Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2019 16:27:15 GMT 1
It would make no sense at all to DH though. Being paid with his own money? Leave it out. DH gets his investment back (plus he could ask for x% on top per year) - I don't see where Phil gets the money from to pay for the Club otherwise. The money that DH lent to the club has to be paid back by the club, unless DH cancels the debt. Whatever money PH has agreed to pay DH has to come from PH. Legally it cannot come from the club. This will be a matter of public record over the coming years as the annual accounts are published. How much PH has agreed to pay and over what period is a private matter between DH and PH. Unless both parties agree there is no reason for this to stay anything other than confidential. Where PH gets the money will remain his business. The only thing we can be sure of is that it won't be from HTAFC Ltd funds. |
|
|
|
Post by Floyds on Aug 14, 2019 16:31:02 GMT 1
DH gets his investment back (plus he could ask for x% on top per year) - I don't see where Phil gets the money from to pay for the Club otherwise. The money that DH lent to the club has to be paid back by the club, unless DH cancels the debt. Whatever money PH has agreed to pay DH has to come from PH. Legally it cannot come from the club. This will be a matter of public record over the coming years as the annual accounts are published. How much PH has agreed to pay and over what period is a private matter between DH and PH. Unless both parties agree there is no reason for this to stay anything other than confidential. Where PH gets the money will remain his business. The only thing we can be sure of is that it won't be from HTAFC Ltd funds. Yeah I know - which is why the scenario I'm suggesting is (to me) more likely - PH acquiring the Club for a nominal sum and then the Club being legally bound to pay DH his money back + an agreed interest on the loan. DH gets his investment + a return and PH gets to own the club without putting any of his own money (which he may or may not have) in. It's all conjecture anyway so no real point in discussing further! |
|
E4b
Jimmy Glazzard Terrier
Posts: 4,268
|
Post by E4b on Aug 14, 2019 16:45:34 GMT 1
Have we still got the collection buckets?!!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2019 16:47:28 GMT 1
DH gets his investment back (plus he could ask for x% on top per year) - I don't see where Phil gets the money from to pay for the Club otherwise. The only thing we can be sure of is that it won't be from HTAFC Ltd funds. Up to the 3rd of July yes, from that point on who knows? Pure Sports Consultancy Limited might be one to watch. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2019 17:27:44 GMT 1
The only thing we can be sure of is that it won't be from HTAFC Ltd funds. Up to the 3rd of July yes, from that point on who knows? Pure Sports Consultancy Limited might be one to watch. Company law doesn't change on July 3rd.That is what defines what PH can and cannot do with HTAFC revenues and funds. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2019 17:29:36 GMT 1
The money that DH lent to the club has to be paid back by the club, unless DH cancels the debt. Whatever money PH has agreed to pay DH has to come from PH. Legally it cannot come from the club. This will be a matter of public record over the coming years as the annual accounts are published. How much PH has agreed to pay and over what period is a private matter between DH and PH. Unless both parties agree there is no reason for this to stay anything other than confidential. Where PH gets the money will remain his business. The only thing we can be sure of is that it won't be from HTAFC Ltd funds. Yeah I know - which is why the scenario I'm suggesting is (to me) more likely - PH acquiring the Club for a nominal sum and then the Club being legally bound to pay DH his money back + an agreed interest on the loan. DH gets his investment + a return and PH gets to own the club without putting any of his own money (which he may or may not have) in. It's all conjecture anyway so no real point in discussing further! Why would DH give the club away for nothing? He clearly stated that he SOLD 75% of the club to PH. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2019 17:42:53 GMT 1
Up to the 3rd of July yes, from that point on who knows? Pure Sports Consultancy Limited might be one to watch. Company law doesn't change on July 3rd.That is what defines what PH can and cannot do with HTAFC revenues and funds. Couldn't the capital used by PH to purchase HTAFC be borrowed, secured against the club's assets, with revenues and funds repaying the loan? Is the club worth anything? It wasn't an asset to DH but a liability, to the tune of £49m. A football chairman outside the top 4 being able to walk away scot-free (financially) after 10 years of ownership is a rare thing nowadays. Dean was ill and it seemed he was looking for a way out remember. |
