Rudkin

[filbertway]

4 minutes ago, Lambert09 said:

Even the staunchest defenders of the club, that felt loyalty due to our previous success, must see that we need change. 

 

Even if I loved the bloke and felt he’d been previously amazing I’d still want him out after the last 3 years.  Like In a world where we only won the title and fa cup because of how amazing Rudkin was…. It would still be time to part ways. If you still don’t see that then you’ve gone beyond drinking the kool aid. 
 

I genuinely think Top is a coward, who’s scared to make decisions for himself and he doesn’t want to sack someone his dad employed. He’s dragging us down because he doesn’t want to remove someone his dad put trust in. I feel for him emotionally but he needs to understand that his dad was a ruthless businessman who did what was needed when it was needed 

I do fully appreciate the point you're making.

 

But you'd have to be absolutely loopy to attribute that success to Rudkin given what he's done since. I think ultimately the issue is that he doesn't do what a director of football/sporting director does. He doesn't lead. He doesn't have a vision. He hires a manager and then we're really at the whims of how good that manager is as an actual old school manager.

 

A good director of football would not see the massive fluctuations of performance that we've seen under Rudkin. There would be clear and steady improvement, small dips and peaks.

 

There's clear evidence that the role he takes is essentially negotiator and and administrator. To allow the wage bill to swell to 100% of our turnover with no plan in place to generate a higher turnover or reduce that wage bill was gross negligence and should have seen him in the firing line immediately.

[john ridley]

Your right right Tops useless,in the end something's  going to give ,the family aren't  going to let him write off 100 million every couple of years they'll  say enough enough.

[surrifox]

A very good summation of where we are and the damage caused by backing Rudkin even in the face of clear evidence of his incompetence and profligacy but Top , Susan and the senior finance people at the club all sat on their hands .and let him plough on 
I bet McQuarie are sweating a bit - they are heavily into the club and will be wondering how all the demands being made on the clubs dwindling cash flow will play out 

[Foxin_Mad]

1 minute ago, surrifox said:

I bet McQuarie are sweating a bit - they are heavily into the club and will be wondering how all the demands being made on the clubs dwindling cash flow will play out 

They will be fine, they are absolute vultures. If anything the loan is probably secured on the club or some asset. They are basically a pay day loan type operator the interest they charge is eye watering, it’s an odd way the club operates to get future cash up front. 

[Gamble92]

4 minutes ago, surrifox said:

A very good summation of where we are and the damage caused by backing Rudkin even in the face of clear evidence of his incompetence and profligacy but Top , Susan and the senior finance people at the club all sat on their hands .and let him plough on 
I bet McQuarie are sweating a bit - they are heavily into the club and will be wondering how all the demands being made on the clubs dwindling cash flow will play out 

Don't worry, all the experts on Foxestalk said the loans taken out are very standard procedure and King Power would of course just bail us out if need be. 

[AjcW]

4 minutes ago, surrifox said:

A very good summation of where we are and the damage caused by backing Rudkin even in the face of clear evidence of his incompetence and profligacy but Top , Susan and the senior finance people at the club all sat on their hands .and let him plough on 
I bet McQuarie are sweating a bit - they are heavily into the club and will be wondering how all the demands being made on the clubs dwindling cash flow will play out 

 

Just now, Foxin_Mad said:

They will be fine, they are absolute vultures. If anything the loan is probably secured on the club or some asset. They are basically a pay day loan type operator the interest they charge is eye watering, it’s an odd way the club operates to get future cash up front. 

There's something on companies house from a few weeks ago, about £110m in shares being issued against a security.

 

Not entirely sure what it means, but if we fail to get immediate promotion then a couple of the recent loans we've taken out can't be paid back as they're secured against future tv money. 

 

As you say @Foxin_Mad i think some of these loans are likely backed up by being secured against the club itself.

[Tommy G]

3 minutes ago, Gamble92 said:

Don't worry, all the experts on Foxestalk said the loans taken out are very standard procedure and King Power would of course just bail us out if need be. 

Do you think any reputable lender will lend significant sums of money without security, not to mention financial covenants - that have to be watertight enough to be audited and signed off by both directors and in our case PwC every year? This is not a post in support of KP, but people seem to think we can do what we want without any form of regulation - or any other club for that matter. 

 

I've got a decent level of experience in leveraged business' and the amount of work involved in arranging finance in the 0-£30m market is staggering (and that's in a relatively stable industry sector) never mind a football club which is inherently unstable, with financial forecasts that chop and change depending on the division you play in etc.  

