Just looked at the prem league table and noticed that Brentford have only lost 4 times this season. Only Arsenal and Newcastle have lost fewer games! Frank is doing an outstanding job. It was so refreshing to read his quotes this morning supporting Graham Potter following the abuse he's faced.
They lost Ā£26m last year financed in the main by their owner buying more shares and by shareholder loans
Their debt is
1) They have Ā£2m owing to the bank
2) They have Ā£9m owing to the EFL (covid loans?)
3) They have Ā£17m owed to their owners
1) and 2) are an issue -they will eventually have to be paid back. 3) is frankly largely irrelevant.
The biggest issue may well be the value of future player contracts if their owner decided he no longer wished to fund the club and how would those contracts be funded.
As it happened, I have long thought that Bristol City are a potential premier league team and wondered if with the Chief Exec link, that might be where Gareth ended up. Hasn't happened that way obviously!
Clubs spending over 100% of total income just on wages is ridiculous and shouldn't be allowed. Absolutely recipe for wage and transfer fee inflation apart from the fact it's completely unsustainable.
I think the rules need to go a bit easier on people putting in their own cash but only if they do it up front and not as shady loans that they may pack if they feel like it and might wander off leaving others to sort out.
The same as when you last asked probably. If owners want to parade around town as saviours or splash out on players and managers they should need to guarantee at least that they are good for it. Fans shouldn't have to become forensic accountants and suppliers who get 2p in the pound when it all goes to shit don't want to hear about how arsenal will get the Ā£10m they are owed for an overpriced youth teamer in full.
My preference would be for an owner to introduce capital by way of shares rather than loan for two main reasons:
I understand that a number of shareholder loans attract interest to compensate the shareholder
If a shareholder has a loan, they may request that it is repaid in full as part of the sale process, therefore holding the club to ransom? Also, in the event of a club going into administration, I think that the shareholder could join the queue of creditors
The introduction by way of equity feels far more like a benevolent donation compared to the loan route
Shareholder loans can be interest bearing or interest free. It doesn't really matter surely. If interest bearing the interest is simply paying himself his own money which had he put the money in as capital he could pay himself as dividend, or salary or management fee or a whole range of other charges. Really no difference there as far as I can see.
At sale, any new buyer will only pay cash to the seller based on what he thinks the club is worth. It makes little difference to either party whether that is debt or equity. I don't really see what yo mean by holding the club to ransom. The outgoing shareholder is under no obligation to sell unless he is happy with the net amount of cash he will now receive whether historically he put his money in as debt or capital.
You are right that on administration, shareholder debt ranks equal to third party debt - which may mean that the shareholder benefits over third party debt holders but surely makes no difference to the club.
I dunno, Campbell has proved he's a competent manager despite being a detestable prick. Kept Macclesfield alive far longer than they should have, and even had them top of League Two when he left despite them being skint. Southend were also another side on borrowed time that could be extinct within weeks.
In fairness, Chelsea's performance v Spurs wasn't even a striker issue. It was just flat from back to front, a group of players not playing for their manager. He'll be gone by the end of next week.
On another note, can anyone find a more shimmeringly thick comment than this one on the QPR forum?
"What is it about his 10yrs at Wycombe that's so admirable and suggests that Ainsworth is a good manager/coach that can turn us into a decent outfit?"
How about...
Taking a team from nearly slipping into non-league into the championship?
Two promotions
Numerous other playoff/narrow misses
Developing a tonneload of players who went on to better things (with Dobbo), Ibe, Eze and Mehmeti the obvious, but very easy to forget that whole youth team load like Kortney Hause etc.
Somehow making a superb go at staying in the championship with the lowest budget by far, having the key striker and defender out for 6months and numerous other difficulties.
All of this while keeping a perennial positive approach, dignified and composed in the press whatever the circumstances etc.
a) interest bearing loans, the capital & interest is payable whether the club is profit or loss making - the loan provider may roll the interest over if it cannot be paid but all that does is make the loan larger.
b) dividends are only payable when you make a loss if there are undistributed profits from prior years, sadly an incredibly unlikely situation for the vast majority of EFL clubs.
c) shares rank last in the event of insolvency
Therefore my preference is always that owners invest in the form of shares rather than long term loans as all they can really do with the shares is sell them to another fool who wants to own a football club
Some people were a bit torn on the Bloomy Col Utd link. I'm a little like that for QPR. The wannabe flash London thing, like a pound shop Chelsea. The classic delusions of grandeur despite only spending about 2 years of the last 20 in the prem.
