This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Takeover in weeks?
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
 bexleydave  Barnehurst 21 Jun 19 1.08pm |
   |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by lefty27
Who is? If you look at the other premier league teams debts are look minuscule. Everton, Newcastle have debts of over £100 million. I think only Burnley rum at a profit and maybe one or two others.
Bexley Dave Can you hear the Brighton sing? I can't hear a ******* thing! "The most arrogant, obnoxious bunch of deluded little sun tanned, loafer wearing mummy's boys I've ever had the misfortune of having to listen to" (Burnley forum) |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
taylors lovechild  21 Jun 19 2.45pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Forgive my ignorance, but is an owner able to force the club to repay the debt at any point? For example, our debt to the owners is stated as a comparatively low £26m, which in theory they could fully recover from the sale of AWB or Zaha if they wanted to. Whereas Chelsea are indebted to Abramovic to the tune of 1.1 billion. If he decided to call it a day could he just sell off the assets until he got his money if he couldn't find a buyer? I'm guessing the answer is yes if there are no other shareholders? I notice Brighton have effectively been bankrolled too which I guess may impact their spending given they have few players worth much and spent significant amounts on dross
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Painter Croydon 21 Jun 19 3.30pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by bexleydave
How can they report a profit, if they are beholden to loans from the owners, who keep pumping in money to keep them afloat, in the Weeds case £200m odd.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Midlands Eagle 21 Jun 19 3.45pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by taylors lovechild
Forgive my ignorance, but is an owner able to force the club to repay the debt at any point? For example, our debt to the owners is stated as a comparatively low £26m, which in theory they could fully recover from the sale of AWB or Zaha if they wanted to. Whereas Chelsea are indebted to Abramovic to the tune of 1.1 billion. If he decided to call it a day could he just sell off the assets until he got his money if he couldn't find a buyer? I'm guessing the answer is yes if there are no other shareholders? Assuming that there are no agreements in place regarding the loan repayments then the lenders could be repaid in full out of the sale proceeds in theory. In practice most transfer fees are not paid up front in full but in tranches over a period If a company is insolvent it is illegal to pay off one creditor (or loan) in preference to others. That won't really apply to Palace but it would to Chelsea so Abramovic would never get his money back by selling assets as it would leave the club insolvent.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Midlands Eagle 21 Jun 19 3.51pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Painter
How can they report a profit, if they are beholden to loans from the owners, who keep pumping in money to keep them afloat, in the Weeds case £200m odd. Profit and Loss is very different to cash flow. If you buy a player for £10m and give him a four year contract that will mean a cost of £2.5m a year against the profit and loss but you will still need funds of £10m to buy him in the first place. Assuming that we sell AWB in the next 9 days (which is the end of our year) we will show a profit of £50m (or whatever) this year on that transaction alone but the reverse will happen as it's doubtful whether Man U will pay the full amount up front but will stage the payments over (perhaps) three years so whilst we will show a huge profit it won't be cash in the bank
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| scuffy orpington 21 Jun 19 4.01pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Or they could just take the money out of the business in the form of dividends. Originally posted by Midlands Eagle
Assuming that there are no agreements in place regarding the loan repayments then the lenders could be repaid in full out of the sale proceeds in theory. In practice most transfer fees are not paid up front in full but in tranches over a period If a company is insolvent it is illegal to pay off one creditor (or loan) in preference to others. That won't really apply to Palace but it would to Chelsea so Abramovic would never get his money back by selling assets as it would leave the club insolvent.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| taylors lovechild 21 Jun 19 4.01pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Midlands Eagle
Assuming that there are no agreements in place regarding the loan repayments then the lenders could be repaid in full out of the sale proceeds in theory. In practice most transfer fees are not paid up front in full but in tranches over a period If a company is insolvent it is illegal to pay off one creditor (or loan) in preference to others. That won't really apply to Palace but it would to Chelsea so Abramovic would never get his money back by selling assets as it would leave the club insolvent. Thanks for clarifying.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 Cucking Funt Clapham on the Back 21 Jun 19 4.21pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Midlands Eagle
Assuming that there are no agreements in place regarding the loan repayments then the lenders could be repaid in full out of the sale proceeds in theory. In practice most transfer fees are not paid up front in full but in tranches over a period If a company is insolvent it is illegal to pay off one creditor (or loan) in preference to others. That won't really apply to Palace but it would to Chelsea so Abramovic would never get his money back by selling assets as it would leave the club insolvent. Unless HMRC are a creditor, in which case they now have preference.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| the_mcanuff_stuff Caterham 21 Jun 19 5.43pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Painter
How can they report a profit, if they are beholden to loans from the owners, who keep pumping in money to keep them afloat, in the Weeds case £200m odd. I'm afraid it's not that simple. As long as you've got more money coming in (gates, TV money, merchandise etc.) than going out (staff wages, maintenance, loan interest etc.) then you're making a profit. Loans have nothing to do with if a business is profitable, other than that the interest is booked in the red column. There's loads of companies that make a profit despite shed loads of debt. As long as income>expenditure, you're profitable.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| est1905 21 Jun 19 5.55pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Painter
If the Premier is still such a golden egg, why are they having a lot of problems replacing Scudamore. There is no such agreement that future deals will rise, as BTs interest is declining. Amazon are in the frame now, but their business model isn't based around sport, so wont pay over the odds. AWB hasn't been sold yet and if he is the money will be used for new players, very few Premier clubs operate in profit, its not the transfers but the wages. Palaces income to wages ratio is among the worst in the Premier, moving AWB on isn't going to help much as he was the lowest earner. So 50m isn't going to show up on the accounts? And yes, the TV contract negotiations for the Premiership are indeed upwards only. This is a fact. but dont take my word for it, its public information thats out there. Look it up.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Sherlock Holmesdale Milton Keynes 21 Jun 19 6.06pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by scuffy
Or they could just take the money out of the business in the form of dividends. If the business owed you millions of pounds in the form of a loan then it would be incredibly stupid to take money out by way of dividends. There would also need to be sufficient P&L reserves to enable you to pay a dividend
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Vaibow vancouver/croydon 22 Jun 19 12.07am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Painter
How can they report a profit, if they are beholden to loans from the owners, who keep pumping in money to keep them afloat, in the Weeds case £200m odd. you got a painting business, you got staff that go out and paint. the money they bring in, pays their wages and materials, stock, transport etc. Hopefully a bit of money left over for a profit. You want to expand, get bigger, better tools, more experienced staff, you get a loan out to make this happen. You owe the bank money and a percentage of your profits are what slowly pays it off... or... if you decide to down size, then the money generated from sales pays it off.... loans are a side issue.
This was once a quality forum.... |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.