What would it take to turn on the owners?

[Mickyblueeyes]

1 hour ago, Mr Weller 2 said:

Except the billionaire owner and their track record over a decade. No nothing at all.

Our billionaire owner hasn’t been our owner for a decade.. That was the point missed, obviously. 

[Chocolate Teapot]

12 hours ago, CosbehFox said:

Also if Top had true commitment to the club like he’s saying, they’d be digging in the ground for the stadium extension. Reality is more like they aren’t cash rich enough to fund it without PL money to loan off ala Seagrave. 
 

Whatever guise FFP is in, revenue is still the king and infrastructure investment is excluded. 

The bit I can't square is if they're so cash rich, why are they taking out loans with variable interest rates guaranteed on the clubs future income?

[The Fosse Way]

 

“Accountability keeps standards high.”

 

It’s February 2017, and I find myself trotting this line out repeatedly as I try to explain to fans of other clubs on Twitter why the sacking of Claudio Ranieri is the right call. This bizarre notion, peddled by some of the biggest pundits in the country, that Ranieri had earned the right to take us to a level lower than that at which he’d picked us up in, seemed to be getting traction.

 

Fast forward seven years, and where has the accountability gone at Leicester City Football Club?

 

As a financial bombshell has blown off the fragile mask that fooled the majority of the country into believing Leicester were a ‘well-run club’, it’s high time we saw some accountability return.

 

Read the full article: https://www.thefosseway.net/viewpoint/leicester-city-finances-accountability-kuhn-top-jon-rudkin-susan-whelan

 

 

[Ian S]

53 minutes ago, The Fosse Way said:

 

“Accountability keeps standards high.”

 

It’s February 2017, and I find myself trotting this line out repeatedly as I try to explain to fans of other clubs on Twitter why the sacking of Claudio Ranieri is the right call. This bizarre notion, peddled by some of the biggest pundits in the country, that Ranieri had earned the right to take us to a level lower than that at which he’d picked us up in, seemed to be getting traction.

 

Fast forward seven years, and where has the accountability gone at Leicester City Football Club?

 

As a financial bombshell has blown off the fragile mask that fooled the majority of the country into believing Leicester were a ‘well-run club’, it’s high time we saw some accountability return.

 

Read the full article: https://www.thefosseway.net/viewpoint/leicester-city-finances-accountability-kuhn-top-jon-rudkin-susan-whelan

 

 

Excellent article.

I would add I don’t quite agree on the Vichai position, I am convinced he would have sacked Rodgers a long time before he left and if so where would we be now?

Edited 5 April by Ian S
Additional comment

[JimmyC74]

38 minutes ago, The Fosse Way said:

 

“Accountability keeps standards high.”

 

It’s February 2017, and I find myself trotting this line out repeatedly as I try to explain to fans of other clubs on Twitter why the sacking of Claudio Ranieri is the right call. This bizarre notion, peddled by some of the biggest pundits in the country, that Ranieri had earned the right to take us to a level lower than that at which he’d picked us up in, seemed to be getting traction.

 

Fast forward seven years, and where has the accountability gone at Leicester City Football Club?

 

As a financial bombshell has blown off the fragile mask that fooled the majority of the country into believing Leicester were a ‘well-run club’, it’s high time we saw some accountability return.

 

Read the full article: https://www.thefosseway.net/viewpoint/leicester-city-finances-accountability-kuhn-top-jon-rudkin-susan-whelan

 

 

Accountability is massive and needs to be seen - no platitudes.

[BertFill]

2 hours ago, Chocolate Teapot said:

The bit I can't square is if they're so cash rich, why are they taking out loans with variable interest rates guaranteed on the clubs future income?

People who are insanely cash rich generally don't get to be that way (or stay that way) by spending their own money.

[Babylon]

8 hours ago, Chrysalis said:

That first year or two, Top was on the news a lot about the decisions he was making and that his Dad let him do what he was doing, I think when we went back to Pearson is when his dad was taking more control and falling in love with the club in his own right.

Also the FFP in the championship is not comparable, we were never formally charged, and we had setup some stuff to inflate our income   This time we didnt do that, and have a huge clear failure.

We had to pay a fine, and league might have come out and been "oh it was a misunderstanding", but I would suggest that was because they wanted a line drawing under it as we didn't look like coming down anytime soon. I'm not sure the inflating out income stuff was a good thing, it was obviously as dodgy as hell and brought us plenty of bad press then. 

[Babylon]

3 hours ago, Chocolate Teapot said:

The bit I can't square is if they're so cash rich, why are they taking out loans with variable interest rates guaranteed on the clubs future income?

