Gao FT article

[Dark Munster]

So we learnt Mr. Gao is "flamboyant". Being a private person he must be annoyed that came out.

[Dark Munster]

As a springboard to gobble up and redevelop the surrounding land.

 

No seriously, Goa’s diversified his wealth: got his money out of a country that can resemble the Wild West, owns a blue chip asset with strong property rights and hopes it’ll appreciate in value by virtue of the PL’s growth worldwide and our participation in it.

I think so. He's hoping the pig will fatten itself without being fed.

[shurlock]

So we learnt Mr. Gao is "flamboyant". Being a private person he must be annoyed that came out.

 

Flamboyant in the same way Gadhafi and the fella with the shark tank in James Bond were. FT-speak for dodgy as f**k.

[Cabbage_Face]

As a springboard to gobble up and redevelop the surrounding land.

 

No seriously, Goa’s diversified his wealth: got his money out of a country that can resemble the Wild West, owns a blue chip asset with strong property rights and hopes it’ll appreciate in value by virtue of the PL’s growth worldwide and our participation in it.

 

Considering saints have 1% chance of getting cement works opposite and slim chance of gas works, I’d disagree. God knows what he is doing.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Red]

We have a debt ...the money used to buy us to macquarrie bank what else could he secure 200m against he has nothing now lander has gone to the wall

 

No we haven't (other than maybe a short term over draft). Gao borrowed money personally to buy us - which is different. All depends on what he used as security, and despite all the usual BS on here, no one knows other than Gao, his inner circle and the bank in question. Seldom can you use the asset you are buying as security (I am buying a house worth £500K, so lend me £500K as security against that - let's see how far you get?) Also, he cannot simply transfer said loan to the club as many on here seem to believe.

 

We are an asset and if Gao defaults, someone will step in and buy us - probably on the cheap and make a great return - ala Liebherr (both)

[aintforever]

That is pretty depressing reading, just a matter of time until we go down.

 

I didn’t believe half of the nonsense that Cortese came out with but at least it showed ambition, when an owner says stuff like this it basically means we’re just going to be **** for the foreseeable.

[Bad Wolf]

KL couldn't give a monkeys about the future. It was about who would pay the most.

 

I fear that in a business where owners do lavish money on their teams, there is an inevitability in that we will struggle.

 

How dare she?! You'd think she was a business woman, trying to make money or something...

[egg]

We have a debt ...the money used to buy us to macquarrie bank what else could he secure 200m against he has nothing now lander has gone to the wall

 

It doesn't say that he's used the club as security to buy the club.

 

I repeat my question - what is the problem with us being a self sufficient club? I ask as I get the impression that many posters seem to think that the club owner is somehow obliged to throw many millions at the club/team.

[stevy777_x]

Club is no different to what it was under Kat.

I renember the days where we were not even able to spend money on players and trying to survive every year so I’m not complaning.

[shurlock]

It doesn't say that he's used the club as security to buy the club.

 

I repeat my question - what is the problem with us being a self sufficient club? I ask as I get the impression that many posters seem to think that the club owner is somehow obliged to throw many millions at the club/team.

 

There’s a difference between belt-tightening and self-sufficiency.

[Saint Billy]

It doesn't say that he's used the club as security to buy the club.

 

I repeat my question - what is the problem with us being a self sufficient club? I ask as I get the impression that many posters seem to think that the club owner is somehow obliged to throw many millions at the club/team.

 

Why else buy the club, he isn't going to make serious money out of little old saints.

[Saint Billy]

It doesn't say that he's used the club as security to buy the club.

 

I repeat my question - what is the problem with us being a self sufficient club? I ask as I get the impression that many posters seem to think that the club owner is somehow obliged to throw many millions at the club/team.

 

Why else buy the club, he isn't going to make serious money out of little old saints.

[charliemiller]

No we haven't (other than maybe a short term over draft). Gao borrowed money personally to buy us - which is different. All depends on what he used as security, and despite all the usual BS on here, no one knows other than Gao, his inner circle and the bank in question. Seldom can you use the asset you are buying as security (I am buying a house worth £500K, so lend me £500K as security against that - let's see how far you get?) Also, he cannot simply transfer said loan to the club as many on here seem to believe.

