|
|
Post by Frankiesleftpeg on Jan 17, 2020 23:57:09 GMT 1
The Parachute money is intended to help clubs meet their financial obligations on relegation. Once a director calls in a loan it becomes one of those obligations. Well from what I have read the purpose of parachute payments is "to ensure the club can cope with the reduced income from not being part of the Premier League – especially given that many of the players remaining at the club will still be under contract on so-called Premier League wages." Nothing to say it is for all financial obligations. Where did you read this ? That's exactly what parachute payments were designed for and not for the repayment of Director's loans. Town no doubt benefitted from having a wage structure in place that meant that players took a big wage cut and thus have some money is left over to repay DH. |
|
|
|
Post by thrice on Jan 18, 2020 0:16:07 GMT 1
We are all going to have to wait for the published accounts to start to paint the picture.
I recall everybody being adamant that we would turn a profit when we sold Pilks & Pelts and then even more so when we sold Rhodes but we were still loosing money hand over fist (all covered by Deano). Now every bugger is sure we must of made a profit in Prem 2 & the details of the takeover.
Folk only like to count the money in & gloss over the astronomical costs (salaries). There will have been relegation clauses but before that there will have been survival bonuses too!
|
|
|
|
Post by Million Dollar Babies on Jan 18, 2020 8:06:42 GMT 1
We are all going to have to wait for the published accounts to start to paint the picture. I recall everybody being adamant that we would turn a profit when we sold Pilks & Pelts and then even more so when we sold Rhodes but we were still loosing money hand over fist (all covered by Deano). Now every bugger is sure we must of made a profit in Prem 2 & the details of the takeover. Folk only like to count the money in & gloss over the astronomical costs (salaries). There will have been relegation clauses but before that there will have been survival bonuses too! Those bonuses have already been discussed. Town didn't make anything out of the two years in the Premier League, I think everyone agrees on that. Net transfer spend and wages is pretty nigh on equal to what we received in TV cash etc The problem people have is that since May every player has taken a big cut in wages, loads of high earners have gone, a lot of money has come in from player sales (although it's not all paid at once but nor is our 10 million on Mbenza) and we're receiving upwards of 90 million over these 3 seasons in parachute payments. Whether you agree or disagree with Dean taking his loans back over such a short time period is another debate but it's clear and obvious that it is this which has made things so difficult financially this season |
|
|
|
Post by HuddsTerrier on Jan 18, 2020 10:09:09 GMT 1
We are all going to have to wait for the published accounts to start to paint the picture. I recall everybody being adamant that we would turn a profit when we sold Pilks & Pelts and then even more so when we sold Rhodes but we were still loosing money hand over fist (all covered by Deano). Now every bugger is sure we must of made a profit in Prem 2 & the details of the takeover. Folk only like to count the money in & gloss over the astronomical costs (salaries). There will have been relegation clauses but before that there will have been survival bonuses too! We did make a £20m profit in our first year in the premier league - it was eaten up covering the £20m loss from the promotion season before (largely bonuses) That said I’m expecting we made a profit in Premier League year two and hopefully that covers a chunk of the £50m loan According transfermarkt - which will be in the right ball park - www.transfermarkt.co.uk/huddersfield-town/alletransfers/verein/1110 - we spent less in year two and then have made a big profit this year 17/18 net transfers - spent £46m 18/19 net transfers - spent £34m 19/20 net transfers - received £11.5m more than paid out |
|
|
|
Post by Manx Terrier on Jan 18, 2020 10:36:29 GMT 1
If parachute payments have or will be used to repay the loan to Dean then how can this be ? My searches say they are intended to assist clubs to survive and compete while having reduced income - principally from TV. Have I got the wrong end of the stick and it is ok to use parachute money to pay off an interest free debt ? The Parachute money is intended to help clubs meet their financial obligations on relegation. Once a director calls in a loan it becomes one of those obligations. Parachute payments are intended to protect a club due to reduced income and paid as a consequence of relegation. The intention is not to cover all financial obligations and certainly not to repay a loan.. The loan is not being called in as a consequence of relegation. The loan would be far more likely to have been called in if had we not been relegated. |
|
|
|
Post by detox on Jan 18, 2020 10:42:52 GMT 1
In reality the parachute payments can be used pretty much for what you like,there's no audit of how you spent it. Historically relegated clubs have always used the cash for anything they want... Think the whole thing was part of the 'deal' when the PL broke away from the EFL..I dare say the PL would scrap it if they could and in anyu case the amounts have reduced and are reducing contract by contract..
