United borrow money from Emirates

[Niceguyeddie]

You will just get that money on top.of your t.v money

 

[Houston_Blade]

Haven't we borrowed from the Emirates bank, the same owner as Man city? If Samuels gets to hear about it we will be thrown out of Europe and wet shammers will be given our PL place...

I know you post in jest but we’ve borrowed from National Bank of Dubai, city are funded from Abu Dhabi.

 

[8lade]

Time for Dubai to dabble in a football club perhaps
(and whilst I was checking they weren't already owners in the EPL I noticed that ' Wolves owners are fucking fuck me, bastardy fuck, fuckity fuck fuck wealthy'.

 

[Cerberus Blade]

Any news anywhere n the size of the loan?

 

[Bladezz]

People need to realise

Say the prince has £50m in Bank to buy the stadium. If he bought it outright he’s got no funds which means no investment.

If the stadium is mortgaged he will have to pay a small amount a month (run it through the PL money we get) and then he still has £50m in Bank.

it’s the same as DH it’s better for us to loan him and improve the squad as then we have both.

 

[LoughboroBlade]

Helpful context from Kieran Maguire here: https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/sport/football/news/sheffield-united-bramall-lane-mortgage-18559263

 

[Conroy]

Haven't we borrowed from the Emirates bank, the same owner as Man city? If Samuels gets to hear about it we will be thrown out of Europe and wet shammers will be given our PL place...

It's Emirates NBD which is Emirates National Bank of Dubai, nowt 'directly' to do with Man City. And as a personal saver with said bank I'm pleased to announce my part ownership of my beloved club......

 

[Sean Thornton]

Helpful context from Kieran Maguire here: https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/sport/football/news/sheffield-united-bramall-lane-mortgage-18559263

Very little in Maguires words that hasn't been covered on here. Very much generalisations, as usual.

 

[LoughboroBlade]

Very little in Maguires words that hasn't been covered on here. Very much generalisations, as usual.

We’re all fairly restricted to generalisations when we don’t have the specific details to hand. I personally hadn’t been aware that this was the approach Spurs took to funding their new stadium, though not a huge shock. But more so it should hopefully give some reassurance as a view from an expert on football finance, rather than folk on here gives their thoughts (though I sense you may not view Maguire as such – I think he’s considerably better than most).

 

[Sean Thornton]

We’re all fairly restricted to generalisations when we don’t have the specific details to hand. I personally hadn’t been aware that this was the approach Spurs took to funding their new stadium, though not a huge shock. But more so it should hopefully give some reassurance as a view from an expert on football finance, rather than folk on here gives their thoughts (though I sense you may not view Maguire as such – I think he’s considerably better than most).

If you're giving your view as an expert, then I expect reasonable input. He's a tabloid man, extrapolating figures from accounts is one thing, conclusions drawn are another. But as I said, there's nothing in there not in the public domain or that has been referenced on here by non experts. He's the go too guy for a quick headline. Which is what you get.

Look at the nonsense the Hallam bloke spouted about company incorporation.

 

[Hamburg Blade]

Another way to look at it; the secretary has £3,000 debt on her Visa Card, and finds out she is losing her job next month. She is given £3,000 as redundancy, what would you advise? Pay off the £3,000 outright and end up with £0 in the bank, or transfer the balance to a 0% / 2% card and pay-off £30 each month until she finds another job? Sometimes it's just cash in the bank you need when things crop up unforeseen. So, we are paying a fee to keep hold of our cash, just like the secretary is paying £30 per month to hold onto her redundancy.

I'd tell her not to rack up £3000 of debt on her credit card, the stupid bint.

 

[FriethBlade]

There’s also been an addition to the balance sheet of assets worth £50m or so. HRH doesn’t appear to have made any mistakes up to now despite being skint.

Yep Sean.. but as you know assets are 'easily' written down debt isn't. 'Free capital' with rates at zero whilst we are in the premiership is easily serviced and not a problem. If rates rise and or we get relegated its another matter...see Sunderland,Blackburn et al.

I agree re the Prince and there's no way we would have bought the likes of McB and Berge under the previous ownership structure

So all is fine at present I'm just pointing out theres risks involved in adding 50m of debt.

 

[Balham]

Used to go past it on the 52 bus when it was the waterworks ground.
If I remenber right, it was just a single pitch (but looked well kept) on top of a sort of plateau.

That plateau is an underground service reservoir isn't it? There was another on Carsick and one by Lydgate Infants. Some are disused (the one on Carsick has been built on) but I think the one behind the Crookes site is still operational.

 

[Harrisblade]

That plateau is an underground service reservoir isn't it? There was another on Carsick and one by Lydgate Infants. Some are disused (the one on Carsick has been built on) but I think the one behind the Crookes site is still operational.

