(01-22-2024, 09:59 AM)Bob Fossil Wrote: Does shouting your mouth off in the pub, in front of complete stranger's cousins, not constitute NDA breach? I'm not an expert so couldn't say, but it would seem so to me.

(01-22-2024, 11:41 AM)Duffers Wrote: Billions of people hurling their worthless opinions into the void... it's like the Franksy phone in but on a global scale.

(01-22-2024, 11:36 AM)Fulham Fallout Wrote:

(01-22-2024, 10:32 AM)Pragmatist Wrote:

(01-22-2024, 08:22 AM)Fulham Fallout Wrote:

(01-22-2024, 08:08 AM)Pragmatist Wrote:

(01-22-2024, 07:26 AM)NewWanker Wrote: So when I said that Shilen Patel wasn't worth as much as we were told the new owners was going to be worth, a lot of replies were it doesn't matter about how rich they are nowadays because of FFP rules etc... Then someone worth substantially less comes into the frame and apparently it will matter now. (not sure who was saying having mega rich owners doesn't matter BTW, not saying it was you).

I remember saying it would be these Warmfront guys the other month, but I was joking and making stuff up, it'd be a very WBA thing to go and do though. I suppose they'll get their loan discounted off the price??

Really can't see it being these by the way, but nothing about our club would surprise me.

The sort of wealth needed to buy and sustain (under current FFP rules) a Championship club is probably around £200-£300m.  That’s based on buying a club for an average of £50m and being able to pump in the permitted £13m a year (£39m over 3 years).  Any wealth above that is totally irrelevant as it can’t be injected into the club (other than for ground improvements, academy etc).  So whether someone is worth £300m or £3 billion, the extra £2.7 billion can be ignored. 

I suspect that what might have happened re Hearn is that Lai hasn’t repaid the Warmfront loan by the deadline, which would have entitled Warmfront/Hearn to convert their loan into equity.  That would simply mean that instead of Lai/Yunyai owning 88% of Group via Holdings, they might now own only around 80%, meaning that Hearn/Warmfront would now be a minority shareholder in Group, as opposed to being a creditor of Holdings.  That wouldn’t affect anything other than the legal agreements re the imminent sale. 

Not saying that’s what’s happened - but it could well be the case as the Warmfront loan was due to be repaid around this time.

Not entirely correct re the wealth of a new owner, as wealthy owners can inject cash into WBA Group Ltd either as an interest free loan or equity.  This would naturally benefit cash flow and would allow WBA Group Ltd to meet all its future outgoings and to pay off the MSD loans as soon as possible to reduce interest charges which would benefit FFP.

But otherwise I agree that the wealth is irrelevant.

No - I’ve already allowed for that in the “£39m over 3 years” permitted losses.  That sum is made up of £5m per annum of permitted losses, and owners are allowed to inject an additional £8m of equity (but not loans).  Only the losses of £5m a year can be funded by owners’ loans.

Agree, sort of.  I haven’t seen in the regs the owners aren’t allowed to inject an amount greater than that allowed in the losses calculation. I.e.  the amounts used in the calculations are as you state, but additional funds pumped into a club and not used in the FFP calculation.

(01-22-2024, 12:33 PM)Pragmatist Wrote:

(01-22-2024, 11:36 AM)Fulham Fallout Wrote:

(01-22-2024, 10:32 AM)Pragmatist Wrote:

(01-22-2024, 08:22 AM)Fulham Fallout Wrote:

(01-22-2024, 08:08 AM)Pragmatist Wrote: The sort of wealth needed to buy and sustain (under current FFP rules) a Championship club is probably around £200-£300m.  That’s based on buying a club for an average of £50m and being able to pump in the permitted £13m a year (£39m over 3 years).  Any wealth above that is totally irrelevant as it can’t be injected into the club (other than for ground improvements, academy etc).  So whether someone is worth £300m or £3 billion, the extra £2.7 billion can be ignored. 

I suspect that what might have happened re Hearn is that Lai hasn’t repaid the Warmfront loan by the deadline, which would have entitled Warmfront/Hearn to convert their loan into equity.  That would simply mean that instead of Lai/Yunyai owning 88% of Group via Holdings, they might now own only around 80%, meaning that Hearn/Warmfront would now be a minority shareholder in Group, as opposed to being a creditor of Holdings.  That wouldn’t affect anything other than the legal agreements re the imminent sale. 

Not saying that’s what’s happened - but it could well be the case as the Warmfront loan was due to be repaid around this time.

Not entirely correct re the wealth of a new owner, as wealthy owners can inject cash into WBA Group Ltd either as an interest free loan or equity.  This would naturally benefit cash flow and would allow WBA Group Ltd to meet all its future outgoings and to pay off the MSD loans as soon as possible to reduce interest charges which would benefit FFP.

