You are here: Home > Message Board > Palace Talk > Palace Funding Problems . . .
May 22 2024 9.45pm

Palace Funding Problems . . .

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 2 of 5 < 1 2 3 4 5 >

 

View Hrolf The Ganger's Profile Hrolf The Ganger Flag 25 Mar 24 7.51pm Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger Add Hrolf The Ganger as a friend

Taking a loan is exactly what you would expect before the building of a new stand.
No one pays for a project of that size out of their piggy bank.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View cROYdonrogers's Profile cROYdonrogers Flag Leamington Spa 26 Mar 24 7.20am Send a Private Message to cROYdonrogers Add cROYdonrogers as a friend

There are some big pieces of the jigsaw missing here - and of course it's reported in The Mail.
They say a reported loss of £125m over the past three years and the PSR rules say no more than £105m over three years. So why aren't we being charged. There may be an answer to that even if the £125m is correct eg Covid correction but I'm not sure it's all straightforward.
Yes the elusive new stand may feature. Borrowing against the increased revenue it will create once built.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Badger11's Profile Badger11 Flag Beckenham 26 Mar 24 7.34am Send a Private Message to Badger11 Add Badger11 as a friend

Originally posted by cROYdonrogers

There are some big pieces of the jigsaw missing here - and of course it's reported in The Mail.
They say a reported loss of £125m over the past three years and the PSR rules say no more than £105m over three years. So why aren't we being charged. There may be an answer to that even if the £125m is correct eg Covid correction but I'm not sure it's all straightforward.
Yes the elusive new stand may feature. Borrowing against the increased revenue it will create once built.

Perhaps the £125m includes stuff that is not relevant to FFP? Just a thought.

 


One more point

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Dubai Eagle's Profile Dubai Eagle Flag 26 Mar 24 8.25am Send a Private Message to Dubai Eagle Add Dubai Eagle as a friend

I can see that the £125 million losses over 3 seasons
(£24.2 + £40 + £61.1 = £125.3) includes around £21 million Covid losses over 2 seasons 2019/20 + 20 / 21 -

I think that Covid losses are relevant to the financial accounts but they are not counted against FFP/ Profit & sustainability calculations -

Part of Evertons argument against FFP / Profit & sustainability in the first case revolved around how much they allocated against Covid losses (I forget the numbers but the amount of relief against losses that they claimed was substantially more than other clubs of the same / similar size)

Of course I am not an accountant but thats how it looks to me.

Originally posted by Badger11

Perhaps the £125m includes stuff that is not relevant to FFP? Just a thought.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Spiderman's Profile Spiderman Flag Horsham 26 Mar 24 9.09am Send a Private Message to Spiderman Add Spiderman as a friend

Originally posted by Nicholas91

My VERY LIMITED interpretation of that would be it is indicative of the model I had initially thought we were following?

Take out loans to free up cash for purchasing players we would then look to resell at a higher price at some point in the future, paying back the loans, performing in the League and keeping some extra dosh for the club. Hence the purchases of many younger players at reasonable prices with the hope/expectation they go for far more in the future - Guehi, Doucoure, Eze, Olise, Franca etc.

For me that's a far more sustainable and better plan than buying players at high prices, for short term fixes, and letting them go for near if not nothing in the future (Sakho and Benteke for instance).

I'm also hoping that this means we are looking to buy players in the summer, even if we sell one or more.

Again, VERY LIMITED interpretation. Happy to be corrected but equally informed.

I agree. We probably aim to buy before selling so clubs are in the dark as to how much money we have to spend and therefore up the price. Sensible approach but we really need to do business early

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Spiderman's Profile Spiderman Flag Horsham 26 Mar 24 9.11am Send a Private Message to Spiderman Add Spiderman as a friend

Originally posted by Badger11

Perhaps the £125m includes stuff that is not relevant to FFP? Just a thought.

I believe it does

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View FernsideEagle's Profile FernsideEagle Flag Tunbridge Wells 26 Mar 24 11.07am Send a Private Message to FernsideEagle Add FernsideEagle as a friend

Several types of expenditure don't count towards the loss as far as the PSR rules are concerned. I think the 3 big ones are infrastructure spending, running the academy and spending on the women's team so a club can have losses that are much higher than £105m over a three year cycle but still comply with the PSR rules.