|
|
|
|
Post by Manx Terrier on Jan 18, 2020 10:55:16 GMT 1
In reality the parachute payments can be used pretty much for what you like,there's no audit of how you spent it. Historically relegated clubs have always used the cash for anything they want... Think the whole thing was part of the 'deal' when the PL broke away from the EFL..I dare say the PL would scrap it if they could and in anyu case the amounts have reduced and are reducing contract by contract.. I am sure you are right and the club can in practice do what it wants with the money and no one checks. But the idea was to protect a club. |
|
|
|
Post by thrice on Jan 18, 2020 11:10:53 GMT 1
Using parachute payments for anything other than filling players pockets does protect the club.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mecha Corte on Jan 18, 2020 11:33:20 GMT 1
Simon Jordan, former owner of Palace, often guests on TalkSport and is usually a good listen whenever football finances come up, the other day he face his views regarding Derby and what their owner has done with regards to buying and selling the ground to avoid FFP penalties.
One point that he's often repeated is that all football clubs face a huge financial dilemma, Town are a classic example of it, we've plodded along for years, surviving on the equivalent of "minimum wage" income, then we have a life changing lottery win by getting to the PL with all it's associated financial rewards but the club doesn't move out of a 2 bed semi-detatched council house into a 4 bed detatched mansion because all the new found wealth is swallowed up by player transfers, wages and agents fees.
It's a problem that repeats throughout the pyramid, get promoted from the Conference to tier 4 and your income takes a (comparatively) huge jump up, but your wage bill swallows it, get relegated from the Championship to tier 3 and you've a massive problem trying to balance the books with the loss of income incurred.
It's no coincidence that the Championship is the absolute basket case though as clubs fight to reach the top table- every season there's probably 15 clubs "blowing their brains out " to get promotion, by definition only 3 can succeed.
|
|
|
|
Post by allan 1958 (OAF-WROY)(SSLFF) on Jan 18, 2020 14:06:01 GMT 1
In reality the parachute payments can be used pretty much for what you like,there's no audit of how you spent it. Historically relegated clubs have always used the cash for anything they want... Think the whole thing was part of the 'deal' when the PL broke away from the EFL..I dare say the PL would scrap it if they could and in anyu case the amounts have reduced and are reducing contract by contract.. I do actually believe there should be regulation on what you can spend the parachute payment on. i.e terminating contracts losses on sales of players redundancy payments etc, noit a leg up against other teams in the new league |
|
|
|
Post by brighousebandbred on Jan 19, 2020 17:10:38 GMT 1
Simon Jordan, former owner of Palace, often guests on TalkSport and is usually a good listen whenever football finances come up, the other day he face his views regarding Derby and what their owner has done with regards to buying and selling the ground to avoid FFP penalties. One point that he's often repeated is that all football clubs face a huge financial dilemma, Town are a classic example of it, we've plodded along for years, surviving on the equivalent of "minimum wage" income, then we have a life changing lottery win by getting to the PL with all it's associated financial rewards but the club doesn't move out of a 2 bed semi-detatched council house into a 4 bed detatched mansion because all the new found wealth is swallowed up by player transfers, wages and agents fees. It's a problem that repeats throughout the pyramid, get promoted from the Conference to tier 4 and your income takes a (comparatively) huge jump up, but your wage bill swallows it, get relegated from the Championship to tier 3 and you've a massive problem trying to balance the books with the loss of income incurred. It's no coincidence that the Championship is the absolute basket case though as clubs fight to reach the top table- every season there's probably 15 clubs "blowing their brains out " to get promotion, by definition only 3 can succeed. What’s made our situation 10 times worse is our so called wonderful x owner as taken the money that gives you a chance of not being eaten up by the drop. |
|
|
|
Post by allan 1958 (OAF-WROY)(SSLFF) on Jan 19, 2020 22:06:35 GMT 1
