Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]

    Search       Member List      Official United Site     ArabZone      ArabTRUST       BBC Sport     Twitter
Welcome to The Arab League, one of the longest established Dundee United Football forums, with many members from the old ArabFC forum.

New members are always welcomed, so to join the debate, just sign up - registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join The Arab League!


If you're already a member please log in:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Bank debt gone; Apparently...
Topic Started: Feb 7 2014, 09:59 AM (5,457 Views)
reekie
Member Avatar
lum raker
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
the.mule
 
bawhum

Magnifique!

I'd actually counter that Spence gets the information unadulterated but is briefed on what is and isn't for public consumption.
Hence the £2.5m quote. If he says that's, "his understanding" then it's fairly safe to say that's what it was. He wouldn't venture it otherwise.
Likewise his assertion that he didn't know who the investors are. I'd wager he does, but has been asked not to divulge.
Which he won't as, like our sugar daddies, he's sympathetic to United.

The more I think about it, the more I'm minded to see this as an astute bit of business on ST's part.

Banks may be structurally more capable of supporting football clubs but they also have the capacity to close them down. I doubt any of the investors have either the mind or the wherewithall to demand that.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
vvhatsthatonyourback
Member Avatar
wild eyed
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I think you're right about Spencey, reeks. One only needs to talk to him for a little while to realise he gets told just about everything at Tannadice. I had a look for this report he did that your family can't stop talking about but couldn't find it. So I'm taking your Dad at his word and starting to feel more positive about this.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Conan the Destroyer
Member Avatar
I prefer it when we're pish
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
From the club:

Quote:
 
Since the 2013 Accounts were completed, the Club reached an agreement with its bankers to close off its debt position. The negotiated terms included a payment of £1.45m to settle all borrowings and accruals due to the Bank at the date of the agreement, with any further payments contingent on the receipt of any transfer proceeds received up until 31 August 2015, during which time the Bank will be entitled to a reducing percentage share of these proceeds. The total amount due to the bank at the date of entering the agreement was £4.7m. The potential full payment under the terms of the agreement will be between £1.7m and £4.1m, depending on the Club's performance in the transfer market.

The Chairman added, "A considerable amount of work went into securing this financial restructuring agreement with the Bank; an agreement which, in our opinion, might not have been possible had we not made such significant progress in recent years and had not been able to demonstrate that there was scope for further contingent payments in the arrangement. These of course may never arise, but the fact remains that the receipt of transfer fees is a strategic objective of the Club and underpins the significant investment we make in youth. Very importantly however, the Club now holds total control over any such transfer negotiations.

"Related to this restructuring will be a greater focus on our community involvement and, subject to the necessary permissions, we intend to transfer our interest in our all weather facility at Gussie Park to UNITED for ALL Community Trust, a registered charity, to provide improved recreational facilities for the local community. Building on the work we have undertaken to date, this will allow greater inclusion of all areas of the local community to promote enhanced health and wellbeing, through participation in sport and related activities.



So - we've paid the bank £1.45m to clear the debt - borrowed from these local business people? - and the bank gets a cut of any transfers up to the start of next season. Gussie Park has been punted to a charity - for nothing? for £1.45m? as a sweetener?
Edited by Conan the Destroyer, Feb 21 2014, 04:25 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Naebody
Member Avatar
Twat
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Oh, Christ. This is all wildly different from the earlier reports, to the point that it makes no freaking sense whatsoever. Fucksake. I just don't have the stamina to work through this on a Friday afternoon. Have a picture of an attention-whoring dog.

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
vvhatsthatonyourback
Member Avatar
wild eyed
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Conan the Destroyer
Feb 21 2014, 04:22 PM
From the club:

Quote:
 
Since the 2013 Accounts were completed, the Club reached an agreement with its bankers to close off its debt position. The negotiated terms included a payment of £1.45m to settle all borrowings and accruals due to the Bank at the date of the agreement, with any further payments contingent on the receipt of any transfer proceeds received up until 31 August 2015, during which time the Bank will be entitled to a reducing percentage share of these proceeds. The total amount due to the bank at the date of entering the agreement was £4.7m. The potential full payment under the terms of the agreement will be between £1.7m and £4.1m, depending on the Club's performance in the transfer market.

The Chairman added, "A considerable amount of work went into securing this financial restructuring agreement with the Bank; an agreement which, in our opinion, might not have been possible had we not made such significant progress in recent years and had not been able to demonstrate that there was scope for further contingent payments in the arrangement. These of course may never arise, but the fact remains that the receipt of transfer fees is a strategic objective of the Club and underpins the significant investment we make in youth. Very importantly however, the Club now holds total control over any such transfer negotiations.

