Leicester have borrowed from MacQuarie again secured on future TV and KDH money

[Sly]

It looks like we’ve settled a load of these now. So wiped the slate clean again? 

[Lesta2014]

42 minutes ago, Sly said:

It looks like we’ve settled a load of these now. So wiped the slate clean again? 

Where you seen this? 

[87fox]

2 hours ago, Lesta2014 said:

Where you seen this? 

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/04593477/filing-history

[ClaphamFox]

25 minutes ago, 87fox said:

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/04593477/filing-history

Really interesting. Could the ruling in the PL vs Man City case have something to do with it? The BBC report on the case said the following:

 

"But the panel's ruling that the exclusion from the rules of interest-free loans from owners to their clubs (shareholder loans) was unlawful, has led to concerns that clubs could now be hit with additional costs that they were not anticipating.

 

"This could mean some are in danger of breaching PSR regulations. The suggestion is that such loans will now be subject to commercial market rates of interest.

 

"That could have major ramifications for those clubs that owe tens (or even hundreds) of millions of pounds to their owners."

 

Clearing the decks before the PL can come after us again?

[87fox]

It looks like the ones we registered as settled yesterday were as follows:

• loan covering future instalments owed from Man City for Mahrez
• loan covering future instalments owed from Chelsea for Chilwell
• loan covering all future PL Central funds due to the club between September 2021 to Feb 2023
• loan covering all future PL Central funds due to the club between Feb 2022 to June 2023
• loan covering all future PL Central funds due to the club between August 2022 to Jan 2024
• loan covering all future PL Central funds due to the club between Feb 2023 to June 2024
• loan covering all future PL Central funds due to the club between August 2023 to Jan 2025.

We still have 6 unsettled charges against us from Macquarie:

• loan covering future instalments owed from Spurs for Maddison
• loan covering future instalments owed from Fulham for Castagne
• loan covering future instalments owed from Newcastle for Barnes
• loan covering future instalments owed from Chelsea for KDH
• loan - couldn't quite work this one out as it didn't specify the definition of Receivables like all the others did (045934770031, created on 12 September 2024)
• loan covering all future PL Central funds due to the club between September 2024 to January 2026.

[moore_94]

Looks like they have just cleared up and closed off all the ones that will have ended / no more money is owed to MacQuarie

[AjcW]

Should highlight to everyone that, as said often, these are simply cashflow facilities, not nasty high interest loans that could cripple us.

 

That being said, we'd be in trouble if we stayed in the championship for more than one season at a time.

[Lako42]

12 minutes ago, AjcW said:

 

 

That being said, we'd be in trouble if we stayed in the championship for more than one season at a time.

So actually incredibly high risk at this moment in time

[moore_94]

 

[VLC86]

44 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

Really interesting. Could the ruling in the PL vs Man City case have something to do with it? The BBC report on the case said the following:

 

"But the panel's ruling that the exclusion from the rules of interest-free loans from owners to their clubs (shareholder loans) was unlawful, has led to concerns that clubs could now be hit with additional costs that they were not anticipating.

 

"This could mean some are in danger of breaching PSR regulations. The suggestion is that such loans will now be subject to commercial market rates of interest.

 

"That could have major ramifications for those clubs that owe tens (or even hundreds) of millions of pounds to their owners."

 

Clearing the decks before the PL can come after us again?

I was coming in the post the same, I’d imagine we got a heads up on this while putting together the appeal and put the wheels in motion.

[st albans fox]

It’s just housekeeping 

maguire poses the only relevant question which is why would you choose now to tidy up all the old satisfied charges 

 

could be something 

could be nothing 

 

this happened 3 sept 2021 where we registered 6 charges as satisfied on the same day 

 

so most likely nothing 

 

[AjcW]

2 hours ago, Lako42 said:

So actually incredibly high risk at this moment in time

I know what you mean, but in reality Lako if our strategy post relegation is the same as last time (keep as many players as poss and make a mockery of the league.... minus a few wobbles) then it should be a yo-yo situation.

 

Not saying there's no risk of course!

[Babylon]

2 hours ago, Lako42 said:

So actually incredibly high risk at this moment in time

All we are doing is securing loans against assets, just as people do with their houses. It doesn't mean we HAVE to use our parachute payments, or premier league money to pay them, they don't suddenly take all the money. It's just secured against them if we default; in reality, the amount owed each season is far less than the premier league and parachute money.  Plus,  we have billionaires who could just consolidate the loans if they really really needed to... yes there are question marks about them, but they've always done what's needed in terms of finances. 

[Lambert09]

1 hour ago, Babylon said:

All we are doing is securing loans against assets, just as people do with their houses. It doesn't mean we HAVE to use our parachute payments, or premier league money to pay them, they don't suddenly take all the money. It's just secured against them if we default; in reality, the amount owed each season is far less than the premier league and parachute money.  Plus,  we have billionaires who could just consolidate the loans if they really really needed to... yes there are question marks about them, but they've always done what's needed in terms of finances. 