Simon Jordan, former owner of Palace, often guests on TalkSport and is usually a good listen whenever football finances come up, the other day he face his views regarding Derby and what their owner has done with regards to buying and selling the ground to avoid FFP penalties. One point that he's often repeated is that all football clubs face a huge financial dilemma, Town are a classic example of it, we've plodded along for years, surviving on the equivalent of "minimum wage" income, then we have a life changing lottery win by getting to the PL with all it's associated financial rewards but the club doesn't move out of a 2 bed semi-detatched council house into a 4 bed detatched mansion because all the new found wealth is swallowed up by player transfers, wages and agents fees. It's a problem that repeats throughout the pyramid, get promoted from the Conference to tier 4 and your income takes a (comparatively) huge jump up, but your wage bill swallows it, get relegated from the Championship to tier 3 and you've a massive problem trying to balance the books with the loss of income incurred. It's no coincidence that the Championship is the absolute basket case though as clubs fight to reach the top table- every season there's probably 15 clubs "blowing their brains out " to get promotion, by definition only 3 can succeed. What’s made our situation 10 times worse is our so called wonderful x owner as taken the money that gives you a chance of not being eaten up by the drop. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2020 22:53:29 GMT 1
What’s made our situation 10 times worse is our so called wonderful x owner as taken the money that gives you a chance of not being eaten up by the drop.
Has he though ? Because I don't believe for one minute the fella who rescued us from Davys self sufficiency quote, Who put in what he put in has taken it all back, Or will want to. Even though folk are saying he has the right, Which he does as they were loans, But he wont as it was his toy !
I still cant see it myself, Totherwise we are back where we were, So he can forget about the cult hero statue status.
I do not believe nor have seen proof that Hoyle is taking all his brass back and retaining a quarter share, and renting us (Town ) the training facility ? It cannot be true.
|
|
wigster
Andy Booth Terrier
[M0:0]
Posts: 3,342
|
Post by wigster on Jan 20, 2020 1:01:07 GMT 1
Has he though ? Because I don't believe for one minute the fella who rescued us from Davys self sufficiency quote, Who put in what he put in has taken it all back, Or will want to. Even though folk are saying he has the right, Which he does as they were loans, But he wont as it was his toy !
I still cant see it myself, Totherwise we are back where we were, So he can forget about the cult hero statue status.
I do not believe nor have seen proof that Hoyle is taking all his brass back and retaining a quarter share, and renting us (Town ) the training facility ? It cannot be true.
u
That is precisely what Phil Hodgkinson said on the Podcast quoted above. Additionally we will be buying the training facility off Dean Hoyle in the next ten years. His company apparently owns it ... |
|
crux
Jimmy Glazzard Terrier
[M0:0]
Posts: 4,113
|
Post by crux on Jan 20, 2020 10:51:20 GMT 1
Has he though ? Because I don't believe for one minute the fella who rescued us from Davys self sufficiency quote, Who put in what he put in has taken it all back, Or will want to. Even though folk are saying he has the right, Which he does as they were loans, But he wont as it was his toy !
I still cant see it myself, Totherwise we are back where we were, So he can forget about the cult hero statue status.
I do not believe nor have seen proof that Hoyle is taking all his brass back and retaining a quarter share, and renting us (Town ) the training facility ? It cannot be true.
u
That is precisely what Phil Hodgkinson said on the Podcast quoted above. Additionally we will be buying the training facility off Dean Hoyle in the next ten years. His company apparently owns it ... As I understand it, Town own the training facility but Dean Hoyle owns the land it sits on. Town pay DH rent to use the land and there is the option to buy the land - presumably at a fixed cost. |
|
|
|
Post by allan 1958 (OAF-WROY)(SSLFF) on Jan 20, 2020 11:18:56 GMT 1
Has he though ? Because I don't believe for one minute the fella who rescued us from Davys self sufficiency quote, Who put in what he put in has taken it all back, Or will want to. Even though folk are saying he has the right, Which he does as they were loans, But he wont as it was his toy !