[filbertway]

Yeah those loans are against future TV/prize money, so we know we'll be guaranteed x amount over a season, so we'll just pay that back to them when the Premier league gives us our share of prize money/tv money. 

 

On Footie Manager the TV money is paid monthly with the prize money obviously coming at the end. It just frees up the cash to spend immediately I guess and the bank make a lovely bit off the interest. I guess in principal it's similar to an overdraft.

[Sol thewall Bamba]

1 hour ago, HarryDee8 said:

Wasn't he actually a manager of Leicester city for a brief period, years ago

Yeah Plymouth away wasn't it? He didn't know how to make a substitute. 

[Tommy G]

15 minutes ago, Foxin_Mad said:

They will be fine, they are absolute vultures. If anything the loan is probably secured on the club or some asset. They are basically a pay day loan type operator the interest they charge is eye watering, it’s an odd way the club operates to get future cash up front. 

 

I don't think the rates are eye watering at all and market rate considering the sums involved and current interest rate levels. So what rates are you referring to?

Edited Tuesday at 14:28 by Tommy G

[AjcW]

13 minutes ago, filbertway said:

Yeah those loans are against future TV/prize money, so we know we'll be guaranteed x amount over a season, so we'll just pay that back to them when the Premier league gives us our share of prize money/tv money. 

 

On Footie Manager the TV money is paid monthly with the prize money obviously coming at the end. It just frees up the cash to spend immediately I guess and the bank make a lovely bit off the interest. I guess in principal it's similar to an overdraft.

It's exactly like an overdraft.... 

 

And here's how it can go wrong like an overdraft...

 

- Individual A loses their job and can no longer pay back overdraft, interest stacks up

- Club A loses premier league status and fails to regain it within one season, meaning loan cannot be repain and.... interest stacks up.

 

For seasons where we are in championship, loan is secured against parachute payment, this is fine as long as we are immediately promoted and receive big tv money again.

 

It all unravels if we spend more than a season at a time in the champ.

Edited Tuesday at 14:39 by AjcW

[Foxin_Mad]

24 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

 

I don't think the rates are eye watering at all and market rate considering the sums involved and current interest rate levels. So what rates are you referring to?

I’d say 8 or 9 on millions is pretty high

[Tommy G]

22 minutes ago, Foxin_Mad said:

I’d say 8 or 9 on millions is pretty high

I'm on about interest rates?

[Gamble92]

1 hour ago, Tommy G said:

Do you think any reputable lender will lend significant sums of money without security, not to mention financial covenants - that have to be watertight enough to be audited and signed off by both directors and in our case PwC every year? This is not a post in support of KP, but people seem to think we can do what we want without any form of regulation - or any other club for that matter. 

 

I've got a decent level of experience in leveraged business' and the amount of work involved in arranging finance in the 0-£30m market is staggering (and that's in a relatively stable industry sector) never mind a football club which is inherently unstable, with financial forecasts that chop and change depending on the division you play in etc.  

[Tommy G]

3 minutes ago, Gamble92 said:

So you make a statement, can't back it up with anything of note, then belittle  

 

 

[Gamble92]

1 minute ago, Tommy G said:

So you make a statement, can't back it up with anything of note, then belittle  

 

 

Behave I was having a laugh.

 

I couldn't actually tell if you were saying it's a good move by the club to loan money based on potential TV money we know we now won't get, or whether it is a good move? 

[lcfc81]

1 hour ago, Lambert09 said:

Even the staunchest defenders of the club, that felt loyalty due to our previous success, must see that we need change. 

 

Even if I loved the bloke and felt he’d been previously amazing I’d still want him out after the last 3 years.  Like In a world where we only won the title and fa cup because of how amazing Rudkin was…. It would still be time to part ways. If you still don’t see that then you’ve gone beyond drinking the kool aid. 
 

I genuinely think Top is a coward, who’s scared to make decisions for himself and he doesn’t want to sack someone his dad employed. He’s dragging us down because he doesn’t want to remove someone his dad put trust in. I feel for him emotionally but he needs to understand that his dad was a ruthless businessman who did what was needed when it was needed 

I think you are right. When someone is as widely disliked as Rudkin it is impossible to come back from regardless. 

[filbertway]

59 minutes ago, AjcW said:

It's exactly like an overdraft.... 

 

And here's how it can go wrong like an overdraft...

 

- Individual A loses their job and can no longer pay back overdraft, interest stacks up

- Club A loses premier league status and fails to regain it within one season, meaning loan cannot be repain and.... interest stacks up.

