|
|
Post by brighousebandbred on Apr 1, 2020 19:24:10 GMT 1
Dean is entitled to get his money back if he want's it as it was always a Loan........However, what frustrates me is why he needs to take it back so quickly. He Loaned the money to the club over a 9-10 year period, as required. Why is it necessary for him to get the majority of it back in a 3-4 year period. This is what is leaving the club slightly hamstrung. Not in the fan's minds it wasnt. It might have been in his but i cant recall him ever stating the money he was using to propp us up finance cheaper ST's etc was only a loan. I would argue it only became so with the oppurtunity of getting it back by ensuring we were relegated. Unfortunately football owners use clubs as a play thing, wouldn’t listen to a word any of them feed fans it’s a game for the rich to occupy their time until they pass it on to some other rich person repeat repeat, love the game football hate the play thing it’s become for the rich. |
|
|
|
Post by terrierpark on Apr 1, 2020 19:40:25 GMT 1
Not in the fan's minds it wasnt. It might have been in his but i cant recall him ever stating the money he was using to propp us up finance cheaper ST's etc was only a loan. I would argue it only became so with the oppurtunity of getting it back by ensuring we were relegated. He had made it plain they were loans i'm sure at Q&As over the years, but he also made it plain unless we were promoted it was unlikely he would get them back. To say he deliberately relegated us is preposterous. Why is it preposterous? He didnt relegate us the crap manager and the players did that but he did nothing to stop the slide. No change of manager when ones with track records of keeping teams up were available . You cant argue that the Parachute payments were integral to the plan of getting his money back |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2020 19:56:27 GMT 1
He had made it plain they were loans i'm sure at Q&As over the years, but he also made it plain unless we were promoted it was unlikely he would get them back. To say he deliberately relegated us is preposterous. Why is it preposterous? He didnt relegate us the crap manager and the players did that but he did nothing to stop the slide. No change of manager when ones with track records of keeping teams up were available . You cant argue that the Parachute payments were integral to the plan of getting his money back Throwing good money after bad at a hopeless cause could have bankrupted us, but that would be ok 'cos there'd be no chance of Dean getting his loans back then would there? |
|
|
|
Post by overtonterrierspirit on Apr 1, 2020 20:18:45 GMT 1
He had made it plain they were loans i'm sure at Q&As over the years, but he also made it plain unless we were promoted it was unlikely he would get them back. To say he deliberately relegated us is preposterous. Why is it preposterous? He didnt relegate us the crap manager and the players did that but he did nothing to stop the slide. No change of manager when ones with track records of keeping teams up were available . You cant argue that the Parachute payments were integral to the plan of getting his money back Whether you agree that Dean has his money back or not - if he loves the club, has he has informed us hundreds of times, he wouldn’t be taking it back so quickly so as to totally remove any benefit of 2 years in the PL. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2020 20:25:25 GMT 1
Why is it preposterous? He didnt relegate us the crap manager and the players did that but he did nothing to stop the slide. No change of manager when ones with track records of keeping teams up were available . You cant argue that the Parachute payments were integral to the plan of getting his money back Whether you agree that Dean has his money back or not - if he loves the club, has he has informed us hundreds of times, he wouldn’t be taking it back so quickly so as to totally remove any benefit of 2 years in the PL. Taking it back quickly it would have gone already, not spread over three years and a not inconsiderable amount over god knows how long. Taking it back at all is what seems to have upset some people. Suppose instead he arranged to take it back over ten years would that be ok? In say five years we're struggling yet the annual £5 million is going out how would they feel then. |
