sausagemeat Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 G-Star Ram & Sausagemeat, Just to calrify, my understanding was that £6m was put it in the form of ordinary shares - with holdings of beteween 300,000 & 1,000,000 , so not everyone put in the same amount.your understanding is incorrect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 Okay, I'll take this opportunity to correct you here. ALL Of the Premier League money was spent before GSE and the Owners got here. There are roughly 3 x £11m payments. The first one was spent on the signings of Pearson, Jones, Fagan, Teale, Mears etc halfway through promotion season. The second one was spent on loan taken out via Investec to buy Claude, Miller, Todd, Earnshaw etc The third was spent on paying off Billy Davies and his entourage and paying off directors that left (Birch etc) ALL of these were spent before received. "Correct you"???- try getting your facts right before you level this at a fellow poster Please don't accuse me of 'stalking' you-if you spout nonsense I'll correct you (with facts that can be seen by anyone who looks in the right place).I've already been on one forum that was closed down and I don't want to see this one go the same way,through irresponsible individuals claiming things to be fact when they clearly haven't got a clue.Your £33m isn't far out,but a small proportion appears to have been non Sky cash.As a portion of the Sky cash was incentive based (Sky appearances/final league position),it's unlikely that there were 3 equal instalments-from memory the first 2 would have been about £8/£9m each,but I appreciate it doesn't affect your argument. I hope readers had the good sense to look at all your 'where it was spent' allegations and struggle to find where £11m apiece came from.I like your use of 'etc' to try and boost the figures.Who represented the etcx2?.As far as Birch goes,it was my understanding that he was brought on board as a short term appointment, as he had previous experience of dealing with the financial problems newly promoted clubs faced.I believe he was the brains behind the 'Five Arrows Leasing' loan (as opposed to the £9m+ Investec loan that the current owners took out in 08/09),the nuts and bolts of which I believe catered for both relegation or retention of Prem status . Anyway,enough of the initial 'does this make sense' assessment and on to facts(07/08).The year started with £4.16m in cash and ended with £7.899m in cash.The year started with an overdraft of £6.107m and ended with £894k.The cashflow statement opened with a net inflow from operations of £14.172m (in other words,what was available to help fund the capital side of the business,along with the net borrowing of £9.47m). With these figures it should come as no surprise that the final cashflow figure showed an increase in cash over the year (defined as cash net of any overdraft in force) of £8.952m.Given that the current owners' 'make an impact' January spree wasn't funded by any cash input by them (because there was none in 07/08),this £8.952m might have been a lot more.To put it another way,the cash increase (that might have been) would have been more than enough to cover the Five Arrows loan,or the LOG only spent what the season's overall finances allowed,which seems quite prudent to me.It was the new owners who effectively spent a large chunk of the first chute payment,when you unravel it all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 Statements? No lies though. They chose their words carefully. But they never said a number in terms of what they would spend. They ALWAYS hid behind 'sensible running' and 'wise investment', and then latterly "financial fairplay. Appleby has said nothing for nigh on 4 years now. Glick too was latterly about "young and hungry squad". So I still don't see the lies you mention. We were talking about the first few years under Pickering so I'm talking about under Cox and McFarland, who both provided exciting games not knowing what was going to happen. We were competitive all the time. No, I'm not. The owners before GSE/Owners we currently have did NOT put a single penny into the club other than guaranteed loans, so effectively everything spent since the day Billy Davies arrived to the moment GSE came in was added to the debt and paid since. There was no cash-cow without a return to the Premier League. There was an owner that DID tell many lies and is somehow held in high regard by some fans here. Someone who said he'd put £5m into the club (along with his fellow consortium members) when he had only guaranteed £1m. This person also promised to sign quality players the day after Wembley, and that we were going to "take the premier league by a storm" (sic), this person also stood outside Pride Park live on Sky sports news confirming signings of which none actually signed!! Where was the "guarantee" with these loans? Are you trying to suggest that they were guaranteed to get their money back,when they input cash into a high risk situation? I think you'll find that the £5m each consisted of cash + personal guarantees,as I seem to recall a journo acknowledging at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 you could be right regarding that, I doubt if they paid £10m less, they'd have invested £10m on players! As for the LOG, my accusation is never that they took money out, more that (when people cry out for certain members of that board to return, I don't want them because) they couldn't wait to 'cash in' on a fluke/unexpected promotion. According to Don Amott though, who was grilled about this, he said he didn't really want to sell, but the americans promised to do what he couldn't afford to do, his opinion was "they've done about 70% of what they said" Your claim that they "couldn't wait to cash in" looks a bit silly alongside your last paragraph.It's an absolute disgrace that these 6 have been treated so abhorrently in some quarters.If they'd really wanted to cash in (big time),they could simply have made a few decent loan signings in the Prem season.The £14m I referred to earlier would have ballooned because of a much lower wage bill and the capital expenditure would have shrunk-no need for the Five Arrows loan,or the £2m net rights