Club Finances

[st albans fox]

34 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

I'd hazard a guess Barnes is paid in 4 instalments equalling the £45m transfer fee reported.

Not sure was that high 

thought it was £38m 

 

more likely to have been £15m initial plus two instalments ??

[Ric Flair]

1 hour ago, st albans fox said:

Not sure was that high 

thought it was £38m 

 

more likely to have been £15m initial plus two instalments ??

Aaah yes you're right, the £45m was possible add ons. £38m fixed.

[MPH]

On 01/11/2023 at 06:51, WoodyFox said:

Need some money for NP's bumper contract as new head of academy

 

Pearson could definitely have Maresca in a fight. Don’t be fooled by the crutches ; like Yoda  and his walking stick or the little Rat from The Teenage mutant Ninja turtles, he’ll cast them to one side and absolutely whoop your ass.

[Jaspa]

 

Quote

 

Quizzed over why Wilko collapsed, Ms Wilkinson pointed to a number of reasons including last year's mini budget which she claimed significantly increased the interest rate on a loan with Australia's Macquarie that Wilko was trying to secure.

"We were about to enter into secured lending arrangements with Macquarie when the 2022 mini-budget happened," she said.

"Literally we were in the midst of that, and at that point the interest terms on that loan were hiked massively and that became infeasible. So, that was a contributor."

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67552360

[Globalfox]

13 minutes ago, Jaspa said:

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67552360

But they were negotiating about a non collateral loan. Leicester are in effect factoring against agreed payments at a fixed interest rate. Totally different financial arrangements do not try and link apples and oranges. Plus Leicester and this bank have a long standing relationship of this type Wilkins was a cold customer high risk deal.

[Jaspa]

6 minutes ago, Globalfox said:

But they were negotiating about a non collateral loan. Leicester are in effect factoring against agreed payments at a fixed interest rate. Totally different financial arrangements do not try and link apples and oranges. Plus Leicester and this bank have a long standing relationship of this type Wilkins was a cold customer high risk deal.

Thanks for adding context. Merely noting that this is the same bank that we're dealing with who have been mentioned in Wilko's recent demise, who were* another historic institution of Leicester's City.

[Guest Chocolate Teapot]

4 hours ago, Globalfox said:

But they were negotiating about a non collateral loan. Leicester are in effect factoring against agreed payments at a fixed interest rate. Totally different financial arrangements do not try and link apples and oranges. Plus Leicester and this bank have a long standing relationship of this type Wilkins was a cold customer high risk deal.

Hmm....you sure?

[Out Foxed]

damn wilko and thomas cook. century long institutions gone. 

[st albans fox]

1 hour ago, Chocolate Teapot said:

Hmm....you sure?

Can’t believe that the rate of interest isn’t related to the base rate (and therefore variable ) 

[Globalfox]

8 hours ago, st albans fox said:

Can’t believe that the rate of interest isn’t related to the base rate (and therefore variable ) 

Yes it’s a term drawdown for fixed period. Can be extended on different terms. That’s why the forum reacts each time a charge is lodged. If you work it out right now the interest charges are pretty stable. Now if they take new loans on land development that may be different. I suspect any expansion will be financed differently and is waiting for more favorable terms. Would not be surprised to see parts of the development to be taken on by partners and only stadium by the club.

[dynamark]

Funny my very first job was saturdays at Wilko narborough rd .One pound for 8 hours,

However there is nothing in a wilko that I cant do without nowadays and anyone with half a business brain can see that.Try to sell low value low volume goods out of expensive sites is a disaster 

[Chrysalis]

On 29/11/2023 at 07:42, Globalfox said:

Yes it’s a term drawdown for fixed period. Can be extended on different terms. That’s why the forum reacts each time a charge is lodged. If you work it out right now the interest charges are pretty stable. Now if they take new loans on land development that may be different. I suspect any expansion will be financed differently and is waiting for more favorable terms. Would not be surprised to see parts of the development to be taken on by partners and only stadium by the club.

The club could also avoid interest by our owners loaning interest free or just pushing in the cash as a gift, no FFP excuse on infrastructure.

[broughtonblue]

Probably all have heard NCP car parks have gone bust, but not realised they were saddled with tremendous debt by macquaire, who I believe still have an interest in lcfc?

[Paninistickers]

5 minutes ago, broughtonblue said:

Probably all have heard NCP car parks have gone bust, but not realised they were saddled with tremendous debt by macquaire, who I believe still have an interest in lcfc?

This is one of the ironies of our potential administration. To my knowledge, we don't owe much - if any - money..

 

The debts to KP were wiped out in a debt to equity swap..

 

Any finance on the stadium is under KP, not us. It's owned by KP, not us.

 

Seagrave is a bit of a mystery as to who owns it and how it was financed.

 

Macquirie have advanced us our parachute money - meaning the EPL pay them this summer, not us. The only reason Macquirie have a charge on us is a belt and braces insurance against the EPL not paying them (like 99.9999% improbable) . And if that were the case, we'd have to pay Macquirie back. So technically, we are in debt but in reality, not. 