|
mallyb
Darren Bullock Terrier
Posts: 922
|
Post by mallyb on Aug 14, 2019 18:35:03 GMT 1
Yeah I know - which is why the scenario I'm suggesting is (to me) more likely - PH acquiring the Club for a nominal sum and then the Club being legally bound to pay DH his money back + an agreed interest on the loan. DH gets his investment + a return and PH gets to own the club without putting any of his own money (which he may or may not have) in. It's all conjecture anyway so no real point in discussing further! Why would DH give the club away for nothing? He clearly stated that he SOLD 75% of the club to PH. So in your opinion, DH has got his £50M back and sold the club for millions. And the club is paying for canalside that is a private asset belonging to DH. If so get DH negotiating Brexit. It is entirely possible that the deal is a nominal fee for the club from PH and the club pays DH his £50M loan back. That would explain why we have no money and DH is paid by the clubs funds. DH can't demand his loan back without potentially closing the club down and most other buyers may not have been prepared to pay the loan back. If DH sells the club he pays tax on the profit at 50%. Loan repayment is tax free, so the loan repay of £50M is worth £100M in sale terms which the club is certainly not worth. Most owners don't get loans back and the loan will have been a taxable benefit to DH for the last 10 years. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2019 19:02:29 GMT 1
Why would DH give the club away for nothing? He clearly stated that he SOLD 75% of the club to PH. So in your opinion, DH has got his £50M back and sold the club for millions. And the club is paying for canalside that is a private asset belonging to DH. If so get DH negotiating Brexit. It is entirely possible that the deal is a nominal fee for the club from PH and the club pays DH his £50M loan back. That would explain why we have no money and DH is paid by the clubs funds. DH can't demand his loan back without potentially closing the club down and most other buyers may not have been prepared to pay the loan back. If DH sells the club he pays tax on the profit at 50%. Loan repayment is tax free, so the loan repay of £50M is worth £100M in sale terms which the club is certainly not worth. Most owners don't get loans back and the loan will have been a taxable benefit to DH for the last 10 years. Canalside belongs to Huddersfield Town not DH. I think this misconception comes about because of Dean saying “Canalside is his”. It effectively was, whilst he was the ultimate controlling party of Hudds Town. Now he isn’t. Have a look... beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/07337291/persons-with-significant-controlHuddersfield Town have >75% ownership and voting rights in Canalside, NOT Dean Hoyle. Phil Hodgkinson is the controlling party of Huddersfield Town, therefore Canalside is effectively his. |
|
|
|
Post by Up the Duff. on Aug 14, 2019 19:27:52 GMT 1
£23m profit first season in premier league... In the accounts wasn't it
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2019 19:29:03 GMT 1
Why would DH give the club away for nothing? He clearly stated that he SOLD 75% of the club to PH. So in your opinion, DH has got his £50M back and sold the club for millions. And the club is paying for canalside that is a private asset belonging to DH. If so get DH negotiating Brexit. It is entirely possible that the deal is a nominal fee for the club from PH and the club pays DH his £50M loan back. That would explain why we have no money and DH is paid by the clubs funds. DH can't demand his loan back without potentially closing the club down and most other buyers may not have been prepared to pay the loan back. If DH sells the club he pays tax on the profit at 50%. Loan repayment is tax free, so the loan repay of £50M is worth £100M in sale terms which the club is certainly not worth. Most owners don't get loans back and the loan will have been a taxable benefit to DH for the last 10 years. Are you answering me or MallyB, Floyds? You certainly cannot make the assumptions you have made from what I have written. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2019 19:30:41 GMT 1
