How much is the clubs debt?

[Fetch Fletch]

I'm with you, mate, although I doubt very much if he has succeeded. What I do believe is that we are simply not been told the truth and that Short is being made out to be some sort of benefactor when in reality he is an investor trying to get his money back no matter what disastrous legacy will remain.

Imagine wasting all that money and making all them shit decisions then expecting it all back

£40m of the SBC loan replaced an existing overdraft; the remainder was new borrowing. Probably taken out because Short was out of cash. Short's total investment is, by my reckoning around £105m. The figure I've heard most widely quoted for the amount paid to the Irish was £30m. For that, he got a Jersey company whose main asset was a £96m loan to the club. Effectively, he bought that loan on the cheap. Since then, he's turned that loan, plus another £5m into shares, and loaned the club another £69m. So we get his input as £30m purchase price + another £5m shares + £69m loans = £105m. That's his breakeven number on selling.

Are investments guaranteed?

 

[WHD]

In two seasons, Quinn and Keane had managed to increase the debt from £35m to £96m, the figure the day Short bought us. We might have been doing relatively well on the pitch, but it was at the cost of financial stability. Short's greatest error was continuing in the same vein.

Yet Quinn is lauded as a hero who saved the club and Short is scum who killed the club.

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

To be honest, while I appreciate the knowledge shared and insight into financial side provided by @Grumpy Old Man I get wound up that he seems to portray Short as a benefactor, unlucky mugged but now entitled to a full refund.
He's not 'a fan' and has no love for SAFC the way we do. He's a businessman who invested purely to make money, then changed strategy about a dozen times, looking for a money-making plan.
He failed dramatically because he made bad appointments and decisions at every stage. I really don't see why he should be entitled to his money back. He took a gamble and lost.
Hard luck mate. Now write off the debt that YOU caused and YOU are responsible for and fuck off.
As other posters have suggested, I'm sure he's made more on added perks and side-line investments.

As i pointed out above, I've never claimed he was a benefactor; I'm sorry if I've given that impression. Maybe that's because I have to talk about the numbers with some professional detachment in order to explain things as clearly as I can, particularly in trying to get people to understand why he's doing what he's doing.

 

[Rickybilly]

To be honest, while I appreciate the knowledge shared and insight into financial side provided by @Grumpy Old Man I get wound up that he seems to portray Short as a benefactor, unlucky mugged but now entitled to a full refund.
He's not 'a fan' and has no love for SAFC the way we do. He's a businessman who invested purely to make money, then changed strategy about a dozen times, looking for a money-making plan.
He failed dramatically because he made bad appointments and decisions at every stage. I really don't see why he should be entitled to his money back. He took a gamble and lost.
Hard luck mate. Now write off the debt that YOU caused and YOU are responsible for and fuck off.
As other posters have suggested, I'm sure he's made more on added perks and side-line investments.

What really bugs me is when Short turned on one fan and said "why don't you put your money into the club?" when many supporters did through share purchase and had them compulsory purchased back at a loss by Drumville, a company that he now owns!

 

[Pilot Light]

Imagine wasting all that money and making all them shit decisions then expecting it all back

Bingo. No accountability for those who can afford expensive accountants

 

[WHD]

To be honest, while I appreciate the knowledge shared and insight into financial side provided by @Grumpy Old Man I get wound up that he seems to portray Short as a benefactor, unlucky mugged but now entitled to a full refund.

I don't think he's done anything of the sort. All he's done is show facts and figures, which when presented to those with an an agenda against Short, they read it as "defending" him.

 

[Fetch Fletch]

I don't think he's done anything of the sort. All he's done is show facts and figures, which when presented to those with an an agenda against Short, they read it as "defending" him.

"Those with an agenda" give ower man

 

[Rickybilly]

As i pointed out above, I've never claimed he was a benefactor; I'm sorry if I've given that impression. Maybe that's because I have to talk about the numbers with some professional detachment in order to explain things as clearly as I can, particularly in trying to get people to understand why he's doing what he's doing.

To be fair @Grumpy Old Man that is the impression that you have always given me although perhaps that's because I am not a trained accountant !

 

[Pilot Light]

As i pointed out above, I've never claimed he was a benefactor; I'm sorry if I've given that impression. Maybe that's because I have to talk about the numbers with some professional detachment in order to explain things as clearly as I can, particularly in trying to get people to understand why he's doing what he's doing.

What I really get is your explanation of the current picture - thank you
What I really don't get is the acceptance that despite all the mistakes he's made, Short has an entitlement to a full return.

 

[WHD]

"Those with an agenda" give ower man

Not at all. I've lost count the amount of times it's been said on here Short it asset stripping the club and pocketing transfer cash, when it's complete bullshit.

He's fucked up and the buck stops with him, but some if the stuff said about him is made up pure fantasy.

What I really get is your explanation of the current picture - thank you
What I really don't get is the acceptance that despite all the mistakes he's made, Short has an entitlement to a full return.

Who has said this?

 

[Blond Bombshell]

But surely not all the shortfall was covered by Short, wasn't some covered by SCB or whatever they're called? Wasn't Short' s loan not 69m? If so that is the amount that he needs to sell the club for to get his money back leaving the other debt to be restructured by the buyer?