 

We are an asset and if Gao defaults, someone will step in and buy us - probably on the cheap and make a great return - ala Liebherr (both)

 

 

Yes it is secured on the club ! And yes you are right with the house comparison , which is why it was initially a structured bridge at 80% of PP which was then converted to a term loan for the full amount with the club as security ......what other security has Gao got to secure the loan against ! nothing get real

 

Also if he defaults the bank also has a lien against the premiership payments as well as a first charge against the club and stadium .

 

Anyone who works in commercial finance structuring will confirm that this is the only way this deal could have been structured . A personal loan Naaa , a loan secured against assets and future income yup .

[adrian lord]

Well, we need to make sure we

 

1) don't get relegated, and

 

2) sort out the sclerosed Academy talent pipeline

 

3) sort out the disastrous scouting since that backroom guy went to Spurs

[Red]

Yes it is secured on the club ! And yes you are right with the house comparison , which is why it was initially a structured bridge at 80% of PP which was then converted to a term loan for the full amount with the club as security ......what other security has Gao got to secure the loan against ! nothing get real

 

Also if he defaults the bank also has a lien against the premiership payments as well as a first charge against the club and stadium .

 

Anyone who works in commercial finance structuring will confirm that this is the only way this deal could have been structured . A personal loan Naaa , a loan secured against assets and future income yup .

 

ok, you are obviously privy to inside info not many people have, so if true I bow to your greater wisdom/knowlege

[aintforever]

Yes it is secured on the club ! And yes you are right with the house comparison , which is why it was initially a structured bridge at 80% of PP which was then converted to a term loan for the full amount with the club as security ......what other security has Gao got to secure the loan against ! nothing get real

 

Also if he defaults the bank also has a lien against the premiership payments as well as a first charge against the club and stadium .

 

Anyone who works in commercial finance structuring will confirm that this is the only way this deal could have been structured . A personal loan Naaa , a loan secured against assets and future income yup .

 

Do you know this or are you just speculating?

[Faz]

Yes it is secured on the club ! And yes you are right with the house comparison , which is why it was initially a structured bridge at 80% of PP which was then converted to a term loan for the full amount with the club as security ......what other security has Gao got to secure the loan against ! nothing get real

 

Also if he defaults the bank also has a lien against the premiership payments as well as a first charge against the club and stadium .

 

Anyone who works in commercial finance structuring will confirm that this is the only way this deal could have been structured . A personal loan Naaa , a loan secured against assets and future income yup .

 

I work in Commercial Finance, and your description is certainly not the only way this deal could have been structured. And the comparison to a house purchase is also not valid.

 

HTH.

[egg]

There’s a difference between belt-tightening and self-sufficiency.

There's no evidence that the club has borrowed - that's self suffiency on my book.

 

I repeat the question, what is wrong with self sufficiency?

[verlaine1979]

There's no evidence that the club has borrowed - that's self suffiency on my book.

 

I repeat the question, what is wrong with self sufficiency?

 

Nothing, if it's the norm. However, if 3/4 of the rest of the league either have dramatically higher commercial revenue or an owner prepared to inject equity at the maximum rate allowed by FFP, then it becomes a problem.

[egg]

Nothing, if it's the norm. However, if 3/4 of the rest of the league either have dramatically higher commercial revenue or an owner prepared to inject equity at the maximum rate allowed by FFP, then it becomes a problem.

So your expectation is not self sufficiency, but repeated capital introductions from the owner?

[verlaine1979]

So your expectation is not self sufficiency, but repeated capital introductions from the owner?

 

My expectation is continued dicing with relegation if we are consistently outspent by the clubs we imagine ourselves to be competing with (as opposed to the newly promoted).

[Dalek2003]

The perfect business model is modest outlay allowing us 'just' to finish above the bottom three.

 

Has been successful for quite a few years now.

[egg]

My expectation is continued dicing with relegation if we are consistently outspent by the clubs we imagine ourselves to be competing with (as opposed to the newly promoted).

