Owner funding

[coolhandfox]

To add balance to the conversation, before anyone accuses the owners of never putting money in the 4 years before the 5 mentioned, they put in 195m, accord to SwissRamble if you read the complete thread.

[Mickyblueeyes]

Just now, Freeman's Wharfer said:

So many people have needed to see this.

 

Honestly, the amount who lost their minds as I suggested that IF King Power had reached the point that they can no longer invest in the club then they might want to consider selling was ludicrous.

 

Not that I want Top out or any of that sensationalist bull crap. Simply that if the club wants to push on then it might be time for us to start getting the funding we need to compete at the level we aspire to be at.

 

You cannot have it all ways and have European tours and a happy Brendan Rodgers and then also be at the bottom of that list I’m afraid...

But seems like exactly what they're trying to do. Perhaps not a full share sale but an IPO or part share sale. They've invested a fair bit in this club from the initial purchase price. There is two ways to get your money back 1. You hold is debt over the club - which is not great for us; or 2. You improve your asset in all levels so that you can attract that investor which can take you to the next level. Its the smart way to bring in outside investment without breaching regulatory rules and risking the future of the club if we have a bad season or two. 

 

Everything seems to sensible and calculated. 

[Webbo]

8 minutes ago, JamesfromlondonLCFC said:

they project began over 2 years ago. surely would be showing on accounts already...

Some of it. 

[majaco]

Does this have ffp implications for the club's who have owners shelling out massively?

[JamesfromlondonLCFC]

2 minutes ago, majaco said:

Does this have ffp implications for the club's who have owners shelling out massively?

doubt it for 2 reasons. 1, man city arent on here, so cant imagine this relates to ffp. 2 even if it did, man city have murdered ffp, its basically dead at the top level

[peach0000]

11 minutes ago, JamesfromlondonLCFC said:

doubt it for 2 reasons. 1, man city arent on here, so cant imagine this relates to ffp. 2 even if it did, man city have murdered ffp, its basically dead at the top level

Man City have only had an effect on UEFAs FFP and not even a big effect. They got off on a technicality and I would bet Uefa will close that loop hole asap. The premier leagues ffp remains unchanged and in place.

[Wasyls Pec Deck]

28 minutes ago, coolhandfox said:

Actually show how well the club has been run since our return to the PL.

Exactly this. We have bought many players on the relative cheap and sold them on - it’s a good model.
 

Compare our figure to Aston Villa, who did awful business last year and it nearly cost them - and I can’t see that they’ve really addressed it this pre season. Grealish long term deal just means they’ll get a larger fee when he’s sold.

[MattFox]

Running the club on a self sufficient basis has essentially been policy since they rehired Pearson in 2011

[Guest SO1]

9 minutes ago, JamesfromlondonLCFC said:

doubt it for 2 reasons. 1, man city arent on here, so cant imagine this relates to ffp. 2 even if it did, man city have murdered ffp, its basically dead at the top level

Here in the US I call it Just_us. One rule for our corporate corrupt government (m city) and one rule for the rest. Sounds like FFP to a tee.

[crisp packet]

 

 

 

Edited 15 September 2020 by crisp packet

[Foxhateram]

56 minutes ago, Ashley said:

 

Some might see that's not the case now and finally.

 

Money is there to spend like its been mentioned on here previously but we are being whats the word.... shrewd? With our signings and how we go about spending it.

When you've made huge profits on selling players. You don't need to invest. They heavily invested early in their tenure, now with TV funding, selling of signings for significant profits etc there is no need to invest their own money anymore.

 

They have made us self sufficient, which is far better than relying on cash injections every season. 

Edited 15 September 2020 by Foxhateram

[Ian Nacho]

When you call it owner funding it just puts a negative spin on it. In reality it’s just net spend. 

[Captain...]

PL money is silly money, they haven't invested much because we get so much money from the PL (and CL and EL this season) and shrewd sale of assets and being bloody good on the pitch.

 

We're in a weird situation financially we have the money to spend on players, but we don't want to spend stupid money and pay silly wages. Our big money signings have largely not worked out and our mid level signings of hungry players with something to prove have.

 

 

[Chocolate Teapot]

Am sure the same applies to us here.

