Takeover in weeks?

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Takeover in weeks?

Visit the current forum | Forum Rules

Page 10 of 25 < 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 >

bexleydave Barnehurst 21 Jun 19 1.08pm
Originally posted by lefty27 Who is? If you look at the other premier league teams debts are look minuscule. Everton, Newcastle have debts of over £100 million. I think only Burnley rum at a profit and maybe one or two others. Not really the case. Most in fact made a profit and, like us, with a few exceptions, any debt is in the form of loans from the owners: [Link] Bexley Dave Can you hear the Brighton sing? I can't hear a ******* thing! "The most arrogant, obnoxious bunch of deluded little sun tanned, loafer wearing mummy's boys I've ever had the misfortune of having to listen to" (Burnley forum)

bexleydave

Barnehurst 21 Jun 19 1.08pm

Originally posted by lefty27

Who is? If you look at the other premier league teams debts are look minuscule. Everton, Newcastle have debts of over £100 million. I think only Burnley rum at a profit and maybe one or two others.

Not really the case. Most in fact made a profit and, like us, with a few exceptions, any debt is in the form of loans from the owners:

[Link]

Bexley Dave

Can you hear the Brighton sing? I can't hear a ******* thing!

"The most arrogant, obnoxious bunch of deluded little sun tanned, loafer wearing mummy's boys I've ever had the misfortune of having to listen to" (Burnley forum)

taylors lovechild 21 Jun 19 2.45pm
Forgive my ignorance, but is an owner able to force the club to repay the debt at any point? For example, our debt to the owners is stated as a comparatively low £26m, which in theory they could fully recover from the sale of AWB or Zaha if they wanted to. Whereas Chelsea are indebted to Abramovic to the tune of 1.1 billion. If he decided to call it a day could he just sell off the assets until he got his money if he couldn't find a buyer? I'm guessing the answer is yes if there are no other shareholders? I notice Brighton have effectively been bankrolled too which I guess may impact their spending given they have few players worth much and spent significant amounts on dross

taylors lovechild

21 Jun 19 2.45pm

Forgive my ignorance, but is an owner able to force the club to repay the debt at any point? For example, our debt to the owners is stated as a comparatively low £26m, which in theory they could fully recover from the sale of AWB or Zaha if they wanted to. Whereas Chelsea are indebted to Abramovic to the tune of 1.1 billion. If he decided to call it a day could he just sell off the assets until he got his money if he couldn't find a buyer? I'm guessing the answer is yes if there are no other shareholders?

I notice Brighton have effectively been bankrolled too which I guess may impact their spending given they have few players worth much and spent significant amounts on dross

Painter Croydon 21 Jun 19 3.30pm
Originally posted by bexleydave Not really the case. Most in fact made a profit and, like us, with a few exceptions, any debt is in the form of loans from the owners: [Link] How can they report a profit, if they are beholden to loans from the owners, who keep pumping in money to keep them afloat, in the Weeds case £200m odd. They operating at a loss, otherwise loans wouldn't be needed.

Painter

Croydon 21 Jun 19 3.30pm

Originally posted by bexleydave

Not really the case. Most in fact made a profit and, like us, with a few exceptions, any debt is in the form of loans from the owners:

[Link]

How can they report a profit, if they are beholden to loans from the owners, who keep pumping in money to keep them afloat, in the Weeds case £200m odd.
They operating at a loss, otherwise loans wouldn't be needed.

Midlands Eagle 21 Jun 19 3.45pm
Originally posted by taylors lovechild Forgive my ignorance, but is an owner able to force the club to repay the debt at any point? For example, our debt to the owners is stated as a comparatively low £26m, which in theory they could fully recover from the sale of AWB or Zaha if they wanted to. Whereas Chelsea are indebted to Abramovic to the tune of 1.1 billion. If he decided to call it a day could he just sell off the assets until he got his money if he couldn't find a buyer? I'm guessing the answer is yes if there are no other shareholders? Assuming that there are no agreements in place regarding the loan repayments then the lenders could be repaid in full out of the sale proceeds in theory. In practice most transfer fees are not paid up front in full but in tranches over a period If a company is insolvent it is illegal to pay off one creditor (or loan) in preference to others. That won't really apply to Palace but it would to Chelsea so Abramovic would never get his money back by selling assets as it would leave the club insolvent.

