stulcfc Posted 20 April 2006 Share Posted 20 April 2006 jus wondering any one now what kind of debts are club is in?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricey Posted 20 April 2006 Share Posted 20 April 2006 jus wondering any one now what kind of dets are club is in?? Not as much debt as the school you went to, clearly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stulcfc Posted 20 April 2006 Author Share Posted 20 April 2006 i didnt think i spelt it right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon the Hat Posted 20 April 2006 Share Posted 20 April 2006 i didnt think i spelt it right Not as much as is reported. The media don't understand the concept of debt. They always ignore assets on which they are secured. I.e. if you have a house worth £200k and a mortgage of £200k you are not in debt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strokes Posted 20 April 2006 Share Posted 20 April 2006 Not as much as is reported. The media don't understand the concept of debt. They always ignore assets on which they are secured. I.e. if you have a house worth £200k and a mortgage of £200k you are not in debt. What are Leicesters assets though, i presume we own the training ground and obviously the players but we don't own the Walkers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyh1884 Posted 20 April 2006 Share Posted 20 April 2006 What are Leicesters assets though, i presume we own the training ground and obviously the players but we don't own the Walkers. The stadium is actually recorded as an asset in Leicester's account. There is obviously a liability for this as it's essentially a hire purchase agreement - similar to anyone who's got a car on HP. But the asset is recorded at a higher value than the liability. The club also have the training ground and other sundry fixtures fittings & computers. The players are also recorded as an asset. The club doesn't have any debt other than the HP on the stadium Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxes_Trust Posted 20 April 2006 Share Posted 20 April 2006 The stadium is actually recorded as an asset in Leicester's account. There is obviously a liability for this as it's essentially a hire purchase agreement - similar to anyone who's got a car on HP. But the asset is recorded at a higher value than the liability. The club also have the training ground and other sundry fixtures fittings & computers. The players are also recorded as an asset. The club doesn't have any debt other than the HP on the stadium They have an agreed overdraft facility with the bank Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monk Posted 20 April 2006 Share Posted 20 April 2006 Not as much as is reported. The media don't understand the concept of debt. They always ignore assets on which they are secured. I.e. if you have a house worth £200k and a mortgage of £200k you are not in debt. I'm sorry but if you borrow to build a stadium, that is a debt in my books. And I am an investment Banker. Whats important is not the level of debt, but our ability to pay the monthly payments (interest cover) and how much debt we have as a proportion of the total value of the club (gearing), and liquidity (availability of cash/ saleable assets). Saying we are a certain amount in debt means nothing. I am only interested in our ability to service our debt and our long term plans to pay it off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shez Posted 20 April 2006 Share Posted 20 April 2006 I'm sorry but if you borrow to build a stadium, that is a debt in my books. And I am an investment Banker. Whats important is not the level of debt, but our ability to pay the monthly payments (interest cover) and how much debt we have as a proportion of the total value of the club (gearing), and liquidity (availability of cash/ saleable assets). Saying we are a certain amount in debt means nothing. I am only interested in our ability to service our debt and our long term plans to pay it off. Thanks for the economics lesson! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox4ever Posted 21 April 2006 Share Posted 21 April 2006 Thanks for the economics lesson! Based on accounts published May 05 (latest not out yet) Bottom line. Season 2004/2005 on a turnover of 22.4M down 17M (Sky income) on 2003/2004 season nett loss was 3.4M against a previos nett profit of 4.7 M the year before. This years will be interesting. I think things are still very rocky as these shareholders bought the club for peanuts (some as little as £25K) and don't intend to put any more in. I cannot understand why the FT has to raise £500K before it gets a full diectorship when most only put in £100K or less...................... Perhaps they don't want to listen to a fans representative? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monk Posted 21 April 2006 Share Posted 21 April 2006 Based on accounts published May 05 (latest not out yet) Bottom line. Season 2004/2005 on a turnover of 22.4M down 17M (Sky income) on 2003/2004 season nett loss was 3.4M against a previos nett profit of 4.7 M the year before. This years will be interesting. I think things are still very rocky as these shareholders bought the club for peanuts (some as little as £25K) and don't intend to put any more in. I cannot understand why the FT has to raise £500K before it gets a full diectorship when most only put in £100K or less...................... Perhaps they don't want to listen to a fans representative? Interesting. I'll try to get my hands on a copy of the financial reports this year. Maybe I'll do a breakdown on here or something. Do you know when they are due to be released? Another interesting point is this - we are safer than we think - our biggest debt is the stadium and although it is a secured asset, it is pretty unlikely that we will ever be forced to sell it (unless Tigers wanted it), because even if we are struggling to make the repayments, they are more likely to get some money back from us than if we were chucked out of it. On the plus side on the financial side of things we are pretty well organised now. I hope whoever the manager is that they maintain this for at least the next 5 years so we can be a profitable club again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babylon Posted 21 April 2006 Share Posted 21 April 2006 Based on accounts published May 05 (latest not out yet) Bottom line. Season 2004/2005 on a turnover of 22.4M down 17M (Sky income) on 2003/2004 season nett loss was 3.4M against a previos nett profit of 4.7 M the year before. This years will be interesting. I think things are still very rocky as these shareholders bought the club for peanuts (some as little as £25K) and don't intend to put any more in. I cannot understand why the FT has to raise £500K before it gets a full diectorship when most only put in £100K or less...................... Perhaps they don't want to listen to a fans representative? Quite simply because the club do not want the fans to have a say. We are only here to sit down, shut up, and pay over the odds for "entertainment", food, clothing etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyh1884 Posted 21 April 2006 Share Posted 21 April 2006 Interesting. I'll try to get my hands on a copy of the financial reports this year. Maybe I'll do a breakdown on here or something. Do you know when they are due to be released? Another interesting point is this - we are safer than we think - our biggest debt is the stadium and although it is a secured asset, it is pretty unlikely that we will ever be forced to sell it (unless Tigers wanted it), because even if we are struggling to make the repayments, they are more likely to get some money back from us than if we were chucked out of it. On the plus side on the financial side of things we are pretty well organised now. I hope whoever the manager is that they maintain this for at least the next 5 years so we can be a profitable club again. The year end is May so they won't be out until start of next season at the earliest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloomer Posted 21 April 2006 Share Posted 21 April 2006 I'm sorry but if you borrow to build a stadium, that is a debt in my books. And I am an investment Banker. Whats important is not the level of debt, but our ability to pay the monthly payments (interest cover) and how much debt we have as a proportion of the total value of the club (gearing), and liquidity (availability of cash/ saleable assets). Saying we are a certain amount in debt means nothing. I am only interested in our ability to service our debt and our long term plans to pay it off. Oh Yes! you are one of them alright! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.