amongst the board is we are a 'small club'. If the worst happens and we do go down then we will not be able to pay the near £100m a season wages we are paying. In contrast if you look at these numbers as much grief as odd job got he actually made the club profitable without using player sales to do so (2012-13). He spent £30m on the whole new training ground/youth set up which is the basis for this 'killer loan' thing people use. But yet they fail to take into account the player wages for the year prior to leaving was just £27m and the year he left £45m. Not to mention very low agent fees. In the space of just 4 years since he has gone our wage bill has more than doubled. Increasing by 29% year over year last year alone. Kat would have known about these mega contracts being handed out and as the owner can only assume she supported them. If we go down the club will be in severe financial difficulty based on the decisions she and her chosen board put us in. 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