-
The forum upgrades are now largely complete.
Please read this thread for more details.
New user registrations are currently disabled.
How much is the clubs debt?
- Thread starter On Tour
- Start date
- Status
Rickybilly
Striker
Which is what I thought. He has put money into the club but its not charity or donations its loans to the club. Whilst I appreciate that these loans may be interest free nevertheless he wants the money back ( which is why he wants a certain amount for the club). I say all this because the club makes him out to be some sort of benefactor when he's not. He's invested in the club but that investment has catestrophically failed largely because of his own incompetence, direct or otherwise.
Does “other operating costs” include player amortisation?
If so I don’t get why the debt is so high.
Do we know what finances are held offshore?
Rickybilly
Striker
Surely finances are finances wherever they are held. Would it make a difference or are you alluding to undisclosed funds!?!
Grump man keeps saying that we're not privy to any held in Jersey.
I'm still nowhere near convinced that Short isn't taking the club for a ride. There's been so many deals/sponsorships/partnerships etc to keep an eye on.
Rickybilly
Striker
Hhmmn, so he converts his loans into share capital so that he gets his money back from the sale of the shares rather than the proceeds going to pay off the other creditor(s)?
Yes, but he's also responsible for wasting it while destroying us in the process.
Don't feel any sympathy for the gonk.
Rickybilly
Striker
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.
Grumpy Old Man
Striker
No it doesn't. The debt is so high because we have paid out £175m more in transfer fees than we have received.
It also means that if he can't get £101m for the shares, he loses. If he sells the club, he will only ever sell the shares. More likely, he will the shares in Drumaville, which is what happened when he bought the club.
Last edited:
Jasper
Striker
He will only get the loans that were capitalised back if he actually sells the club for sufficient money. They’re not loans anymore.
Plus people must be having a laugh if they think it was rosy before he came in. Dread to think where we would be if he hadn’t.
Grumpy Old Man
Striker
Of course he is. I've never claimed he's a benefactor, any more than Mike Ashley and Roman Abraomovic are. The Jersey company is only there because it was created by the Irish, and Short bought it, rather than the club direct, doubtless for tax reasons. There are only three ways he can get money out of the club; by way of salary, which he's never done, by way of loan interest or repayments, which he hasn't either, or by dividend, which can't be done legally due to the accumulated losses.
He's almost certainly done deals on the back of contacts made by being the owner, but that is neither illegal nor unethical.
Quillips
Striker
They can be a real pain in the arse ...
Grumpy Old Man
Striker
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.
Rickybilly
Striker
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?
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.
Jasper
Striker
Indeed. Plus, our owners at the time were mostly plunged into the shit when the Irish financial and housing markets fell through the floor.
J
JimmyQuinn
Guest
That's what gets me - the people who blame Drumaville for starting the financial rot don't acknowledge that Short, a man brought in with an apparent nose for good business decisions, just continued it.
Drumaville would have stayed around a bit longer had the property market in Ireland not gone to shit.
Jasper
Striker
If you’re sure perhaps you could provide some evidence?
Plus nobody here is defending Short, what @Grumpy Old Man is trying to do is enlighten people to the reality of the financial situation at the club at present and in the past, instead of being reliant on conjecture and misinformation.
This. And this.
Grumpy Old Man
Striker
£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.
- Status