Midlands Eagle

21 Jun 19 3.45pm

Originally posted by taylors lovechild

Assuming that there are no agreements in place regarding the loan repayments then the lenders could be repaid in full out of the sale proceeds in theory.

In practice most transfer fees are not paid up front in full but in tranches over a period

If a company is insolvent it is illegal to pay off one creditor (or loan) in preference to others. That won't really apply to Palace but it would to Chelsea so Abramovic would never get his money back by selling assets as it would leave the club insolvent.

Midlands Eagle 21 Jun 19 3.51pm
Originally posted by Painter How can they report a profit, if they are beholden to loans from the owners, who keep pumping in money to keep them afloat, in the Weeds case £200m odd. They operating at a loss, otherwise loans wouldn't be needed. Profit and Loss is very different to cash flow. If you buy a player for £10m and give him a four year contract that will mean a cost of £2.5m a year against the profit and loss but you will still need funds of £10m to buy him in the first place. Assuming that we sell AWB in the next 9 days (which is the end of our year) we will show a profit of £50m (or whatever) this year on that transaction alone but the reverse will happen as it's doubtful whether Man U will pay the full amount up front but will stage the payments over (perhaps) three years so whilst we will show a huge profit it won't be cash in the bank

Midlands Eagle

21 Jun 19 3.51pm

Originally posted by Painter

Profit and Loss is very different to cash flow.

If you buy a player for £10m and give him a four year contract that will mean a cost of £2.5m a year against the profit and loss but you will still need funds of £10m to buy him in the first place.

Assuming that we sell AWB in the next 9 days (which is the end of our year) we will show a profit of £50m (or whatever) this year on that transaction alone but the reverse will happen as it's doubtful whether Man U will pay the full amount up front but will stage the payments over (perhaps) three years so whilst we will show a huge profit it won't be cash in the bank

scuffy orpington 21 Jun 19 4.01pm
Or they could just take the money out of the business in the form of dividends. Originally posted by Midlands Eagle Assuming that there are no agreements in place regarding the loan repayments then the lenders could be repaid in full out of the sale proceeds in theory. In practice most transfer fees are not paid up front in full but in tranches over a period If a company is insolvent it is illegal to pay off one creditor (or loan) in preference to others. That won't really apply to Palace but it would to Chelsea so Abramovic would never get his money back by selling assets as it would leave the club insolvent.

scuffy

orpington 21 Jun 19 4.01pm

Or they could just take the money out of the business in the form of dividends.

Originally posted by Midlands Eagle

Assuming that there are no agreements in place regarding the loan repayments then the lenders could be repaid in full out of the sale proceeds in theory.

In practice most transfer fees are not paid up front in full but in tranches over a period

taylors lovechild 21 Jun 19 4.01pm
Originally posted by Midlands Eagle Assuming that there are no agreements in place regarding the loan repayments then the lenders could be repaid in full out of the sale proceeds in theory. In practice most transfer fees are not paid up front in full but in tranches over a period If a company is insolvent it is illegal to pay off one creditor (or loan) in preference to others. That won't really apply to Palace but it would to Chelsea so Abramovic would never get his money back by selling assets as it would leave the club insolvent. Thanks for clarifying.

taylors lovechild

21 Jun 19 4.01pm

Originally posted by Midlands Eagle

Assuming that there are no agreements in place regarding the loan repayments then the lenders could be repaid in full out of the sale proceeds in theory.

In practice most transfer fees are not paid up front in full but in tranches over a period

Thanks for clarifying.