I still cant see it myself, Totherwise we are back where we were, So he can forget about the cult hero statue status.
I do not believe nor have seen proof that Hoyle is taking all his brass back and retaining a quarter share, and renting us (Town ) the training facility ? It cannot be true.
Cyril, Totally agree. there are some turkey's on here who have never managed to get a mortgage who suddenly feel able to dissect financial reports, analyse the intellectual motivation, ignore all axioms and produce a diatribe of insults, slurs and offensive guessing. I try hard to ignore them but .............. its like other readers will accept it as truth if its not challenged. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2020 11:54:58 GMT 1
I'm a little confused having read the eight pages of this thread. More time I'll never get back. Where has it been said that Dean will get, or has got his money back from the parachute payments, or is this just an assumption? Was this at a Q&A, was it in the AHTTC podcast, or has it been in the press. The only place I've seen it is on here. DH say that the money he'd invested was a loan but that he never expected to get it back? There was a post relating a conversation from someone from the club saying that the parachute payments would keep this club going for 10 years. Perhaps we are not swinging our dick about in public, a la MASSIVE, a la Derby. We may be just keeping very quiet about how much we have to spend. I certainly think that there is some obfuscation in this regard. Well he certainly recovered some of his loans whilst we were in our first season in the EPL, (despite temporarily injecting even more), what happened last season will become clear shortly I guess. |
|
cheesyhtfc
Steve Kindon Terrier
[M0:0]
Posts: 1,647
|
Post by cheesyhtfc on Jan 20, 2020 12:04:09 GMT 1
Has he though ? Because I don't believe for one minute the fella who rescued us from Davys self sufficiency quote, Who put in what he put in has taken it all back, Or will want to. Even though folk are saying he has the right, Which he does as they were loans, But he wont as it was his toy !
I still cant see it myself, Totherwise we are back where we were, So he can forget about the cult hero statue status.
I do not believe nor have seen proof that Hoyle is taking all his brass back and retaining a quarter share, and renting us (Town ) the training facility ? It cannot be true.
I don't think DH "rescued us from Davys self sufficiency quote" - that is something that DH has been very keen to work towards since he took over and throughout (see here and here, for example, as well as (arguably) his message following relegation). I can think of at least two reasons why DH would want to call in his loans at this stage: (1) The club has received a huge unexpected windfall from promotion, and whilst this inevitably came with increased costs it has undoubtedly been very profitable - I'm sure we all remember DH talking about it setting us up for 10 years. If (and it is a big if admittedly) the club is in a financially stable position and is close to (if not having obtained) self sufficiency, then now would be the best time to call in his loans. If the plan was for him to call in his loans at some point, I would much rather he did it at a time when the club is doing well for itself financially, than once the money is gone. (2) He almost died last year. He wouldn't be the first person whose priorities are shifted following a health scare. If you have £50m tied up in a football club, you have the unenviable choice of either calling in that loan so that the money can fall into your estate, or leave it as a debt and give your executors the choice of either calling in the debt after you die (possibly even suing the club), or letting your family go without. We may well be back where we started on the pitch, but then again for two years (prior to the last one) we had a team who were substantially more than the sum of its parts - once the team spirit left we are back to a squad of largely average individual players. However, financially/commercially we are lightyears away from where we were when Wagner joined, let alone when DH took over - the club's profile (domestically and internationally) has been raised by being in the PL, the commercial department is far stronger, and if DH has been paid back we are now loose from a (if not the) major creditor. With regard to the 25% shares, I may be wrong but I understand that was a safety measure - if it didn't work out with PH then DH would be able to swoop back in with minimal disruption. The medium to long term plan would be, I imagine, for that 25% to be transferred to an entity (either PH or a fans' consortium, most likely the former) for a relatively nominal amount once everyone is happy with the situation. DH/an entity controlled by DH owns the training ground land (which necessarily includes the building) and leases it to the club on very favourable terms. The chattels in the training complex will likely be owned/leased by the club. This is deliberate - it stops the club's major asset from being stripped (again, prudent when you are going through an ownership change). I think that DH has said that the long-term aim is for the training ground to be transferred to an entity (at a favourable rate) separate from the club, but which is controlled by both he club and a fans' consortium so that it is preserved as a ringfenced asset. I may, of course, be wrong about this. As such, I can think of lots of financially savvy and prudent commercial reasons for all of the above. It's the sort of thing that may not seem beneficial in the short term, but may be incredibly important in the longer term. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2020 12:13:52 GMT 1