They probably aren't cash-rich; their wealth is built around the value of their business. To generate the actual cash, is likely to mean liquidating some assets. 

 

Rich people use loans all the time, successful companies use loans all the time. I don't think it's an issue. Let's not forget, they wrote off about £200m worth of loans not so long ago. 

 

If they wanted to, they could refinance the loans through KP. But that needs to go up a level to the KP board and not just our board, and as I've suggested before we don't know the appetite at KP any more, ultimately Top answers to the board there. There are question marks for me about how much KP want to be involved, Top personally lending money was a bit of a red flag for me. 

[Daggers]

9 hours ago, Dan LCFC said:

I always feared the KP worship would bite us in this way. We're truly ****ed.

bE CArEfUl wHAt yOu WisH fOr 

 

 

[Chrysalis]

8 hours ago, Babylon said:

We had to pay a fine, and league might have come out and been "oh it was a misunderstanding", but I would suggest that was because they wanted a line drawing under it as we didn't look like coming down anytime soon. I'm not sure the inflating out income stuff was a good thing, it was obviously as dodgy as hell and brought us plenty of bad press then. 

This is on another level on the press coverage, many people dont even know we even did that FFP deal. 

[Chrysalis]

8 hours ago, Babylon said:

They probably aren't cash-rich; their wealth is built around the value of their business. To generate the actual cash, is likely to mean liquidating some assets. 

 

Rich people use loans all the time, successful companies use loans all the time. I don't think it's an issue. Let's not forget, they wrote off about £200m worth of loans not so long ago. 

 

If they wanted to, they could refinance the loans through KP. But that needs to go up a level to the KP board and not just our board, and as I've suggested before we don't know the appetite at KP any more, ultimately Top answers to the board there. There are question marks for me about how much KP want to be involved, Top personally lending money was a bit of a red flag for me. 

Its common for rich owners who have no issue injecting cash to lend money directly, not so common for them to take out expensive 3rd party loans, there is a huge difference between the two.

 

Its good you recognise KP might not have the appetite anymore, as you said the evidence is there with both the  external loans and Top having to supply money personally.

Edited 5 April by Chrysalis

[Chelmofox]

22 minutes ago, Chrysalis said:

Its common for rich owners who have no issue injecting cash to lend money directly, not so common for them to take out expensive 3rd party loans, there is a huge difference between the two.

Depends really. If owners lend money directly they will come up with their own process where payments are made back to the owning company include interest. This usually happens if you want some sort of investment from your parent company to inject capital to grow when everyone expects that money can be repaid. Involves having to get all the right processes / paper work in place.

 

In KP/LCFC case, its crazy amounts of money needed just to keep the club running.  Seems to me that KP are happy to make the repayments / interest in those loans but not put up the capital - just provide the security for the loans to be made. Says to me the KP probably don't think that the full loan amount would be repaid anytime soon so would rather somewhere else put up the funds.

[filbertway]

On 04/04/2024 at 18:52, CosbehFox said:

Also if Top had true commitment to the club like he’s saying, they’d be digging in the ground for the stadium extension. Reality is more like they aren’t cash rich enough to fund it without PL money to loan off ala Seagrave. 
 

Whatever guise FFP is in, revenue is still the king and infrastructure investment is excluded. 

This is what I keep thinking of - when people are claiming they want to spend the money but not allowed to. If they did, the work on the ground and surrounding area would be well under way you'd imagine.

[Chocolate Teapot]

10 hours ago, Babylon said:

They probably aren't cash-rich; their wealth is built around the value of their business. To generate the actual cash, is likely to mean liquidating some assets. 

 

Rich people use loans all the time, successful companies use loans all the time. I don't think it's an issue. Let's not forget, they wrote off about £200m worth of loans not so long ago. 

 

If they wanted to, they could refinance the loans through KP. But that needs to go up a level to the KP board and not just our board, and as I've suggested before we don't know the appetite at KP any more, ultimately Top answers to the board there. There are question marks for me about how much KP want to be involved, Top personally lending money was a bit of a red flag for me. 

So we're not that financially secure then are we? We're a tricky political situation away from being up shit creek by the looks of things.

 

And I'm not sure rich people use loans at variable rates of interest for very long, particularly with Macquarie - you don't stay rich very long that way...

[st albans fox]

28 minutes ago, Chocolate Teapot said:

So we're not that financially secure then are we? We're a tricky political situation away from being up shit creek by the looks of things.

 

And I'm not sure rich people use loans at variable rates of interest for very long, particularly with Macquarie - you don't stay rich very long that way...

Do we know what we owe Macquarie and at what rates?

 

have we actually drawn down those loans or are they available as and when required?

