No mate that would be a full on leveraged buyout .
I don't think they would have passed the Finacial & Premier league approval stages if that is what they proposed.
I don't think they would have passed the Finacial & Premier league approval stages if that is what they proposed.
A leveraged buy out secures the funds / loans against the collateral prior to the transaction and uses them to complete it, evidently this is after the event.
They may have passed all tests but using their own money initially, doesn’t stop them doing what I suspect may now have happened afterwards.
Like I said originally, it not necessarily a bad thing, I’m just a little more cautious than seeing it as sugar and spice without a better understanding of what they have done.
Besides with the new PSR ruling saying owner loans need to effectively accounted for at a commercial loan rate, they might have secured a loan at 1-2% which would be better than the EPL would have assumed for a directors loan.
Last edited:
Depends what they’ve borrowed tbf.
No doubt the rates are better, but ½ the interest rate for double the borrowing is exactly the same boat.
I’m only speculating, no one will have much of a clue what’s going on until the accounts come out.
HalfTimeSayers
Player Valuation: £35m
Interesting but not too worrying. Massive loans and mortgages are fine if you are using the capital to generate (ideally substantially) more profit than it’s costing you to finance. A football club is probably not the ideal cash generator to say the least, as if you don’t re invest every penny you make, you fall behind. But their other ventures probably cover it with ease, so may as well have the cash to invest in their other endeavours, from their point of view at least.
Massive loans with reputable banks will come with multiple covenants that will be reviewed quarterly; capex limits, profits covering interest etc. more than happy for extra regular scrutiny on our finances after the mess Ingles (bizarrely not blamed for ANY of our issues) oversaw.
Could be way off the mark too.A leveraged buy out secures the funds / loans against the collateral prior to the transaction and uses them to complete it, evidently this is after the event.
They may have passed all tests but using their own money initially, doesn’t stop them doing what I suspect may now have happened afterwards.
Like I said originally, it not necessarily a bad thing, I’m just a little more cautious than seeing it as sugar and spice without a better understanding of what they have done.
It could be as simple as kick starting a transfer kitty until they get stadium rights and sponsorships in place.
How did they buy Roma ?
Maybe worth looking into to give us an insight.
Btw JP Morgan Chase gives me the shudders when it comes to football.
They were the company bankrolling the breakaway European Superleague that the Sky Snakes were involved in.
Corporate greed rats.
They were the company bankrolling the breakaway European Superleague that the Sky Snakes were involved in.
Corporate greed rats.
Charlie Sweet
Player Valuation: £35m
Please sack the pork. Then start your ownership with a clean slate.
MrGrumpy
Player Valuation: £50m
Although I use Chase(get cash back on every purchase)… This bank is dodger then loan sharks. Just look at the crash of 2008 and Bernie Madoff to name a few
Re Leveraged Buyouts, rules changed prior to last season.
The Premier League clubs have voted to cap leveraged buyouts at around 65 per cent of a club’s value, which would ban the kind of big-debt takeover that the Glazer family led of Manchester United in 2005, Telegraph Sport understands.
The 20 Premier League clubs for season 2023-2024 met for the league’s AGM in Hampshire on Wednesday with a number of issues voted upon. The leveraged buyout cap was undertaken to protect clubs from the mountains of debt that was piled onto United – debt free when the Glazers took control in 2005 – to fund ownership of the Florida family of venture capitalists. The original £660 million debt was 83 per cent of the total £790 million value of the club at that time.
The Premier League clubs have voted to cap leveraged buyouts at around 65 per cent of a club’s value, which would ban the kind of big-debt takeover that the Glazer family led of Manchester United in 2005, Telegraph Sport understands.
The 20 Premier League clubs for season 2023-2024 met for the league’s AGM in Hampshire on Wednesday with a number of issues voted upon. The leveraged buyout cap was undertaken to protect clubs from the mountains of debt that was piled onto United – debt free when the Glazers took control in 2005 – to fund ownership of the Florida family of venture capitalists. The original £660 million debt was 83 per cent of the total £790 million value of the club at that time.
How does that address mortgaging / borrowing in excess of 65% of a clubs value once the new owners are in place having used their own funds initially?
Considering we've been in bed recently with a Ponzi scheme and a shadowy high interest loan company for the past 20 years am extremely comfortable with these Corporate greed rats.
It’s hard to appreciate quite how much money is behind a behemoth like JPMC, but the amount they have paid out in fines over the years is mind boggling.
NB they’re far from alone in these types of compliance failures, and I’d absolutely prefer them over the previous shower (inc 777 near miss)
But this gives a good idea
jpmorgan-chase | Violation Tracker
Violation Tracker, produced by the Corporate Research Project of Good Jobs First, is a wide-ranging database on misconduct by large and small corporations throughout the United States.
violationtracker.goodjobsfirst.org
pfim
Player Valuation: £40m
A leveraged buy out secures the funds / loans against the collateral prior to the transaction and uses them to complete it, evidently this is after the event.
They may have passed all tests but using their own money initially, doesn’t stop them doing what I suspect may now have happened afterwards.
Like I said originally, it not necessarily a bad thing, I’m just a little more cautious than seeing it as sugar and spice without a better understanding of what they have done.
Besides with the new PSR ruling saying owner loans need to effectively accounted for at a commercial loan rate, they might have secured a loan at 1-2% which would be better than the EPL would have assumed for a directors loan.
They have to submit funding plans which are part of the approval process. In addition, they're tested twice in the first year of acquisition.
Investing in Football - Sports Investment - Investing in Football - Equity vs Debt
northridgelaw.foleon.com
I don't know the detail behind it, but despite the PL incompetence, the rule would be worthless if it could be navigated by doing exactly that.
TFG had to supply a detailed business plan as part of the owners tests, so I'm sure an immediate deviation from that plan would trigger conversations, as again it would leave the tests worthless.
That’s reassuring (I think!). I was aware of a rule on leveraged buy outs but assumed once the transaction was executed owners could more or less please themselves as they in theory would have demonstrated they had the funding.They have to submit funding plans which are part of the approval process. In addition, they're tested twice in the first year of acquisition.
Investing in Football - Sports Investment - Investing in Football - Equity vs Debt
Last edited:
Welcome
Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.
Shop
