£7.5m bank loan

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

It’s about time that pair of cunts sorted their differences out and stop dragging out club through the mud by using loan shark banks. It will eventually test Wilders patience.
 

Nobody on this forum knows anything about the transaction and it's supposed implications. The "clever" ones on here pretend to know what's going on but really they know FUCK ALL!
 
derfblade.3 said:
Nobody on this forum knows anything about the transaction and it's supposed implications. The "clever" ones on here pretend to know what's going on but really they know FUCK ALL!
Click to expand...

Fred, I think you’re being a bit harsh on a well-meaning body of men and women...

Ack: Mr. Henry Barraclough, HMP Slade
 
Last edited:
David Brooks = 3 goals in the championship = £ 12 million

Leon Clarke = 18 goals in the championship = £ ??

I reckon if McCabe doesn't hold out for £ 30/40 million there will be a backlash on here..
 
Sheff de party said:
I agree with you.

If we were bottom with a shite team, Brooks looks like a bad decision. But we’re too with a really good team and signings like Egan and Norwood are central to how we play. And we have money left over.
Click to expand...
It’ll be interesting to see just how much money we’ve got left over come January. If we are still up there, our owners would have to be utter fools not to allow Wilder to strengthen the team where he thinks we need to at that stage to kick on.

Oh hang on :(
 
I should coco said:
Let's say you were right and we'd hung on until 3/8 and got £16m.

We'd then be looking at Hull's new signing Norwood and Egan may well have been elsewhere. With rowing owners not prepared to put any more money into the club, this cash was vital and we may not even have had the finance to cover the Henderson / Woodman loans or sign McGoldrick.

I understand the point you are making, but there was no guarantee of a higher bidder and we'd have potentially shot ourselves in the foot for any incoming players.

Looks to me like you're just trying to find another stick to beat SUFC/McCabe with.
Click to expand...

That's just it though.The signings weren't predicated on the Brooks/Evans/Leonard/Long sales...if Wilder is to be believed. The transfers have come from the improved budget proffered by the owners. We did have sizable bids turned down for Waghorn and Freeman and supposedly have a warchest for January if needed. Those transfers obviously would have used up a significant amount of the Brooks money. Wilder has admitted to having conflicted thoughts about the sale, but having ultimately reconciled himself to it.I've got no issue with that; although there are examples of clubs who wont sell despite ridiculous bids, e.g. Fulham last season.If we've ultimately strengthened the first team, whilst having a shedload of cash to improve over the next two windows, I think we're in good shape.Particularly when you look at the off the field problems many clubs face this and next season.FFP could help us acquire players from these clubs - especially if we're cash rich.
 
Last edited:
Clubs borrow money all the time nothing unusual in that. We however have an owners dispute going on where one has called the other out for fraudulent actions previously over a loan. One assumes this time they've talked to each other and agreed that the £7.5m will be used to cover running costs and keep the Club trading to the end of the season.

No-one knows what really happened regarding Brooks sale other than what has been put out in the public domain. CW said he wanted to go influenced by a greedy agent. The Court records that there was a pending sale of £11.5 million and this would keep the Club afloat financially for the first 6 months of the season. On this basis the Judge ruled there was no need for a further loan of £2.5m to be injected into the Club whilst implying at the same time both owners were a pair of shysters.

If Brooks had remained fit last season then I have no doubt he would have played more games and been worth more probably in the Maddison range. He didn't and if selling him when we did meant we continued to trade and were able to give CW funds to bring in players then it has to be viewed as a necessary sale.

The owners dispute drives our finances this season. The are simply not putting money into the Club as they have done previously and are unlikely to until the dispute is resolved. In an ideal world we would have grown Brooks value over the course of the coming season but needs must the Club's future comes first.

The lack of information coming out about the dispute, arbitration etc may indicate little progress is being made. On the other hand they could be close to an agreement and everything in the garden will be rosy for the rest of the season. History suggests its the former and not the latter.

