Disco Posted 14 August 2010 Posted 14 August 2010 Has the new consortium bought the Walkers Stadium or just took on the old debt ?
Lillehamring Posted 14 August 2010 Posted 14 August 2010 Just taken on the debt. are you sure: 3) What will happen to the debt in the club?It is always a consideration and option to use new finance to replace debt and as a careful management such issues are always under consideration but given that we are happy with the repayment plans and table we see no reason to do more than continue to service the debt for now and use new finances independently. this seems to suggest that they are happy with the existing loan and see no reason to take it over....
Leicfox Posted 14 August 2010 Posted 14 August 2010 are you sure: this seems to suggest that they are happy with the existing loan and see no reason to take it over.... That seems to me as though they have taken over the repayments of the debt. So they have taken on the debt.?
Lillehamring Posted 14 August 2010 Posted 14 August 2010 That seems to me as though they have taken over the repayments of the debt. So they have taken on the debt.? we are happy with the repayment plans and table we see no reason to do more than continue to service the debt for now that sounds to me like they are happy and are continuing with the existing deal
Flynny Posted 14 August 2010 Posted 14 August 2010 that sounds to me like they are happy and are continuing with the existing deal Yes, so who is paying it? If it's them, they've taken on the debt and that's part of the takeover numbers.
Lillehamring Posted 14 August 2010 Posted 14 August 2010 Yes, so who is paying it? If it's them, they've taken on the debt and that's part of the takeover numbers. by 'taking on the debt', i would read that as paying off the outstanding balance, and absorbing the payment. if they are still just paying the loan off, then the debt is still owned by Teachers (or whatever they're called).
samuel Posted 14 August 2010 Posted 14 August 2010 by 'taking on the debt', i would read that as paying off the outstanding balance, and absorbing the payment. if they are still just paying the loan off, then the debt is still owned by Teachers (or whatever they're called). They have taken on the debt, meaning they are underwriting it, i.e it is not in Milans name anymore, it is in Top's!. Is that so hard to grasp?
Lillehamring Posted 14 August 2010 Posted 14 August 2010 They have taken on the debt, meaning they are underwriting it, i.e it is not in Milans name anymore, it is in Top's!. Is that so hard to grasp? no, of course not, why so patronising? but technically you are wrong, milan is part of the consortium, so he is still 'named' on the debt. the point i'm making is that they new owners have not come along and PAID OFF the debt, effectively, as part of the take over, the stadium debt is the same as it was before. which is what the poster was asking.
samuel Posted 14 August 2010 Posted 14 August 2010 no, of course not, why so patronising? but technically you are wrong, milan is part of the consortium, so he is still 'named' on the debt. the point i'm making is that they new owners have not come along and PAID OFF the debt, effectively, as part of the take over, the stadium debt is the same as it was before. which is what the poster was asking. Not patronising at all......Read your responses again. With regards Milans name still being on it, you are now just being pedantic. The takeover is a simple case of a new name/company being responsible for servicing the debt.
DANGEROUS TIGER Posted 14 August 2010 Posted 14 August 2010 Not patronising at all......Read your responses again. With regards Milans name still being on it, you are now just being pedantic. The takeover is a simple case of a new name/company being responsible for servicing the debt. Yes, and it still includes Milan. Is that so hard for you to understand,? For crying out loud, what was pedantic about the previous post, you numpty. :rolleyes:
samuel Posted 14 August 2010 Posted 14 August 2010 Yes, and it still includes Milan. Is that so hard for you to understand,? For crying out loud, what was pedantic about the previous post, you numpty. Why do people act so brave whilst tapping into a computer?. If you met me in the street for the first time, would you refer to me as a numpty? Of course I understand. What I feel that is eluding most on here, is that this is a takeover (the clue is in the name), it isn't a case of someone just chucking a bit of money in to help Bumface along the way. The very reason Bumface instigated this move, is that his company is no longer in a position to guarantee the debt that the club and stadium are creating. The group that own the stadium, The TIAA, will have set out provisos and reviews at the start of Bumface's tenure, with strict annual auditing of the source servicing the debt. With the recent devaluing of his assets caused by the recession, the TIAA, will have pressured him to offer up a more sustainable and reliable way of guaranteeing his obligations to them. Bumface is no fool, you don't get to his age and still be an active, wealthy businessman without having a little acumen when it comes to money, moreover, the ability to retain money. And that's the thing, he wants to retain what wealth he still has. Milan Mandaric's name will be included only because he is a stake holder, and for a much smaller, manageble proportion of an agreed liabilty. And only for the time he remains with the club.You can bet your last pound though that his name has been removed from all liabilities, they will be guaranteed by Top's father. He will stay on for about 6/8 months, on a salary, to aid the transition and to make it look like he is not bailing out. He will have made sure his obligations are now being financed by another party because he will not want the HMRC and the courts delving into his affairs whilst still being the owner of a football club in the months to come. If this club was to change hands ten times in the next ten years, not once would anybody buy the stadium outright, it has no purpose other than the ability to host a football game twice a week, it would be dead money.Money that would be better spent on acheiving sustained Premier League status.