Hoping for some sort of impossible quick turnaround where he does so well then leaves for someone better.
a) interest bearing loans, the capital & interest is payable whether the club is profit or loss making - the loan provider may roll the interest over if it cannot be paid but all that does is make the loan larger.
This is true where the loan provider is a third party. Where it is the shareholder himself, the accrued unpaid interest is just an accounting entry, it makes no difference
b) dividends are only payable when you make a loss if there are undistributed profits from prior years, sadly an incredibly unlikely situation for the vast majority of EFL clubs.
Yes that is true, but if there is spare cash available to pay interest on loans to shareholders (unlikely where the club is loss making), that same cash could be used to pay management fees, director salaries etc etc even if dividends are not permissable. There really is no difference
c) shares rank last in the event of insolvency
Yes true, but that makes no difference to the insolvent club
Therefore my preference is always that owners invest in the form of shares rather than long term loans as all they can really do with the shares is sell them to another fool who wants to own a football club
All the exiting shareholder can do with unpaid loans to himself is sell them on to another fool who wants to own a football club
Comments
Them awful, awful horrible insanely overrated prick brothers are being heavily linked with the pnl... my mate said he'd rather Robinson backš¤£
The Gallaghers?
Bingo! Christ that's a whole other debate, who would you rather suffer a sit down meal with between them 2 sets of c#nts.
Sol Campbell would be a great fit for the delusionals across the border.
I'd love to see Paolo Di Canio use Oxford as his return to English management.
The Krays?
Another example of the generosity of fans & clubs - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/64782551
āSuper League: The War for Footballā on AppleTV+ is a good watch.
Just looked at the prem league table and noticed that Brentford have only lost 4 times this season. Only Arsenal and Newcastle have lost fewer games! Frank is doing an outstanding job. It was so refreshing to read his quotes this morning supporting Graham Potter following the abuse he's faced.
QPR lost just the Ā£24.7m in 2021/22, spending a mere 125% of their turnover on wages https://twitter.com/christoph_21/status/1630462897988960262?t=xVv1kPohsHs8GbbQiAY21A&s=19
I bet our wages to turnover is over 100% this season
As always though @ReturnToSenda , how important those losses are depend on how they are financed.
Bristol City's accounts are very clear and easy to understand - https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/03230871/filing-history
They lost Ā£26m last year financed in the main by their owner buying more shares and by shareholder loans
Their debt is
1) They have Ā£2m owing to the bank
2) They have Ā£9m owing to the EFL (covid loans?)
3) They have Ā£17m owed to their owners
1) and 2) are an issue -they will eventually have to be paid back. 3) is frankly largely irrelevant.
The biggest issue may well be the value of future player contracts if their owner decided he no longer wished to fund the club and how would those contracts be funded.
As it happened, I have long thought that Bristol City are a potential premier league team and wondered if with the Chief Exec link, that might be where Gareth ended up. Hasn't happened that way obviously!
I
Clubs spending over 100% of total income just on wages is ridiculous and shouldn't be allowed. Absolutely recipe for wage and transfer fee inflation apart from the fact it's completely unsustainable.
I think the rules need to go a bit easier on people putting in their own cash but only if they do it up front and not as shady loans that they may pack if they feel like it and might wander off leaving others to sort out.
What do yousee the practical difference between a 100% shareholder funding a clubs losses by equity or by "debt", @StrongestTeam
The same as when you last asked probably. If owners want to parade around town as saviours or splash out on players and managers they should need to guarantee at least that they are good for it. Fans shouldn't have to become forensic accountants and suppliers who get 2p in the pound when it all goes to shit don't want to hear about how arsenal will get the Ā£10m they are owed for an overpriced youth teamer in full.
With respect you didn't answer the question asked.
What do you see as the practical difference between owners of a club funding that club with cash accounted for as equity or accounted for as debt?
You seem to think its an important distinction. I am struggling to see any difference at all.
That's nice for you.
Slightly odd response @StrongestTeam . But that's cool.
If there is some practical difference that I haven't thought of, I'd like to understand it when you have a moment in due course.
@DevC I'll dive in on this one....