If we are in the promotion frame in January and the premiership is in sight it will be a dereliction of duty on the part of both owners if they fail to agree the necessary funds to support CW. We will know at that point whether self interest takes precedence over the good of SUFC.
 
GrayBlade said:
It’ll be interesting to see just how much money we’ve got left over come January. If we are still up there, our owners would have to be utter fools not to allow Wilder to strengthen the team where he thinks we need to at that stage to kick on.

Oh hang on :(
Click to expand...

In your scenario, let's hope he spends it more wisely than he did last January...

Seriously , do people think it's that straightforward to just 'spend some moneh in January'? The evidence is that isn't as simple as it is on championship manager...
 

nopigfansintown said:
That's just it though.The signings weren't predicated on the Brooks/Evans/Leonard/Long sales...if Wilder is to be believed. The transfers have come from the improved budget proffered by the owners. We did have sizable bids turned down for Waghorn and Freeman and supposedly have a warchest for January if needed. Those transfers obviously would have used up a significant amount of the Brooks money. Wilder has admitted to having conflicted thoughts about the sale, but having ultimately reconciled himself to it.I've got no issue with that; although there are examples of clubs who wont sell despite ridiculous bids, e.g. Fulham last season.If we've ultimately strengthened the first team, whilst having a shedload of cash to improve over the next two windows, I think we're in good shape.Particularly when you look at the off the field problems many clubs face this and next season.FFP could help us acquire players from these clubs - especially if we're cash rich.
Click to expand...

We aren’t cash rich, otherwise we wouldnt have just taken out a loan to cover operating expenses at 6.5% above base rate.
 
derekacorah said:
We aren’t cash rich, otherwise we wouldnt have just taken out a loan to cover operating expenses at 6.5% above base rate.
Click to expand...

The default rate is base+6.5%: ie that's the interest rate we'll pay if we miss a payment. This is a standard factoring arrangement for which we'll be paying a [relatively] small fee. The company I work for turns over 9 figures - we still factor our receivables.
 
Balham Blade said:
The default rate is base+6.5%: ie that's the interest rate we'll pay if we miss a payment. This is a standard factoring arrangement for which we'll be paying a [relatively] small fee. The company I work for turns over 9 figures - we still factor our receivables.
Click to expand...

Ok, I’ll rephrase. If we were cash rich we wouldn’t have taken a loan unless there is somewhere that we are investing the cash to make a greater return than the interest paid on the loan. We aren’t cash rich.

My basis for the interest rate on the loan is the quote from the Star below that mentions nothing about factoring agreements:

Shawbrook Bank will charge United interest at 6.5 per cent above the base lending rate of the Royal Bank of Scotland and will pay the loan off in instalments of one £500,000 payment and two £3.5 million fees.

I’m fully aware of the workings and uses of a factoring agreement, what makes you think this is one based on the above?
 
derekacorah said:

I’m fully aware of the workings and uses of a factoring agreement, what makes you think this is one based on the above?
Click to expand...

The first page of the agreement is embedded in the tweet that started all of this. It refers to assignment of the promissory notes from Bournemouth. Hence there appears to be factoring involved.
 
Don't know what all the fuss is about,Martin Glazier had loans of £800 million with interest rates of 14% with buying Man utd.

Football is now a business,not a toy.
 
derekacorah said:
Ok, I’ll rephrase. If we were cash rich we wouldn’t have taken a loan unless there is somewhere that we are investing the cash to make a greater return than the interest paid on the loan. We aren’t cash rich.

My basis for the interest rate on the loan is the quote from the Star below that mentions nothing about factoring agreements:

Shawbrook Bank will charge United interest at 6.5 per cent above the base lending rate of the Royal Bank of Scotland and will pay the loan off in instalments of one £500,000 payment and two £3.5 million fees.

I’m fully aware of the workings and uses of a factoring agreement, what makes you think this is one based on the above?
Click to expand...

I read the deed on the Companies House portal rather than the article on the Star's website. While the latter's journalists do the best they can they're not financial experts.