But otherwise I agree that the wealth is irrelevant.

No - I’ve already allowed for that in the “£39m over 3 years” permitted losses.  That sum is made up of £5m per annum of permitted losses, and owners are allowed to inject an additional £8m of equity (but not loans).  Only the losses of £5m a year can be funded by owners’ loans.

Agree, sort of.  I haven’t seen in the regs the owners aren’t allowed to inject an amount greater than that allowed in the losses calculation. I.e.  the amounts used in the calculations are as you state, but additional funds pumped into a club and not used in the FFP calculation.

I’m certain it’s limited to £39m over 3 years, with a cap of £24m being able to be injected via equity.  It’s all in transition, but those are the limits.   If those limits weren’t there then the likes of, Bristol City, Stoke and QPR could buy their way to promotion via huge equity injections. In

(01-22-2024, 12:09 PM)NewWanker Wrote:

(01-22-2024, 09:59 AM)Bob Fossil Wrote: Does shouting your mouth off in the pub, in front of complete stranger's cousins, not constitute NDA breach? I'm not an expert so couldn't say, but it would seem so to me.

You only sign NDAs if you're actually involved... so if he's shouting his gob off then he probably isn't actually involved.

however if the above stuff about them being able to take some shares off Group is true, then surely any agreement with the 'real' buyers would need re-doing as Lai / Group no longer has some of the shares that the buyers are buying do they!?

i know as much as the next guy to post...

---

(01-22-2024, 11:41 AM)Duffers Wrote: Billions of people hurling their worthless opinions into the void... it's like the Franksy phone in but on a global scale.

Did you watch Flash Gordon on the weekend? That sounds suspiciously like Ming's speech about 'Pathetic Earthlings hurling their bodies into the void....'

(01-22-2024, 12:46 PM)Fulham Fallout Wrote:

(01-22-2024, 12:33 PM)Pragmatist Wrote:

(01-22-2024, 11:36 AM)Fulham Fallout Wrote:

(01-22-2024, 10:32 AM)Pragmatist Wrote:

(01-22-2024, 08:22 AM)Fulham Fallout Wrote: Not entirely correct re the wealth of a new owner, as wealthy owners can inject cash into WBA Group Ltd either as an interest free loan or equity.  This would naturally benefit cash flow and would allow WBA Group Ltd to meet all its future outgoings and to pay off the MSD loans as soon as possible to reduce interest charges which would benefit FFP.

But otherwise I agree that the wealth is irrelevant.

No - I’ve already allowed for that in the “£39m over 3 years” permitted losses.  That sum is made up of £5m per annum of permitted losses, and owners are allowed to inject an additional £8m of equity (but not loans).  Only the losses of £5m a year can be funded by owners’ loans.

Agree, sort of.  I haven’t seen in the regs the owners aren’t allowed to inject an amount greater than that allowed in the losses calculation. I.e.  the amounts used in the calculations are as you state, but additional funds pumped into a club and not used in the FFP calculation.

I’m certain it’s limited to £39m over 3 years, with a cap of £24m being able to be injected via equity.  It’s all in transition, but those are the limits.   If those limits weren’t there then the likes of, Bristol City, Stoke and QPR could buy their way to promotion via huge equity injections. In

They can’t though,  as whilst there’d be large cash injection, that, as you know is irrelevant re the profit & loss account.  The clubs could buy expensive players, but those fees have to be amortised and hit the p&l and FFP calculation.  

I need to have another read of the regs to see if there is a restriction on the amount of a rights issue / loan in football clubs

(01-22-2024, 12:46 PM)Fulham Fallout Wrote:

(01-22-2024, 12:33 PM)Pragmatist Wrote:

(01-22-2024, 11:36 AM)Fulham Fallout Wrote:

(01-22-2024, 10:32 AM)Pragmatist Wrote:

(01-22-2024, 08:22 AM)Fulham Fallout Wrote: Not entirely correct re the wealth of a new owner, as wealthy owners can inject cash into WBA Group Ltd either as an interest free loan or equity.  This would naturally benefit cash flow and would allow WBA Group Ltd to meet all its future outgoings and to pay off the MSD loans as soon as possible to reduce interest charges which would benefit FFP.

But otherwise I agree that the wealth is irrelevant.

No - I’ve already allowed for that in the “£39m over 3 years” permitted losses.  That sum is made up of £5m per annum of permitted losses, and owners are allowed to inject an additional £8m of equity (but not loans).  Only the losses of £5m a year can be funded by owners’ loans.

Agree, sort of.  I haven’t seen in the regs the owners aren’t allowed to inject an amount greater than that allowed in the losses calculation. I.e.  the amounts used in the calculations are as you state, but additional funds pumped into a club and not used in the FFP calculation.

