|
Post by Frankiesleftpeg on Jul 29, 2020 13:41:20 GMT 1
Nope, according to the last accounts it’s the first instalment this year, 5 days after the summer window closes (so presumably 10 October) then £10m by 31 August 2021, £10m by 31 August 2022, the last £10m has no agreed date as yet. That’s not to say the club couldn’t make earlier repayments if it wanted to (but doesn’t seem likely as there isn’t any interest accruing as far as I can see). Ah fair enough...I thought we had already paid him that first instalment. PH said in a podcast a couple of months back that we'd already paid £11m of the first installment of £15m.
|
|
|
Post by Colin the Caterpillar on Jul 29, 2020 14:08:51 GMT 1
PH said in a podcast a couple of months back that we'd already paid £11m of the first installment of £15m. Okay, didn’t know that, but fits with the early repayment thing. It looks like repayment dates are matched to transfer windows, so maybe the £11m was out of last summer’s sales...and perhaps suggests the club intend to fund repayments from selling players rather than a direct connection to parachute payments. All speculation though.
|
|
dezzly
Frank Worthington Terrier
Posts: 1,872
|
Post by dezzly on Jul 29, 2020 14:28:30 GMT 1
PH said in a podcast a couple of months back that we'd already paid £11m of the first installment of £15m. Okay, didn’t know that, but fits with the early repayment thing. It looks like repayment dates are matched to transfer windows, so maybe the £11m was out of last summer’s sales...and perhaps suggests the club intend to fund repayments from selling players rather than a direct connection to parachute payments. All speculation though. Presumably the parachute payments fall in line with dates of payment to dean?although wouldn’t we have had our first season parachute instalment and be due the next one around August(well in a normal season)
|
|
|
Post by Frankiesleftpeg on Jul 29, 2020 14:35:15 GMT 1
Makes you wonder if DH's unbridled scenes of joy in the Wembley directors box that were captured on camera were because he had seen his boyhood dream accomplished or it it was because he now had a 'get out of jail free' card which would allow him to get his £45m back. Sad to say that regardless of the whys and wherefores, DH's legacy has been tarnished by this seemingly dodgy deal (ethically). It's hard to be too harsh on DH considering what he did for the club, plus he was severely ill before selling the club. I think we can all agree that we hoped for a better ending to the Dean Hoyle fairy tale I think his illness is potentially the main reason he is selling up. He's the same age as me and his children are a similar age to mine. If I had been as ill as he had been I'd be seriously reassessing my life. By all accounts, he came very close to not making it through. Now, I'm nowhere near a financial position to be able to retire, but he is. Yes, I guess he could afford to leave the money if he wanted to but, at the end of the day, it's his choice. He could have sold us out to a foreign group - that's worked really well for a number of clubs! It's a shame things have ended up the way they have, but we just need to get on with it now. There will be a number of other clubs in our division with little or no money to spend and there will be those spending crazy amounts to reach the promised land so no changes there. I doubt he has though considering he's a director of several other companies and a significant shareholder and Chairman of The Works PLC, which turned over £219m last year. A quick search on companies house shows you his directorships. beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/officers/1POvOBmE6ewY5kUekGHCX9Ktnkw/appointmentsMaybe he needs the brass for his other investments.
|
|
|
Post by Boaty McBoatface on Jul 29, 2020 15:47:20 GMT 1
Where did I say the money owed to DH wasn't a debt? Here - downatthemac.proboards.com/post/2705512Someone said, "aren't some of our parachute payments being used to pay off debts?" And you responded to say, "no, its going to DH". It wasn't actually paying off a debt though, it was paying DH for 75% of the club. Presumably the arrangement was that DH would then write off that amount from what was technically owed to him by the club.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2020 16:04:54 GMT 1
It wasn't actually paying off a debt though, it was paying DH for 75% of the club.No, it wasn't. PH paid some sum for 75% of the club in the takeover. That happened. Any subsequent payment to Dean that has occurred SINCE after the takeover is paying back the DEBT owed to him that he holds in the form of a negative directors loan.
