2nd in Britain and 5th in Europe

[Kevin Mcleod]

Them rates are amazimg.
Money grabbing gits????

[Pinkie]

Them rates are amazimg.
Money grabbing gits????

Thats been kept quiet that has hasnt it hey! those rates are ridiculas

[Ginger Ninja]

I think we won the "worst Hoilett" award four seasons in a row...

And that right there is post of the year

[Johnnykc]

probably best to restate what the most recent accounts say...

• short-term debt stands at £13m (short-term debtors, people who owe the club money, stands at £3m - so net short-term position is £10m debt)
• long-term debt stands at £40.8m, of which:

• £5m is a bank loan
• £0.2m is money owed on player purchases
• £35.6m is owed to a company owned by the shareholders.

one interesting point that i had missed is the interest payable on the shareholder loans is quite high. the £35.6m shareholder loan figure breaks down as follows:

• £30m loan charged at 1% per month (same as 12.7% per year)
• £4m loan charged at 2% per month (same as 26.8% per year)
• £1.6m unpaid interest on the 2 loans above.

they're not exactly quickquid or wonga interest rates, but, still, they're quite high rates to be paying in the current economic climate...

The 12 odd% on unsecured loans is acceptable but 27% on the other 4mill seems steep.

[Jimmy Floyd Rabbit]

probably best to restate what the most recent accounts say...

• short-term debt stands at £13m (short-term debtors, people who owe the club money, stands at £3m - so net short-term position is £10m debt)
• long-term debt stands at £40.8m, of which:

• £5m is a bank loan
• £0.2m is money owed on player purchases
• £35.6m is owed to a company owned by the shareholders.

one interesting point that i had missed is the interest payable on the shareholder loans is quite high. the £35.6m shareholder loan figure breaks down as follows:

• £30m loan charged at 1% per month (same as 12.7% per year)
• £4m loan charged at 2% per month (same as 26.8% per year)
• £1.6m unpaid interest on the 2 loans above.

they're not exactly quickquid or wonga interest rates, but, still, they're quite high rates to be paying in the current economic climate...

Sorry for being thick but who's owed this money?

If it's our owners own company then how can they owe themselves? If they walked away tomorrow are you saying the new owners would be saddled with that debt?

If so it goes against all the guffaw of how good they were to write it off.

[3London]

even so where do they get the figure of €270 from?

so the report is 2015 so based on figures for 2014?

[klonk]

Sorry for being thick but who's owed this money?

If it's our owners own company then how can they owe themselves? If they walked away tomorrow are you saying the new owners would be saddled with that debt?

If so it goes against all the guffaw of how good they were to write it off.

the money is owed to a malaysian company called 'total soccer growth sdn bhd' which is owned by ruben gnanalingam (the company is also the owner of ruben's 33% stake in the club).

who would own the debt if the current owners were to walk away would end up being a point for discussion during any sale/share floatation. in theory, whoever buys the club would pick up the debt as a consequence, because the debt is between the the club itself and ruben's company. in reality, any incoming new owner would almost definitely insist that the loan is written off (either in full or partially) as a condition of the sale - at the very least, they would negotiate a new 0% rate of interest (they would have to be spectacularly thick to not do that).

if somehow, the club did one day move into a profitable position before the current owners walk away (not so impossible if a new stadium materialises and is then able to generate income from non-football events like concerts etc), then i guess total soccer growth will want their interest payments and their original loans repaid in full.

at the same time though, we should remember that the current owners did write off a massive amount of debt. this was a good thing to do (regardless of the point that the debt was largely built upon some appallingly bad business decisions that they made), and adding in fairly high interest on subsequent shareholder loans should not overshadow that (in my opinion, at least).