"Related to this restructuring will be a greater focus on our community involvement and, subject to the necessary permissions, we intend to transfer our interest in our all weather facility at Gussie Park to UNITED for ALL Community Trust, a registered charity, to provide improved recreational facilities for the local community. Building on the work we have undertaken to date, this will allow greater inclusion of all areas of the local community to promote enhanced health and wellbeing, through participation in sport and related activities.



So - we've paid the bank £1.45m to clear the debt - borrowed from these local business people? - and the bank gets a cut of any transfers up to the start of next season. Gussie Park has been punted to a charity - for nothing? for £1.45m? as a sweetener?
Seems unlikely that the bank is betting on United selling players to recoup any more money.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Conan the Destroyer
Member Avatar
I prefer it when we're pish
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Naebody
Feb 21 2014, 04:42 PM
Oh, Christ. This is all wildly different from the earlier reports, to the point that it makes no freaking sense whatsoever. f*cksake. I just don't have the stamina to work through this on a Friday afternoon. Have a picture of an attention-whoring dog.

Posted Image
You've started early.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Naebody
Member Avatar
Twat
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Conan the Destroyer
Feb 21 2014, 05:29 PM
You've started early.
I rarely stop. Gizzakiss.

So United have bought £4.7m of debt for £1.45m. Brilliant. But they've also entered into an agreement to give the bank a sum between £0.25m and £2.4m. Less brilliant.

It's crazy to think this agreement is at United's discretion. It's absolutely batshit insane to think that the bank -- which has shareholders, the largest being the frigging Her Maj's government -- would write off up to £2.4m on a vague promise that they might get it back, possibly. That's utterly absurd. It's moral hazard at plutonium strength. I'm calling total bullshit on ST's claim that the "contingent payments ... may never arise". They'll arise, otherwise the bank would never have agreed to anything. Because they're a frigging bank.

I can only assume that United has pre-sold its players. The squad's been securitised. The bank has been promised specific sum (as in, with big contracts are involved) on the certainty that United will crystallise the value of its squad to meet that liability. But -- obviously -- when you absolutely have to sell an asset you'll get a lower price. That's why we're getting this nonsense about contingent liabilities. It's been thrown in to stop United looking like a distressed seller come the summer.

As for the Gussie Park stuff, I really do hope United are going to operate a church/state separation between the club and the charity.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Setenza
Member Avatar
Knitting with only one needle
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Naebody
Feb 21 2014, 07:20 PM
Conan the Destroyer
Feb 21 2014, 05:29 PM
You've started early.
I rarely stop. Gizzakiss.

So United have bought £4.7m of debt for £1.45m. Brilliant. But they've also entered into an agreement to give the bank a sum between £0.25m and £2.4m. Less brilliant.

It's crazy to think this agreement is at United's discretion. It's absolutely batshit insane to think that the bank -- which has shareholders, the largest being the frigging Her Maj's government -- would write off up to £2.4m on a vague promise that they might get it back, possibly. That's utterly absurd. It's moral hazard at plutonium strength. I'm calling total bullshit on ST's claim that the "contingent payments ... may never arise". They'll arise, otherwise the bank would never have agreed to anything. Because they're a frigging bank.

I can only assume that United has pre-sold its players. The squad's been securitised. The bank has been promised specific sum (as in, with big contracts are involved) on the certainty that United will crystallise the value of its squad to meet that liability. But -- obviously -- when you absolutely have to sell an asset you'll get a lower price. That's why we're getting this nonsense about contingent liabilities. It's been thrown in to stop United looking like a distressed seller come the summer.

As for the Gussie Park stuff, I really do hope United are going to operate a church/state separation between the club and the charity.
If we know we've sold players, which would seem to most likely be in the summer, wouldn't it have made more sense just to wait until the summer, and then clear the debt. No-one was really shouting about impending doom in our finances to make us seem vulnerable. Except our chairman from time to time...

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Morvant's Finest
Member Avatar
Tommy McLean
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Naebody
Feb 21 2014, 07:20 PM
Conan the Destroyer
Feb 21 2014, 05:29 PM
You've started early.
It's absolutely batshit insane to think that the bank -- which has shareholders, the largest being the frigging Her Maj's government -- would write off up to £2.4m on a vague promise that they might get it back, possibly. That's utterly absurd. It's moral hazard at plutonium strength. I'm calling total bullshit on ST's claim that the "contingent payments ... may never arise". They'll arise, otherwise the bank would never have agreed to anything. Because they're a frigging bank.
Maybe so, but you'd have to say they've got form when it comes to football clubs:

Dundee FC's £7.5M debt sold for £500K

Bank of Scotland under fire after writing off £12m loan to its former managing director

Critics blast Kilmarnock debt write-off plans

We may well have sounded out potential buyers ahead of next summer, but not sure how we could have agreed sales already, given buying clubs could change Manager/transfer targets, players could get injured etc. Also not sure the club will be under greater pressure to sell players than it was already, with HBOS having the ability to withdraw an overdraft facility at any time?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Naebody
Member Avatar
Twat
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Sorry, MF. I was rather unclear. What I meant was that the bank's surely been promised money which it'll receive no matter what. That will necessitate player sales.

