You are here: Home > Message Board > Palace Talk > Takeover in weeks?
October 3 2024 5.20pm

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum.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

Takeover in weeks?

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 16 of 42 < 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 >

  

bexleydave Flag Barnehurst 21 Jun 19 1.08pm Send a Private Message to bexleydave Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add bexleydave as a friend

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)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
taylors lovechild Flag 21 Jun 19 2.45pm Send a Private Message to taylors lovechild Add taylors lovechild as a friend

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

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Painter Flag Croydon 21 Jun 19 3.30pm Send a Private Message to Painter Add Painter as a friend

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.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Midlands Eagle Flag 21 Jun 19 3.45pm Send a Private Message to Midlands Eagle Add Midlands Eagle as a friend

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.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Midlands Eagle Flag 21 Jun 19 3.51pm Send a Private Message to Midlands Eagle Add Midlands Eagle as a friend

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

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
scuffy Flag orpington 21 Jun 19 4.01pm Send a Private Message to scuffy Add scuffy as a friend

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.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
taylors lovechild Flag 21 Jun 19 4.01pm Send a Private Message to taylors lovechild Add taylors lovechild as a friend

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.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Cucking Funt Flag Clapham on the Back 21 Jun 19 4.21pm Send a Private Message to Cucking Funt Add Cucking Funt as a friend

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

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
the_mcanuff_stuff Flag Caterham 21 Jun 19 5.43pm Send a Private Message to the_mcanuff_stuff Add the_mcanuff_stuff as a friend

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.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
est1905 Flag 21 Jun 19 5.55pm Send a Private Message to est1905 Add est1905 as a friend

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.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Sherlock Holmesdale Flag Milton Keynes 21 Jun 19 6.06pm Send a Private Message to Sherlock Holmesdale Add Sherlock Holmesdale as a friend

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

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Vaibow Flag vancouver/croydon 22 Jun 19 12.07am Send a Private Message to Vaibow Add Vaibow as a friend

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....

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply

  

Page 16 of 42 < 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > Palace Talk > Takeover in weeks?