Simon Jordan, former owner of Palace, often guests on TalkSport and is usually a good listen whenever football finances come up, the other day he face his views regarding Derby and what their owner has done with regards to buying and selling the ground to avoid FFP penalties. One point that he's often repeated is that all football clubs face a huge financial dilemma, Town are a classic example of it, we've plodded along for years, surviving on the equivalent of "minimum wage" income, then we have a life changing lottery win by getting to the PL with all it's associated financial rewards but the club doesn't move out of a 2 bed semi-detatched council house into a 4 bed detatched mansion because all the new found wealth is swallowed up by player transfers, wages and agents fees. It's a problem that repeats throughout the pyramid, get promoted from the Conference to tier 4 and your income takes a (comparatively) huge jump up, but your wage bill swallows it, get relegated from the Championship to tier 3 and you've a massive problem trying to balance the books with the loss of income incurred. It's no coincidence that the Championship is the absolute basket case though as clubs fight to reach the top table- every season there's probably 15 clubs "blowing their brains out " to get promotion, by definition only 3 can succeed. One answer is that football could follow a franchise model. It’s probably a 100 years too late now, but it seems to be working in the USA, and the halfway house version in Australia. Incredibly difficult to switch from the free trading variant we have now...the only way it would ever really be considered I suppose is if Sky and BT went bust or decided they weren’t interested in paying for football any more...the fallout now would be far greater than what happened with ON Digital or ITV Digital or whatever it was called...but that ain’t likely to happen. |
|
|
|
Post by detox on Jan 20, 2020 12:14:59 GMT 1
I'm a little confused having read the eight pages of this thread. More time I'll never get back. Where has it been said that Dean will get, or has got his money back from the parachute payments, or is this just an assumption? Was this at a Q&A, was it in the AHTTC podcast, or has it been in the press. The only place I've seen it is on here. DH say that the money he'd invested was a loan but that he never expected to get it back? There was a post relating a conversation from someone from the club saying that the parachute payments would keep this club going for 10 years. Perhaps we are not swinging our dick about in public, a la MASSIVE, a la Derby. We may be just keeping very quiet about how much we have to spend. I certainly think that there is some obfuscation in this regard. Well he certainly recovered some of his loans whilst we were in our first season in the EPL, (despite temporarily injecting even more), what happened last season will become clear shortly I guess. Dean did throw in another £20m or so I think after promotion but before the sky money started being paid to us...it was a short term loan to pay certain bills and was due to be repaid a few months later when the sky money arrived. Nothing wrong with that at all, and I believe it was an interest free loan. As far as his previous investment in the club which got us to the PL, that was sat on the clubs balance sheet as a debt outstanding to him. Upon sale of the club to Phil (for which a fee was paid to Dean for the shares), the debt was still there but it wasn't Deans club anymore, and the club had £m's in cash in the bank from the PL..more than enough to repay the loans. i don't know what was repaid, if anything, how much and over what time period...or whether Dean's 25% share means some of the debt will stay on the books..as you say, all will be revealed shortly...will be interesting to see. I personally don't have any problem if Dean calls in those loans either in full or in part, I'm still of the belief that phil will be gone in a few years and Dean will return, with his original stash of cash intact and ready to fund the club again in another bid to get to the EPL...provided he is fully recovered Dean has a wealth of experience, will have learned from the mistakes he made and is still a young man..he is also still an avid Town fan, that certainly won't have diminished.. |
|
|
|
Post by thrice on Jan 20, 2020 14:01:46 GMT 1
Has he though ? Because I don't believe for one minute the fella who rescued us from Davys self sufficiency quote, Who put in what he put in has taken it all back, Or will want to. Even though folk are saying he has the right, Which he does as they were loans, But he wont as it was his toy !