|
|
|
Post by Headless Chicken on Apr 1, 2020 20:49:42 GMT 1
Not in the fan's minds it wasnt. It might have been in his but i cant recall him ever stating the money he was using to propp us up finance cheaper ST's etc was only a loan. I would argue it only became so with the oppurtunity of getting it back by ensuring we were relegated. He had made it plain they were loans i'm sure at Q&As over the years, but he also made it plain unless we were promoted it was unlikely he would get them back. To say he deliberately relegated us is preposterous. It's a whole new level of preposterous 😄 |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2020 22:29:05 GMT 1
Dean is entitled to get his money back if he want's it as it was always a Loan........However, what frustrates me is why he needs to take it back so quickly. He Loaned the money to the club over a 9-10 year period, as required. Why is it necessary for him to get the majority of it back in a 3-4 year period. This is what is leaving the club slightly hamstrung. Not in the fan's minds it wasnt. It might have been in his but i cant recall him ever stating the money he was using to propp us up finance cheaper ST's etc was only a loan. I would argue it only became so with the oppurtunity of getting it back by ensuring we were relegated. You can argue all you like but it’s been clearly stated in the accounts for the last ten years that he’s been loaning funds to the club 🤷♂️ |
|
|
|
Post by Captainslapper on Apr 1, 2020 23:33:16 GMT 1
Whether you agree that Dean has his money back or not - if he loves the club, has he has informed us hundreds of times, he wouldn’t be taking it back so quickly so as to totally remove any benefit of 2 years in the PL. Taking it back quickly it would have gone already, not spread over three years and a not inconsiderable amount over god knows how long. Taking it back at all is what seems to have upset some people. Suppose instead he arranged to take it back over ten years would that be ok? In say five years we're struggling yet the annual £5 million is going out how would they feel then. Nailed it. |
|
Sparrow
Frank Worthington Terrier
Posts: 1,964
|
Post by Sparrow on Apr 2, 2020 10:41:07 GMT 1
Those that are upset that he's taken it back at all need to remind themselves of what Dean has always said, they were Loans he didn't expect to get back...The key part of that is that he didn't expect to get back. He never ever said he wouldn't take back.
In terms of taking it back over a longer period, I personally think that would have been better for the club if he'd taken it back over a longer period. Last year, I think, we made an operating profit of just under £2m in our last premier league season. During that season, it sound like Dean took £16m of his loans back, but the club needed to get a Bank loan of £31m.....To me that doesn't sound like we finished our premier league journey in as good a financial position as I thought we would after that amazing day at Wembley.
By the end of August 2022 Dean's getting a further £35m back. So that's £51m he'll have had back in 4 years....Plus it sounds like the £31m Bank loan was a short terms loan. Meaning the club will have repaid £81m in loans by the End of August 2022. I think Parachute payments are £90m by the end of £2022...That only leaves £9m. Which will probably be very quickly swallowed up in the wages we've paid this season and will probably pay next season. I personally think Dean Hoyle being repaid so much of his loans over that period will potentially hamper the club.
I personally think that taking £16m out last season and a further £15m by no later than 5 days after the summer transfer window this year has hampered us in previous windows and will do in this one.
There's no point asking what people would be saying in 5 years if we're struggling and £5m is going out. We've struggled this season with £16m going out last year and £15m this year.