Id heard he was looking for 60m same price as his London gaff

 

[JimmyQuinn]

£40m of the SBC loan replaced an existing overdraft; the remainder was new borrowing. Probably taken out because Short was out of cash. Short's total investment is, by my reckoning around £105m. The figure I've heard most widely quoted for the amount paid to the Irish was £30m. For that, he got a Jersey company whose main asset was a £96m loan to the club. Effectively, he bought that loan on the cheap. Since then, he's turned that loan, plus another £5m into shares, and loaned the club another £69m. So we get his input as £30m purchase price + another £5m shares + £69m loans = £105m. That's his breakeven number on selling.

Where is the £96m loan info from? Not disputing it, just always believed Drumaville got out with a (slight) profit.

 

[Kermit]

The investment is a bond that SBC required to have lodged with them as part of the loan deal. The face value is £20m, but at 2016 dollar values it comes out to the higher number. The cash number is down to the timing of PL money. They released a tranche a month earlier than usual; the more realistic 2015 figure was £2.6m. The bond can and probably will be offset against the loan. If that and transfer income can be used to get the SBC debt down to around £25m, it should be possible to refinance the remainder



March/April 2019

Thanks for all the helpful info you post on here mate. I was just wondering, is there any situation where it is beneficial for a business man with multiple business interests to have one in debt and/or making losses? Like tax breaks or something?

 

[Rickybilly]

£40m of the SBC loan replaced an existing overdraft; the remainder was new borrowing. Probably taken out because Short was out of cash. Short's total investment is, by my reckoning around £105m. The figure I've heard most widely quoted for the amount paid to the Irish was £30m. For that, he got a Jersey company whose main asset was a £96m loan to the club. Effectively, he bought that loan on the cheap. Since then, he's turned that loan, plus another £5m into shares, and loaned the club another £69m. So we get his input as £30m purchase price + another £5m shares + £69m loans = £105m. That's his breakeven number on selling.

I'm obliged, mate!

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

What I really get is your explanation of the current picture - thank you
What I really don't get is the acceptance that despite all the mistakes he's made, Short has an entitlement to a full return.

I haven't said that - I've said what his breakeven number is. That's a long way from saying he could or should get it.

 

[Bob Gurney's Ghost]

What I really get is your explanation of the current picture - thank you
What I really don't get is the acceptance that despite all the mistakes he's made, Short has an entitlement to a full return.

How do you know for certain he’s expecting a ‘full return’ of his money, and is not prepared to take some sort of a loss?

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

Where is the £96m loan info from? Not disputing it, just always believed Drumaville got out with a (slight) profit.

It's inferred from the first accounts from after Short took over. They showed £48m owing to Drumaville, but also £48m of loans turned into shares on the last day of the financial year. 48+48=96.

Thanks for all the helpful info you post on here mate. I was just wondering, is there any situation where it is beneficial for a business man with multiple business interests to have one in debt and/or making losses? Like tax breaks or something?

Only if there's a common ownership, which isn't the case here. Funnily enough, it is the case at Middlesbrough, which is a direct subsidiary of Gibson's main business, meaning he can offset their losses its profits.

 

[Rik-Safc]

None whatseoever. I'm just going to post some real numbers for about the third time this week. These are got at by adding together all the numbers in the accounts for the last ten years.

Turnover: £766..5m
Staff costs: £577.2m
Other operating costs: £192.1m
Interest: £34.9m
Cash outflow on players bought £309.m
Cash inflow from players sold: £125.8m

Debt on 1 August 2006 £35m
Debt at 31 July 2017 £137m
Debt converted to shares during that time £101m

The one thing that hasn't happened is Short getting anything back. It's all gone, pretty much to players, their agents, and other football clubs.

Shhhh... Don't talk sense. Short stole it all

 

[Kermit]

It's inferred from the first accounts from after Short took over. They showed £48m owing to Drumaville, but also £48m of loans turned into shares on the last day of the financial year. 48+48=96.



Only if there's a common ownership, which isn't the case here. Funnily enough, it is the case at Middlesbrough, which is a direct subsidiary of Gibson's main business, meaning he can offset their losses its profits.

Ok mate cheers. Just a getting a bit suspicious of auld ellis' motives here. It seems incredible that an obviously shrewd business man can balls things up so spectacularly! Particularly when he specialises in turning underperforming businesses around.

My next suspicion is he is in someway linked to SBC or one of its subsidiaries and he is getting some benefit from the high interest loan

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

Ok mate cheers. Just a getting a bit suspicious of auld ellis' motives here. It seems incredible that an obviously shrewd business man can balls things up so spectacularly! Particularly when he specialises in turning underperforming businesses around.

My next suspicion is he is in someway linked to SBC or one of its subsidiaries and he is getting some benefit from the high interest loan

I can debunk that one as well

They're one of America's biggest pension and life assurance companies with about $37bn under management, and are in turn owned by blue chip New York investment bankers Guggenheim Partners. It's just possible that Short might have bumped into a director socially, but the deal looks strictly arms length from the paperwork. Although the amount of our loan probably gets lost in the roundings of their accounts.