Nevertheless the money still has to be found to cover the losses!

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View pssguy's Profile pssguy Flag 26 Mar 24 11.50am Send a Private Message to pssguy Add pssguy as a friend

Originally posted by Spiderman

I agree. We probably aim to buy before selling so clubs are in the dark as to how much money we have to spend and therefore up the price. Sensible approach but we really need to do business early

But then teams will know we are desperate to sell to balance the books and offer lower transfer fees

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Spiderman's Profile Spiderman Flag Horsham 26 Mar 24 12.07pm Send a Private Message to Spiderman Add Spiderman as a friend

Originally posted by pssguy

But then teams will know we are desperate to sell to balance the books and offer lower transfer fees

Not for those with release clauses

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Wisbech Eagle's Profile Wisbech Eagle Flag Truro Cornwall 26 Mar 24 12.58pm Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by eagleman13

. . . or maybe not.

Story is from the 'Mail' so it can't be true, because 'wissie' doesn't trust nor believe them. Anyhoo, the club have taken out a 'significant' loan from an American Investment Co, MGG, taken against future transfer dealings & 'day-to-day' running costs . . . [Link]

Whilst the only source for this story is the Mail it appears authoritative and based on knowledge. Unlike the spin which many Mail stories contain! How big and precisely why isn't said but it does look as though something is cooking behind the scenes and maybe we need short-term bridging finance to get someone in, before we move one, or more, out. Only time will tell, because the club won't.

 


For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Ali_Campbell's Profile Ali_Campbell Flag New Addington 26 Mar 24 2.21pm Send a Private Message to Ali_Campbell Add Ali_Campbell as a friend

Originally posted by Dubai Eagle

I can see that the £125 million losses over 3 seasons
(£24.2 + £40 + £61.1 = £125.3) includes around £21 million Covid losses over 2 seasons 2019/20 + 20 / 21 -

I think that Covid losses are relevant to the financial accounts but they are not counted against FFP/ Profit & sustainability calculations -

Part of Evertons argument against FFP / Profit & sustainability in the first case revolved around how much they allocated against Covid losses (I forget the numbers but the amount of relief against losses that they claimed was substantially more than other clubs of the same / similar size)

Of course I am not an accountant but thats how it looks to me.

At last, someone is seeing it as it is.

100% this. I have been calling it for a years, the net debt of our club is a worry, especially when the board are not underwriting the losses. Our directors are looking for a return on their investment and with the current losses, something needs to be done.

We are close the the ffp line so will deffo be sales.

THE CLUB IS LOSING APPROXIMATELY 400k A WEEK

But itís never mentioned, never discussed. Itís just continually swept under tithe carpet.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Dubai Eagle's Profile Dubai Eagle Flag 26 Mar 24 3.00pm Send a Private Message to Dubai Eagle Add Dubai Eagle as a friend

Almost all football clubs lose money -
for some its more of a vanity project, for Palace at least we are trying to make it become a viable self sustaining business ( as much as is realistic) which is why:
a) We spent so much on the academy to gain class one status - i.e produce a production line of players to support the first team or be sold at a profit -
b) Reduce the %age of player wages against club revenue (I forget the actual numbers but it used to be something like 84% whereas its now 69% (ish)
c) Stay in the PL as it provides considerably higher income than the Championship + Improve position in the league as every place increases income by approximately £2.25 million
d) Upgrade main stand + 8000 seats + matchday revenue.
Obviously there are other initiatives but these are ones that come to mind immediately.
So whilst its not talked about on a daily basis I dont think its ever far from the shareholders thoughts.

Originally posted by Ali_Campbell

At last, someone is seeing it as it is.

100% this. I have been calling it for a years, the net debt of our club is a worry, especially when the board are not underwriting the losses. Our directors are looking for a return on their investment and with the current losses, something needs to be done.

We are close the the ffp line so will deffo be sales.

THE CLUB IS LOSING APPROXIMATELY 400k A WEEK

But itís never mentioned, never discussed. Itís just continually swept under tithe carpet.

 

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

 

Page 2 of 5 < 1 2 3 4 5 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > Palace Talk > Palace Funding Problems . . .