|
|
|
|
Post by royrace on Apr 2, 2020 10:48:58 GMT 1
Not in the fan's minds it wasnt. It might have been in his but i cant recall him ever stating the money he was using to propp us up finance cheaper ST's etc was only a loan. I would argue it only became so with the oppurtunity of getting it back by ensuring we were relegated. He had made it plain they were loans i'm sure at Q&As over the years, but he also made it plain unless we were promoted it was unlikely he would get them back. To say he deliberately relegated us is preposterous. I think we all understood they were loans but nobody expected they would be repaid including Dean himself, the only scenarios I could see it being repaid were if we became established in the prem and/or if we were bought out (Dean would then get the money back indirectly from the sale price). I don't think anyone would have predicted he'd sell the club for a nominal fee and have the loans paid back from the clubs income over the next 3 years. The ethics behind taking the money from the clubs parachute payments is another issue since its not what they are there for is it. I think the other poster is maybe suggesting that relegation made it easier to implement and justify the massive reduction in budget and player sales that will allow the club to pay back the money. That wouldn't really have been possible had we survived in the PL. |
|
|
|
Post by allan 1958 (OAF-WROY)(SSLFF) on Apr 2, 2020 12:37:06 GMT 1
Its a confusing one. How does an investor need a business to have a vastly reduced income to be able to get his money back? costs down and liquidate assets? |
|
|
|
Post by Frankiesleftpeg on Apr 2, 2020 13:05:19 GMT 1
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2020 14:30:09 GMT 1
Those that are upset that he's taken it back at all need to remind themselves of what Dean has always said, they were Loans he didn't expect to get back...The key part of that is that he didn't expect to get back. He never ever said he wouldn't take back. In terms of taking it back over a longer period, I personally think that would have been better for the club if he'd taken it back over a longer period. Last year, I think, we made an operating profit of just under £2m in our last premier league season. During that season, it sound like Dean took £16m of his loans back, but the club needed to get a Bank loan of £31m.....To me that doesn't sound like we finished our premier league journey in as good a financial position as I thought we would after that amazing day at Wembley. By the end of August 2022 Dean's getting a further £35m back. So that's £51m he'll have had back in 4 years....Plus it sounds like the £31m Bank loan was a short terms loan. Meaning the club will have repaid £81m in loans by the End of August 2022. I think Parachute payments are £90m by the end of £2022...That only leaves £9m. Which will probably be very quickly swallowed up in the wages we've paid this season and will probably pay next season. I personally think Dean Hoyle being repaid so much of his loans over that period will potentially hamper the club. I personally think that taking £16m out last season and a further £15m by no later than 5 days after the summer transfer window this year has hampered us in previous windows and will do in this one. There's no point asking what people would be saying in 5 years if we're struggling and £5m is going out. We've struggled this season with £16m going out last year and £15m this year. As I said, taking it back at all is upsetting certain people, we are unlikely to be in this position again in the foreseeable. The bottom line is we can afford to pay it back. God knows when we would if we couldn't now. |
|
Sparrow
Frank Worthington Terrier
Posts: 1,964
|
Post by Sparrow on Apr 2, 2020 15:20:46 GMT 1
Agreed we can afford to pay it back now. But at what cost?
I get that the money is there so it's a good time to pay off Debts.
I just think it's hampering us on the pitch.
You and I seem to agree on a lot of things discussed on here, this one will just have to be something we don't agree on :-)
UTT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2020 17:38:49 GMT 1
Agreed we can afford to pay it back now. But at what cost? I get that the money is there so it's a good time to pay off Debts. I just think it's hampering us on the pitch. You and I seem to agree on a lot of things discussed on here, this one will just have to be something we don't agree on :-) UTT Fair enough. My problem would be as I said, paying it over a longer period could hamstring us over many years into the future. Instead of that we're starting with more or less a clean slate. UTT.  |
|
|
|
Post by terrierpark on Apr 2, 2020 19:52:17 GMT 1