davieG Posted 14 August 2010 Posted 14 August 2010 Why do people act so brave whilst tapping into a computer?. If you met me in the street for the first time, would you refer to me as a numpty? Of course I understand. What I feel that is eluding most on here, is that this is a takeover (the clue is in the name), it isn't a case of someone just chucking a bit of money in to help Bumface along the way. The very reason Bumface instigated this move, is that his company is no longer in a position to guarantee the debt that the club and stadium are creating. The group that own the stadium, The TIAA, will have set out provisos and reviews at the start of Bumface's tenure, with strict annual auditing of the source servicing the debt. With the recent devaluing of his assets caused by the recession, the TIAA, will have pressured him to offer up a more sustainable and reliable way of guaranteeing his obligations to them. Bumface is no fool, you don't get to his age and still be an active, wealthy businessman without having a little acumen when it comes to money, moreover, the ability to retain money. And that's the thing, he wants to retain what wealth he still has. Milan Mandaric's name will be included only because he is a stake holder, and for a much smaller, manageble proportion of an agreed liabilty. And only for the time he remains with the club.You can bet your last pound though that his name has been removed from all liabilities, they will be guaranteed by Top's father. He will stay on for about 6/8 months, on a salary, to aid the transition and to make it look like he is not bailing out. He will have made sure his obligations are now being financed by another party because he will not want the HMRC and the courts delving into his affairs whilst still being the owner of a football club in the months to come. If this club was to change hands ten times in the next ten years, not once would anybody buy the stadium outright, it has no purpose other than the ability to host a football game twice a week, it would be dead money.Money that would be better spent on acheiving sustained Premier League status. I suppose if you met Milan Mandaric in the street you'd call him bumface
Lillehamring Posted 14 August 2010 Posted 14 August 2010 Bumf yeah, thanks for telling us what we already know, truly you are a genius... however the point of the thread was the following question: Has the new consortium bought the Walkers Stadium or just took on the old debt ? you clearly like the sound of your own voice so much you've just it as an excuse to try and be a supercilious smart arsel. no one cares about your expertise, when the simple answer is, no they haven't bought the stadium...
Flynny Posted 14 August 2010 Posted 14 August 2010 yeah, thanks for telling us what we already know, truly you are a genius... however the point of the thread was the following question: you clearly like the sound of your own voice so much you've just it as an excuse to try and be a supercilious smart arsel. no one cares about your expertise, when the simple answer is, no they haven't bought the stadium... Val you seem uncharacteristically slow. You seem to imply that you thought 'taking on the debt' meant paying the debt off, but then quote the original post which asks whether the debt had been paid off (i.e. the stadium bought outright) or was taken on by a different party, which is what you said you thought meant paying it all off. Would be a very odd question to ask. Surely Teachers only own the stadium in the same way the bank owns a mortgaged house? Also I'm pretty certain that the way they tot these figures up, purely making themselves responsible for the debt will be reported as them leading a £Debt Cost takeover.
SilverFox Posted 14 August 2010 Posted 14 August 2010 Yes, and it still includes Milan. Is that so hard for you to understand,? For crying out loud, what was pedantic about the previous post, you numpty. :rolleyes: A company is a separate entity to a person. A person cannot be liable for the debt of a company...it is called the corporate veil. That is why people set up companys...for the limited liability. So basically any and all debts have shit all to do with Milan or top, or any individual. They could all fook off tommorrow if they wanted to.
