36.5 million


Status
Not open for further replies.
£64m, £57.8m, £69.5m, £77.1m and £83.9m



Absolute cobblers.

There is an external loan for £68m, and a debt to Short's holding company of £69m. Oh, and the small matter of £101m of earlier debt turned into shares. It may be true to say that he's not going to subsidise it further, but the subsidy is already there.





Under Niall Quinn's chairmanship, club debt went from £35m to £96m. Quinn was a football man, but had the financial acumen of a whelk.
What do you think our annual wage bill is now factoring in players leaving and wage reductions? Surely the wage costs will be below £35 million.
 
We won't protest we just accept any old shite

so what was the difference in 2006 ? the fans must of reached some sort of end of patience ?, that is one question i have always wanted answered.
 
Free ticket brigade maybe who just go for premier league football

interesting answer, i always thought it was more to do with the 19 and 15 point seasons, i felt at the time, their was a breaking point i am not sure when it was, but something in the support snapped, and yet in the present day, many seem happy just to keep on as is
 
Under Niall Quinn's chairmanship, club debt went from £35m to £96m. Quinn was a football man, but had the financial acumen of a whelk.

You would expect Short to have his shit together with finances and also being able to head hunt good football people. You would think with his background he had a clue... but there was hardly a thing he did correct. A total cluster fuck.
 
how much cash needs to be generated to pay down the debts ? just a question that i was just thinking about, as in will the owner be reducing it right down to £0.00 or is their a cut off point ?@Grumpy Old Man.

Who knows? We don't even know which debt may be being paid down, internal or external. Technically, neither needs to be paid off in full. The external debt could be refinanced, while Short will want to see it come down to a level where the purchase price is low enough to attract a buyer, but high enough to minimise his shortfall.

What do you think our annual wage bill is now factoring in players leaving and wage reductions? Surely the wage costs will be below £35 million.

I was thinking £25-30m for the coming season, but £35m is not out of the question.
 
Who knows? We don't even know which debt may be being paid down, internal or external. Technically, neither needs to be paid off in full. The external debt could be refinanced, while Short will want to see it come down to a level where the purchase price is low enough to attract a buyer, but high enough to minimise his shortfall.

Interesting, thanks for the response.
 
Who knows? We don't even know which debt may be being paid down, internal or external. Technically, neither needs to be paid off in full. The external debt could be refinanced, while Short will want to see it come down to a level where the purchase price is low enough to attract a buyer, but high enough to minimise his shortfall.



I was thinking £25-30m for the coming season, but £35m is not out of the question.
I was actually thinking £25-30m as well. But if our wage bill was £83mil that's a big drop in wages. I think if we don't achieve promotion in the next 2-3 seasons they will want to get that down to around £15-20m.
 
Who knows? We don't even know which debt may be being paid down, internal or external. Technically, neither needs to be paid off in full. The external debt could be refinanced, while Short will want to see it come down to a level where the purchase price is low enough to attract a buyer, but high enough to minimise his shortfall.



I was thinking £25-30m for the coming season, but £35m is not out of the question.
I don't know why you bother looking at finance threads on here, most people are just spouting the same ill informed crap in each one.

I know you said you've looked at the sbc loan filing, does it include covenants? If not then for all we know some / the whole of their loan is due for repayment on relegation, net debt/EBITDA ratio changes or whatever else they wanted to include.
 
I don't know why you bother looking at finance threads on here, most people are just spouting the same ill informed crap in each one.

I know you said you've looked at the sbc loan filing, does it include covenants? If not then for all we know some / the whole of their loan is due for repayment on relegation, net debt/EBITDA ratio changes or whatever else they wanted to include.

There's nothing in the charge documents, but there's no requirement to file the actual loan agreements. Any covenants not related to the assets under charge, like total indebtedness or changes in league status would be in there without a disclosure requirement. It's entirely possible that transfer funds could have had to be used to repay the SBC loan, at least in part, to avoid a breach of covenant.

I post in threads like this in the vain hope of correcting some of the more egregious errors and, umm, lack of accounting knowledge, and the odd close to libellous comment implying fraud by the owner. It does feel like I'm banging my head on a wall sometimes, though.
 
There's nothing in the charge documents, but there's no requirement to file the actual loan agreements. Any covenants not related to the assets under charge, like total indebtedness or changes in league status would be in there without a disclosure requirement. It's entirely possible that transfer funds could have had to be used to repay the SBC loan, at least in part, to avoid a breach of covenant.

I post in threads like this in the vain hope of correcting some of the more egregious errors and, umm, lack of accounting knowledge, and the odd close to libellous comment implying fraud by the owner. It does feel like I'm banging my head on a wall sometimes, though.

I have been very interested in your posts, keep them up, it was certainly good having a poster than understands these things, during the release of the accounts, not long back.
 
There's nothing in the charge documents, but there's no requirement to file the actual loan agreements. Any covenants not related to the assets under charge, like total indebtedness or changes in league status would be in there without a disclosure requirement. It's entirely possible that transfer funds could have had to be used to repay the SBC loan, at least in part, to avoid a breach of covenant.

I post in threads like this in the vain hope of correcting some of the more egregious errors and, umm, lack of accounting knowledge, and the odd close to libellous comment implying fraud by the owner. It does feel like I'm banging my head on a wall sometimes, though.
With your knowledge, and patience, you really ought to be made a Moderator on this site, seriously.
 
We need to balance books for a few years, what were people expecting, the manager gets to spend what we receive in transfer fees....

Some idiots on here reckon we should be risking everything and buying £10m players on 60k a week and spunking the Pickford money, putting ourselves into more debt.

They literally haven't got a clue. That's what got us into this fkn mess and they want to keep doing it.

Deluded I tells ya.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top