[Globalfox]

28 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

This is one of the ironies of our potential administration. To my knowledge, we don't owe much - if any - money..

 

The debts to KP were wiped out in a debt to equity swap..

 

Any finance on the stadium is under KP, not us. It's owned by KP, not us.

 

Seagrave is a bit of a mystery as to who owns it and how it was financed.

 

Macquirie have advanced us our parachute money - meaning the EPL pay them this summer, not us. The only reason Macquirie have a charge on us is a belt and braces insurance against the EPL not paying them (like 99.9999% improbable) . And if that were the case, we'd have to pay Macquirie back. So technically, we are in debt but in reality, not. 

Good observation. VC type investors look to an exit strategy that escalates their investment. Or a venture that provides lots of cash even if it is not profitable. NCP pre Covid was a cash cow but that cash has collapsed leaving an inability to service debt. Having, debt is not a big deal as long as you can service the interest on the debt aka Man Utd. NCP like football clubs often have no appreciating assets unless you build youngsters you sell on for high fees. This is the biggest failing of Leicester in the last few years. This will be interesting going forward the next big TV deal might not be as big. There are lots of calls on peoples cash and it is more transitory than ever. You could say Macquarie did well exiting NCP before the problems hit.

 

 

 

[Bourbon Fox]

1 hour ago, Globalfox said:

Good observation. VC type investors look to an exit strategy that escalates their investment. Or a venture that provides lots of cash even if it is not profitable. NCP pre Covid was a cash cow but that cash has collapsed leaving an inability to service debt. Having, debt is not a big deal as long as you can service the interest on the debt aka Man Utd. NCP like football clubs often have no appreciating assets unless you build youngsters you sell on for high fees. This is the biggest failing of Leicester in the last few years. This will be interesting going forward the next big TV deal might not be as big. There are lots of calls on peoples cash and it is more transitory than ever. You could say Macquarie did well exiting NCP before the problems hit.

 

 

 

I think the biggest problems facing us will be cashflow rather than debt.

 

Our non-playing wages alone would sink any league one club, not to mention Seagrave's overheads, and that's before we get to squad wages and financial rules.

 

We're already at the limit, and relegation will tank our revenue.

[Pita]

3 minutes ago, Bourbon Fox said:

I think the biggest problems facing us will be cashflow rather than debt.

 

Our non-playing wages alone would sink any league one club, not to mention Seagrave's overheads, and that's before we get to squad wages and financial rules.

 

We're already at the limit, and relegation will tank our revenue.

Rudkin got us in a right old mess. 

[HankMarvin]

They added to their horrendous reputation when they tripled Thames waters debt in 11 years to 11bn

[Terraloon]

2 hours ago, Paninistickers said:

This is one of the ironies of our potential administration. To my knowledge, we don't owe much - if any - money..

 

The debts to KP were wiped out in a debt to equity swap..

 

Any finance on the stadium is under KP, not us. It's owned by KP, not us.

 

Seagrave is a bit of a mystery as to who owns it and how it was financed.

 

Macquirie have advanced us our parachute money - meaning the EPL pay them this summer, not us. The only reason Macquirie have a charge on us is a belt and braces insurance against the EPL not paying them (like 99.9999% improbable) . And if that were the case, we'd have to pay Macquirie back. So technically, we are in debt but in reality, not. 

We need to wait a couple more weeks before we get sight of the ye 30/6/25 numbers but sorry unless the numbers have massively improved then debts are massive. From memory it’s circa £250 m which I believe, again from memory was after the equity swap which was said to have happened in Jan 25.

 

We know not all the debt to KP has been wiped because  for instance the stadium is subject to an HP agreement. The club own the stadium and indeed both training grounds but again without access to the accounts and or Land Registry records it’s difficult to get a handle on the here and now. Seagrave was financed with a close to £100m loan from KP.

 

If and it’s an if, the cub goes into Administration and football creditors are owed then it will be interesting which takes precedence. Why I say that is because if Macquarie does then somehow all football creditors will have to be paid and if the club were to retain league status I think I am right in saying that all other creditors will have to be satisfied as well. 

There was a significant sum owing to the club but a fair chunk of that was, again as of some 9-10 months ago  was sums still owed in respect of transfer sums still owed but as we know LC factored these out so the likelihood is that whist the debtors will still be shown the cash has already been spent.

 

Finally I think you need to look at the Jan 26 charge registered by Macquarie because even when the 30/6/25 accounts come out I doubt the full impact and indeed current borrowing under that agreement will be clear.

[Paninistickers]

57 minutes ago, Terraloon said:

We need to wait a couple more weeks before we get sight of the ye 30/6/25 numbers but sorry unless the numbers have massively improved then debts are massive. From memory it’s circa £250 m which I believe, again from memory was after the equity swap which was said to have happened in Jan 25.

 

We know not all the debt to KP has been wiped because  for instance the stadium is subject to an HP agreement. The club own the stadium and indeed both training grounds but again without access to the accounts and or Land Registry records it’s difficult to get a handle on the here and now. Seagrave was financed with a close to £100m loan from KP.