Thanks Balham!
I never knew that, but now you've mentioned it, it seems like a perfectly sensible reason for the appearance!

 

[Sean Thornton]

Yep Sean.. but as you know assets are 'easily' written down debt isn't. 'Free capital' with rates at zero whilst we are in the premiership is easily serviced and not a problem. If rates rise and or we get relegated its another matter...see Sunderland,Blackburn et al.

I agree re the Prince and there's no way we would have bought the likes of McB and Berge under the previous ownership structure

So all is fine at present I'm just pointing out theres risks involved in adding 50m of debt.

We'll never see the ground improvements if the board take the same view.

We carried £50m+ of debt to McCabe during six years in L1 and managed to get through it.

 

[BushBlade]

We'll never see the ground improvements if the board take the same view.

We carried £50m+ of debt to McCabe during six years in L1 and managed to get through it.

I don’t think we were having to repay it during that time though.

It’s not ideal. What would be ideal is if we had a billionaire owner who would just pay for it himself and invest a load of money in the playing side. But we haven’t, there aren’t that many billionaires around who want to buy us and even fewer who aren’t dodgy in some way. I’m actually surprised we never got bought by a consortium headed up by Jefferey Epstein and Jordan Belfort. That would be nearly as bad as being bought by Chansiri.

But it’s the best option under the circumstances.

 

[Hamburg Blade]

What would be ideal is if we had a billionaire owner who would just pay for it himself and invest a load of money in the playing side.

When anything like this comes up there are a lot of mentions of "billionaire owners" - in the sense that it's a shame we can't find one to pump money in to the club, Prince has no money, etc etc.
Now, I'm looking for some of you more knowledgeable bods to flesh out the details here, or tell me where I'm wrong, but as I understand it owners can't simply pump money into the club. In this case, if the Prince were to use his own money, either he would own the ground as a private individual - the club would own nothing - which is not a desirable situation, or he would give the club the money to buy the ground, in which case the club would own the ground but have a debt to the Prince.

People seem to think that owners can just hand over cash to a business and it not be owed, but I know from my own business that it stays on the books. I'm hazy on the details, but I know these debts can be changed into shares or some such, but isn't that how it was with McCabe? i.e. he put money into the club, the club didn't pay him it (all) back, but when it came to selling he was looking to get the money back out of it from the sale of his share of the club.

In short, I'm not sure how having a billionaire owner is this no-more-money-problems solution, unless you have owners that are prepared to put money into the club without setting up repayments, or at least small repayments without interest, let the club run at a permanent loss due to the debt, and when it's time to sell isn't necessarily looking to recoup the money (or writes off the debts at some point, which would be an incredibly generous billionaire - do they exist?).

Where is my thinking wrong?

 

[Sean Thornton]

I don’t think we were having to repay it during that time though.

It’s not ideal. What would be ideal is if we had a billionaire owner who would just pay for it himself and invest a load of money in the playing side. But we haven’t, there aren’t that many billionaires around who want to buy us and even fewer who aren’t dodgy in some way. I’m actually surprised we never got bought by a consortium headed up by Jefferey Epstein and Jordan Belfort. That would be nearly as bad as being bought by Chansiri.

But it’s the best option under the circumstances.

Due to the largesse of McCabe. Oh and the fact there was nothing to pay it with.

Much of it from the season after relegation from the PL that hobbled us for years. While I take the point I'd rather we borrowed it with a view to short term repayment rather than use the PL money to fund it and let the team suffer.

 

[BushBlade]

Due to the largesse of McCabe. Oh and the fact there was nothing to pay it with.

Much of it from the season after relegation from the PL that hobbled us for years. While I take the point I'd rather we borrowed it with a view to short term repayment rather than use the PL money to fund it and let the team suffer.

Which is why I said it was the best option under the circumstances.

 

[Sean Thornton]

Which is why I said it was the best option under the circumstances.

It's the language barrier......

 

[Trigger Blade]

It's Emirates NBD which is Emirates National Bank of Dubai, nowt 'directly' to do with Man City. And as a personal saver with said bank I'm pleased to announce my part ownership of my beloved club......

I go back far enough to have had an account with Emirates Bank before it merged with NBD. I haven't used the account for years but have just checked, it is still current and as far as I'm concerned, the club can do whatever it wants with my AED 5. That's about a quid, it got the Prince half the club...….