So in your opinion, DH has got his £50M back and sold the club for millions. And the club is paying for canalside that is a private asset belonging to DH. If so get DH negotiating Brexit. It is entirely possible that the deal is a nominal fee for the club from PH and the club pays DH his £50M loan back. That would explain why we have no money and DH is paid by the clubs funds. DH can't demand his loan back without potentially closing the club down and most other buyers may not have been prepared to pay the loan back. If DH sells the club he pays tax on the profit at 50%. Loan repayment is tax free, so the loan repay of £50M is worth £100M in sale terms which the club is certainly not worth. Most owners don't get loans back and the loan will have been a taxable benefit to DH for the last 10 years. Canalside belongs to Huddersfield Town not DH. I think this misconception comes about because of Dean saying “Canalside is his”. It effectively was, whilst he was the ultimate controlling party of Hudds Town. Now he isn’t. Have a look... beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/07337291/persons-with-significant-controlHuddersfield Town have >75% ownership and voting rights in Canalside, NOT Dean Hoyle. Phil Hodgkinson is the controlling party of Huddersfield Town, therefore Canalside is effectively his. So what was this about? So what of PPG Canalside? “The PPG Canalside complex is owned by myself and £5m has gone into developing what is a superb training facility,” he said. “ If the club is ever sold, then the new owner has two options.“They can either buy it from me, or they can rent it on very, very attractive terms for the benefit of the club. It’s that simple. “And I am not meaning in any of this that the club is up for sale, because it’s not.” |
|
|
|
Post by alexdire on Aug 14, 2019 19:41:20 GMT 1
That was under Dean Hoyle, £Xm will have gone or be going out of the club to repay Dean Hoyle's loans and or to purchase the club from Dean Hoyle. At the moment we are guessing at that figure. People on here need to understand how limited companies work. PH cannot use HTAFC Ltd funds as a way to buy the club from DH.If he is not a salaried employee of the club, which I don't think he is, then his only 'take' would be in dividends on his 75% shareholding. DH would then get the same pence per share dividend on his 25%. The important point is that dividends can only be paid out of profits, which will be slim to none as long as we are outside the PL. DH loaned Htafc £50m, those loans need repaying and are the responsibility of htafc to pay back. That is what in talking about money leaving the club. We also don't know what for or how PH paid for the club. If he used the following to purchase the club. Then that's more money leaving. www.investopedia.com/terms/l/leveragedbuyout.asp#targetText=A%20leveraged%20buyout%20(LBO)%20is,assets%20of%20the%20acquiring%20company. |
|
|
|
Post by pilks123 on Aug 14, 2019 19:44:03 GMT 1
Tip to the opening post, maybe throw a few totals in there as it's easier to interpret and follow. Doing some rough totals on your numbers alone, and the simple assumption that revenue doesn't change in the 2nd prem year. Prem money - 241.5m Revenue - 30.6m Player Sales - 38m Total - 310m Wages - 159.6m Player Buys - 108m Misc Costs - 10m Total - 277.6m Difference - net 32.40m profit We've had our time in the sun and for while it was glorious (thinking of the utd win), but the club needs to cut its cloth accordingly if it's going to stay a float. Given the prem revenue will dry up in 3 years on the assumption we don't return any time soon. The biggest problem that I hope is visible here is the vast amount we've splashed on bang average players who we're most likely still paying the fees of for some time. Some would argue the squad is no stronger now than before the promotion campaign, sobering thought indeed  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2019 19:57:21 GMT 1
Canalside belongs to Huddersfield Town not DH. I think this misconception comes about because of Dean saying “Canalside is his”. It effectively was, whilst he was the ultimate controlling party of Hudds Town. Now he isn’t. Have a look... beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/07337291/persons-with-significant-controlHuddersfield Town have >75% ownership and voting rights in Canalside, NOT Dean Hoyle. Phil Hodgkinson is the controlling party of Huddersfield Town, therefore Canalside is effectively his. So what was this about? So what of PPG Canalside? “The PPG Canalside complex is owned by myself and £5m has gone into developing what is a superb training facility,” he said. “ If the club is ever sold, then the new owner has two options.“They can either buy it from me, or they can rent it on very, very attractive terms for the benefit of the club. It’s that simple. “And I am not meaning in any of this that the club is up for sale, because it’s not.” You best ask Dean. I suspect in his mind he had the possibility of separating Canalside away from Hudds Town so he retained a future potential revenue stream (especially if he was/is not expecting to get his directors loans into Hudds Town repaid) but maybe thought better of it...perhaps after an evening of contemplation that that might be considered Ken Davy esque !? |