I still cant see it myself, Totherwise we are back where we were, So he can forget about the cult hero statue status.
I do not believe nor have seen proof that Hoyle is taking all his brass back and retaining a quarter share, and renting us (Town ) the training facility ? It cannot be true.
I don't think DH "rescued us from Davys self sufficiency quote" - that is something that DH has been very keen to work towards since he took over and throughout (see here and here, for example, as well as (arguably) his message following relegation). I can think of at least two reasons why DH would want to call in his loans at this stage: (1) The club has received a huge unexpected windfall from promotion, and whilst this inevitably came with increased costs it has undoubtedly been very profitable - I'm sure we all remember DH talking about it setting us up for 10 years. If (and it is a big if admittedly) the club is in a financially stable position and is close to (if not having obtained) self sufficiency, then now would be the best time to call in his loans. If the plan was for him to call in his loans at some point, I would much rather he did it at a time when the club is doing well for itself financially, than once the money is gone. (2) He almost died last year. He wouldn't be the first person whose priorities are shifted following a health scare. If you have £50m tied up in a football club, you have the unenviable choice of either calling in that loan so that the money can fall into your estate, or leave it as a debt and give your executors the choice of either calling in the debt after you die (possibly even suing the club), or letting your family go without. We may well be back where we started on the pitch, but then again for two years (prior to the last one) we had a team who were substantially more than the sum of its parts - once the team spirit left we are back to a squad of largely average individual players. However, financially/commercially we are lightyears away from where we were when Wagner joined, let alone when DH took over - the club's profile (domestically and internationally) has been raised by being in the PL, the commercial department is far stronger, and if DH has been paid back we are now loose from a (if not the) major creditor. With regard to the 25% shares, I may be wrong but I understand that was a safety measure - if it didn't work out with PH then DH would be able to swoop back in with minimal disruption. The medium to long term plan would be, I imagine, for that 25% to be transferred to an entity (either PH or a fans' consortium, most likely the former) for a relatively nominal amount once everyone is happy with the situation. DH/an entity controlled by DH owns the training ground land (which necessarily includes the building) and leases it to the club on very favourable terms. The chattels in the training complex will likely be owned/leased by the club. This is deliberate - it stops the club's major asset from being stripped (again, prudent when you are going through an ownership change). I think that DH has said that the long-term aim is for the training ground to be transferred to an entity (at a favourable rate) separate from the club, but which is controlled by both he club and a fans' consortium so that it is preserved as a ringfenced asset. I may, of course, be wrong about this. As such, I can think of lots of financially savvy and prudent commercial reasons for all of the above. It's the sort of thing that may not seem beneficial in the short term, but may be incredibly important in the longer term. Calling in the loans is the best thing for the club, not just Deano. If we have paid off tens of millions (the more the better) of the debt that the club has been saddled with that can only be a good thing for all parties. |
|
|
|
Post by Million Dollar Babies on Jan 20, 2020 14:22:54 GMT 1
I don't think DH "rescued us from Davys self sufficiency quote" - that is something that DH has been very keen to work towards since he took over and throughout (see here and here, for example, as well as (arguably) his message following relegation). I can think of at least two reasons why DH would want to call in his loans at this stage: (1) The club has received a huge unexpected windfall from promotion, and whilst this inevitably came with increased costs it has undoubtedly been very profitable - I'm sure we all remember DH talking about it setting us up for 10 years. If (and it is a big if admittedly) the club is in a financially stable position and is close to (if not having obtained) self sufficiency, then now would be the best time to call in his loans. If the plan was for him to call in his loans at some point, I would much rather he did it