 

business’ need cash and if the rates they can borrow it at is less than the return they can generate by using it then it makes sense to borrow it 

[Chocolate Teapot]

28 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Do we know what we owe Macquarie and at what rates?

 

have we actually drawn down those loans or are they available as and when required?

 

business’ need cash and if the rates they can borrow it at is less than the return they can generate by using it then it makes sense to borrow it 

My understanding is that they're not fixed rates which worries me.

 

 

Edited 5 April by Chocolate Teapot

[Chrysalis]

37 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Do we know what we owe Macquarie and at what rates?

 

have we actually drawn down those loans or are they available as and when required?

 

business’ need cash and if the rates they can borrow it at is less than the return they can generate by using it then it makes sense to borrow it 

Would you be ok with your child using pay day loans to fund their day to day living costs? of course not.

 

These loans are taken out to fund LCFC standard operating costs, this is not good finance.

 

The only businesses I am aware of that operate in this way I would put in one of the following categories.

 

1 - Not financially healthy, of course this applies to a lot of UK businesses, we have a high rate of turnover of businesses in this country.  PLC makes it super easy to write off liabilities.  Setup new PLC, transfer assets, liquidate old one, clear old liabilities. 

2 - Owner doesnt have the means to inject cash otherwise, so borrow to grow.  (better option to sell equity).

3 - Owner doesnt want to inject cash at which point you question their commitment to the business.

 

#1 and #3 are often a prerequisite to company liquidation.  KP lending money directly for infrastructure to LCFC is ok, Using this variable rate commercial third party loan to fund wages and other operating costs is just dodgy (and expensive) finance.

The cost of the interest I expect is shrugged off as a non issue, like the rest of the 200m.

To me its quite simple, either the owner puts up the cash (director loan or equity), or we dont spend the money.

[st albans fox]

30 minutes ago, Chrysalis said:

Would you be ok with your child using pay day loans to fund their day to day living costs? of course not.

 

These loans are taken out to fund LCFC standard operating costs, this is not good finance.

 

The only businesses I am aware of that operate in this way I would put in one of the following categories.

 

1 - Not financially healthy, of course this applies to a lot of UK businesses, we have a high rate of turnover of businesses in this country.  PLC makes it super easy to write off liabilities.  Setup new PLC, transfer assets, liquidate old one, clear old liabilities. 

2 - Owner doesnt have the means to inject cash otherwise, so borrow to grow.  (better option to sell equity).

3 - Owner doesnt want to inject cash at which point you question their commitment to the business.

 

#1 and #3 are often a prerequisite to company liquidation.  KP lending money directly for infrastructure to LCFC is ok, Using this variable rate commercial third party loan to fund wages and other operating costs is just dodgy (and expensive) finance.

The cost of the interest I expect is shrugged off as a non issue, like the rest of the 200m.

To me it’s quite simple, either the owner puts up the cash (director loan or equity), or we dont spend the money.

The second loan is effectively invoice finance where a transfer fee has been drawn down immediately and interest paid against the instalments as they fall due and are paid. 
 

the larger loan which is presumably needed to fund some of the day to day running of the business is secured against PL monies due in and should be settled by this summer. In an ideal world we would be using the PL monies after we’ve received them and be ahead of our expenditure.  But we know we’re not and it’s costing us the interest. 

[Sol thewall Bamba]

On 02/04/2024 at 19:22, Fox92 said:

Won't ever happen.

 

They roll out the free donuts and people lap it up.  "Best owners in the World".

 

On 02/04/2024 at 19:43, StanSP said:

This argument is fvcking boring now. 

 

Not one person in support of the current regime ever mentions donuts or beer as a big plus point. It's a fake argument. 

Looks like this argument will be put to the test today!

[goody2028]

Free beer rolled out today again then. 

[StanSP]

1 hour ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

 

Looks like this argument will be put to the test today!

 

1 hour ago, goody2028 said:

Free beer rolled out today again then. 

It is always done for Vichai's birthday. But you can have the free beer and still not like the owners/want them out

[Wymsey]

3 hours ago, StanSP said:

 

It is always done for Vichai's birthday. But you can have the free beer and still not like the owners/want them out

The beer at the King Power is quite terrible, personally.

[StanSP]

Just now, Wymsey said:

The beer at the King Power is quite terrible, personally.

Agreed. Watered down or just sat in the barrels for ages. 

[MattFox]

JR front and centre next to Top who had a bouncer stood behind him

[Chocolate Teapot]

14 hours ago, MattFox said:

JR front and centre next to Top who had a bouncer stood behind him

The evidence stares people in the face but yet there's still- "We don't know what Rudkin does and how much power he holds".