|
|
|
Post by Captainslapper on Aug 14, 2019 20:27:30 GMT 1
Up to the 3rd of July yes, from that point on who knows? Pure Sports Consultancy Limited might be one to watch. Company law doesn't change on July 3rd.That is what defines what PH can and cannot do with HTAFC revenues and funds. This might be bollocks, but the general perception is that the Glaziers bought Man utd with money that the Club took on as a debt ( so effectively the club paid the previous owner, not the Glazier family ) From what youre saying, that couldn;t be true as its against the rules? |
|
|
|
Post by alexdire on Aug 14, 2019 20:32:22 GMT 1
Company law doesn't change on July 3rd.That is what defines what PH can and cannot do with HTAFC revenues and funds. This might be bollocks, but the general perception is that the Glaziers bought Man utd with money that the Club took on as a debt ( so effectively the club paid the previous owner, not the Glazier family ) From what youre saying, that couldn;t be true as its against the rules? Yes what is known as a leveraged buyout |
|
|
|
Post by alexdire on Aug 14, 2019 20:37:15 GMT 1
Company law doesn't change on July 3rd.That is what defines what PH can and cannot do with HTAFC revenues and funds. This might be bollocks, but the general perception is that the Glaziers bought Man utd with money that the Club took on as a debt ( so effectively the club paid the previous owner, not the Glazier family ) From what youre saying, that couldn;t be true as its against the rules? I know it's Wikipedia but this gives the details. They effectively borrowed against United's assets then placed the loans/ bonds on United's books en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glazer_ownership_of_Manchester_United |
|
|
|
Post by Captainslapper on Aug 14, 2019 20:47:22 GMT 1
This might be bollocks, but the general perception is that the Glaziers bought Man utd with money that the Club took on as a debt ( so effectively the club paid the previous owner, not the Glazier family ) From what youre saying, that couldn;t be true as its against the rules? I know it's Wikipedia but this gives the details. They effectively borrowed against United's assets then placed the loans/ bonds on United's books en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glazer_ownership_of_Manchester_UnitedCould Phil have done that? Borrowed against, say, the guaranteed income of the parachute payments to pay DH ? |
|
|
|
Post by alexdire on Aug 14, 2019 20:48:43 GMT 1
Could Phil have done that? Borrowed against, say, the guaranteed income of the parachute payments to pay DH ? Yes |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2019 21:26:13 GMT 1
Could Phil have done that? Borrowed against, say, the guaranteed income of the parachute payments to pay DH ? Yes That was the point I was making to ixion regarding pre 3rd July and post 3rd July HTAFC revenues effectively being used to fund the purchase, and why Pure Sports Consultancy Limited might be one to watch going forward, a la Red Football. Unsubstantiated speculation on my part. |
|
|
|
Post by alexdire on Aug 14, 2019 21:34:23 GMT 1
That was the point I was making to ixion regarding pre 3rd July and post 3rd July HTAFC revenues effectively being used to fund the purchase, and why Pure Sports Consultancy Limited might be one to watch going forward, a la Red Football. Unsubstantiated speculation on my part. It is on nine as well. |
|
|
|
Post by elindalo on Aug 14, 2019 21:59:54 GMT 1
The general drift of all this is that Dean wants his money (or a lot of it) back and will get it (thanks Dean but ......) and PH (with DH's connivance) has engineered a purchase with someone else's money (the club's).
Not a pretty picture.
|
|
|
|
Post by drfootball on Aug 14, 2019 22:19:09 GMT 1
Sponsorship, commercial deals , stadium profits from food etc ok so not in the tens of millions but must be decent amounts
|
|
|
|
Post by lankystreak on Aug 14, 2019 22:29:11 GMT 1
I think whoever Dean would've sold the club to the sale value would have been a nominal £1 fee as he has always stated he wasn't in this to make money. If it was agreed at this point that his directors loan account was to be cleared then I agree with Floyds interpretation of how this would be done.