Cucking Funt Clapham on the Back 21 Jun 19 4.21pm
Originally posted by Midlands Eagle Assuming that there are no agreements in place regarding the loan repayments then the lenders could be repaid in full out of the sale proceeds in theory. In practice most transfer fees are not paid up front in full but in tranches over a period If a company is insolvent it is illegal to pay off one creditor (or loan) in preference to others. That won't really apply to Palace but it would to Chelsea so Abramovic would never get his money back by selling assets as it would leave the club insolvent. Unless HMRC are a creditor, in which case they now have preference. Wife beating may be socially acceptable in Sheffield, but it is a different matter in Cheltenham

Cucking Funt

Clapham on the Back 21 Jun 19 4.21pm

Originally posted by Midlands Eagle

Assuming that there are no agreements in place regarding the loan repayments then the lenders could be repaid in full out of the sale proceeds in theory.

In practice most transfer fees are not paid up front in full but in tranches over a period

If a company is insolvent it is illegal to pay off one creditor (or loan) in preference to others. That won't really apply to Palace but it would to Chelsea so Abramovic would never get his money back by selling assets as it would leave the club insolvent.

Unless HMRC are a creditor, in which case they now have preference.

Wife beating may be socially acceptable in Sheffield, but it is a different matter in Cheltenham

the_mcanuff_stuff Caterham 21 Jun 19 5.43pm
Originally posted by Painter How can they report a profit, if they are beholden to loans from the owners, who keep pumping in money to keep them afloat, in the Weeds case £200m odd. They operating at a loss, otherwise loans wouldn't be needed. I'm afraid it's not that simple. As long as you've got more money coming in (gates, TV money, merchandise etc.) than going out (staff wages, maintenance, loan interest etc.) then you're making a profit. Loans have nothing to do with if a business is profitable, other than that the interest is booked in the red column. There's loads of companies that make a profit despite shed loads of debt. As long as income>expenditure, you're profitable.

the_mcanuff_stuff

Caterham 21 Jun 19 5.43pm

Originally posted by Painter

I'm afraid it's not that simple. As long as you've got more money coming in (gates, TV money, merchandise etc.) than going out (staff wages, maintenance, loan interest etc.) then you're making a profit.

Loans have nothing to do with if a business is profitable, other than that the interest is booked in the red column. There's loads of companies that make a profit despite shed loads of debt. As long as income>expenditure, you're profitable.

est1905 21 Jun 19 5.55pm
Originally posted by Painter If the Premier is still such a golden egg, why are they having a lot of problems replacing Scudamore. There is no such agreement that future deals will rise, as BTs interest is declining. Amazon are in the frame now, but their business model isn't based around sport, so wont pay over the odds. [Link] AWB hasn't been sold yet and if he is the money will be used for new players, very few Premier clubs operate in profit, its not the transfers but the wages. Palaces income to wages ratio is among the worst in the Premier, moving AWB on isn't going to help much as he was the lowest earner. So 50m isn't going to show up on the accounts? I think someone needs to go back to school! And yes, the TV contract negotiations for the Premiership are indeed upwards only. This is a fact. but dont take my word for it, its public information thats out there. Look it up. As for AWB 'hasn't been sold yet'? keep clutching at those straws fella, he's as good as gone. You know it and I know it.

est1905

21 Jun 19 5.55pm

Originally posted by Painter

If the Premier is still such a golden egg, why are they having a lot of problems replacing Scudamore. There is no such agreement that future deals will rise, as BTs interest is declining. Amazon are in the frame now, but their business model isn't based around sport, so wont pay over the odds.
[Link]

AWB hasn't been sold yet and if he is the money will be used for new players, very few Premier clubs operate in profit, its not the transfers but the wages. Palaces income to wages ratio is among the worst in the Premier, moving AWB on isn't going to help much as he was the lowest earner.

So 50m isn't going to show up on the accounts?
I think someone needs to go back to school!

And yes, the TV contract negotiations for the Premiership are indeed upwards only. This is a fact. but dont take my word for it, its public information thats out there. Look it up.
As for AWB 'hasn't been sold yet'? keep clutching at those straws fella, he's as good as gone. You know it and I know it.