[Stadt]

17 minutes ago, Ian Nacho said:

When you call it owner funding it just puts a negative spin on it. In reality it’s just net spend. 

It’s not 

[Ashley]

36 minutes ago, Foxhateram said:

When you've made huge profits on selling players. You don't need to invest. They heavily invested early in their tenure, now with TV funding, selling of signings for significant profits etc there is no need to invest their own money anymore.

 

They have made us self sufficient, which is far better than relying on cash injections every season. 

 

I wasn't getting at that. I was getting at the narrative on the forum that just because the tourist industry has gone down it all of a sudden means we have no money to spend. No, no it doesn't. The money is there were being careful and not spending/over spending on shit. 

 

If it takes time to bring in a CB, CM, Winger or Striker then ill be happy. 

[Raw Dykes]

24 minutes ago, Ian Nacho said:

When you call it owner funding it just puts a negative spin on it. In reality it’s just net spend. 

No. Owner funding is the owner's money going into the club. Net spend is the total the club spent minus income.

[Pliskin]

You don't build businesses from the ground up and not know your onions. We are probably the best run club in the premier league. Bring on the posted mince pies! 

[MPH]

1 hour ago, JamesfromlondonLCFC said:

 

According to this, over the last five years the owners have only injected 6 million into the club. So not too convinced about the 'duty free sales drops causing lack of funding' narrative thats been going on.

 

 

with the Subtraction sign before the 6 doesn’t that mean they’ve actually taken £6m OUT of the club?

[Raw Dykes]

1 hour ago, Freeman's Wharfer said:

So many people have needed to see this.

 

Honestly, the amount who lost their minds as I suggested that IF King Power had reached the point that they can no longer invest in the club then they might want to consider selling was ludicrous.

 

Not that I want Top out or any of that sensationalist bull crap. Simply that if the club wants to push on then it might be time for us to start getting the funding we need to compete at the level we aspire to be at.

 

You cannot have it all ways and have European tours and a happy Brendan Rodgers and then also be at the bottom of that list I’m afraid...

Can't you see that we are doing well while at the same time being near the bottom of that list? In this case, we can have it all ways. We are going on another European tour while being near the bottom of that list.

 

The owners don't need to pump money into the club. They've done a fantastic job of making us self-sufficient. Our recruitment is top-notch, which means we can sell one player a season, and invest in a few more with the profit.

 

Look at the clubs at the top of that list. Everton are guilty of pissing 100s of millions down the drain. They might finally come good this season, but it's about bloody time, really. Fulham and Villa spent massively, and look where it got them. Relegation, and just scraping survival by the skin of their teeth, respectively.

 

We're a particularly well-run club, and as such, have no need for a cash injection to get to where we aspire to be.

[Aus Fox]

Great news and exactly what every club should aspire to. Being completely self sufficient should be the goal of every club. Owners will come and go, and as they go some clubs will he left in the shit, with this model they can walk away tomorrow and our club is safe.

[Lako42]

Unfortunately we have been somewhat of an anomaly over recent years. We have achieved way above what our spend would suggests we should. 

 

I would argue its not sustainable for us to keep top 6 football if we continue down the investment path of the last 5 years. 

 

Not saying its wrong, but I would expect the bigger investing clubs to eventually get it right and actually achieve what their outlay suggests they should. 

[Jobyfox]

I’m not a financial expert, but I’m assuming this represents the amount the club is bankrolled by its owners against how much it generates its own revenue. You could look at this negatively, but our success over the recent years has shown that we haven’t been reliant on the capital injected by King Power. We’re actually quite sustainable.

 

The likes of Chelsea and Everton et al are, by comparison, competing only through the generosity of their owners. Should anything happen to that revenue stream and they might be up the proverbial creek without a paddle.

Edited 15 September 2020 by Jobyfox

[UHDrive]

Its no excuse to take a team, turn it into a top 10 prem and label it as a self sufficient team and stop investing in the squad. This is where we'll go backwards. 

 

BR must be frustrated with the lethargy with how long it takes our club to make transfers. 

 

My comment isn't about what the club has already done for us but rather pointing out how important it is to not take the foot off the gas and fall backwards.

Edited 15 September 2020 by UHDrive
Typo

[MrSpaM]

Why would the owners need to inject money when we're making so much selling players, winning leagues and progressing in European competitions