Castagne to Fulham

[Paninistickers]

28 minutes ago, Reg Vardy said:

Lot of talk about us not getting prices for our players, sadly our players are either out of contract, have a year left, or will be playing in the Championship, after Premier league wages…..may I suggest we are not in the strongest negotiating position……and every other club knows that….

There's lots of wishful and fanciful thinking on here that we are somehow financially sound and can afford to insist players see out their contract with us.

 

Barnes and Madders have raised only 45m net and the consensus is we need around 30 - 50m more ...we will hardball with buyers to a limit but as you say, we've a poor hand and the buyer will let us blink first. 

 

Castagne, Soumare, Faes/Praet, Kels and Wilf need to raise us 30m + required. Possibly money for Hamza, Iversen and Luke Thomas too.  One way or the other, we'll get the money needed but it'll be piecemeal 

[Fazzer 7]

56 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

There's lots of wishful and fanciful thinking on here that we are somehow financially sound and can afford to insist players see out their contract with us.

 

Barnes and Madders have raised only 45m net and the consensus is we need around 30 - 50m more ...we will hardball with buyers to a limit but as you say, we've a poor hand and the buyer will let us blink first. 

 

Castagne, Soumare, Faes/Praet, Kels and Wilf need to raise us 30m + required. Possibly money for Hamza, Iversen and Luke Thomas too.  One way or the other, we'll get the money needed but it'll be piecemeal 

What was the fee we paid Norwich for Madders?

[Bluearmyfox28]

58 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

There's lots of wishful and fanciful thinking on here that we are somehow financially sound and can afford to insist players see out their contract with us.

 

Barnes and Madders have raised only 45m net and the consensus is we need around 30 - 50m more ...we will hardball with buyers to a limit but as you say, we've a poor hand and the buyer will let us blink first. 

 

Castagne, Soumare, Faes/Praet, Kels and Wilf need to raise us 30m + required. Possibly money for Hamza, Iversen and Luke Thomas too.  One way or the other, we'll get the money needed but it'll be piecemeal 

With Barnes sold at £38m, and with the £16m in profits already there from player turnover, our new profit for the summer would be £54m.

 

We have also saved millions in wages already. This whole we must raise X amount of millions as we have a huge void is not true, even if it was true it would happen naturally and doesn’t need to be covered in player sales alone.
 

People keep mentioning this, on the assumption of us making the full payment on the loan and not paying interest only.

 

There is money coming in from player sales In the past like Fofana that go directly to loan company. 
 

I’ve said this to you previously, our finances are no way near as bad as made out and have now been rectified naturally through relegation and releases.

 

Relax.

[Paninistickers]

10 minutes ago, Bluearmyfox28 said:

With Barnes sold at £38m, and with the £16m in profits already there from player turnover, our new profit for the summer would be £54m.

 

We have also saved millions in wages already. This whole we must raise X amount of millions as we have a huge void is not true, even if it was true it would happen naturally and doesn’t need to be covered in player sales alone.
 

People keep mentioning this, on the assumption of us making the full payment on the loan and not paying interest only.

 

There is money coming in from player sales In the past like Fofana that go directly to loan company. 
 

I’ve said this to you previously, our finances are no way near as bad as made out and have now been rectified naturally through relegation and releases.

 

Relax.

I respectfully disagree 

[Jimbo]

1 hour ago, Paninistickers said:

There's lots of wishful and fanciful thinking on here that we are somehow financially sound and can afford to insist players see out their contract with us.

 

Barnes and Madders have raised only 45m net and the consensus is we need around 30 - 50m more ...we will hardball with buyers to a limit but as you say, we've a poor hand and the buyer will let us blink first. 

 

Castagne, Soumare, Faes/Praet, Kels and Wilf need to raise us 30m + required. Possibly money for Hamza, Iversen and Luke Thomas too.  One way or the other, we'll get the money needed but it'll be piecemeal 

How have they only raised £45m? Barnes cost nothing and Maddison was £24m if memory serves me correct. We sold the pair for the best part of £80m .......

 

Add that to the fact we've got to be around 500k+ a week better off with players gone without taking into consideration if there were any wage reductions for relegation. 