Sherlock Holmesdale Milton Keynes 21 Jun 19 6.06pm
Originally posted by scuffy Or they could just take the money out of the business in the form of dividends. If the business owed you millions of pounds in the form of a loan then it would be incredibly stupid to take money out by way of dividends. There would also need to be sufficient P&L reserves to enable you to pay a dividend

Sherlock Holmesdale

Milton Keynes 21 Jun 19 6.06pm

Originally posted by scuffy

Or they could just take the money out of the business in the form of dividends.

If the business owed you millions of pounds in the form of a loan then it would be incredibly stupid to take money out by way of dividends. There would also need to be sufficient P&L reserves to enable you to pay a dividend

Vaibow vancouver/croydon 22 Jun 19 12.07am
Originally posted by Painter How can they report a profit, if they are beholden to loans from the owners, who keep pumping in money to keep them afloat, in the Weeds case £200m odd. They operating at a loss, otherwise loans wouldn't be needed. you got a painting business, you got staff that go out and paint. the money they bring in, pays their wages and materials, stock, transport etc. Hopefully a bit of money left over for a profit. You want to expand, get bigger, better tools, more experienced staff, you get a loan out to make this happen. You owe the bank money and a percentage of your profits are what slowly pays it off... or... if you decide to down size, then the money generated from sales pays it off.... loans are a side issue. This was once a quality forum....

Vaibow

vancouver/croydon 22 Jun 19 12.07am

Originally posted by Painter

you got a painting business, you got staff that go out and paint. the money they bring in, pays their wages and materials, stock, transport etc. Hopefully a bit of money left over for a profit.

You want to expand, get bigger, better tools, more experienced staff, you get a loan out to make this happen.

You owe the bank money and a percentage of your profits are what slowly pays it off... or... if you decide to down size, then the money generated from sales pays it off.... loans are a side issue.

This was once a quality forum....

dreamwaverider London 22 Jun 19 5.14am
Originally posted by Rudi Hedman I don’t think the US shares were £100 mil when they bought them or worth that now. That sounds like the expected value after the main stand is built, so not now. I seem to remember the club value to be over £200 mil after the main stand is built. I thought they bought in with £50 mil for shares and £50 mil for the stand ringfenced. If that has been spent on transfers then it’ll be coming out of annual revenue I’d expect, unless we got a Sheikh come in. Or did they buy in with £100 plus £50 mil ringfenced? Painter is correct. The articles are saying a value of £220m. As I recall the Americans paid £40m for a 60% stake. So if they sell their stake for £100m and the incoming party commits a further £150m interest free loan that would get the new stand built and leave some money for players. The devil will be in the detail which will be smoked out.

dreamwaverider

London 22 Jun 19 5.14am

Originally posted by Rudi Hedman

I don’t think the US shares were £100 mil when they bought them or worth that now. That sounds like the expected value after the main stand is built, so not now. I seem to remember the club value to be over £200 mil after the main stand is built. I thought they bought in with £50 mil for shares and £50 mil for the stand ringfenced. If that has been spent on transfers then it’ll be coming out of annual revenue I’d expect, unless we got a Sheikh come in.

Or did they buy in with £100 plus £50 mil ringfenced?

Painter is correct. The articles are saying a value of £220m. As I recall the Americans paid £40m for a 60% stake. So if they sell their stake for £100m and the incoming party commits a further £150m interest free loan that would get the new stand built and leave some money for players. The devil will be in the detail which will be smoked out.

Rudi Hedman Caterham 22 Jun 19 6.56am
Originally posted by dreamwaverider Painter is correct. The articles are saying a value of £220m. As I recall the Americans paid £40m for a 60% stake. So if they sell their stake for £100m and the incoming party commits a further £150m interest free loan that would get the new stand built and leave some money for players. The devil will be in the detail which will be smoked out. Yes I know he is. It’s what I said as well. I said they bought in with something like 50 for the shares at the current value and another 50 supposed to be ringfenced to bring the total to their percentage share of what the club is worth when the main stand is finished. I just wasn’t clear in my first post but was in my second. COYP

Rudi Hedman

Caterham 22 Jun 19 6.56am

Originally posted by dreamwaverider

Yes I know he is. It’s what I said as well. I said they bought in with something like 50 for the shares at the current value and another 50 supposed to be ringfenced to bring the total to their percentage share of what the club is worth when the main stand is finished.