|
|
|
Post by Boaty McBoatface on Jul 30, 2020 14:24:29 GMT 1
It wasn't actually paying off a debt though, it was paying DH for 75% of the club.No, it wasn't. PH paid some sum for 75% of the club in the takeover. That happened. Any subsequent payment to Dean that has occurred SINCE after the takeover is paying back the DEBT owed to him that he holds in the form of a negative directors loan. You're splitting hairs now. We all know the end result, no matter how this may have been structured.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2020 15:27:23 GMT 1
No, it wasn't. PH paid some sum for 75% of the club in the takeover. That happened. Any subsequent payment to Dean that has occurred SINCE after the takeover is paying back the DEBT owed to him that he holds in the form of a negative directors loan. You're splitting hairs now. We all know the end result, no matter how this may have been structured. No I'm not. You're stating something that hasn't happened, as though its a fact, in order to satisfy whatever agenda it is that you happen to have with the way in which the club was and is operated and how it was sold. I can fully understand some anger/frustration/annoyance directed in the direction of Dean and Phil, we're football supporters after all, and I have those frustrations myself...but you seem to have taken those frustrations and planted them front of centre of everything, even where they're not relevant, as though there's some great conspiracy unveiling. Dean loaned some money to a football club...and whilst we were in the EPL he started taking some of that back (whilst also loaning a bit more at times, to support the ebb and flow of cash at a football club transitioning to EPL finance levels). He sold 75% of the club to Phil for a cash consideration. As part of that sale, they also negotiated repayment of the loans (debt the club was carrying) he had made to the football club, to be repaid by the football club, over a period of time that seemed reasonable and would be expected to allow the club to transition to Championship funding levels without putting its ongoing operation at risk. I'm guessing in your imaginary world you'd have preferred it if 75% of the club was sold not just for £7m (or whatever), but actually £7m (or whatever) PLUS £50m - wiping the slate clean of debt? (In which case it would have been someone else buying it, who would now be £50m + £7m (or whatever) out of their pocket, as opposed to where we are which is Phil being £7m (or whatever) out of pocket). When you buy a business, other than in a stock or asset sale, then it often comes debt, there's nothing unusual here at all, and no hairs are being split.
|
|
|
Post by Boaty McBoatface on Jul 30, 2020 15:47:05 GMT 1
You're splitting hairs now. We all know the end result, no matter how this may have been structured. No I'm not. You're stating something that hasn't happened, as though its a fact, in order to satisfy whatever agenda it is that you happen to have with the way in which the club was and is operated and how it was sold. I can fully understand some anger/frustration/annoyance directed in the direction of Dean and Phil, we're football supporters after all, and I have those frustrations myself...but you seem to have taken those frustrations and planted them front of centre of everything, even where they're not relevant, as though there's some great conspiracy unveiling. Dean loaned some money to a football club...and whilst we were in the EPL he started taking some of that back (whilst also loaning a bit more at times, to support the ebb and flow of cash at a football club transitioning to EPL finance levels). He sold 75% of the club to Phil for a cash consideration. As part of that sale, they also negotiated repayment of the loans (debt the club was carrying) he had made to the football club, to be repaid by the football club, over a period of time that seemed reasonable and would be expected to allow the club to transition to Championship funding levels without putting its ongoing operation at risk. I'm guessing in your imaginary world you'd have preferred it if 75% of the club was sold not just for £7m (or whatever), but actually £7m (or whatever) PLUS £50m - wiping the slate clean of debt? (In which case it would have been someone else buying it, who would now be £50m + £7m (or whatever) out of their pocket, as opposed to where we are which is Phil being £7m (or whatever) out of pocket). When you buy a business, other than in a stock or asset sale, then it often comes debt, there's nothing unusual here at all, and no hairs are being split. OK I can accept that. I can certainly see that the value of the club wouldn't be anything like the value of the parachute payments, so the way you have explained it makes sense to me now. I also accept now that the comments I made about PH are wrong, so I will withdraw my earlier comments about him taking money out of the club. Apologies PH. I guess it is just frustration with how things have panned out. We have had income of £200m yet are in a worse place than we were before, with some awful players on inflated wages that we can't get rid of.