SilverFox Posted 14 August 2010 Posted 14 August 2010 Incidentally, does anyone know who owns the remaining 40% of the club yet. And if not, why are you not all mad as hell?
Jordan Posted 14 August 2010 Posted 14 August 2010 I don't want to know--on the odd chance that when we do find out, the identity of this mystery investor is enough to really make us mad as hell!
SilverFox Posted 14 August 2010 Posted 14 August 2010 Posted this on another forum, but in the event that the Foxes Trust Read this message board too, I have a simple series of questions:- We know Milan is a stakeholder (and a troll), and we know that 60% of the club is now a plaything for a rich man's son...but who owns the rest? Why have we not been told? Why did a recent Mercury article say that this information would be revealed in a 'the next few months' and not now? Why does everyone seem so apathetic about this really REALLY important issue? What are you doing to find out the answers to these questions? You do after all purport to represent the fans of the club. I think that the fans deserve to know.
Foxes_Trust Posted 15 August 2010 Posted 15 August 2010 Posted this on another forum, but in the event that the Foxes Trust Read this message board too, I have a simple series of questions:- We know Milan is a stakeholder (and a troll), and we know that 60% of the club is now a plaything for a rich man's son...but who owns the rest? Why have we not been told? Why did a recent Mercury article say that this information would be revealed in a 'the next few months' and not now? Why does everyone seem so apathetic about this really REALLY important issue? What are you doing to find out the answers to these questions? You do after all purport to represent the fans of the club. I think that the fans deserve to know. We read both - so same reply posted on here Asking the club directly the question you asked above. currently we can only speculate like everyone else what the current structure is & what it maybe a few months down the line
samuel Posted 15 August 2010 Posted 15 August 2010 A company is a separate entity to a person. A person cannot be liable for the debt of a company...it is called the corporate veil. That is why people set up companys...for the limited liability. So basically any and all debts have shit all to do with Milan or top, or any individual. They could all fook off tommorrow if they wanted to. Whilst you are basically correct with regards the limited liability aspect of a limited company or a LLP, recent events in the world of financial institutions (toxic debts mainly), have led financiers to add clauses to their agreements that make their investments and repayments pretty much guaranteed for life. Hence the supposed lack of bank lending to SME's, still the same amount of applicants, just tougher criteria now. Most new agreements from the last 12 months have a clause stating that the creditor has the right to go after their money from any or all directors/partners other assets should they see fit to do so. And as this is a new agreement, it will have the same clause without a doubt, but whilst the club performs well and has a good return on gate receipts, the payments will be easily met. Should they struggle, they will do what Milan has done and move it on to someone else with deeper pockets.
samuel Posted 15 August 2010 Posted 15 August 2010 Val you seem uncharacteristically slow. You seem to imply that you thought 'taking on the debt' meant paying the debt off, but then quote the original post which asks whether the debt had been paid off (i.e. the stadium bought outright) or was taken on by a different party, which is what you said you thought meant paying it all off. Would be a very odd question to ask. Surely Teachers only own the stadium in the same way the bank owns a mortgaged house? Also I'm pretty certain that the way they tot these figures up, purely making themselves responsible for the debt will be reported as them leading a £Debt Cost takeover. It wasn't just me then that thought Val was tying himself up in knots ?
samuel Posted 15 August 2010 Posted 15 August 2010 yeah, thanks for telling us what we already know, truly you are a genius... however the point of the thread was the following question: you clearly like the sound of your own voice so much you've just it as an excuse to try and be a supercilious smart arsel. no one cares about your expertise, when the simple answer is, no they haven't bought the stadium... So Val, why did you do a post of multi-quotes contradicting what you are now saying?. If you didn't understand the question fine, no-one will think any less of you, but to start name calling and refering to me as supercilious and then write your response in the very same manner beggars belief. I'm sure you are a very amiable person really, don't let your lack of basic knowledge or inability to define the word takeover, cloud the true you! Have a good day.
elbucko Posted 15 August 2010 Posted 15 August 2010 The way I understand Top= 60% Milan owns 1/3= 30/33% so the unnamed mystery man would own between 7 & 10 % ?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.