I’m certain it’s limited to £39m over 3 years, with a cap of £24m being able to be injected via equity.  It’s all in transition, but those are the limits.   If those limits weren’t there then the likes of, Bristol City, Stoke and QPR could buy their way to promotion via huge equity injections. In

They can’t though,  as whilst there’d be large cash injection, that, as you know is irrelevant re the profit & loss account.  The clubs could buy expensive players, but those fees have to be amortised and hit the p&l and FFP calculation.  

I need to have another read of the regs to see if there is a restriction on the amount of a rights issue / loan in football clubs

(01-22-2024, 01:12 PM)NewWanker Wrote:

(01-22-2024, 12:46 PM)Fulham Fallout Wrote:

(01-22-2024, 12:33 PM)Pragmatist Wrote:

(01-22-2024, 11:36 AM)Fulham Fallout Wrote:

(01-22-2024, 10:32 AM)Pragmatist Wrote: No - I’ve already allowed for that in the “£39m over 3 years” permitted losses.  That sum is made up of £5m per annum of permitted losses, and owners are allowed to inject an additional £8m of equity (but not loans).  Only the losses of £5m a year can be funded by owners’ loans.

Agree, sort of.  I haven’t seen in the regs the owners aren’t allowed to inject an amount greater than that allowed in the losses calculation. I.e.  the amounts used in the calculations are as you state, but additional funds pumped into a club and not used in the FFP calculation.

I’m certain it’s limited to £39m over 3 years, with a cap of £24m being able to be injected via equity.  It’s all in transition, but those are the limits.   If those limits weren’t there then the likes of, Bristol City, Stoke and QPR could buy their way to promotion via huge equity injections. In

They can’t though,  as whilst there’d be large cash injection, that, as you know is irrelevant re the profit & loss account.  The clubs could buy expensive players, but those fees have to be amortised and hit the p&l and FFP calculation.  

I need to have another read of the regs to see if there is a restriction on the amount of a rights issue / loan in football clubs

Wasn't the share / rights issue how the Seals got out of one of their recent would be holes in FFP?

(01-22-2024, 01:21 PM)Pragmatist Wrote:

(01-22-2024, 12:46 PM)Fulham Fallout Wrote:

(01-22-2024, 12:33 PM)Pragmatist Wrote:

(01-22-2024, 11:36 AM)Fulham Fallout Wrote:

(01-22-2024, 10:32 AM)Pragmatist Wrote: No - I’ve already allowed for that in the “£39m over 3 years” permitted losses.  That sum is made up of £5m per annum of permitted losses, and owners are allowed to inject an additional £8m of equity (but not loans).  Only the losses of £5m a year can be funded by owners’ loans.

Agree, sort of.  I haven’t seen in the regs the owners aren’t allowed to inject an amount greater than that allowed in the losses calculation. I.e.  the amounts used in the calculations are as you state, but additional funds pumped into a club and not used in the FFP calculation.

I’m certain it’s limited to £39m over 3 years, with a cap of £24m being able to be injected via equity.  It’s all in transition, but those are the limits.   If those limits weren’t there then the likes of, Bristol City, Stoke and QPR could buy their way to promotion via huge equity injections. In

They can’t though,  as whilst there’d be large cash injection, that, as you know is irrelevant re the profit & loss account.  The clubs could buy expensive players, but those fees have to be amortised and hit the p&l and FFP calculation.  

I need to have another read of the regs to see if there is a restriction on the amount of a rights issue / loan in football clubs

Yes the owners can put in more equity provided that the 3-year accounting losses don’t exceed £39m.  As you rightly say, if the extra money is spent on wages and transfers fees then the P&L account will reflect that and count towards the FFP limit.

---

(01-22-2024, 01:12 PM)NewWanker Wrote:

(01-22-2024, 12:46 PM)Fulham Fallout Wrote:

(01-22-2024, 12:33 PM)Pragmatist Wrote:

(01-22-2024, 11:36 AM)Fulham Fallout Wrote: Agree, sort of.  I haven’t seen in the regs the owners aren’t allowed to inject an amount greater than that allowed in the losses calculation. I.e.  the amounts used in the calculations are as you state, but additional funds pumped into a club and not used in the FFP calculation.

I’m certain it’s limited to £39m over 3 years, with a cap of £24m being able to be injected via equity.  It’s all in transition, but those are the limits.   If those limits weren’t there then the likes of, Bristol City, Stoke and QPR could buy their way to promotion via huge equity injections. In

They can’t though,  as whilst there’d be large cash injection, that, as you know is irrelevant re the profit & loss account.  The clubs could buy expensive players, but those fees have to be amortised and hit the p&l and FFP calculation.  

I need to have another read of the regs to see if there is a restriction on the amount of a rights issue / loan in football clubs

Wasn't the share / rights issue how the Seals got out of one of their recent would be holes in FFP?

Yes but the regulations have since changed