 

In other words you feel that the obligation of the owner is to inject cash rather than have a self sufficient club. If this "daddy I want another pony" attitude is typical of our fanbase we've become a spoiled bunch.

[Turkish]

In other words you feel that the obligation of the owner is to inject cash rather than have a self sufficient club. If this "daddy I want another pony" attitude is typical of our fanbase we've become a spoiled bunch.

 

Is it? Or is it simply that people are fed up with us winning the net spend trophy every year and a few cheer leaders explain it away that we have to pay agents fees and bonuses, like no other club does.

 

We’ve been in austerity mode since 2014, we had to stop the bleeding after Corteses overspending we were told, which was true, yet here we are 5 years on, still needing to tighten our belts despite 5 years of profit from transfers, posting record profits and supposedly more commercial income than we’ve ever had before.

 

It’s absolutely laughable that the cheerleaders try and explain away our profit from transfer windows as being needed to pay agents fees and bonuses whilst Newcastle fans absolutely lamblast Mike Ashley as being a tight fisted cockney wan’er when he’s sanctioned spending of nearly £100m more than they’ve raked in from transfers in the same period. Guess they don’t have to pay those pesky agents do they.

[for_heaven's_Saint]

The perfect business model is modest outlay allowing us 'just' to finish above the bottom three.

 

Has been successful for quite a few years now.

 

We finished 8th in 16/17, so not really.

[Saint Billy]

In other words you feel that the obligation of the owner is to inject cash rather than have a self sufficient club. If this "daddy I want another pony" attitude is typical of our fanbase we've become a spoiled bunch.

 

Surely, no one buys a business just to have it tick over.

[egg]

Surely, no one buys a business just to have it tick over.

Nobody "invests" in a business without a return. Explain to me how gifting X million to our club will result in added of value of at least X. I'll save you the time - it won't. Whatever gets spent, we'll still be a club who's best possible season will see us finish 7th. The last couple of seasons will not reassure Gao that "investing" in players is sensible - carillo, hoedt, boufal, etc, ain't an investment.

[egg]

Is it? Or is it simply that people are fed up with us winning the net spend trophy every year and a few cheer leaders explain it away that we have to pay agents fees and bonuses, like no other club does.

 

We’ve been in austerity mode since 2014, we had to stop the bleeding after Corteses overspending we were told, which was true, yet here we are 5 years on, still needing to tighten our belts despite 5 years of profit from transfers, posting record profits and supposedly more commercial income than we’ve ever had before.

 

It’s absolutely laughable that the cheerleaders try and explain away our profit from transfer windows as being needed to pay agents fees and bonuses whilst Newcastle fans absolutely lamblast Mike Ashley as being a tight fisted cockney wan’er when he’s sanctioned spending of nearly £100m more than they’ve raked in from transfers in the same period. Guess they don’t have to pay those pesky agents do they.

Del, you've always come across as a bright fella. You know better than to confuse investment of owners funds (which is what I'm talking about) and utilising revenue (which is what you're talking about). You're comparing apples with cauliflowers mate.

[Dark Munster]

Is it? Or is it simply that people are fed up with us winning the net spend trophy every year and a few cheer leaders explain it away that we have to pay agents fees and bonuses, like no other club does.

 

We’ve been in austerity mode since 2014, we had to stop the bleeding after Corteses overspending we were told, which was true, yet here we are 5 years on, still needing to tighten our belts despite 5 years of profit from transfers, posting record profits and supposedly more commercial income than we’ve ever had before.

 

It’s absolutely laughable that the cheerleaders try and explain away our profit from transfer windows as being needed to pay agents fees and bonuses whilst Newcastle fans absolutely lamblast Mike Ashley as being a tight fisted cockney wan’er when he’s sanctioned spending of nearly £100m more than they’ve raked in from transfers in the same period. Guess they don’t have to pay those pesky agents do they.

No mention here about the elephant in the room: over £100 million per year in player wages.

[benjii]

Do you know this or are you just speculating?

 

He's talking ****e and he's confused by the credit facility we take out every year.

[SuperSAINT]

No mention here about the elephant in the room: over £100 million per year in player wages.

 

Wages don’t count to anyone moaning about where the money has gone.