|
|
|
Post by Big Ern on Jul 30, 2020 16:41:46 GMT 1
You're splitting hairs now. We all know the end result, no matter how this may have been structured. No I'm not. You're stating something that hasn't happened, as though its a fact, in order to satisfy whatever agenda it is that you happen to have with the way in which the club was and is operated and how it was sold. I can fully understand some anger/frustration/annoyance directed in the direction of Dean and Phil, we're football supporters after all, and I have those frustrations myself...but you seem to have taken those frustrations and planted them front of centre of everything, even where they're not relevant, as though there's some great conspiracy unveiling. Dean loaned some money to a football club...and whilst we were in the EPL he started taking some of that back (whilst also loaning a bit more at times, to support the ebb and flow of cash at a football club transitioning to EPL finance levels). He sold 75% of the club to Phil for a cash consideration. As part of that sale, they also negotiated repayment of the loans (debt the club was carrying) he had made to the football club, to be repaid by the football club, over a period of time that seemed reasonable and would be expected to allow the club to transition to Championship funding levels without putting its ongoing operation at risk. I'm guessing in your imaginary world you'd have preferred it if 75% of the club was sold not just for £7m (or whatever), but actually £7m (or whatever) PLUS £50m - wiping the slate clean of debt? (In which case it would have been someone else buying it, who would now be £50m + £7m (or whatever) out of their pocket, as opposed to where we are which is Phil being £7m (or whatever) out of pocket). When you buy a business, other than in a stock or asset sale, then it often comes debt, there's nothing unusual here at all, and no hairs are being split. If Hoyle sold the club for 7 million AND gets all of his loan stock back then he has taken us all for mugs. He sits back without having lost a thing and we scrape around the lower echelons of league football once more. Financially he has left us right back where we were before he started. Yes you can say we had the Premier league but the financial misgivings which should have left the club prospering for years to come have ultimately left us with 50 million quids worth of talent worth nothing and no parachute income to strengthen the side. If it is a fact that PH is not allowed to use income from player sales to strengthen the team then that is disgusting.
|
|
|
Post by brighousebandbred on Jul 30, 2020 17:21:33 GMT 1
No I'm not. You're stating something that hasn't happened, as though its a fact, in order to satisfy whatever agenda it is that you happen to have with the way in which the club was and is operated and how it was sold. I can fully understand some anger/frustration/annoyance directed in the direction of Dean and Phil, we're football supporters after all, and I have those frustrations myself...but you seem to have taken those frustrations and planted them front of centre of everything, even where they're not relevant, as though there's some great conspiracy unveiling. Dean loaned some money to a football club...and whilst we were in the EPL he started taking some of that back (whilst also loaning a bit more at times, to support the ebb and flow of cash at a football club transitioning to EPL finance levels). He sold 75% of the club to Phil for a cash consideration. As part of that sale, they also negotiated repayment of the loans (debt the club was carrying) he had made to the football club, to be repaid by the football club, over a period of time that seemed reasonable and would be expected to allow the club to transition to Championship funding levels without putting its ongoing operation at risk. I'm guessing in your imaginary world you'd have preferred it if 75% of the club was sold not just for £7m (or whatever), but actually £7m (or whatever) PLUS £50m - wiping the slate clean of debt? (In which case it would have been someone else buying it, who would now be £50m + £7m (or whatever) out of their pocket, as opposed to where we are which is Phil being £7m (or whatever) out of pocket). When you buy a business, other than in a stock or asset sale, then it often comes debt, there's nothing unusual here at all, and no hairs are being split. If Hoyle sold the club for 7 million AND gets all of his loan stock back then he has taken us all for mugs. He sits back without having lost a thing and we scrape around the lower echelons of league football once more. Financially he has left us right back where we were before he started. Yes you can say we had the Premier league but the financial misgivings which should have left the club prospering for years to come have ultimately left us with 50 million quids worth of talent worth nothing and no parachute income to strengthen the side. If it is a fact that PH is not allowed to use income from player sales to strengthen the team then that is disgusting.[/quot Town are a great love of mine , a passion that will stay with me till the day I die , DH might have all the money in the world but as he lost the love. ? I watch the play off final from time to time and feel a bit sorry for him now (DH ) at the end , because as we fans had tears of joy and happiness in our thoughts, I’m left thinking maybe he was just happy because of the money ( very very sad if true,. ). Wish him the best in life but somewhere along the line he’s possibly lost something money can’t buy.
