Shareholder loan converted into equity

[willyfog]

I think due to some astute business and an excellent current crop coming out of the academy we will be ok for the next few years.

Having the 8th highest wage bill last season and 6th highest this season, probably points to where we might be overspending.

Acuns done a decent job increasing revenue, but he needs to get a better handle on outgoings. Silly loan fees and unnecessary big wages (Sinik, Racioppi etc) have really impacted us. The EFL have helped him out this year

 

[balkan tiger]

£3m is the headline figure


None of the safe standing or works around the stadium has been paid for by the club.

Amazing how much you can get done for a three figure sum.

 

[Jim the Tiger]

True. Nor to just about anyone else.
Simple question, which you've already been asked once but ignored ... how on earth can he be "milking the club dry" when he's still funding the club to the tune of how ever many hundred thousand a week it's costing him?
Jim, what you are saying honestly makes no sense whatsoever. Just because you've heard talk of some small business not getting paid on time, something you quite possibly don't know the full story about, don't let it cause you to loose your senses and all reason about what is actually going on.

The turks empty the club account the minute the central funding or any other payments land. What part of that is so difficult to understand? By doing so they prevent the staff paying the operational costs. Something which was highlighted when the wages couldn't be paid and more recently, as told to me by a club employee, prevents them from paying suppliers, some of which refuse to now provide the services.

This is my last reply on the subject as you're clearly in a world of your own, as highlighted by a dozen or more posters who can see your delusions too.

 

[PLT]

I think due to some astute business and an excellent current crop coming out of the academy we will be ok for the next few years.

Having the 8th highest wage bill last season and 6th highest this season, probably points to where we might be overspending.

Acuns done a decent job increasing revenue, but he needs to get a better handle on outgoings. Silly loan fees and unnecessary big wages (Sinik, Racioppi etc) have really impacted us. The EFL have helped him out this year

We don't have figures yet for this or last season's wage bill. The 23/24 season is the most recent and for that season our wage bill was 10th highest; less than that of Middlesbrough, Watford, Stoke, Bristol City, West Brom, Norwich, Leicester, Leeds and Southampton.

 

[IPredictAFryatt]

We don't have figures yet for this or last season's wage bill. The 23/24 season is the most recent and for that season our wage bill was 10th highest; less than that of Middlesbrough, Watford, Stoke, Bristol City, West Brom, Norwich, Leicester, Leeds and Southampton.

I was just about to question that. Do we even have last season's?

Surely that'll have dropped given the likes of Seri and Tufan left. I suppose last summer's signings were on a whack though to make up for it.

 

[SydneyTiger14]

The point I tried to make earlier and that I believe Willy is trying to do as well is that player sales whilst included aren’t guaranteed. Especially during the season depending on the payment structure the clubs agree.

City benefit from the revenue being fairly consistent as the memberships are monthly but cash flow could still be an issue in some months with lower gate receipts etc.

To your point that next set of accounts will include the bigger player sales. It will also include the larger sum of our acquisitions you would think.

We were operating at a loss of ~350k per week but you can imagine that heavily fluctuated some weeks.

Payment structure is irrelevant.

 

[SydneyTiger14]

It’s just how accounts are reported. It’s not my take on it but an accounting principle. In the same way a companies depreciation of its assets is included in its operating profit/loss.

Its a bit more subjective than you're making it out as to what constitutes normal operations for a business, and even putting that aside, when assessing the going concern of a business would still assess all saleable assets.

 

[HCAFCHangout]

Payment structure is irrelevant.

How? I understand from a year end accounting POV but again overall cash flow week by week is very relevant

 

[SydneyTiger14]

and while £3million isn’t necessarily peanuts, at our current rate of spending we’d need to sell 5 Alfie Jones each season.

No we wouldn't. The income of 3m is recognised immediately, the expense of amortising Hughes' purchase is about 700k a year, for instance.

 

[SydneyTiger14]

How? I understand from a year end accounting POV but again overall cash flow week by week is very relevant

Because we're talking profit and loss for PSR not cash flow. If you want to bring up cash flow then operating loss is even less relevant as a large portion of our losses are amortisation costs which aren't cash.

 

[HCAFCHangout]

Because we're talking profit and loss for PSR not cash flow. If you want to bring up cash flow then operating loss is even less relevant as a large portion of our losses are amortisation costs which aren't cash.

As I originally discussed earlier in the thread. I was talking about cash flow but it was completely ignored

 

[Gone For A Walk]

The turks empty the club account the minute the central funding or any other payments land. What part of that is so difficult to understand? By doing so they prevent the staff paying the operational costs. Something which was highlighted when the wages couldn't be paid and more recently, as told to me by a club employee, prevents them from paying suppliers, some of which refuse to now provide the services.