Taking it back quickly it would have gone already, not spread over three years and a not inconsiderable amount over god knows how long. Taking it back at all is what seems to have upset some people. Suppose instead he arranged to take it back over ten years would that be ok? In say five years we're struggling yet the annual £5 million is going out how would they feel then. Nailed it. Just so we are clear . Im not aginst DH getting his money back BUT the method of how that is happening. He should have recovered his dues with the purchase price of the club on the sale of the club.Its as simple as that I cannot think of another example that comes close as to whats going on. What is happening now IMO is a blatant misuse of those funds designed to keep clubs ticking over financially and not facing hardship after relegation. Quite frankly its something you'd have expected to see at Leeds a few years ago. The new chairmen heads up a legal firm there would have been nothing stopping the two of them coming up with an arragement where DH was repaid but with a little less urgency and less damaging than the current plan. So yes a longer timespan would have been more pallitable. |
|
|
|
Post by overtonterrierspirit on Apr 2, 2020 20:27:47 GMT 1
Just so we are clear . Im not aginst DH getting his money back BUT the method of how that is happening. He should have recovered his dues with the purchase price of the club on the sale of the club.Its as simple as that I cannot think of another example that comes close as to whats going on. What is happening now IMO is a blatant misuse of those funds designed to keep clubs ticking over financially and not facing hardship after relegation. Quite frankly its something you'd have expected to see at Leeds a few years ago. The new chairmen heads up a legal firm there would have been nothing stopping the two of them coming up with an arragement where DH was repaid but with a little less urgency and less damaging than the current plan. So yes a longer timespan would have been more pallitable. Excellent post and I totally agree with you. |
|
|
|
Post by Headless Chicken on Apr 2, 2020 20:39:17 GMT 1
Just so we are clear . Im not aginst DH getting his money back BUT the method of how that is happening. He should have recovered his dues with the purchase price of the club on the sale of the club.Its as simple as that I cannot think of another example that comes close as to whats going on. What is happening now IMO is a blatant misuse of those funds designed to keep clubs ticking over financially and not facing hardship after relegation. Quite frankly its something you'd have expected to see at Leeds a few years ago. The new chairmen heads up a legal firm there would have been nothing stopping the two of them coming up with an arragement where DH was repaid but with a little less urgency and less damaging than the current plan. So yes a longer timespan would have been more pallitable. You're talking as if this transaction was odd, when I don't believe it was. If you are an accountant, commercial banker, entrepreneur, etc. who does have an insight feel free to correct me. Also, if Phil did spend more on the acquisition, that would see a reduction of his available funds, so it potentially makes bugger all difference whether DH gets his loan repaid or an equivalent higher price for his shares (ignoring tax). People are missing this. Note - I am somewhat disappointed with him calling the loan in at the speed he is and can understand those who feel even stronger. |
|
|
|
Post by space hardware on Apr 2, 2020 20:57:55 GMT 1
Just so we are clear . Im not aginst DH getting his money back BUT the method of how that is happening. He should have recovered his dues with the purchase price of the club on the sale of the club.Its as simple as that I cannot think of another example that comes close as to whats going on. What is happening now IMO is a blatant misuse of those funds designed to keep clubs ticking over financially and not facing hardship after relegation. Quite frankly its something you'd have expected to see at Leeds a few years ago. The new chairmen heads up a legal firm there would have been nothing stopping the two of them coming up with an arragement where DH was repaid but with a little less urgency and less damaging than the current plan. So yes a longer timespan would have been more pallitable. You're talking as if this transaction was odd, when I don't believe it was. If you are an accountant, commercial banker, entrepreneur, etc. who does have an insight feel free to correct me. Also, if Phil did spend more on the acquisition, that would see a reduction of his available funds, so it potentially makes bugger all difference whether DH gets his loan repaid or an equivalent higher price for his shares (ignoring tax). People are missing this. Note - I am somewhat disappointed with him calling the loan in at the speed he is and can understand those who feel even stronger. I think most of us don't begrudge him taking the money back but the speed of it is an issue. I can't get my head around those who see the speed of the repayments as some kind of positive for the club. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2020 23:39:24 GMT 1
Surely if the money is to be repaid it's better when we have it rather than when we don't? Can't you get it, would Dean have pumped £5 million a year into a club that was £45 million or whatever in debt? At what stage and over how many years
would you expect the debt to be repaid?
