Investment? £15m nominal value (8 Viewers)

[Liquid Gold]

An interest free loan is still a debt in PSR calculations. It would improve cash flow but still appear as a debt on the balance sheet so if it was done that way we'd now be £15m worse off for our next submission not £15m better off.

 

---

[SHUNT31]

An interest free loan is still a debt in PSR calculations. It would improve cash flow but still appear as a debt on the balance sheet so if it was done that way we'd now be £15m worse off for our next submission not £15m better off.

An interest free loan would not affect the profit though as it is a balance sheet item only. That being said, I know in the PL they require clubs to assess this on the basis that the loan is at market value and profit is adjusted to reflect true market interest on rates. Not sure if the same rules apply to EFL but if it did only the ‘market rate’ interest would affect PSR.

If we ever got close to PSR (very doubtful btw), the debt could easily be converted to equity anyway.

 

[Liquid Gold]

An interest free loan would not affect the profit though as it is a balance sheet item only. That being said, I know in the PL they require clubs to assess this on the basis that the loan is at market value and profit is adjusted to reflect true market interest on rates. Not sure if the same rules apply to EFL but if it did only the ‘market rate’ interest would affect PSR.

If we ever got close to PSR (very doubtful btw), the debt could easily be converted to equity anyway.

A loan of £15m, even at 0% interest, would be -£15m for the calculations. The only thing that would change that is if it was spent on academy or women's football.

 

[SHUNT31]

A loan of £15m, even at 0% interest, would be -£15m for the calculations. The only thing that would change that is if it was spent on academy or women's football.

No it wouldn’t. It would not affect PSR in any way shape or form. Only the interest would, actual or the market value of interest free, if EFL rules follow the PL.

PSR works on accounting profit. Loans do not affect profit as they belong on the balance sheet. Only interest from said loans would affect profitability.

A loan from an owner would not reduce the losses available over the 3 year period.

 

[Calista]

I think I can clear this one up. It seems obvious to me that it’s an off balance sheet ordinary debt share cash for liquidity injection loan with preferential interest on the nominal equity rights.

Or a bung.

 

[rockwoodfleet]

Who needs Kieran Maguire when we have all the football finance specialists on here with insider information directly from Doug King telling us what's gone on .

 

[Liquid Gold]

No it wouldn’t. It would not affect PSR in any way shape or form. Only the interest would, actual or the market value of interest free, if EFL rules follow the PL.

PSR works on accounting profit. Loans do not affect profit as they belong on the balance sheet. Only interest from said loans would affect profitability.

A loan from an owner would not reduce the losses available over the 3 year period.

OK, the loan itself wouldn't affect PSR.

Any money from the loan that is spent would affect PSR though.

You're correct in the most pedantically way possible in that a loan would not count for PSR if the money just sat in the club. In reality though it will be spent and then it instantly does factor into calculations in a way a share issue doesn't.

 

[Evo1883]

Only SBT could see a£15m gift to the football club and turn it into a row.

FWIW though @oldfiver is correct on this one.

Im laughing at the first part not the second, so true

 

[oldfiver]

Who needs Kieran Maguire when we have all the football finance specialists on here with insider information directly from Doug King telling us what's gone on .

Have you read Maguire's assessment? Check CovTel !

 

[oldfiver]

I think I can clear this one up. It seems obvious to me that it’s an off balance sheet ordinary debt share cash for liquidity injection loan with preferential interest on the nominal equity rights.

Or a bung.

A clearer view is DK decided to effect a transaction with effectively, himself for reasons he knows. CCFC is better for the transaction- one assumes - end!

 

[JimmyHillsbeard]

 

[oldfiver]

View attachment 43507

At least one person does - hopefully!

 

[oldfiver]

BTW if you enter

Cost of debt v equity in Google
You may get the standard text book responses as posted as knowledge on here

Or use AI / chatgpt etc

What these text book answers won't give you is a personalised response that applies to DKs thinking or reasons

 

[SHUNT31]

BTW if you enter

Cost of debt v equity in Google
You may get the standard text book responses as posted as knowledge on here

Or use AI / chatgpt etc

What these text book answers won't give you is a personalised response that applies to DKs thinking or reasons

Like this ChatGPT I’ve literally just generated?

That’s the difference, I didn’t need to enter in to Google or ChatGPT to know that. It’s a basic concept.

 

[Sky Blue Goblin]

Like this ChatGPT I’ve literally just generated?

That’s the difference, I didn’t need to enter in to Google or ChatGPT to know that. It’s a basic concept.

While I don’t know enough to argue either view, point 1.2 and 2 don’t apply as our debt is interest free and have no set monthly repayment

 

[SHUNT31]

While I don’t know enough to argue either view, point 1.2 and 2 don’t apply as our debt is interest free and have no set monthly repayment

Which I already said was the case anyway. My original point was talking generally as OP tried making out I was being absurd for saying it when in fact, debt is usually cheaper than equity.

 

[SHUNT31]

OK, the loan itself wouldn't affect PSR.

Any money from the loan that is spent would affect PSR though.

You're correct in the most pedantically way possible in that a loan would not count for PSR if the money just sat in the club. In reality though it will be spent and then it instantly does factor into calculations in a way a share issue doesn't.

I wasn’t trying to be pedantic, but you saying that as soon as you transfer say £15m, you’re already -£15m on PSR is incorrect.

For arguments sake, that £15m could be spent on a player on a 5 year contract and so only £3m would affect PSR for any given year.