This is my last reply on the subject as you're clearly in a world of your own, as highlighted by a dozen or more posters who can see your delusions too.

Jim, I'm not in a world of my own. You get liked from the same 2 or 3 entrenched posters. Honestly, what you are saying is plain daft. Basically you are saying that he takes a couple of quid out in return for putting a tenner in. The debt was £65 MILLION. He effectively wrote off a quarter of that. In simple terms he's put in £65 MILLION more that he's taken out ....and every week that goes by, he puts in more. I previously had you down as sensible and intelligent, but what you are now saying about him "milking the club" and your rationale for saying it is simply bonkers!

 

[HCAFCHangout]

Jim, I'm not in a world of my own. You get liked from the same 2 or 3 entrenched posters. Honestly, what you are saying is plain daft. Basically you are saying that he takes a couple of quid out in return for putting a tenner in. The debt was £65 MILLION. He effectively wrote off a quarter of that. In simple terms he's put in £65 MILLION more that he's taken out ....and every week that goes by, he puts in more. I previously had you down as sensible and intelligent, but what you are now saying about him "milking the club" and your rationale for saying it is simply bonkers!

He put it in via a loan that has 5% interest. Not sure what dividends he’s taking, if any, but let’s not pretend like he doesn’t take money out the club.

 

[Trumpton Tiger.]

I think you mean "insipid"

Do I? Insipid or Intrepid or even tepid?, it was it was still a rip off at £6.40 a go when it's not even a full pint. Be the last £6.40 they will get out of me.

 

[Gone For A Walk]

He put it in via a loan that has 5% interest. Not sure what dividends he’s taking, if any, but let’s not pretend like he doesn’t take money out the club.

As others have commented, there's tax reasons for making a market rate interest charge.
Nobody is pretending he doesn't take money out of the club (if that's how you choose to frame it), but, to keep it simple, the analogy is that for every £1 or so he might be 'taking out' he's putting another £10 back in (or probably more like £100 or more).
Who the hell do you think has put in £65 MILLION??!! The tooth fairy?
Please stop this madness.

 

[Heimdallr]

He put it in via a loan that has 5% interest. Not sure what dividends he’s taking, if any, but let’s not pretend like he doesn’t take money out the club.

If true, charging 5% on a £50-65 million loan to a business with relatively few tangible assets in this climate doesn't come across as someone milking the club. The Allams were taking 5 % when the base rate was near zero.

 

[HCAFCHangout]

As others have commented, there's tax reasons for making a market rate interest charge.
Nobody is pretending he doesn't take money out of the club (if that's how you choose to frame it), but, to keep it simple, the analogy is that for every £1 or so he might be 'taking out' he's putting another £10 back in (or probably more like £100 or more).
Who the hell do you think has put in £65 MILLION??!! The tooth fairy?
Please stop this madness.

I’d take your point if that was entirely correct on how interest rates work. Many have given him the correct credit for writing off a chunk of the debt via the methods he has done.

That still leaves whatever debt owed to Acun Medya at 5% interest. Which again, I could buy the notion of it being for tax reasons if it weren’t a higher than average rate for a directors loan.

Assuming it’s ~£40m worth of debt that’s still £2m once the debt has been paid he will be taking out. And that’s before potential dividends.

He’s entitled to make money off the club for what it’s worth but I’m not going to pretend that the money invested in so far is some great charitable act as it stands. If he writes off the whole amount then fair enough.

 

[HCAFCHangout]

If true, charging 5% on a £50-65 million loan to a business with relatively few tangible assets in this climate doesn't come across as someone milking the club. The Allams were taking 5 % when the base rate was near zero.

It’s not extortionate but there’s precedent of director loans being around 1%.

 

[Heimdallr]

It’s not extortionate but there’s precedent of director loans being around 1%.

I'm out of touch with UK accountancy. I thought a directors loan was what a director took out of the company in lieu of a salary, as a more tax efficient way of getting paid, not the other way round as you state and loaning money to a company. So I'll have to hold my hands to not knowing.

That Swiss report fella stated that the Allams took out nearly 40 million in interest payments and directors loans from city over their tenure.

 

[Kalman II]

I'm out of touch with UK accountancy. I thought a directors loan was what a director took out of the company in lieu of a salary, as a more tax efficient way of getting paid, not the other way round as you state and loaning money to a company. So I'll have to hold my hands to not knowing.

That Swiss report fella stated that the Allams took out nearly 40 million in interest payments and directors loans from city over their tenure.

Shareholder loan is the more appropriate term.