Personally I think we have massively fucked up financially over this last 3 years if what we are being told now is true. It seems to me like we increased the wages to such an extent that staying in the Prem only really got us to around break even and that staying up for the second season has somehow had a negative financial effect. By that I mean if we had gone up and only marginally increased the wage bill and pretty much accepted relegation and aimed to be a yo-yo club for a few years but with very little financial risk being taken on by the club we would be in a far better situation now.
It looks very similar to what happened with Bradford City when they went up albeit with a very different set of figures these days. Stayed up the first year on the back of fantastic team spirit and work ethic, then made horrendous recruitment for year 2 which put the club in a poor state on and off the field. Lets hope that that is where the similarities end.....
|
|
|
|
Post by lankystreak on Aug 14, 2019 22:30:58 GMT 1
One other point though..........
Why is Dean entitled to have back every penny he has put into the club? Especially if the finances at the moment aren't looking particularly rosy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Captainslapper on Aug 14, 2019 23:26:42 GMT 1
The general drift of all this is that Dean wants his money (or a lot of it) back and will get it (thanks Dean but ......) and PH (with DH's connivance) has engineered a purchase with someone else's money (the club's). Not a pretty picture. You can't have it both ways though. Presumably you didn;t mind Town buying their way out of League 1 and living beyond our actual means for the thick end of a decade, with someone else's money ( Dean's ). He put his money into the club. I don;t have a problem with the club giving it him back now it actually can ( if that is what is happening ) |
|
|
|
Post by impact on Aug 14, 2019 23:30:11 GMT 1
One other point though.......... Why is Dean entitled to have back every penny he has put into the club? Especially if the finances at the moment aren't looking particularly rosy. Because he loaned the club money, he didn't gift it? In the same way that if you or I take a loan from the bank, we need to repay it. |
|
|
|
Post by shawsie on Aug 14, 2019 23:37:25 GMT 1
The general drift of all this is that Dean wants his money (or a lot of it) back and will get it (thanks Dean but ......) and PH (with DH's connivance) has engineered a purchase with someone else's money (the club's). Not a pretty picture. You can't have it both ways though. Presumably you didn;t mind Town buying their way out of League 1 and living beyond our actual means for the thick end of a decade, with someone else's money ( Dean's ). He put his money into the club. I don;t have a problem with the club giving it him back now it actually can ( if that is what is happening ) You are spot on slaps.......but some may argue that unless the buyer has the immediate liquidity to fund it then you are harming your short to medium chances of returning to the prem league again as the parachute monies simply repay Dean. None of us know really and the deal is rightly confidential.........hopefully a couple of quick positive results can calm the current madness, but the fixtures look very unkind for that to happen right now imho. |
|
|
|
Post by benhomly on Aug 14, 2019 23:40:20 GMT 1
I was under the impression that the parachute money and cutting of wages was to safeguard the future of the club and transfer fees received were to be ploughed back in. I think a lot of people must have thought along these lines considering the excellent uptake on season tickets. it's now apparent that this isn't the case, so it's increased the anger and frustration that we are struggling to compete at a time we should have (on paper) a financial advantage in the division and a lot of fans probably feel let down or misled. That was under Dean Hoyle, £Xm will have gone or be going out of the club to repay Dean Hoyle's loans and or to purchase the club from Dean Hoyle. At the moment we are guessing at that figure. That's not how I remember it, I thought it came out of Phil's q&a that the parachute payments were to pay wages and any transfer fees received would go to new players. That's clearly not the case so the meltdown on here is understandable. We've already lost a sizeable number of the PL squad. This board will get 10 times worse when Kongolo goes before the overseas deadline is reached. There's another thread about Deano's legacy and the way it's going is it'll be no different to the one 47 years ago - thanks for getting us there but what a complete balls up in the years to follow |
|