issue (more cash input that you fail to acknowledge),which I seem to remember was to finance the Miller deal. The LOG quite obviously brought in a replacement grouping with far more firepower.It's not their fault that the investment has so far failed.It's typical of you that you should attempt to turn an act of good faith into something seedy. If the current owners had made a better fist of things,the LOG would no doubt have been patted on the back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mostyn6 Posted October 21, 2013 Author Share Posted October 21, 2013 Ramblur, I was waiting for you I did say 'roughly' £11m, I know you like the precise facts, but sadly all I know is that the parachute payments were spent effectively before GSE got their grubby little mits on them! Thinking back, I have it in my mind that there was one payment of one amount (immediately after relegation), then two slightly smaller payments for the following 2 years. Possibly £11m - £8m - £8m?? Could this be right? I don't know for definite, but it was information once mentioned by the club. I just don't recall the exact details. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 Jewell didn't want to spend any money in Jan, he knew we were down and what we spent would end up being wasted. But GSE wanted to "make an impression" and their insistence was probably their one big mistake that has shaped their entire tenure at the club. Couldn't agree more,Martyn.It's my opinion that vanity (in wanting to make an impact) and complacency (in possibly believing promotion would be easy) that started all of this off.It's ridiculous to ask a manager to find players that could make an impact at Prem level,in the knowledge that they'd be 99.9% sure they'd be Championship players after a few months.It appears to me that the current administration only started talking about inherited messes to draw attention away from their own mess they were in the process of constructing.I say this because AP quite clearly said in 08/09 that wages were unsustainable and would have to be trimmed if we didn't go up in 08/09 ,which seemed to be an' all the eggs in one basket' approach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 They ALL made Millions - They only put a relatively small amount in each - ALL put the same amount in. It is on record what they got paid out - millions made by each director. Factually incorrect,as I'll show later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AccountantRam Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 your understanding is incorrect. My understandiing is based on documents filed at Companies House. What is your based on ... ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 G-Star Ram & Sausagemeat, Just to calrify, my understanding was that £6m was put it in the form of ordinary shares - with holdings of beteween 300,000 & 1,000,000 , so not everyone put in the same amount. Might be able to help you out there,as it confused me initially.I don't have the document to hand,but you have to add certain amounts together to get to the 1m in some cases (investing via company/companies,as opposed to individuals in some cases).There was also a £1m director's loan made by Gadsby to help the promotion push.Whilst the initial investment was equal,a subsequent £3m rights issue (of which £1m paid off the Gadsby loan) wasn't taken up evenly,so at the time of takeover the holdings were uneven.Gadsby sold a large tranche of his holding to Pearson at cost,leaving Gadsby with relatively little (again I don't have this document,but from memory it was either 500,000 or 250,000).As you will be aware that the sale proceeds would be distributed in the ratio of holdings,Gadsby wouldn't have made much-AP on the other hand would have held more than the 7% he retained in the company (Gellaw).Because the rights issue distorted things,I can't see that they all doubled their money,though it may be correct that as a collective (including AP) they may have done. I wish 'Ramms' was still posting,as I know he has the document and the final share holdings-this was gone into in depth ages ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 Ramblur, I was waiting for you I did say 'roughly' £11m, I know you like the precise facts, but sadly all I know is that the parachute payments were spent effectively before GSE got their grubby little mits on them! Thinking back, I have it in my mind that there was one payment of one amount (immediately after relegation), then two slightly smaller payments for the following 2 years. Possibly £11m - £8m - £8m?? Could this be right? I don't know for definite, but it was information once mentioned by the club. I just don't recall the exact details. You seem to have hopped from 3x£11m payments in the Prem season (not a million miles out in total) to parachute payments.Are you now trying to say that we spent money on Jones,Fagan etc in advance of a chute payment.The reason I asked posters to use their brains is because the entire 06/07 transfer spend (which appears to probably include Earnshaw) was not much more than £11m. There were 2 chute payments of £11.5m (sometimes given as £11.3m),but it appears there was a small additional payment in both cases due to the increased sale of overseas rights.The £9m Investec loan of 08/09 effectively brought forward most of the second chute payment (which is why there wasn't much of it left for 09/10),not surprising when you consider all the signings from Sav to Varney,and their attendant wages.Whilst the LOG were crucified for accelerating income they'd actually brought in through their efforts,little seems to have been said (especially by the current administration) of the acceleration of this second payment,which again the LOG brought in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AccountantRam Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 Might be able to help you out there,as it confused me initially.I don't have the document to hand,but you have to add certain amounts together to get to the 1m in some cases (investing via company/companies,as opposed to individuals in some cases).There was also a £1m director's loan made by Gadsby to help the promotion push.Whilst the initial