I just wasn’t clear in my first post but was in my second.

COYP

dreamwaverider London 22 Jun 19 8.55am
IN the short term CPFC should find a way of moving the tv gantry out of the Arthur and sticking it on the roof. That would free up the view from the upper tier meaning fans would get a proper view and maybe even pay a bit more. Or get on with the new stand and move it then.

dreamwaverider

London 22 Jun 19 8.55am

IN the short term CPFC should find a way of moving the tv gantry out of the Arthur and sticking it on the roof. That would free up the view from the upper tier meaning fans would get a proper view and maybe even pay a bit more. Or get on with the new stand and move it then.

Mendi 23 Jun 19 12.30am
[Link]

Mendi

23 Jun 19 12.30am

[Link]

ASCPFC Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 25 Jun 19 5.00pm
Originally posted by Mendi [Link] Interesting, would be great if we got real investment and proper development. Red and Blue Army!

ASCPFC

Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 25 Jun 19 5.00pm

Originally posted by Mendi

[Link]

Interesting, would be great if we got real investment and proper development.

Red and Blue Army!

bexleydave Barnehurst 25 Jun 19 5.10pm
Originally posted by ASCPFC Interesting, would be great if we got real investment and proper development. Wouldn't it just. Bexley Dave Can you hear the Brighton sing? I can't hear a ******* thing! "The most arrogant, obnoxious bunch of deluded little sun tanned, loafer wearing mummy's boys I've ever had the misfortune of having to listen to" (Burnley forum)

bexleydave

Barnehurst 25 Jun 19 5.10pm

Originally posted by ASCPFC

Interesting, would be great if we got real investment and proper development.

Wouldn't it just.

Bexley Dave

Can you hear the Brighton sing? I can't hear a ******* thing!

"The most arrogant, obnoxious bunch of deluded little sun tanned, loafer wearing mummy's boys I've ever had the misfortune of having to listen to" (Burnley forum)

JohnB 25 Jun 19 5.25pm
Not sure I believe it to be honest. If we were really on the verge of being bought by owners that had money to invest as that article suggests, wouldn't have thought we would cash in on AWB before any sale.

JohnB

25 Jun 19 5.25pm

Not sure I believe it to be honest. If we were really on the verge of being bought by owners that had money to invest as that article suggests, wouldn't have thought we would cash in on AWB before any sale.

est1905 25 Jun 19 5.42pm
Originally posted by JohnB Not sure I believe it to be honest. If we were really on the verge of being bought by owners that had money to invest as that article suggests, wouldn't have thought we would cash in on AWB before any sale. 1. If he wants to leave and has had his head turned you might as well let him go. 2. 50m is an amazing bit of business for a youth player that didn't cost us a penny and has played less than 50 games total for Palace. AWB is a really good prospect but he is not the finished article and there are other right backs out there that will do a good job. He's a lot easier to replace that Wilf too. Selling him has zero to do with any takeover. If a deal was struck to buy out the yanks tomorrow AWB will still be leaving.

est1905

25 Jun 19 5.42pm

Originally posted by JohnB

1. If he wants to leave and has had his head turned you might as well let him go. 2. 50m is an amazing bit of business for a youth player that didn't cost us a penny and has played less than 50 games total for Palace.
AWB is a really good prospect but he is not the finished article and there are other right backs out there that will do a good job. He's a lot easier to replace that Wilf too. Selling him has zero to do with any takeover. If a deal was struck to buy out the yanks tomorrow AWB will still be leaving.

Page 10 of 25 < 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 >

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Takeover in weeks?

Site Map