|
|
|
|
Post by space hardware on Apr 3, 2020 0:01:42 GMT 1
Surely if the money is to be repaid it's better when we have it rather than when we don't? Can't you get it, would Dean have pumped £5 million a year into a club that was £45 million or whatever in debt? At what stage and over how many years would you expect the debt to be repaid? Ask him if he'd have pumped the money in. To be honest, I don't really care. Football as we know it is fucked. A very rich man takes money out of a football club over a shorter period of time than he put it in - that's a matter for him and his conscience. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2020 7:29:12 GMT 1
Surely if the money is to be repaid it's better when we have it rather than when we don't? Can't you get it, would Dean have pumped £5 million a year into a club that was £45 million or whatever in debt? At what stage and over how many years would you expect the debt to be repaid? Ask him if he'd have pumped the money in. To be honest, I don't really care. Football as we know it is fucked. A very rich man takes money out of a football club over a shorter period of time than he put it in - that's a matter for him and his conscience. I now realise i'm wasting my time. However once more. He's taking HIS money out at a time when we can most afford to pay it and NOT when we're cash strapped. |
|
|
|
Post by Headless Chicken on Apr 3, 2020 8:16:35 GMT 1
Surely if the money is to be repaid it's better when we have it rather than when we don't? Can't you get it, would Dean have pumped £5 million a year into a club that was £45 million or whatever in debt? At what stage and over how many years would you expect the debt to be repaid? Codd, I totally get your point, which should be seen as logical, even where someone doesn't agree with the broader point. I'm not 100% firm in my grievance that he is taking his money too quickly, which is why I generally try to say 'question' the speed. We also don't know what he is going to do with it. For all we know, it may end up going to good causes, rather than being sat in a bank or funding a luxurious lifestyle, whether that be Dean, a footballer or an agent. |
|
wigster
Andy Booth Terrier
[M0:0]
Posts: 3,344
|
Post by wigster on Apr 3, 2020 11:19:21 GMT 1
Ask him if he'd have pumped the money in. To be honest, I don't really care. Football as we know it is fucked. A very rich man takes money out of a football club over a shorter period of time than he put it in - that's a matter for him and his conscience. I now realise i'm wasting my time. However once more. He's taking HIS money out at a time when we can most afford to pay it and NOT when we're cash strapped. But he couldn't take his money out if we were cash strapped could he  We can all agree to differ but could you tell me Coddington if you approve of the deal he made with PH (accepting we'll never know the full details - it does SEEM basically that DH gets his money - quickly - and PH gets the club for a price he could only dream of)? Do you think, seeing the stuation the club was in at the time of the deal, that Dean Hoyle would have got anything like the amount he's now getting, at the rate he's getting it, if he hadn't approached PH I don't get that impression, but I accept that none of us know what was agreed. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2020 13:20:30 GMT 1
The club made almost £4m profit last year, the former owner is taking £45m out of the coffers and the taxpayer is paying 80% of the non-playing staff payroll.
That is an absolute disgrace and PH/DH should be ashamed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Headless Chicken on Apr 3, 2020 14:22:17 GMT 1
I now realise i'm wasting my time. However once more. He's taking HIS money out at a time when we can most afford to pay it and NOT when we're cash strapped. But he couldn't take his money out if we were cash strapped could he We can all agree to differ but could you tell me Coddington if you approve of the deal he made with PH (accepting we'll never know the full details - it does SEEM basically that DH gets his money - quickly - and PH gets the club for a price he could only dream of)? Do you think, seeing the stuation the club was in at the time of the deal, that Dean Hoyle would have got anything like the amount he's now getting, at the rate he's getting it, if he hadn't approached PH I don't get that impression, but I accept that none of us know what was agreed. The debt was the club's debt, so it should've been considered in the price, unless Dean agreed to write it off. No way should Phil have paid a price that didn't reflect Dean's (and the bank) loan. If Dean wrote it off and the share price rose to reflect this, Phil would've paid more in the acquistion, but then wouldn't have to supplement the club's income over the next few years to the same degree, with there being no loan to pay off. Phil should be taken out of the equation in this debate, unless he subsequently doesn't fund the club as he suggested he will. |