I don’t think that’s what scares people, it’s the fact that they might jump ship and leave us in a world of hurt. These things don’t hurt you with good intentions but we’ve seen what happened at portsmouth and others in the past 

[Chrysalis]

Top enjoys paying the interest and this is for funding the club to pay day to day bills.

[Leeds Fox]

On 20/09/2024 at 22:23, Clever Fox said:

Hopefully it's for the Stadium development as that would make sense.

Would this not leave us potless for the coming seasons with regards to bringing any players in etc?

 

Genuinely don’t understand how financials work in football especially regarding the multiple constraints with FFP and the like.

[Clever Fox]

2 hours ago, Leeds Fox said:

Would this not leave us potless for the coming seasons with regards to bringing any players in etc?

 

Genuinely don’t understand how financials work in football especially regarding the multiple constraints with FFP and the like.

There's several answers to your question but in our case I'd say No, it won't affect player purchases are they are an ongoing expense offset by player sales. And are part of the every year accounts.

What they've done is take an advance loan against the KDH money from Chelsea. We sold kdh for 30 million. But I read that's based over 3 years at 10 mil a year. So all we got from Chelsea this year is 10 million.

Instead of waiting 2 more years to collect the other 20. They've taken out a loan secured against the Chelsea payments.

The big question is what any club uses the money for. If we use it to bring forward the redevelopment of the Stadium. That's makes lots of sense. As the extra seating will bring in more revenue on ticket sales. Helping to sign more or better players.

I hope that makes sense.

The rules around PSR are a different matter entirely and where designed poorly even with good intentions.

[st albans fox]

Financing the stadium expansion is not subject to psr 

I assume that interest on borrowings that are show to be used for this purpose are deductible from the losses

 

You have money due from Chelsea 

you can wait for it to come and borrow now to finance your expenses - and pay them back when the dosh arrives 

or you can borrow now against those guaranteed amounts to cover your expenses and not borrow now. What’s the difference?  I reckon the instrest rate on the monies due from Chelsea are going to be lower as they are guaranteed.  There is always the chance that the club could default on current borrowings so that rate would be higher. 

[bigpapagoldy]

What’s the maximum the KP could be expanded too ? 

[Lambert09]

40 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Financing the stadium expansion is not subject to psr 

I assume that interest on borrowings that are show to be used for this purpose are deductible from the losses

 

You have money due from Chelsea 

you can wait for it to come and borrow now to finance your expenses - and pay them back when the dosh arrives 

or you can borrow now against those guaranteed amounts to cover your expenses and not borrow now. What’s the difference?  I reckon the instrest rate on the monies due from Chelsea are going to be lower as they are guaranteed.  There is always the chance that the club could default on current borrowings so that rate would be higher. 

So i was wondering about the interest as I know that this is how everton got stung as they didn’t realise the interest would be in the psr calculations. 

 

But with the Man city case and a potential ban on shareholder zero interest, does that mean that our owners can’t bankroll the stadium without any interest? Probably, yes 🙃 Which given how close to failing psr we will always be, means the stadium might be a complete non-starter 

[Jattdogg]

Which super wealthy American wants to buy us and restore us to glory now?

[st albans fox]

39 minutes ago, Jattdogg said:

Which super wealthy American wants to buy us and restore us to glory now?

No thanks

the yanks don’t spend their dosh and we don’t generate our own 

[Jattdogg]

1 hour ago, st albans fox said:

No thanks

the yanks don’t spend their dosh and we don’t generate our own 

Ya was just saying that because  it seems they all want a peice!

[Pita]

Looks like they are just tidying up the books 

[Clever Fox]

3 hours ago, Lambert09 said:

So i was wondering about the interest as I know that this is how everton got stung as they didn’t realise the interest would be in the psr calculations. 

 

But with the Man city case and a potential ban on shareholder zero interest, does that mean that our owners can’t bankroll the stadium without any interest? Probably, yes 🙃 Which given how close to failing psr we will always be, means the stadium might be a complete non-starter 

I fail to see how the interest can make that much difference if borrowing from Directors. In Everton's case because of the mess they were in the Borrowings came with much higher interest rates as the Club were desperate for the Cash to keep going. It's crazy to think that they could have folded just when they were ready to move to their new 600 million pd Stadium.

 As the costs are usually spread over a long period.

As to our Club or our Owners financing the Stadium Development. I think it's exempt from PSR As the costs are usually spread over a long period. 10 plus years.

. But I could be wrong on that as I've not seen the PSR rules. 

 

Also to the credit of our Owners, Which should not be forgotten by Fans. I've never heard of them taking Money from the Club, Or Asset stripping as happens at other Clubs.

 

I Only ever hear of them promoting and moving the Club further up the proverbably Ladder. Yes we may have slipped off a rung or two and it's irritating, But ultimitely their hearts are in the right place.

 

What's really needed is the Football regulator more than ever now.