 

[Liquid Gold]

I wasn’t trying to be pedantic, but you saying that as soon as you transfer say £15m, you’re already -£15m on PSR is incorrect.

For arguments sake, that £15m could be spent on a player on a 5 year contract and so only £3m would affect PSR for any given year.

Or you could do the same with a share issue and pay 0 for PSR.

 

[clint van damme]

Did anyone have have clash of the angry accountants on their close season bingo card?

 

[Deity]

I

BTW if you enter

Cost of debt v equity in Google
You may get the standard text book responses as posted as knowledge on here

Or use AI / chatgpt etc

What these text book answers won't give you is a personalised response that applies to DKs thinking or reasons

f you have true insight into DK’s thinking then say so if not then your just speculating.

 

[SHUNT31]

Or you could do the same with a share issue and pay 0 for PSR.

Yes, you could.

My point was that PSR is not a factor for us, coupled with the fact these are A class shares could be an indicator of external investment.

Doug is sole shareholder, there’s no obvious reason why he’d need to issue himself a new class of shares with different rights.

 

[edgy]

Isn't there a rule whereby any new shareholders that hold over 3% of a company have to be named/declared officially?

 

[shmmeee]

Stopped understanding the thread some time ago, but as this was just after the season end could it be just Doug paying the debt from last season/for next season? Is there anything to actually suggest outside investment?

 

[Sky Blue Goblin]

Stopped understanding the thread some time ago, but as this was just after the season end could it be just Doug paying the debt from last season/for next season? Is there anything to actually suggest outside investment?

Short answer is yes. Doug could be converting half the debt into equity which means it is repaid (at no cost to the club).

Plausible although this wasn’t done last season (also it’s his money owed so would be generous to wipe half of it off).

 

[shmmeee]

Short answer is yes. Doug could be converting half the debt into equity which means it is repaid (at no cost to the club).

Plausible although this wasn’t done last season (also it’s his money owed so would be generous to wipe half of it off).

Weren’t we still running on Vik and Gus and unexpected PO windfall cash last season?

 

[SHUNT31]

Stopped understanding the thread some time ago, but as this was just after the season end could it be just Doug paying the debt from last season/for next season? Is there anything to actually suggest outside investment?

Long and short of it:

- Could be fresh injection from DK or external.

- Could be DK writing off £15m of the £30m he’s owed via a debt for equity swap. This would mean that no new money has actually been injected.

No one knows atm, that’s the truth of it. I have my theories although you’d think if external there’d be some sort of announcement from the club but not necessarily. It’s the separate class of shares I find interesting.

 

[Grendel]

When Sisu piled on debts against the club the FL I’m sure at one point forced them to turn the debt into shares - which effectively meant the debt was lost as the shares were never saleable.

It avoided a breach of FL rules without which we could not come out of administration.

The most likely explanation is Kings funding source has invested funds and this does not breach FL rules

 

[Grendel]

Weren’t we still running on Vik and Gus and unexpected PO windfall cash last season?

No losses were being funded

 

[Deity]

Long and short of it:

- Could be fresh injection from DK or external.

- Could be DK writing off £15m of the £30m he’s owed via a debt for equity swap. This would mean that no new money has actually been injected.

No one knows atm, that’s the truth of it. I have my theories although you’d think if external there’d be some sort of announcement from the club but not necessarily. It’s the separate class of shares I find interesting.

There are lots of reasons for the club not to announce a new investor ( if indeed it is one )

1) The investor has made it a condition of the investment
2) The investor is incredibly wealthy and the club don’t want their transfer target prices to increase
3) the investor is unpopular ( eg Ashley ) and both parties agree it would be unhelpful to announce

 

[SHUNT31]

When Sisu piled on debts against the club the FL I’m sure at one point forced them to turn the debt into shares - which effectively meant the debt was lost as the shares were never saleable.

It avoided a breach of FL rules without which we could not come out of administration.

The most likely explanation is Kings funding source has invested funds and this does not breach FL rules

Wasn’t that because the debt was unmanageable, proven by the fact we were administration and paying high interest?

When SISU sold the club to King, there was substantial amounts of debt owed to SISU.

 

[HuckerbyDublinWhelan]

Stopped understanding the thread some time ago, but as this was just after the season end could it be just Doug paying the debt from last season/for next season? Is there anything to actually suggest outside investment?

I’m all in on the PSG woman coming in to watch their owner’s money… they were interested in investing in West Ham 2 years ago

 

[Captain Dart]

I think I am in favour of the theory that losses are being converted to equity by the owner.

The question is how long will DK continue to use his assets and income streams to fund the loss making enterprise that is CCFC?

I think he is on record as wishing to make the club break even, a challenge if ever there was one and maybe in reality it's an unfeasible objective.

Meanwhile let's enjoy the ride.

 

[Grendel]

Wasn’t that because the debt was unmanageable, proven by the fact we were administration and paying high interest?

When SISU sold the club to King, there was substantial amounts of debt owed to SISU.

We didn’t go into administration as the debts were unmanageable

 

[SHUNT31]

We didn’t go into administration as the debts were unmanageable

Read my post again. I never said the debts owed to the owner were the reason.

If you’re in administration then all debt payments are clearly unmanageable, otherwise you wouldn’t be in administration.

 

[oldfiver]

I

f you have true insight into DK’s thinking then say so if not then your just speculating.

Can I suggest you are the one speculating? Quoting PSR , use of A shares and potential external investors?