investment was equal,a subsequent £3m rights issue (of which £1m paid off the Gadsby loan) wasn't taken up evenly,so at the time of takeover the holdings were uneven.Gadsby sold a large tranche of his holding to Pearson at cost,leaving Gadsby with relatively little (again I don't have this document,but from memory it was either 500,000 or 250,000).As you will be aware that the sale proceeds would be distributed in the ratio of holdings,Gadsby wouldn't have made much-AP on the other hand would have held more than the 7% he retained in the company (Gellaw).Because the rights issue distorted things,I can't see that they all doubled their money,though it may be correct that as a collective (including AP) they may have done. I wish 'Ramms' was still posting,as I know he has the document and the final share holdings-this was gone into in depth ages ago. Quite correct Ramblur - I think it's the "363" for "Gellaw101" we're on about and I do have a copy, but can't lay my hands on it at the moment. I remember it was quite complicated; for example, someone had 1,000,000 - but then someone else had a 300,000 "personal holding" + a 700,000 "pension fund" holding. And, I think another individual had 500,000 in his name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 I got the news of Nigel's demise on the eve of my hip op,and anyone who knew my stance would know I didn't go into it a happy chappie.However,after complications I'm now back home (whilst not being completely out of the woods yet).I hadn't intended posting for another week,but there was simply too much stuff I felt I had to counter. I'm not going to dwell on the sacking,as nothing will bring him back,and instead intend to get behind SM and the lads.After years of Clough talk I just wish it could now be put to bed.I for one would like to thank him for taking us from a bad place to a position of promise. As far as the owners are concerned,I'm not going to vote in this poll.I've never called for their removal and will await to see what the future brings,particularly if it includes high profile sales. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mostyn6 Posted October 21, 2013 Author Share Posted October 21, 2013 I got the news of Nigel's demise on the eve of my hip op,and anyone who knew my stance would know I didn't go into it a happy chappie.However,after complications I'm now back home (whilst not being completely out of the woods yet).I hadn't intended posting for another week,but there was simply too much stuff I felt I had to counter. I'm not going to dwell on the sacking,as nothing will bring him back,and instead intend to get behind SM and the lads.After years of Clough talk I just wish it could now be put to bed.I for one would like to thank him for taking us from a bad place to a position of promise. As far as the owners are concerned,I'm not going to vote in this poll.I've never called for their removal and will await to see what the future brings,particularly if it includes high profile sales. I sincerely hope your recovery is going well Blur. As for voting, it's just a snapshot of your gut feeling now. It's not legally binding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mostyn6 Posted October 21, 2013 Author Share Posted October 21, 2013 You seem to have hopped from 3x£11m payments in the Prem season (not a million miles out in total) to parachute payments.Are you now trying to say that we spent money on Jones,Fagan etc in advance of a chute payment.The reason I asked posters to use their brains is because the entire 06/07 transfer spend (which appears to probably include Earnshaw) was not much more than £11m. There were 2 chute payments of £11.5m (sometimes given as £11.3m),but it appears there was a small additional payment in both cases due to the increased sale of overseas rights.The £9m Investec loan of 08/09 effectively brought forward most of the second chute payment (which is why there wasn't much of it left for 09/10),not surprising when you consider all the signings from Sav to Varney,and their attendant wages.Whilst the LOG were crucified for accelerating income they'd actually brought in through their efforts,little seems to have been said (especially by the current administration) of the acceleration of this second payment,which again the LOG brought in. I think £11m sounds about right, but I was led to believe that something like the latter £6m-£7m was spent on a loan which was held off (ie no payments for X amount of time) in a period coinciding with knowing which division we were in. Once promotion was secured, the loan was somehow added to the overall debt, and ended up swallowing, along with the Earnshaw signing, The first parachute payment (The TV money went to the Co-op) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McRamFan Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 Sooner be in our state of ownership that Forest, Leicester, Cov, Birmingham and possibly Leeds. That is 5 treams from almost the start of this with ownerships I would not care to have here. GSE to me are like marmite love em or hate em they seem to be doing just about OK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 I sincerely hope your recovery is going well Blur. As for voting, it's just a snapshot of your gut feeling now. It's not legally binding. Not bad at all,thanks.I've already cast a 'no vote' by viewing results (without voting). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smiffy Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 How much would they want to go £70million, £80million ?. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NormantonRam Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 How much would they want to go £70million, £80million ?. Probably. Wish a Rich Arab would come in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martyn Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 Probably. Wish a Rich Arab would come in. Exactly the sort of owner I don't want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NormantonRam Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 Exactly the sort of owner I don't want. I'm sure Man City would agree with you there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.