As I see it, the deal with Shawbrook is that they have loaned us an unspecified amount* now against the future receivables of £7.5m from Bournemouth which is due in two £3.5m and one £0.5m payments. That's a fairly basic factoring arrangement. The article and the tweet at the start of this thread both relate to a charge filed at Companies House against United's holding company which previously held the promissory notes from Bournemouth.

*ignore the article; we have no idea how much United borrowed. All we know is that the £7.5m we're due to receive from Bournemouth is the repayment amount.
 
ourbob said:
Don't know what all the fuss is about,Martin Glazier had loans of £800 million with interest rates of 14% with buying Man utd.

Football is now a business,not a toy.
Click to expand...
That’s worked out well for the supporters.
 
IdLiketoRogerMoore said:
In your scenario, let's hope he spends it more wisely than he did last January...

Seriously , do people think it's that straightforward to just 'spend some moneh in January'? The evidence is that isn't as simple as it is on championship manager...
Click to expand...
Of course it isn’t that simple, but seriously, do you really think he’d have brought in the players he did last January if there had been the opportunity to recruit better?

What I’m saying is IF Wilder and his team target a player or players that they think could help us kick on and increase our promotion chances, handbags should be put down, discussions should take place and every effort should be made bu our owners to bring that player or those players in. For instance, if we could have brought in a player of the same ilk as Norwood last January as opposed to Evans, I think that there is every chance the we’d have have kicked on and made up the points that could have got us into the play offs.

That’s not playing Football Manager, it’s what needs to be done and what other clubs have done to achieve promotion. They need to trust in Wilder and we need to stop harping on about the crap that he brought in last January and look at the good players he’s recruited before and since given the backing like Norwood and Egan.
 
derekacorah said:
We aren’t cash rich, otherwise we wouldnt have just taken out a loan to cover operating expenses at 6.5% above base rate.
Click to expand...

Ok, I'll rephrase. Due to significant player sales and an increased budget, there should be significant funds to strengthen in January/next summer.We can use the money by buying players in installments - in the same way other clubs have purchased our players. Unless something has changed and the money has been reassigned for other purposes.In which case did the budget increase at all? We have no issues with FFP unlike many of our rivals, so we should be able to strike advantageous deals whilst taking advantage of their predicament. It's an interesting time in the club's history.
 
GrayBlade said:
Of course it isn’t that simple, but seriously, do you really think he’d have brought in the players he did last January if there had been the opportunity to recruit better?

What I’m saying is IF Wilder and his team target a player or players that they think could help us kick on and increase our promotion chances, handbags should be put down, discussions should take place and every effort should be made bu our owners to bring that player or those players in. For instance, if we could have brought in a player of the same ilk as Norwood last January as opposed to Evans, I think that there is every chance the we’d have have kicked on and made up the points that could have got us into the play offs.

That’s not playing Football Manager, it’s what needs to be done and what other clubs have done to achieve promotion. They need to trust in Wilder and we need to stop harping on about the crap that he brought in last January and look at the good players he’s recruited before and since given the backing like Norwood and Egan.
Click to expand...

But this 'they' of whom you speak do trust Wilder - they gave him a new contract 4 months ago.

But they can't give him money that doesn't exist..

In the same way Wilder can't buy players that aren't there/wont come here.

I just find this whole notion that we can simply buy a couple of players in Jan that will come straight in to the team and make us better a little OTT...
 
nopigfansintown said:
Ok, I'll rephrase. Due to significant player sales and an increased budget, there should be significant funds to strengthen in January/next summer.We can use the money by buying players in installments - in the same way other clubs have purchased our players. Unless something has changed and the money has been reassigned for other purposes.In which case did the budget increase at all? We have no issues with FFP unlike many of our rivals, so we should be able to strike advantageous deals whilst taking advantage of their predicament. It's an interesting time in the club's history.
Click to expand...


Why would you think there would be "significant funds" available?