at a time when the club is doing well for itself financially, than once the money is gone. (2) He almost died last year. He wouldn't be the first person whose priorities are shifted following a health scare. If you have £50m tied up in a football club, you have the unenviable choice of either calling in that loan so that the money can fall into your estate, or leave it as a debt and give your executors the choice of either calling in the debt after you die (possibly even suing the club), or letting your family go without. We may well be back where we started on the pitch, but then again for two years (prior to the last one) we had a team who were substantially more than the sum of its parts - once the team spirit left we are back to a squad of largely average individual players. However, financially/commercially we are lightyears away from where we were when Wagner joined, let alone when DH took over - the club's profile (domestically and internationally) has been raised by being in the PL, the commercial department is far stronger, and if DH has been paid back we are now loose from a (if not the) major creditor. With regard to the 25% shares, I may be wrong but I understand that was a safety measure - if it didn't work out with PH then DH would be able to swoop back in with minimal disruption. The medium to long term plan would be, I imagine, for that 25% to be transferred to an entity (either PH or a fans' consortium, most likely the former) for a relatively nominal amount once everyone is happy with the situation. DH/an entity controlled by DH owns the training ground land (which necessarily includes the building) and leases it to the club on very favourable terms. The chattels in the training complex will likely be owned/leased by the club. This is deliberate - it stops the club's major asset from being stripped (again, prudent when you are going through an ownership change). I think that DH has said that the long-term aim is for the training ground to be transferred to an entity (at a favourable rate) separate from the club, but which is controlled by both he club and a fans' consortium so that it is preserved as a ringfenced asset. I may, of course, be wrong about this. As such, I can think of lots of financially savvy and prudent commercial reasons for all of the above. It's the sort of thing that may not seem beneficial in the short term, but may be incredibly important in the longer term. Calling in the loans is the best thing for the club, not just Deano. If we have paid off tens of millions (the more the better) of the debt that the club has been saddled with that can only be a good thing for all parties. Not as good as it being written off which is what I think a lot of fans were assuming when Dean was "gifting" money to the club To be fair, if Dean had done that and we were 50 million better off, we would probably have only wasted it on rubbish players anyway. I bet that's what Dean probably thought, better in my pocket than some French club |
|
|
|
Post by Headless Chicken on Jan 20, 2020 16:02:29 GMT 1
With FFP, can DH simply w/off the loan?
|
|
|
|
Post by Million Dollar Babies on Jan 20, 2020 16:42:29 GMT 1
With FFP, can DH simply w/off the loan? I'd have thought so given the period it was invested over and us clearly being miles under the limits of FFP since they began |
|
|
|
Post by allan 1958 (OAF-WROY)(SSLFF) on Jan 20, 2020 18:13:52 GMT 1
With FFP, can DH simply w/off the loan? yes he can but why should he? that decision is a financial one for Dean. I would rather see Dean buy the ground and rent it to the club. It would preserve the core of HTAFC. |
|
|
|
Post by Mecha Corte on Jan 20, 2020 19:18:26 GMT 1
"Million dollar babies" makes a very valid point, especially for people such as myself that take an interest in our finances but don't claim to have an accountants understanding of them - £50M will probably be the cost in transfer fees, wages and agents etc for the 3 Stooges, as get another set and all the problems, financial and just as importantly otherwise that they bring it makes mire sense to repay Dean.
|
|
|
|
Post by royrace on Jan 20, 2020 19:20:13 GMT 1
Has he though ? Because I don't believe for one minute the fella who rescued us from Davys self sufficiency quote, Who put in what he put in has taken it all back, Or will want to. Even though folk are saying he has the right, Which he does as they were loans, But he wont as it was his toy !
I still cant see it myself, Totherwise we are back where we were, So he can forget about the cult hero statue status.
I do not believe nor have seen proof that Hoyle is taking all his brass back and retaining a quarter share, and renting us (Town ) the training facility ? It cannot be true.
