Another loan agreed

[Merchant_Banker]

My understanding was that this is a line of credit secured against future guaranteed income, i.e. we can use the facility when we need it rather waiting until payments come in. In the same way that companies factor invoices that have been raised, but not paid, although the most of the payments will be contractual obligations against more reliable organisations.

[CosbehFox]

15 hours ago, hackneyfox said:

You accuse the management of financial incompetence and then complain when they get a shirt sponsor who will bring in a few extra million.

I’m genuinely curious to understand your point of view.

Dunno cos both are related in the case of LCFC. They picked a shirt sponsor last year what hit financial troubles and were considered bankrupt in Curacao with court hearings. Due to offshore accountancy practices, no-one can really see what's happened there. 

 

I think that's why the heat is so much on 'K-Bet', as awful morally as it is, if it was Ladbrokes you wouldn't be seeing the rage as much as it is. If its anything like BC Game, you have a company what don't pay out to legitimate winners etc. 

 

We appear to have selected a company that didn't exist, questions its own legitimacy on its website and has links to BC Game (which by default investigative journalists has some pretty strong links to criminal activity). 

 

That's why people are shaky and against it. 

Edited 21 July 2025 by CosbehFox

[CosbehFox]

They aren't pay day loans and they are pretty normal occurrence in companies which are so reliant on cashflow.

 

You'll find that big construction companies do similar on big projects as they can't sustain the outright cost at the start of a project before they receive their first payment (and even that won't be enough but they still paying staff/materials et al - it takes a while for it to catch up) 

 

Where the worry comes from me is the collateral in case of default is getting thin. Whereas before the instalments of a transfer deal were used, it's now the parachute payments and what happens when the parachute payments stop? You start going onto your assets and that's when it gets bad. 

Edited 21 July 2025 by CosbehFox

[Chrysalis]

A loan against future income is a pay day loan, I dont know what you think pay day loan is otherwise?  Same with loans secure against player sales, its a pay advance with interest on top.
We living above our means and the owner is preferring to do pay day loans over director loans.

Edited 21 July 2025 by Chrysalis

[CosbehFox]

1 hour ago, Chrysalis said:

A loan against future income is a pay day loan, I dont know what you think pay day loan is otherwise?  Same with loans secure against player sales, its a pay advance with interest on top.
We living above our means and the owner is preferring to do pay day loans over director loans.

PSR restricts the amount of director loans 
 

A payday loan is a term given to a hugely inflated interest rate whereby the term of the loan is extremely short say 10 days maximum. Normally at a rates as high as 1,200 % it’s unsecured ie. There is no collateral such as in LCFC’s case the parachute payments 
 

I am no fan of the ownership or their financial management but the use of loans in this manner is incredibly common in companies where cash flow is staged rather than constant. I know this because I work in construction where I often deal with the banks surveyor or the funds surveyor. 

Edited 21 July 2025 by CosbehFox

[ian__marshall]

On 20/07/2025 at 23:00, hackneyfox said:

You accuse the management of financial incompetence and then complain when they get a shirt sponsor who will bring in a few extra million.

I’m genuinely curious to understand your point of view.

Ok, you're clearly trolling as you have failed to answer any of the questions posed then simply respond with the exact same line of questioning I put to you despite me trying to understand your perspective. Not really a very mature way to approach a debate but on this occasion I'll entertain your thoughts for a moment although please keep them factual and stop assuming. We all know the old saying in reference to assumption. 

 

Firstly, I'm not accusing them of anything. We have for a number of years failed to comply with PSR. That is fact; not conjecture, opinion, or accusation, and evidenced by the fact that there are currently charges issued against the club. Ultimately despite the rules, there are other clubs out there that are finding ways to operate within the confines and not needing to go to the same lengths as us. 

 

With regards to the sponsorship situation, if the club was run sustainably from the outset then there would be no need to go down the same route as last season. The latter is a consequence of the former. 

 

Let's also not forget that a senior director is on record for saying that due diligence was performed on the last sponsor only to see said sponsor go bankrupt within less than 1 year of partnership, and a prominent body within the UK highlighting that said partner was operating outside of UK rules which if not rectified could result in custodial sentences for the directors of the club overseeing such promotional activity. Clearly any due diligence carried out was not particularly thorough in terms of risk management. If the rumours of the new sponsor prove correct (and aren't changed at the last minute) then to follow the same path again is total madness and just screams of  desperation. 

 

Also, for a club that supposedly prides itself on being a 'family club', to have a sponsor that means some first team players cannot wear the same shirt as their peers, and kids are unable to wear exact replicas of their idols, isn't suggestive of strong family principles and strongly undermines the narrative. That's before we even consider players potentially wearing apparel advertising activities that directly contravene their faith/beliefs, or supporters that have struggled with gambling addiction. 

 

If you're comfortable with the way the club is operating, that's your perogative and you're entitled to your opinion. For me, unless the club can guarantee the revenue streams I outlined previously, it's an unsustainable way to run a business and eventually one way or another it's unlikely to end well. 

 

Edited 22 July 2025 by ian__marshall