[klonk]

even so where do they get the figure of €270 from?

so the report is 2015 so based on figures for 2014?

the figures seem to have come from the previous set of accounts (covering the 2014/15 season - the one when we got relegated again). then the figures were:

gross short-term debt £204m
gross long-term debt £15m

total gross debt £219m

if they've arrived at a figure of €279m, then they've used a conversion rate of €1.27/£1.00 which is a strange figure. the pound hasn't been that high since the brexit vote and at the date of the actual debt reading that they used (31 may 2015), it was €1.39/£1.00 (so debt would be an eye-watering €304m, if this was used).

[stanistheman]

Play off Winners trophy

I take it your comment was tongue in cheek, if not, that is not counted as a major honour though as it only had 24 teams from the same division competing for it (if starting from August).

[stanistheman]

I think we won the "worst Hoilett" award four seasons in a row...

Awesome.

[stanistheman]

Thanks klonk and didnt know any of that,grabbing gits,considering they messed the money up left right and centre but are making out of what we pay back,shouldnt be aloud really!

I agree.

They messed up by not appointing competent people in the 1st place (Phil Beard as Chief Executive when he knew next to nothing about football).

[James1979]

the money is owed to a malaysian company called 'total soccer growth sdn bhd' which is owned by ruben gnanalingam (the company is also the owner of ruben's 33% stake in the club).

who would own the debt if the current owners were to walk away would end up being a point for discussion during any sale/share floatation. in theory, whoever buys the club would pick up the debt as a consequence, because the debt is between the the club itself and ruben's company. in reality, any incoming new owner would almost definitely insist that the loan is written off (either in full or partially) as a condition of the sale - at the very least, they would negotiate a new 0% rate of interest (they would have to be spectacularly thick to not do that).

if somehow, the club did one day move into a profitable position before the current owners walk away (not so impossible if a new stadium materialises and is then able to generate income from non-football events like concerts etc), then i guess total soccer growth will want their interest payments and their original loans repaid in full.

at the same time though, we should remember that the current owners did write off a massive amount of debt. this was a good thing to do (regardless of the point that the debt was largely built upon some appallingly bad business decisions that they made), and adding in fairly high interest on subsequent shareholder loans should not overshadow that (in my opinion, at least).

That's not correct. The new owner would acquire the club debt free. The "debt" to the owners would be included or knocked off the purchase price. Interest on shareholder loans would be met by profits and ultimately cashflow from the club in the 1st place. If insufficient, then shareholders would need to inject money to pay off.

[stanistheman]

Sorry for being thick but who's owed this money?

If it's our owners own company then how can they owe themselves? If they walked away tomorrow are you saying the new owners would be saddled with that debt?

If so it goes against all the guffaw of how good they were to write it off.

maybe this should be questioned at the next club meeting with fans.

[klonk]

That's not correct. The new owner would acquire the club debt free. The "debt" to the owners would be included or knocked off the purchase price. Interest on shareholder loans would be met by profits and ultimately cashflow from the club in the 1st place. If insufficient, then shareholders would need to inject money to pay off.

um... no, it's correct.

to acquire the club at any state other than the one that the books give would require negotiation. so if the books say there is a debt to 'total soccer growth', then there is a debt to 'total soccer growth' that must be met. as i said, this would almost definitely discussed as part of any sale with the incoming buyer looking for the seller to write-off the debt (bear in mind that the debt is to ruben's company - not to uncle tony, not to amit etc) and, in the real world, any buyer who is not spectacularly thick would walk away if the debt isn't written off/substantially reduced.

interest is charged to the profit and loss account regardless or not of whether it's actually paid. in the most recent accounts, it was added to the principle element of the debt (pumping up the £34m principle debt to give a total shareholder debt of £35.6m) rather than paid in cash. that will continue to be the case until it's either written off or repaid. repayments can be financed through other avenues than from profits generated - asset stripping (more thinking about the stadium than players), bank loans etc etc.

[Kevin Mcleod]

I know near on everyone hates Unc cos we aint won the premeir league yet, but we are really well off debts wise.
Hes made sure his wasted money was exactly that, his waste.
We are so much better off than so many of the other 92 clubs,
Its only on the pitch we cant ever get it right . Thats the curse though.