 

If and it’s an if, the cub goes into Administration and football creditors are owed then it will be interesting which takes precedence. Why I say that is because if Macquarie does then somehow all football creditors will have to be paid and if the club were to retain league status I think I am right in saying that all other creditors will have to be satisfied as well. 

There was a significant sum owing to the club but a fair chunk of that was, again as of some 9-10 months ago  was sums still owed in respect of transfer sums still owed but as we know LC factored these out so the likelihood is that whist the debtors will still be shown the cash has already been spent.

 

Finally I think you need to look at the Jan 26 charge registered by Macquarie because even when the 30/6/25 accounts come out I doubt the full impact and indeed current borrowing under that agreement will be clear.

Interesting. I look at all this through business eyes, as opposed to the forensic accounting eyes of an FD. 

 

I have no doubts that the ownership structure is a deliberate spiders web. 

 

However, I'm pretty sure the owners at the land registry is K Power Holdings. I'd assume a similar subsidiary owns seagrave. City itself will be a third subsidiary of KP group. I'll have a quick look at companies house. 

 

The financing of seagrave has always baffled me. The club were living hand to mouth on Macquirie advances (suggesting cashflow issues) yet managed to magic up 100m? Pure guesswork, but there's got to be a chance KP invested 100m on behalf of someone else. A fence. Seagrave a front for something/someone else. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever that KP invested that. 

 

I'm pretty sure they claimed to have converted all the debt. So, if we still owe them 250m, presumably they managed to somehow double count the same original loans. Maybe as a way of insuraning themselves against the very situation we now find ourselves in. 

 

Whatever the accuracy of my guess work, there's little doubt KP have a intentionally difficult structure to unpick

 

EDIT; according to good ol' chatgpt, seagrave land is broken into plots are owned by multiple companies all under the beneficial owner - ie the family. But defo not owned by City. 

Edited 21 March by Paninistickers

[FoxFossil]

1 hour ago, HankMarvin said:

They added to their horrendous reputation when they tripled Thames waters debt in 11 years to 11bn

If you watch Dirty Business, about Thames and Macquirie, you get the flavour of who our club decide to partner with. Absolutely disgusting shower of sharks, and Rudkin presumably lead on the negotiations. King Power car park like Filbert street on the way.

[Terraloon]

2 hours ago, Terraloon said:

We need to wait a couple more weeks before we get sight of the ye 30/6/25 numbers but sorry unless the numbers have massively improved then debts are massive. From memory it’s circa £250 m which I believe, again from memory was after the equity swap which was said to have happened in Jan 25.

 

We know not all the debt to KP has been wiped because  for instance the stadium is subject to an HP agreement. The club own the stadium and indeed both training grounds but again without access to the accounts and or Land Registry records it’s difficult to get a handle on the here and now. Seagrave was financed with a close to £100m loan from KP.

 

If and it’s an if, the cub goes into Administration and football creditors are owed then it will be interesting which takes precedence. Why I say that is because if Macquarie does then somehow all football creditors will have to be paid and if the club were to retain league status I think I am right in saying that all other creditors will have to be satisfied as well. 

There was a significant sum owing to the club but a fair chunk of that was, again as of some 9-10 months ago  was sums still owed in respect of transfer sums still owed but as we know LC factored these out so the likelihood is that whist the debtors will still be shown the cash has already been spent.

 

Finally I think you need to look at the Jan 26 charge registered by Macquarie because even when the 30/6/25 accounts come out I doubt the full impact and indeed current borrowing under that agreement will be clear.

I have just re read my posting and I must be thick!
 

The last accounts we have seen were up to 30/6/24, not 30/6/25. So it’s possible indeed fa t that that debt to equity will reflect in the soon to be lodged accounts.

[Globalfox]

The bulk of the construction costs for Seagrave were covered by the funds from the sale of Harry McGuire so the amount of any additional financing was low. The one item that seems hard to track is when and how the land was acquired and funded. The best I can see is that the land was acquired and is owned by King Power. In the accounts buildings etc are depreciated in the club . The land may not have that much value unless they could get change of use to redevelop it.

[Paninistickers]

1 hour ago, Globalfox said:

The bulk of the construction costs for Seagrave were covered by the funds from the sale of Harry McGuire

Probably a coincidence right? They couldn't have conceived the idea, instructed architects and contractors on the basis Ed Woodward was going to ring up and offer a word record fee. 

 

Something doesn't stack up with the whole thing.  As I mentioned above, my best guess is KP buying an asset on behalf of some spurious, nefarious fund

[john ridley]

22 hours ago, FoxFossil said:

If you watch Dirty Business, about Thames and Macquirie, you get the flavour of who our club decide to partner with. Absolutely disgusting shower of sharks, and Rudkin presumably lead on the negotiations. King Power car park like Filbert street on the way.

Looks like jumping  in bed with the devil  is gonna **** em up.They'll want their money,no ifs or buts.Nice one Top.