 

[BushBlade]

When anything like this comes up there are a lot of mentions of "billionaire owners" - in the sense that it's a shame we can't find one to pump money in to the club, Prince has no money, etc etc.
Now, I'm looking for some of you more knowledgeable bods to flesh out the details here, or tell me where I'm wrong, but as I understand it owners can't simply pump money into the club. In this case, if the Prince were to use his own money, either he would own the ground as a private individual - the club would own nothing - which is not a desirable situation, or he would give the club the money to buy the ground, in which case the club would own the ground but have a debt to the Prince.

People seem to think that owners can just hand over cash to a business and it not be owed, but I know from my own business that it stays on the books. I'm hazy on the details, but I know these debts can be changed into shares or some such, but isn't that how it was with McCabe? i.e. he put money into the club, the club didn't pay him it (all) back, but when it came to selling he was looking to get the money back out of it from the sale of his share of the club.

In short, I'm not sure how having a billionaire owner is this no-more-money-problems solution, unless you have owners that are prepared to put money into the club without setting up repayments, or at least small repayments without interest, let the club run at a permanent loss due to the debt, and when it's time to sell isn't necessarily looking to recoup the money (or writes off the debts at some point, which would be an incredibly generous billionaire - do they exist?).

Where is my thinking wrong?

Aside from FFP, why can’t owners simply pump money into the club? That’s what Abramovich did at Chelsea. Mansour at Man City.
KM put money into the club in the form of soft loans, which he later converted to equity as part of the deal with PA.

 

[Keen Blade]

Surely the prince will be looking to.sell us eventually ? He's sitting on a goldmine isn't he
He's bought a football club for five million.quid and the property's on a mortgage to the club

Not sure how that would affect a sale but we had buyers lined up for well over a hundred million so he could cash in his chips and make a killing

Whoever bought would likely do so with borrowed money so there would be a debt to service in any event a la Glazers at ManUtd.

 

[Harrisblade]

It's the language barrier......

Can't you both just type in upper case?

 

[blade too long]

our owner now owns the club
its a lot better situation , there's clarity and certainty
can anyone name a football club that's never had a loan

 

[Weasel]

Prince owns SUFC. SUFC has bought the land assets back from Scarborough Property at agreed price as obligated too under property options within court case settlement. SUFC have borrowed money to buy these assets from a Bank. Bank puts charge in place by way of fixed and floating charge (Debenture over non land assets which only crystallise if Debenture realised, and fixed legal charge over property assets, all contained within the Debenture). SUFC agreed to repay debt over 5 years with loan to be serviced with monies from being in PL (and 3 x parachute payments in worse case scenario). SUFC have property assets on their balance sheet now worth £50m.

No difference to purchasing a residential home and agreeing a legal charge / mortgage with your bank. If you default they can call it up and take possession, but you do it on the basis that you will meet your repayments and eventually own your home asset and be mortgage free.

And why should the Prince just give £50m of his own personal wealth into the club which is a separate legal entity (albeit one he owns)? Granted the share value in SUFC will go up now that the club owns the property assets, but he would be daft to put in his own £50m or whatever it was, as in effect SUFC is now repaying the debts over these next 5 years, that it built up steadily each year under the previous 20 years under McCabe. Think of it as repayment of old debts to get our ground and other property assets back under the clubs legal ownership again (where ownership of BL used to sit before McCabe transferred it all over to his own companies).

 

[Houston_Blade]

We're on Maguire's podcast today as well. I will have a listen but I expect a "it's nothing out of the ordinary to fund a property purchase with a mortgage". Cheers Kieran for the insight.

 

[Hamburg Blade]

Aside from FFP, why can’t owners simply pump money into the club? That’s what Abramovich did at Chelsea. Mansour at Man City.

Thanks for answering, I was hoping one of the financial experts would come along with a two page explanation as I'm not sure how money is given to a business. I assume it's possible to loan money to your own business and then just write it off.
FFP puts a cap on annual losses, but doesn't deal with the business side of how loans/gifts from owners are dealt with. Abramocich has pumped money in to Chelsea, but that means Chealsea owes him over a billion pounds. (Chelsea fan site: https://weaintgotnohistory.sbnation.com/2018/6/1/17416550/chelsea-owe-1-17-billion-to-abramovich ) which is the point I was making, that having a billionaire owner isn't much different to having a skint owner who borrows from a bank - you still end up in debt.

KM put money into the club in the form of soft loans, which he later converted to equity as part of the deal with PA.

And, like Abramovich, he was a benevolent owner who put money into the club without trying to make money out of the loans, nevertheless, when it's time to sell, he understandably wants it back in the price of the sale - because although the fans see it as money he could be giving to the club, he undoubtedly sees it as money he would be giving to the new owner.
All in all, I see the lure of an owner who throws the cash around in the short term, but am not convinced long term it is any better than an owner who takes too many bank loans out.