Think of it this way: if we take what ST has said as the full picture, it'd suggest the discretionary debt to the bank reduces by about £100,000 every month. If there was no obligation to pay it, why on earth would you? Each month you do nothing, you're £100k richer. Okay, it's plausible that the bank was prepared to take 25p in the £1 because United threatened it with imminent administration. But why add this unsecured, obligation-free transfer income side deal that rewards United £100k each month for not meeting its terms? It's utter nonsense.

Are United in a better shape, worse shape or the same shape? I've no idea. It's impossible to tell when we're being asked to believe bullshit.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Naebody
Member Avatar
Twat
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Sorry, MF. I was rather unclear. What I meant was that the bank's surely been promised money which it'll receive no matter what. That will necessitate player sales.

Think of it this way: if we take what ST has said as the full picture, it'd suggest the discretionary debt to the bank reduces by about £100,000 every month. If there was no obligation to pay it, why on earth would you? Each month you do nothing, you're £100k richer. Okay, it's plausible that the bank was prepared to take 25p in the £1 because United threatened it with imminent administration. But why add this unsecured, obligation-free transfer income side deal that rewards United £100k each month for not meeting its terms? It's utter nonsense.

Are United in a better shape, worse shape or the same shape? I've no idea. It's impossible to tell when we're being asked to believe bullshit.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
vvhatsthatonyourback
Member Avatar
wild eyed
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Naebody
Feb 21 2014, 07:20 PM
Conan the Destroyer
Feb 21 2014, 05:29 PM
You've started early.
I rarely stop. Gizzakiss.

So United have bought £4.7m of debt for £1.45m. Brilliant. But they've also entered into an agreement to give the bank a sum between £0.25m and £2.4m. Less brilliant.

It's crazy to think this agreement is at United's discretion. It's absolutely batshit insane to think that the bank -- which has shareholders, the largest being the frigging Her Maj's government -- would write off up to £2.4m on a vague promise that they might get it back, possibly. That's utterly absurd.
Isn't there a risk that you're overthinking this Naebs? Football finance clearly does not follow the conventions of other areas you and we may be used to. A lot of improvisation seems to go on, let's say. And finance is a mountain of bullshit anyway, with hard and fast rules anyone rich or motivated enough can get around quite easily.

The bank have been a pain in the arse to United, and no doubt the time and expense dealing with United is a pain in the arse to the bank, especially when they do not want to maintain any working relationship with United in particular and Scottish football in general once all debts are settled.

Maybe the £1.45m was an acceptable amount to get out of dealing with the hassle for the bank, and they figure if they get anything from transfers it's a nice bonus.

From United's point of view, assuming the bank don't take such a vast cut of any transfer deal that it doesn't make it worth their while to sell any players until the bank deal expires, why would they not sell a player or two on their own terms if the alternative was the player running their contract down and leaving for free?

It sounds like a pretty weird deal to me, but ST has been specific enough for me to think that he'd need to be serving up an absolute whopper to no particular purpose for the details we've heard to be inaccurate.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TheDean
ALLEGEDLY CALICO
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
So a bank liability replaced with a contingent liability based on the timetable on player sales? well at least I knew there was some dividend link with the saleable player assets. The good thing about this is that it protects from the frustratingly cheeky underbid and means that Souttar and Gauld will go for full value. I'm still left wondering what the new investors get.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Naebody
Member Avatar
Twat
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Okay. One more shot.

Thomson has said further payments to the bank are contingent on player sales and therefore discretionary. But even at the lowest end of the range for the final total paid to the bank is £250,000 more than the final debt settlement. Therefore, player sales are not discressionary. Suggesting they are is a porky.
Edited by Naebody, Feb 22 2014, 03:34 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
vvhatsthatonyourback
Member Avatar
wild eyed
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Naebody
Feb 22 2014, 03:31 PM
Okay. One more shot.

Thomson has said further payments to the bank are contingent on player sales and therefore discretionary. But even at the lowest end of the range for the final total paid to the bank is £250,000 more than the final debt settlement. Therefore, player sales are not discressionary. Suggesting they are is a porky.
Not getting your point, Naebs.

United will end up paying between £1.7 and £4.1 mil to the bank. They've already paid £1.45, so at least £0.25m will be due. Whether it's from player sales or not, I don't see how this makes player sales non-discretionary. It could just be if we don't sell anyone, we owe the bank £250k.

ETA: did ST shag your wife?
Edited by vvhatsthatonyourback, Feb 22 2014, 06:31 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Any Football · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Find this theme on Forum2Forum.net & ZNR exclusively.