1 minute ago, Paninistickers said:

I respectfully disagree 

You can disagree all you like, but if finances were as bad as you're making out then we'd be signing no one and we'd go into next season with a team full of youth products and we'd have taken the easy and most probably cheaper option in keeping Dean Smith on instead of going for Enzo. 

 

I am certain there will be a few more outgoings and there will be a few more incomings further reducing the wage bill as we'll not be offering premier league wages anymore, but are far from in a mess financially.

 

Keeping hold of players to see out their contracts is stupid because it makes no business sense, but we won't do that because we can't afford to, it'll just be because it makes more sense to get something rather than nothing. 

[Babylon]

20 minutes ago, Bluearmyfox28 said:

With Barnes sold at £38m, and with the £16m in profits already there from player turnover, our new profit for the summer would be £54m.

 

We have also saved millions in wages already. This whole we must raise X amount of millions as we have a huge void is not true, even if it was true it would happen naturally and doesn’t need to be covered in player sales alone.
 

People keep mentioning this, on the assumption of us making the full payment on the loan and not paying interest only.

 

There is money coming in from player sales In the past like Fofana that go directly to loan company. 
 

I’ve said this to you previously, our finances are no way near as bad as made out and have now been rectified naturally through relegation and releases.

 

Relax.

The loan is over several years and we were already negotiating an extension before relegation. 

[Babylon]

1 hour ago, Paninistickers said:

There's lots of wishful and fanciful thinking on here that we are somehow financially sound and can afford to insist players see out their contract with us.

 

Barnes and Madders have raised only 45m net and the consensus is we need around 30 - 50m more ...we will hardball with buyers to a limit but as you say, we've a poor hand and the buyer will let us blink first. 

 

Castagne, Soumare, Faes/Praet, Kels and Wilf need to raise us 30m + required. Possibly money for Hamza, Iversen and Luke Thomas too.  One way or the other, we'll get the money needed but it'll be piecemeal 

The consensus from who exactly? Where on earth are your figures coming from?

[Bluearmyfox28]

10 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

I respectfully disagree 

Please explain the evidence as to how?
 

The club have made a profit of £54,000,000 on player turnover after the Barnes sale. 
 

After a bit of guesswork on incoming wages (Coady and Winks £40k, Hernansen £25k, Doyle £3.5k) our profit on yearly wages comes to around £32,474,000.

 

If you add the profit on player turnover and amount saved on wages gives you around £86,474,000.

 

Can post the full breakdown on how I’ve got to those figures if you want.
 

 

[Paninistickers]

13 hours ago, Babylon said:

The loan is over several years and we were already negotiating an extension before relegation. 

We've been over this dozens of times. The Macquarie deals are NOT loans. It is invoice financing (factoring). It's an advance on money you are GUARANTEED to get. A repayment loan is totally different. 

 

The only way that the Macquarie 'loan' can be eased is if KP decided to pay the money to Macquarie themselves rather than the PL transferring the funds to Macquarie (as would've been arranged on the original terms) 

[Paninistickers]

13 hours ago, Bluearmyfox28 said:

Please explain the evidence as to how?
 

The club have made a profit of £54,000,000 on player turnover after the Barnes sale. 
 

After a bit of guesswork on incoming wages (Coady and Winks £40k, Hernansen £25k, Doyle £3.5k) our profit on yearly wages comes to around £32,474,000.

 

If you add the profit on player turnover and amount saved on wages gives you around £86,474,000.

 

Can post the full breakdown on how I’ve got to those figures if you want.
 

 

Barnes @ 38m + Madders @ 35m - Norwich sell on clause @ 3m - Coady @ 8m - Winks @ 10m - Danish keeper @ 5m 

 

= 47m net 

 

....we need more money to cushion the loss of PL income and to keep us FFP viable, despite the fact the wage bill has been reduced

[Ric Flair]

10 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

Barnes @ 38m + Madders @ 35m - Norwich sell on clause @ 3m - Coady @ 8m - Winks @ 10m - Danish keeper @ 5m 

 

= 47m net 

 

....we need more money to cushion the loss of PL income and to keep us FFP viable, despite the fact the wage bill has been reduced

Think you've got the Maddison and Winks amounts wrong.

 

It does seem there's some cost cutting needed, the advances from the Aussie bank are a bit complex but Kieran Maguire thinks there's plenty of possible negotiation on it if we didn't come back up and needed to extend or change the terms.