[Bstokesaint]

Depressing reading from v reputable source.

 

Makes me wonder about Ralph?? Why has he come here?

 

If he hasn’t been promised a transfer pot then he could only be thinking premier league stepping stone ala Pochettino/Koeman?

 

However Pochettino came into a good young squad with Rickie up front and Koeman had money to spend after the club had just sold most of the first team before he arrived!

 

Ralph had a terrible squad which was then weakened (on paper) during the transfer window at a moment when we were fighting for survival. He now has a terrible squad with a load of over paid loan players coming back into it which means a summer of desperately trying to get them out whilst scraping the barrel to get players in.

 

So if the FT and our own concerns are true, why is he here? Big bonus for finishing outside of the bottom 3?

[SaintMB]

I thought Ralph was clear when he joined that a top 6 prem team wouldn't touch him until he'd proven his worth in the league. He's not gonna be here for long, but hopefully it will be successful for both sides.

[CB Fry]

Depressing reading from v reputable source.

 

Makes me wonder about Ralph?? Why has he come here?

 

If he hasn’t been promised a transfer pot then he could only be thinking premier league stepping stone ala Pochettino/Koeman?

 

However Pochettino came into a good young squad with Rickie up front and Koeman had money to spend after the club had just sold most of the first team before he arrived!

 

Ralph had a terrible squad which was then weakened (on paper) during the transfer window at a moment when we were fighting for survival. He now has a terrible squad with a load of over paid loan players coming back into it which means a summer of desperately trying to get them out whilst scraping the barrel to get players in.

 

So if the FT and our own concerns are true, why is he here? Big bonus for finishing outside of the bottom 3?

Puel and Pellegrino would have seen us as a Premier League stepping stone as well. Hughes came in the prove the doubters wrong.

 

This time next year if Ralph ends up at Spurs, or even those wonderful Toffeemen, then it will only mean he's done a great job for us.

[Gingeletiss]

Property developer! .........the ‘farm’ ( do we still own it?) Staplewood! St Mary’s. he may be quite astute!

[Cabbage_Face]

Biggest land bank we have is in hedge end

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Roo1976]

I suspect we may be sold again in the not too distant future.

 

Getting that feeling again myself .............please not to a fake shiek

[sadoldgit]

Getting that feeling again myself .............please not to a fake shiek

 

Gao said that this club is his child. You don’t sell your child. Don’t expect him to sell any time soon. Owning a Premiership club gives him kudos back home. He ain’t going anywhere unless something drastic happens.

[aintforever]

No mention here about the elephant in the room: over £100 million per year in player wages.

 

All clubs pay wages, it’s only us that seem to win the net spend trophy every single year though.

[SuperSAINT]

All clubs pay wages, it’s only us that seem to win the net spend trophy every single year though.

 

Perhaps wages can total to vastly different amounts...

[Charlie Wayman]

Well, we need to make sure we

 

1) don't get relegated, and

 

2) sort out the sclerosed Academy talent pipeline

 

3) sort out the disastrous scouting since that backroom guy went to Spurs

 

Correction, 'He' not 'we'

[verlaine1979]

Perhaps wages can total to vastly different amounts...

 

Right, which is why nobody is comparing our spending with that of clubs like Liverpool and United.

 

The apt comparison is the likes of Bournemouth, Leicester etc. - the clubs we imagine we should be competing with in mid-table. Those clubs have largely similar wage bills to ours, largely similar TV, commercial and matchday revenue, but they have had significantly higher net outlay on players over the past five years.

 

If you have a moral objection to the idea of wealthy owners injecting cash into their clubs to boost league performance, that's fine. But over the medium-long term, performance in team sports tends to correlate quite strongly with budget, so the corollary of that position is being happy to see us fall behind those clubs and permanently into the lower quartile of the league that traditionally dices with relegation until eventually there's no more dicing to be done.

 

The only alternative strategy is to hope that you can make up the difference with better-than-average recruitment, boosting revenue through player sales. However, contrary to received wisdom, we haven't really adopted this strategy with any determination: a) we don't cast a wide enough net bringing in young players with potential - recruitment has always tended to be one in, one out; b) our stance over VVD's departure suggests we don't want to be seen as a selling/stepping-stone club; c) over the past few seasons the average age of signings seems to have risen dramatically towards the 26/27 age range, in which players are already known quantities.