The budget was increased, players came in and went out, presumably a net spend, other than Brooks and we were losing £6-7m a year already. Gates haven't gone up, no further investment from the owners points to the fact that the loan will cover losses.

I hope I'm wrong, but nothing points to a large war chest being available in January, as things stand today.
 
Balham Blade said:
I read the deed on the Companies House portal rather than the article on the Star's website. While the latter's journalists do the best they can they're not financial experts.

As I see it, the deal with Shawbrook is that they have loaned us an unspecified amount* now against the future receivables of £7.5m from Bournemouth which is due in two £3.5m and one £0.5m payments. That's a fairly basic factoring arrangement. The article and the tweet at the start of this thread both relate to a charge filed at Companies House against United's holding company which previously held the promissory notes from Bournemouth.

*ignore the article; we have no idea how much United borrowed. All we know is that the £7.5m we're due to receive from Bournemouth is the repayment amount.
Click to expand...

Ok, I didn't bother reading the deed on CH, I do that for a living so don't bother in my spare time. I agree now, it looks like a factoring agreement and I'll take your word on the quoted interest rate being paid upon default only with a lower rate on the arrangement itself, as you say nothing fishy about the agreement. However cash rich companies don't tend to bother with factoring agreements unless their cash is tied up in higher yield investments or if they want to take risks with other peoples money.

As I said much earlier in this thread and multiple people have said since it appears to be a case of "nothing to see here" and that the owners have just decided that they aren't putting any cash in until the court case is sorted and will use a banks money to fund operations instead.
 
Sean Thornton said:
Why would you think there would be "significant funds" available?

The budget was increased, players came in and went out, presumably a net spend, other than Brooks and we were losing £6-7m a year already. Gates haven't gone up, no further investment from the owners points to the fact that the loan will cover losses.

I hope I'm wrong, but nothing points to a large war chest being available in January, as things stand today.
Click to expand...

I agree our net spend looks like it has increased - if we don't factor in the Brooks money. The loanees will be on more than the outgoing players, although we got money for Evans/Leonard/Long (probably not much for the latter). I think the Waghorn and Freeman bids indicate that there is significant money still in the kitty. Whether things have changed since Wilder said this I've no idea. "There is funds still there (for January)," he said. "There will be money available if needed. "If we need to use it, we will. If we don't, then we won't. Really, it's as simple as that."
If it has, Wilder would probably keep his counsel like he did until the end of last season.

Read more at: https://www.thestar.co.uk/sport/foo...uched-any-of-the-david-brooks-money-1-9348425
 
Last edited:

nopigfansintown said:
I agree our net spend looks like it has increased - if we don't factor in the Brooks money. The loanees will be on more than the outgoing players, although we got money for Evans/Leonard/Long (probably not much for the latter). I think the Waghorn and Freeman bids indicate that there is significant money still in the kitty. Whether things have changed since Wilder said this I've no idea. "There is funds still there (for January)," he said. "There will be money available if needed. "If we need to use it, we will. If we don't, then we won't. Really, it's as simple as that."
If it has, Wilder would probably keep his counsel like he did until the end of last season.

Read more at: https://www.thestar.co.uk/sport/foo...uched-any-of-the-david-brooks-money-1-9348425
Click to expand...


That article also claims we received a down payment of £10m when he was sold. We know that's utter bollocks. ( Quelle surprise!).
We hadn't touched the money because we hadn't even got it. We don't know what Wilder was told, I suspect some money will have been promised to him for January but we'll all no doubt have a differing view of how significant it is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Roygbiv
Roy's View From... Loan Update
Replies
15
Views
2K
robbiez666
R
Roygbiv
Roy's View From... Loan Update
2 3
Replies
71
Views
8K
Sean Thornton
Sean Thornton
derfblade.3
So what are the rules on injured loan players?
Replies
13
Views
2K
Champagneblade
Champagneblade
M
Our loan players
Replies
21
Views
1K
wak1889
W
originaltrueblade
When Can We
Replies
15
Views
908
JD88
J

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Back
Top Bottom