[RowlattsFox]

My worry with the likes of Castagne, Praet and others is going through pre season and maybe even starting the season with them involved. And then bids come in for them towards the end of the window that we can't reject and leaves us chasing players desperately. 

[Bert]

27 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

We've been over this dozens of times. The Macquarie deals are NOT loans. It is invoice financing (factoring). It's an advance on money you are GUARANTEED to get. A repayment loan is totally different. 

 

The only way that the Macquarie 'loan' can be eased is if KP decided to pay the money to Macquarie themselves rather than the PL transferring the funds to Macquarie (as would've been arranged on the original terms) 

So Macquarie are just giving us millions of pounds and not making any kind of profit on what we pay them back? 

[Finnegan]

Just now, RowlattsFox said:

My worry with the likes of Castagne, Praet and others is going through pre season and maybe even starting the season with them involved. And then bids come in for them towards the end of the window that we can't reject and leaves us chasing players desperately. 

 

I'd be very surprised if we end up in that situation with Praet. One of two things happens with him for me, either we replace him in the starting line up anyway with a loan or just an investment and there's no issue or actually Enzo likes him and we keep him anyway. 

 

I wouldn't rule the latter out. I've been complaining about Praet for years because he just never fit in Rodgers system. But actually, the role that Maresca wants his more advanced centre mids to play, this kinda mezzala, higher energy, more lateral role? Kinda suits Praet to be honest, so does dropping down to the Championship. 

 

As for Castagne, he's got two years left no? Not the end of the world if we can't shift him. We also have three right backs so it's not the end of the world of we lose him late. 

[moore_94]

14 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

Think you've got the Maddison and Winks amounts wrong.

 

It does seem there's some cost cutting needed, the advances from the Aussie bank are a bit complex but Kieran Maguire thinks there's plenty of possible negotiation on it if we didn't come back up and needed to extend or change the terms.

Tanner has said King Power have opened up a loan facility that the club can draw down from if we needed to

 

Kieran Maguire has mentioned before I believe that it wouldn’t be in Macquarie’s interest to try and bring in the full amount owed in one go either

 

I am not worried about our finances currently, we wouldn’t be dropping £23m on four players in the Championship with likely a fair bit more to be spent if we had big financial issues

Edited 21 July 2023 by moore_94

[CosbehFox]

4 minutes ago, moore_94 said:

Tanner has said King Power have opened up a loan facility that the club can draw down from if we needed to

 

Kieran Maguire has mentioned before I believe that it wouldn’t be in Macquarie’s interest to try and bring in the full amount owed in one go either

 

I am not worried about our finances currently, we wouldn’t be dropping £23m on four players in the Championship with likely a fair bit more to be spent if we had big financial issues

Take a look at Burnley last season re: Macquarie. It's in their interest to get the club back in the PL whereby they can get increased business. They would only call in the money when they think it's in danger of not coming back. 

 

It's not the best way to do business with these sort of banks but its better than WBA whose owner has been charging a serious amount of interest on loans his business are making to the club 

Edited 21 July 2023 by CosbehFox

[Finnegan]

Macquarie provide a service. We're their client. They want a long relationship where we keep going back to them for the services and they keep making money from it.

 

The more succesful we are, the more they make. They obviously aren't going to try and take us to the cleaners. 

 

Moreover, King Power have stated many times they're in this for the long haul and their business has recovered significantly post-COVID. They'll more than likely just loan the club the money themselves if there's a shortfall that needs to be covered. Even if you cynically believe they do eventually want to sell the club, they'll be looking to sell a settled Premier League one not an EFL mess with loads of debt. 

[weller54]

Has he fvcked off yet? 

[Paninistickers]

37 minutes ago, Bert said:

So Macquarie are just giving us millions of pounds and not making any kind of profit on what we pay them back? 

'We' don't pay Macquarie back. 

 

The organisation who were due to pay us the money (PL or, say, Chelsea for Fofana) pay Macquarie. 

 

In simple terms, if PL are contracted to pay us 100m on August 1st 2023, we chose alreadu to cash that in, say, September 2022 but for 95m. Then Macquarie make an easy 5m when the PL pay them

 

 

[CountesthorpeFox1]

22 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

'We' don't pay Macquarie back. 