[egg]

Right, which is why nobody is comparing our spending with that of clubs like Liverpool and United.

 

The apt comparison is the likes of Bournemouth, Leicester etc. - the clubs we imagine we should be competing with in mid-table. Those clubs have largely similar wage bills to ours, largely similar TV, commercial and matchday revenue, but they have had significantly higher net outlay on players over the past five years.

 

If you have a moral objection to the idea of wealthy owners injecting cash into their clubs to boost league performance, that's fine. But over the medium-long term, performance in team sports tends to correlate quite strongly with budget, so the corollary of that position is being happy to see us fall behind those clubs and permanently into the lower quartile of the league that traditionally dices with relegation until eventually there's no more dicing to be done.

 

The only alternative strategy is to hope that you can make up the difference with better-than-average recruitment, boosting revenue through player sales. However, contrary to received wisdom, we haven't really adopted this strategy with any determination: a) we don't cast a wide enough net bringing in young players with potential - recruitment has always tended to be one in, one out; b) our stance over VVD's departure suggests we don't want to be seen as a selling/stepping-stone club; c) over the past few seasons the average age of signings seems to have risen dramatically towards the 26/27 age range, in which players are already known quantities.

 

All very wordy pal but we're back to this perception that the owner is obliged to put his hand in his pocket and throw money at the club. Let's suppose that the Bournemouth and Leicester owners have done that, why must Gao have that obligation. I get that we all want our club to kick on, and that money may make that happen, but why does the owner have that obligation? What's in it for him? How will be get a return? And please won't reply with this 'net spend winners' stuff - you, Turkish and others are confusing / conflating spending our money with injection on money by the owner.

[Faz]

All clubs pay wages, it’s only us that seem to win the net spend trophy every single year though.

 

Isn’t the point that we are pretty much up against the wages cap? You can argue that we have given vastly inflated contracts when they are/were not deserved, but ultimately it doesn’t matter if the owner puts in £50m if we can’t pay he wages without making losses which aren’t sustainable or desirable in the longer term.

[aintforever]

All very wordy pal but we're back to this perception that the owner is obliged to put his hand in his pocket and throw money at the club. Let's suppose that the Bournemouth and Leicester owners have done that, why must Gao have that obligation. I get that we all want our club to kick on, and that money may make that happen, but why does the owner have that obligation? What's in it for him? How will be get a return? And please won't reply with this 'net spend winners' stuff - you, Turkish and others are confusing / conflating spending our money with injection on money by the owner.

 

I don’t think he obliged to spend anything, but fact is we are competing with clubs who have owners who do. If a club our size has a skint owner it’s just a matter of time before we go down, the likes of Bournemouth and Watford are already ahead of us.

 

We were told that Gao would take us to a new level, that was clearly lies so why should we believe a word he says now. It’s still not clear why the c*nt even brought the club, now we’re being told we’re gonna just **** about in the bottom half for a few more seasons max until we inevitably go down because our owner is skint. Have we even seen a set of accounts which cover his time in charge yet?

[benjii]

All very wordy pal but we're back to this perception that the owner is obliged to put his hand in his pocket and throw money at the club. Let's suppose that the Bournemouth and Leicester owners have done that, why must Gao have that obligation. I get that we all want our club to kick on, and that money may make that happen, but why does the owner have that obligation? What's in it for him? How will be get a return? And please won't reply with this 'net spend winners' stuff - you, Turkish and others are confusing / conflating spending our money with injection on money by the owner.

 

What's your point? I'm really not sure what argument you are trying to advance.

 

Is it disappointing to be financially outdone by tinpot clubs like Bournemouth and Watford? Yes.

 

Is it disappointing to be owned by a foreigner with no connection, no ambition, no desire to build bridges, no empathy and no plan? Yes.

 

This FT interview reinforces those disappointments.

 

I don't see people clamouring for hundreds of millions to be poured in. I just see people despondent that their football team, one of their city's prizes assets, an important part of the community, has been sold down the river to a remote chancer whose motives seem ambivalent at best.