 

For seasons where we are in championship, loan is secured against parachute payment, this is fine as long as we are immediately promoted and receive big tv money again.

 

It all unravels if we spend more than a season at a time in the champ.

Yep that was how I understood it. I recall last time we were in the champ that our parachute payments were spoken for. Which made promotion incredibly important.

 

Wasnt sure if we would have the decks cleared end of this year or once again be in a similar spot.

 

Feels like we're painfully close to being another Sunderland or portsmouth

[Foxin_Mad]

25 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

I'm on about interest rates?

yes 8 or 9 %, so on a million 80-90k, pretty steep really. Macquarie are a well know subprime type lender.  

[Tommy G]

2 minutes ago, Gamble92 said:

Behave I was having a laugh.

 

I couldn't actually tell if you were saying it's a good move by the club to loan money based on potential TV money we know we now won't get, or whether it is a good move? 

Borrow you mean. Don't know in all honesty, haven't got the full picture but presuming it's pretty common to get an advance on TV money, and/or parachute payments - if we are unable to pay the money back to the lender on current terms it will either be refinanced or we will need more money from Top. My general point is the lender will know we are in a up and down environment with no guarantees of PL TV money forever so presumably there will be some security, likely from Top that will be the back stop if they want their money back. 

 

In terms of interest rates from another poster comparing it to pay day loans is laughable. 

[Tommy G]

1 minute ago, Foxin_Mad said:

yes 8 or 9 %, so on a million 80-90k, pretty steep really. Macquarie are a well know subprime type lender.  

On those sums of money those rates are really common, what are you expecting, base rate plus 1%?

 

Go out an look in the personal loans market to get a flavour of rates these days - mostly double digit. That 8 or 9% quoted will be a mixture of base rate and margin, and will come down when the base rate reduces and the margin could come down if we meet certain financial covenants anyway - still not out the market at all, 

[Gamble92]

4 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

Borrow you mean. Don't know in all honesty, haven't got the full picture but presuming it's pretty common to get an advance on TV money, and/or parachute payments - if we are unable to pay the money back to the lender on current terms it will either be refinanced or we will need more money from Top. My general point is the lender will know we are in a up and down environment with no guarantees of PL TV money forever so presumably there will be some security, likely from Top that will be the back stop if they want their money back. 

 

In terms of interest rates from another poster comparing it to pay day loans is laughable. 

It felt like when we first started taking out them loans that we were much more established and there was seemingly a small risk of us not being in the Premier League. 

 

But all of it at the time felt like the first signs that all is not right. I won't even go into all the dodgy sponsorship stuff. 

[AjcW]

50 minutes ago, filbertway said:

Yep that was how I understood it. I recall last time we were in the champ that our parachute payments were spoken for. Which made promotion incredibly important.

 

Wasnt sure if we would have the decks cleared end of this year or once again be in a similar spot.

 

Feels like we're painfully close to being another Sunderland or portsmouth

They took another loan out in Jan but didn’t spend it in Jan which was odd at the time but probably PSR.

[CosbehFox]

2 hours ago, Tommy G said:

Do you think any reputable lender will lend significant sums of money without security, not to mention financial covenants - that have to be watertight enough to be audited and signed off by both directors and in our case PwC every year? This is not a post in support of KP, but people seem to think we can do what we want without any form of regulation - or any other club for that matter. 

 

I've got a decent level of experience in leveraged business' and the amount of work involved in arranging finance in the 0-£30m market is staggering (and that's in a relatively stable industry sector) never mind a football club which is inherently unstable, with financial forecasts that chop and change depending on the division you play in etc.  

They can leverage anything such as the stadium against the loan. 

[orangecity23]

1 hour ago, filbertway said:

Yep that was how I understood it. I recall last time we were in the champ that our parachute payments were spoken for. Which made promotion incredibly important.

 

Wasnt sure if we would have the decks cleared end of this year or once again be in a similar spot.

 

Feels like we're painfully close to being another Sunderland or portsmouth

We do seem to be well on the way to clearing most of the "Sunderland 'til I die" season 1 prerequisites off the checklist :

 

1. Expensive training ground that is unsustainable for running costs in lower division - check

2. Bad recruitment - check

2a. Employing Lee Congerton - check

2b. Employing Martyn Glover - check 

3. Jack Rodwell-esque expensive DM on expensive contract and zero resale value: soumare - check Skipp (aka New-mare) - check 

4. Having to sell any promising academy graduates the second anyone offers some cash - check.

5. Ingrained losing attitude in playing squad - check.