 

The organisation who were due to pay us the money (PL or, say, Chelsea for Fofana) pay Macquarie. 

 

In simple terms, if PL are contracted to pay us 100m on August 1st 2023, we chose alreadu to cash that in, say, September 2022 but for 95m. Then Macquarie make an easy 5m when the PL pay them

 

 

I think the easiest way to explain your point is to just tell people to google what a closed bridging loan is. 
 

Explaining it in a way that we don’t pay it back won’t really help because although the legality is the funds never enter our account, people will understandably still consider it us paying it back as we are owed that money (although contractually not anymore as we’ve already cashed it in at a price). 

 

if I were to try and put in laymen’s terms I’d say we were getting paid at the end of the month but decided to take out a pay day loan to see us through to payday 
 

 

[Babylon]

2 hours ago, Paninistickers said:

We've been over this dozens of times. The Macquarie deals are NOT loans. It is invoice financing (factoring). It's an advance on money you are GUARANTEED to get. A repayment loan is totally different. 

 

The only way that the Macquarie 'loan' can be eased is if KP decided to pay the money to Macquarie themselves rather than the PL transferring the funds to Macquarie (as would've been arranged on the original terms) 

They have given us money we didn't have and it's secured against premier league money. That's it, it's secured against it. So Errrr... it's a loan. The sodding contract literally states "loan facility on a secured basis".

 

 

And there was a set repayment date within the deal, which we were looking to extend even before relegation. It's all in the accounts. They didn't give us hundreds of millions of premier league money on tick. We owed £70m and had two or three years to pay it back. 

Edited 21 July 2023 by Babylon

[Bluearmyfox28]

2 hours ago, Paninistickers said:

Barnes @ 38m + Madders @ 35m - Norwich sell on clause @ 3m - Coady @ 8m - Winks @ 10m - Danish keeper @ 5m 

 

= 47m net 

 

....we need more money to cushion the loss of PL income and to keep us FFP viable, despite the fact the wage bill has been reduced

Maddison was sold for £40m, Norwich had 15% of profit only. Works out around £37.5m that we will see. 

Coady was £7.5m. We sold Hurst for £1.5m.

 

The net is £54m after Barnes. You can see in @davieG In/Out thread, I’ve updated it after each move.

 

You are ignoring the fact the sheer amount we are saving on wages is close to £40/£50m which will also show in our financial records. 

[Babylon]

Have you people even read the latest LOAN agreement with Mcquarrie? It's a loan agreement, secured against guaranteed income, with the security only coming into play if we DEFAULT. 

 

It's entirely different to them advancing the money for Mahrez or Fofana to us. 

[Paninistickers]

22 minutes ago, Bluearmyfox28 said:

Maddison was sold for £40m, Norwich had 15% of profit only. Works out around £37.5m that we will see. 

Coady was £7.5m. We sold Hurst for £1.5m.

 

The net is £54m after Barnes. You can see in @davieG In/Out thread, I’ve updated it after each move.

 

You are ignoring the fact the sheer amount we are saving on wages is close to £40/£50m which will also show in our financial records. 

Fair enough. 

 

What's our expected wage bill for this season? 65m or so at a guess. So the player sales so far only cover that, give or take. Parachute money is spent, no matter whether the semantics are factoring / loan / bridging finance. So that ain't paying the wages. 

 

In summary you all have more faith in KP than I do right now. The clues for financial difficulty have been there for 4 or 5 years, starting with the insatiable need for instant cash with these Macquarie deals. Its a red flag. The stadium expansion mothballed. Last summer's transfer fiasco. The wage to turnover %. The panicked window dressing by converting debt to equity last season. 

 

I think the club are gambling at the moment and carrying on as if we still are a PL club. Faking it til they make it. It's risky. But classic KP. They didn't make billions from flogging fags and Gin at Bangkok airport 

 

 

[An Sionnach]

26 minutes ago, Babylon said:

Have you people even read the latest LOAN agreement with Mcquarrie? It's a loan agreement, secured against guaranteed income, with the security only coming into play if we DEFAULT. 

 

It's entirely different to them advancing the money for Mahrez or Fofana to us. 

 

Every top club is deep in debt , its our income from gate money, TV and commercial business that concerns me. That is going to drop substantially.