 

If you can't see a problem with that then you're the problem.

[verlaine1979]

All very wordy pal but we're back to this perception that the owner is obliged to put his hand in his pocket and throw money at the club. Let's suppose that the Bournemouth and Leicester owners have done that, why must Gao have that obligation. I get that we all want our club to kick on, and that money may make that happen, but why does the owner have that obligation? What's in it for him? How will be get a return? And please won't reply with this 'net spend winners' stuff - you, Turkish and others are confusing / conflating spending our money with injection on money by the owner.

 

You seem to be confused. I'm not saying that Gao is obliged to put money into the club. I'm simply pointing out that in a world where, over time, budget correlates with performance, if we spend significantly less than our peers, we will eventually fall behind them. And in football, there's a specific word for falling behind, and it begins with R.

 

My starting point is that I want us to be competitive and work back from there. If the prevailing economic reality in the league is that the owner has to support the club for it to compete, then yes, I'll be dissatisfied if we're one of the small number of clubs in that position where the owner is either unwilling or unable to do so.

 

I'm not really sure why you're finding this so difficult to grasp? Or are you just content for the club to be eventually relegated as long as it means we remain pure and self-sustaining?

[saint1977]

What's your point? I'm really not sure what argument you are trying to advance.

 

Is it disappointing to be financially outdone by tinpot clubs like Bournemouth and Watford? Yes.

 

Is it disappointing to be owned by a foreigner with no connection, no ambition, no desire to build bridges, no empathy and no plan? Yes.

 

This FT interview reinforces those disappointments.

 

I don't see people clamouring for hundreds of millions to be poured in. I just see people despondent that their football team, one of their city's prizes assets, an important part of the community, has been sold down the river to a remote chancer whose motives seem ambivalent at best.

 

If you can't see a problem with that then you're the problem.

 

100% this, excellent post

[Kingsland Red]

What's your point? I'm really not sure what argument you are trying to advance.

 

Is it disappointing to be financially outdone by tinpot clubs like Bournemouth and Watford? Yes.

 

Is it disappointing to be owned by a foreigner with no connection, no ambition, no desire to build bridges, no empathy and no plan? Yes.

 

This FT interview reinforces those disappointments.

 

I don't see people clamouring for hundreds of millions to be poured in. I just see people despondent that their football team, one of their city's prizes assets, an important part of the community, has been sold down the river to a remote chancer whose motives seem ambivalent at best.

 

If you can't see a problem with that then you're the problem.

 

Good post. The disconnection between club / city and owner is a worrying way forward.

[egg]

What's your point? I'm really not sure what argument you are trying to advance.

 

Is it disappointing to be financially outdone by tinpot clubs like Bournemouth and Watford? Yes.

 

Is it disappointing to be owned by a foreigner with no connection, no ambition, no desire to build bridges, no empathy and no plan? Yes.

 

This FT interview reinforces those disappointments.

 

I don't see people clamouring for hundreds of millions to be poured in. I just see people despondent that their football team, one of their city's prizes assets, an important part of the community, has been sold down the river to a remote chancer whose motives seem ambivalent at best.

 

If you can't see a problem with that then you're the problem.

 

What's my point? The FT article highlights that Gao thinks we should be self sufficient. I have asked what the issue is with that. The responses go on about net spend winners, Bournemouth, community club, etc. None of thay has any relevance to the point about the club owner wanting his (not our) club to be self sufficient. Accept it, moaning won't change anything.

 

Anyone with a degree of business acumen can understand where Gao is coming from. Putting X millions into the club will not yield a return for him. I understand that, and my pointing out the obvious does not make me "the problem". The problem is naive and expectant fans who can't comprehend why somebody doesn't want to sink millions into a football club that he won't get back.

 

Gao motives are not "ambivalent". He's a Chinese business man. He wants status. He has it. He wants a long term blue chip investment. He has it. Whether he has other motives, who knows, but in his time with us he's had the balls to wield the axe when needed, he's hired a fantastic manager, he's spent money last summer, we (apparently) are busy already this summer.

 

Stop flapping.