Cyril, Totally agree. there are some turkey's on here who have never managed to get a mortgage who suddenly feel able to dissect financial reports, analyse the intellectual motivation, ignore all axioms and produce a diatribe of insults, slurs and offensive guessing. I try hard to ignore them but .............. its like other readers will accept it as truth if its not challenged. I think most people are just repeating what they heard on the Podcast straight from PHs mouth. This was after the inexplicable hole in the finances that saw us shopping in the national league, league 2 and German 4th tier immediately after trousering >£200M and running the club carefully and frugally. If you know better; explain it, and if you haven't listened to the podcast, listen to it and report back before calling people turkeys  What did Phil mean if it wasnt what the turkeys assumed he meant? |
|
|
|
Post by royrace on Jan 20, 2020 19:25:15 GMT 1
Calling in the loans is the best thing for the club, not just Deano. If we have paid off tens of millions (the more the better) of the debt that the club has been saddled with that can only be a good thing for all parties. Not as good as it being written off which is what I think a lot of fans were assuming when Dean was "gifting" money to the club To be fair, if Dean had done that and we were 50 million better off, we would probably have only wasted it on rubbish players anyway. I bet that's what Dean probably thought, better in my pocket than some French club That's a very good point but you also need to factor in he was very much in charge when the money was wasted! I do think he probably thought everyone else has done very well out of it; Wagner, players, agents, French clubs, why the hell shouldn't I take my money back after what I've done for the club and the healthy state its now in. |
|
|
|
Post by canuckterrier on Jan 20, 2020 21:10:33 GMT 1
Has he though ? Because I don't believe for one minute the fella who rescued us from Davys self sufficiency quote, Who put in what he put in has taken it all back, Or will want to. Even though folk are saying he has the right, Which he does as they were loans, But he wont as it was his toy !
I still cant see it myself, Totherwise we are back where we were, So he can forget about the cult hero statue status.
I do not believe nor have seen proof that Hoyle is taking all his brass back and retaining a quarter share, and renting us (Town ) the training facility ? It cannot be true.
None of us appear to know what has really transpired but everyone seems to agree that Maynardblue knows more than most on here and his post on the previous page of this thread states: "The club was repaying Deans loan irrespective of PHs takeover. Even if DH hadn't sold he'd be getting his money.
Also PH paid a hefty sum for the 75% and used his OWN money" |
|
|
|
Post by allan 1958 (OAF-WROY)(SSLFF) on Jan 20, 2020 21:41:21 GMT 1
Cyril, Totally agree. there are some turkey's on here who have never managed to get a mortgage who suddenly feel able to dissect financial reports, analyse the intellectual motivation, ignore all axioms and produce a diatribe of insults, slurs and offensive guessing. I try hard to ignore them but .............. its like other readers will accept it as truth if its not challenged. I think most people are just repeating what they heard on the Podcast straight from PHs mouth. This was after the inexplicable hole in the finances that saw us shopping in the national league, league 2 and German 4th tier immediately after trousering >£200M and running the club carefully and frugally. If you know better; explain it, and if you haven't listened to the podcast, listen to it and report back before calling people turkeys What did Phil mean if it wasnt what the turkeys assumed he meant? {i posted a quite dull analysis on the function and processes involved in a budget process for those who haven't been involved in a budget process} By the way have you been involved in preparing a budget/business plan? Phil's biggest mistake, so far, was talking finance to supporters who on the whole do not understand the vocabulary. People extrapolated and exaggerated an over simplified analysis of the current financial position. I don't believe it was a serious analysis by Phil just an exercise in limiting expectations. I could be wrong and would have questions too if the club is financially shafted, i like any "customer" make my choices where i spend my money, i dont question the MD of Aldi over his financial strategy when eating his bread. If you are saying there aren't turkeys on here talking crap, i would respectively disagree. I have suggested that the vitriol heaped on Dean and Phil should be moderated until more information is available. People are just being overly simplistic, which is reasonable if they have no experience in finance. |
|
What did Phil mean if it wasnt what the turkeys assumed he meant?