|
|
|
Post by allan 1958 (OAF-WROY)(SSLFF) on Apr 3, 2020 15:41:48 GMT 1
But he couldn't take his money out if we were cash strapped could he We can all agree to differ but could you tell me Coddington if you approve of the deal he made with PH (accepting we'll never know the full details - it does SEEM basically that DH gets his money - quickly - and PH gets the club for a price he could only dream of)? Do you think, seeing the stuation the club was in at the time of the deal, that Dean Hoyle would have got anything like the amount he's now getting, at the rate he's getting it, if he hadn't approached PH I don't get that impression, but I accept that none of us know what was agreed. The debt was the club's debt, so it should've been considered in the price, unless Dean agreed to write it off. No way should Phil have paid a price that didn't reflect Dean's (and the bank) loan. If Dean wrote it off and the share price rose to reflect this, Phil would've paid more in the acquistion, but then wouldn't have to supplement the club's income over the next few years to the same degree, with there being no loan to pay off. Phil should be taken out of the equation in this debate, unless he subsequently doesn't fund the club as he suggested he will. I think this post deserves a yellow card, talking sense on this thread should be an offence |
|
|
|
Post by Frankiesleftpeg on Apr 3, 2020 16:37:21 GMT 1
The club made almost £4m profit last year, the former owner is taking £45m out of the coffers and the taxpayer is paying 80% of the non-playing staff payroll. That is an absolute disgrace and PH/DH should be ashamed. No disgrace about it. The repayment plan was put in place long before the Coronavirus came along and PH said in the podcast the other day that DH would be flexible on the repayments if the club were struggling financially. None of us know what effect the current situation will have on the agreed deal so its wrong to castigate PH/DH without any evidence |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2020 19:36:28 GMT 1
The club made almost £4m profit last year, the former owner is taking £45m out of the coffers and the taxpayer is paying 80% of the non-playing staff payroll. That is an absolute disgrace and PH/DH should be ashamed. No disgrace about it. The repayment plan was put in place long before the Coronavirus came along and PH said in the podcast the other day that DH would be flexible on the repayments if the club were struggling financially. None of us know what effect the current situation will have on the agreed deal so its wrong to castigate PH/DH without any evidence some on here don't need evidence they just spout owt that comes in to there heads. |
|
|
|
Post by Captainslapper on Apr 3, 2020 20:21:16 GMT 1
Just so we are clear . Im not aginst DH getting his money back BUT the method of how that is happening. He should have recovered his dues with the purchase price of the club on the sale of the club.Its as simple as that I cannot think of another example that comes close as to whats going on. What is happening now IMO is a blatant misuse of those funds designed to keep clubs ticking over financially and not facing hardship after relegation. Quite frankly its something you'd have expected to see at Leeds a few years ago. The new chairmen heads up a legal firm there would have been nothing stopping the two of them coming up with an arragement where DH was repaid but with a little less urgency and less damaging than the current plan. So yes a longer timespan would have been more pallitable. But i don;t think it would though, for the reasons Codd talks about. A few years down the line and Town are still paying DH his money back in say £5m lumps every year, but that £5m is suddenly as much as our biggest income stream. That would be a disaster for Town and leave us with practically nothing to run the club on. Joburgs right IMO, in that it is obviously going to hamper us for these 3 years ( ie we'll have less money than we would have ) but paying him back over a longer period would be a nightmare - unless you went up during these next 2 years when we have the parachute money. We might go up.. but we might not. Chances are we won;t as theres lots of clubs with parachute money in the championship. Think in an ideal situation, the new owner would come in, pay Dean his price for the club whatever that is, AND pay Dean the money the club owes him. But I doubt that was an option. To me, to simplify the whole thing down- Man gives business £45m... business does extremely well from that money, making itself an extra £300m income in the process....business pays man back £35m. The patrons of the business might have complaints about how they spent all that extra money, but I don;t think theres any grounds to complain about the deal overall. Far from it. |
|