|
|
|
Post by Big Ern on Jul 30, 2020 17:28:26 GMT 1
If Hoyle sold the club for 7 million AND gets all of his loan stock back then he has taken us all for mugs. He sits back without having lost a thing and we scrape around the lower echelons of league football once more. Financially he has left us right back where we were before he started. Yes you can say we had the Premier league but the financial misgivings which should have left the club prospering for years to come have ultimately left us with 50 million quids worth of talent worth nothing and no parachute income to strengthen the side. If it is a fact that PH is not allowed to use income from player sales to strengthen the team then that is disgusting.[/quot Town are a great love of mine , a passion that will stay with me till the day I die , DH might have all the money in the world but as he lost the love. ? I watch the play off final from time to time and feel a bit sorry for him now (DH ) at the end , because as we fans had tears of joy and happiness in our thoughts, I’m left thinking maybe he was just happy because of the money ( very very sad if true,. ). Wish him the best in life but somewhere along the line he’s possibly lost something money can’t buy. Its gutting because I think until we got to the Premier league, in those years before, he became a hero. The fight for the shares, the play offs, the identity on the pitch and off it. I just can't fathom how or why he would hamstring the club to such an extent. This is a guy who invaded the pitch back at old Leeds Road. He is supposed to be one of us. This club is supposed to be his club and to say we can't reinvest from player sales i find boggling. Its like he has had his head turned by someone. If the money is that important then at least structure a deal over a longer period to allow the club to succeed. I just can't understand why he would destroy his legacy like that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2020 17:29:16 GMT 1
No I'm not. You're stating something that hasn't happened, as though its a fact, in order to satisfy whatever agenda it is that you happen to have with the way in which the club was and is operated and how it was sold. I can fully understand some anger/frustration/annoyance directed in the direction of Dean and Phil, we're football supporters after all, and I have those frustrations myself...but you seem to have taken those frustrations and planted them front of centre of everything, even where they're not relevant, as though there's some great conspiracy unveiling. Dean loaned some money to a football club...and whilst we were in the EPL he started taking some of that back (whilst also loaning a bit more at times, to support the ebb and flow of cash at a football club transitioning to EPL finance levels). He sold 75% of the club to Phil for a cash consideration. As part of that sale, they also negotiated repayment of the loans (debt the club was carrying) he had made to the football club, to be repaid by the football club, over a period of time that seemed reasonable and would be expected to allow the club to transition to Championship funding levels without putting its ongoing operation at risk. I'm guessing in your imaginary world you'd have preferred it if 75% of the club was sold not just for £7m (or whatever), but actually £7m (or whatever) PLUS £50m - wiping the slate clean of debt? (In which case it would have been someone else buying it, who would now be £50m + £7m (or whatever) out of their pocket, as opposed to where we are which is Phil being £7m (or whatever) out of pocket). When you buy a business, other than in a stock or asset sale, then it often comes debt, there's nothing unusual here at all, and no hairs are being split. If Hoyle sold the club for 7 million AND gets all of his loan stock back then he has taken us all for mugs. He sits back without having lost a thing and we scrape around the lower echelons of league football once more. Financially he has left us right back where we were before he started. Yes you can say we had the Premier league but the financial misgivings which should have left the club prospering for years to come have ultimately left us with 50 million quids worth of talent worth nothing and no parachute income to strengthen the side. If it is a fact that PH is not allowed to use income from player sales to strengthen the team then that is disgusting. Ignoring that the £7m is a completely made up figure...£7m seems like pretty good value to me to take the club from going nowhere in League 1 to being a Championship club with aspirations of a top 10 finish. We were getting gates of less than 7000....it was a club nobody was interested in. We’ve all had our barometers kicked out of kilter by the overswung adventure into the EPL. There is as yet no evidence that says the club won’t prosper for years to come, and I’ve no idea what you’re on about with your final sentence!?
|
|
|
Post by ldotm on Jul 30, 2020 17:49:28 GMT 1
No I'm not. You're stating something that hasn't happened, as though its a fact, in order to satisfy whatever agenda it is that you happen to have with the way in which the club was and is operated and how it was sold. I can fully understand some anger/frustration/annoyance directed in the direction of Dean and Phil, we're football supporters after all, and I have those frustrations myself...but you seem to have taken those frustrations and planted them front of centre of everything, even where they're not relevant, as though there's some great conspiracy unveiling. Dean loaned some money to a football club...and whilst we were in the EPL he started taking some of that back (whilst also loaning a bit more at times, to support the ebb and flow of cash at a football club transitioning to EPL finance levels). He sold 75% of the club to Phil for a cash consideration. As part of that sale, they also negotiated repayment of the loans (debt the club was carrying) he had made to the football club, to be repaid by the football club, over a period of time that seemed reasonable and would be expected to allow the club to transition to Championship funding levels without putting its ongoing operation at risk. I'm guessing in your imaginary world you'd have preferred it if 75% of the club was sold not just for £7m (or whatever), but actually £7m (or whatever) PLUS £50m - wiping the slate clean of debt? (In which case it would have been someone else buying it, who would now be £50m + £7m (or whatever) out of their pocket, as opposed to where we are which is Phil being £7m (or whatever) out of pocket). When you buy a business, other than in a stock or asset sale, then it often comes debt, there's nothing unusual here at all, and no hairs are being split. If Hoyle sold the club for 7 million AND gets all of his loan stock back then he has taken us all for mugs. He sits back without having lost a thing and we scrape around the lower echelons of league football once more. Financially he has left us right back where we were before he started. Yes you can say we had the Premier league but the financial misgivings which should have left the club prospering for years to come have ultimately left us with 50 million quids worth of talent worth nothing and no parachute income to strengthen the side. If it is a fact that PH is not allowed to use income from player sales to strengthen the team then that is disgusting. We should be looking like we have a lot more financial substance behind us but it really boils down to two things; 1) Recruitment - we blasted most of the PL money on poor signings and wage salaries that haven’t had the resale value we anticipated. You look at Bournemouth who owe £80m+ in player sales but are fortunate they have players that have stamped their value down and Bournemouth can recuperate a sizeable investment back on certain players. 2) Didn’t sell to a ridiculously wealthy owner - there is no dispute that PH is not in the same league financially as some of the opposing Chairmen, however wealthy owners doesn’t always bring investment or success. Look at some of the mess’ other clubs are in - Wigan, Charlton etc. Dean had talks with foreign investment but he was clearly concerned about their compelling reason of running OUR club. Whilst it would be great if PH had money coming out of his ears, the one blessing is, on the surface you’d imagine he genuinely wants what is best for the club not just on the pitch but operationally and how we are sustainable.