My preference would be for an owner to introduce capital by way of shares rather than loan for two main reasons:
The introduction by way of equity feels far more like a benevolent donation compared to the loan route
Thank you @Rasputin
Shareholder loans can be interest bearing or interest free. It doesn't really matter surely. If interest bearing the interest is simply paying himself his own money which had he put the money in as capital he could pay himself as dividend, or salary or management fee or a whole range of other charges. Really no difference there as far as I can see.
At sale, any new buyer will only pay cash to the seller based on what he thinks the club is worth. It makes little difference to either party whether that is debt or equity. I don't really see what yo mean by holding the club to ransom. The outgoing shareholder is under no obligation to sell unless he is happy with the net amount of cash he will now receive whether historically he put his money in as debt or capital.
You are right that on administration, shareholder debt ranks equal to third party debt - which may mean that the shareholder benefits over third party debt holders but surely makes no difference to the club.
He had no say in the signings in fairness. He probably said he wanted a striker so Boehly signed 800 wingers instead and said "make this work"
I dunno, Campbell has proved he's a competent manager despite being a detestable prick. Kept Macclesfield alive far longer than they should have, and even had them top of League Two when he left despite them being skint. Southend were also another side on borrowed time that could be extinct within weeks.
Oh yeah, not his fault at all - I doubt he had enormous control at Brighton either, it's just an all too familiar pattern.
offer to loan them Tjay
In fairness, Chelsea's performance v Spurs wasn't even a striker issue. It was just flat from back to front, a group of players not playing for their manager. He'll be gone by the end of next week.
On another note, can anyone find a more shimmeringly thick comment than this one on the QPR forum?
"What is it about his 10yrs at Wycombe that's so admirable and suggests that Ainsworth is a good manager/coach that can turn us into a decent outfit?"
How about...
Taking a team from nearly slipping into non-league into the championship?
Two promotions
Numerous other playoff/narrow misses
Developing a tonneload of players who went on to better things (with Dobbo), Ibe, Eze and Mehmeti the obvious, but very easy to forget that whole youth team load like Kortney Hause etc.
Somehow making a superb go at staying in the championship with the lowest budget by far, having the key striker and defender out for 6months and numerous other difficulties.
All of this while keeping a perennial positive approach, dignified and composed in the press whatever the circumstances etc.
I'd say some of that stuff is "admirable"
@DevC the key differences from my perspective are
a) interest bearing loans, the capital & interest is payable whether the club is profit or loss making - the loan provider may roll the interest over if it cannot be paid but all that does is make the loan larger.
b) dividends are only payable when you make a loss if there are undistributed profits from prior years, sadly an incredibly unlikely situation for the vast majority of EFL clubs.
c) shares rank last in the event of insolvency
Therefore my preference is always that owners invest in the form of shares rather than long term loans as all they can really do with the shares is sell them to another fool who wants to own a football club
Well put, and I'd also turn it around and say what have QPR done as a club to deserve GA?
Some people were a bit torn on the Bloomy Col Utd link. I'm a little like that for QPR. The wannabe flash London thing, like a pound shop Chelsea. The classic delusions of grandeur despite only spending about 2 years of the last 20 in the prem.
Hoping for some sort of impossible quick turnaround where he does so well then leaves for someone better.
@Erroll_Sims
@DevC the key differences from my perspective are
a) interest bearing loans, the capital & interest is payable whether the club is profit or loss making - the loan provider may roll the interest over if it cannot be paid but all that does is make the loan larger.
This is true where the loan provider is a third party. Where it is the shareholder himself, the accrued unpaid interest is just an accounting entry, it makes no difference
b) dividends are only payable when you make a loss if there are undistributed profits from prior years, sadly an incredibly unlikely situation for the vast majority of EFL clubs.
Yes that is true, but if there is spare cash available to pay interest on loans to shareholders (unlikely where the club is loss making), that same cash could be used to pay management fees, director salaries etc etc even if dividends are not permissable. There really is no difference
c) shares rank last in the event of insolvency
Yes true, but that makes no difference to the insolvent club
Therefore my preference is always that owners invest in the form of shares rather than long term loans as all they can really do with the shares is sell them to another fool who wants to own a football club
All the exiting shareholder can do with unpaid loans to himself is sell them on to another fool who wants to own a football club