|
|
|
Post by Big Ern on Jul 30, 2020 17:55:10 GMT 1
If Hoyle sold the club for 7 million AND gets all of his loan stock back then he has taken us all for mugs. He sits back without having lost a thing and we scrape around the lower echelons of league football once more. Financially he has left us right back where we were before he started. Yes you can say we had the Premier league but the financial misgivings which should have left the club prospering for years to come have ultimately left us with 50 million quids worth of talent worth nothing and no parachute income to strengthen the side. If it is a fact that PH is not allowed to use income from player sales to strengthen the team then that is disgusting. We should be looking like we have a lot more financial substance behind us but it really boils down to two things; 1) Recruitment - we blasted most of the PL money on poor signings and wage salaries that haven’t had the resale value we anticipated. You look at Bournemouth who owe £80m+ in player sales but are fortunate they have players that have stamped their value down and Bournemouth can recuperate a sizeable investment back on certain players. 2) Didn’t sell to a ridiculously wealthy owner - there is no dispute that PH is not in the same league financially as some of the opposing Chairmen, however wealthy owners doesn’t always bring investment or success. Look at some of the mess’ other clubs are in - Wigan, Charlton etc. Dean had talks with foreign investment but he was clearly concerned about their compelling reason of running OUR club. Whilst it would be great if PH had money coming out of his ears, the one blessing is, on the surface you’d imagine he genuinely wants what is best for the club not just on the pitch but operationally and how we are sustainable. I like Phil to be fair. Maybe his early days gave a false impression as to what kind of owner he would be, we all make mistakes but im with you. He seems to genuinely care about the club and I'm excited about the changes...mind you I said that about Dean Hoyle too
|
|
|
Post by Up the Duff. on Jul 30, 2020 18:11:42 GMT 1
With a net worth of £11.8 billion, £55m is a relatively insignificant sum - especially as he has the potential to recoup if they get back to the promised land and stay there. People expecting DH (& Janet) - net worth around £300m - to write off £40-50m - well that's a much bigger ask. Really poor form for anyone to have a go at him - some of us have become a very entitled group in a very entitled society. Good to see the word ‘entitled’ back. I thought it had been removed from the dictionary 😂
|
|
|
Post by Walton-on-the-Hill Terrier on Jul 31, 2020 15:16:51 GMT 1
The new restrictions, including cancelling various crowd pilot tests at sporting events, are inevitably going to delay the return of fans to games. Could be a serious setback for most clubs.
I’d planned to come up about 10th August for a week but that’s had to be binned now.
|
|
|
Post by htfcsince70 on Jul 31, 2020 16:06:27 GMT 1
Just read that Middlesborough have suspended season ticket sales at 6000 - they don't want to risk having to turn people away or decide who attends and who doesn't. Anyone have any idea on the situation at Town? I'm not sure that I can face the ifollow debacle again - especially as I am about to change my email address so there is no way the EFL will cope with that and enable me to access the games - I can see it now 'incorrect email address' please try again!!! The restriction on tickets is understandable but will undoubtedly have an impact on finances.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2020 16:35:34 GMT 1
Not Championship but just wanted to highlight the difference
|
|
crux
Andy Booth Terrier
[M0:0]
Posts: 3,891
|
Post by crux on Jul 31, 2020 17:21:54 GMT 1
Not Championship but just wanted to highlight the difference Didn't we do something similar in our first PL season (god that sounds weird now), record profits, record turnover and record investment. Hasn't really turned out that well so far as we utterly fucked it up in the second season.
|
|