Babylon Posted 30 July 2013 Posted 30 July 2013 Can someone compile a summary of Waller and Matts exchange, I'm lost.
DANGEROUS TIGER Posted 30 July 2013 Posted 30 July 2013 I think you will find we are well and truly stuffed. There really is no viable way out.
sylofox Posted 30 July 2013 Posted 30 July 2013 once more can I ask does anyone know what our owners are paying in for shirt sponsor and ground naming or are they getting it for free?
Vale Blue Posted 30 July 2013 Posted 30 July 2013 I've said it before. Just look at the Manchester City situation. Signed a deal with Eithad for the Ground naming rights & shirt sponsor, I believe the deal was in the region of £400M for 10 years/seasons. So roughly that's £40M per yer/season they will recieve. I wonder if our club have thought about doing something similar with King Power Holdings? It dosen't work like that. The arabs at MCFC don't care what money they lose and therefore paying 40 million/year for advertising which is a waste of money dosen't matter to them. We dont have owners like that. Our owners pile all the debt on the club, create a huge debt and then charge the club 8%interest which they pocket which puts LCFC in even more debt and so it continues. They will not be paying for advertising rights on the name King Power Stadium because that would be a cost which would come out of their own pockets. The Thais haven't spent anything whatsoever on LCFC, all debt is in the name of LCFC. This business approach has been very common in football for a few years and the main reason FFP was brought in, it results in Clubs being ripped off, massive debt and owners charging them for the privalege. The same thing happened to Forest under Nigel Doughty. They ended up 80 million in debt but during his rule he only spent about 20 million on players, the other 60 million was compound interest paid to himself, !!! Aledgedley (fff knows how you spell it your honour, !!)
5waller5 Posted 30 July 2013 Posted 30 July 2013 Can you explain this theory in a bit more depth? How can they "repay loans to the club?" The club is the debtor to the Thais. The club borrows money from the Thais. The Thais charge interest to increase that debt to legitimately reduce their tax bill when they take money out ...... They will as Directors of LCFC "repay loans to the club" made by the King Power / The individuals whichever lent it.
5waller5 Posted 30 July 2013 Posted 30 July 2013 It dosen't work like that. The arabs at MCFC don't care what money they lose and therefore paying 40 million/year for advertising which is a waste of money dosen't matter to them. We dont have owners like that. Our owners pile all the debt on the club, create a huge debt and then charge the club 8%interest which they pocket which puts LCFC in even more debt and so it continues. They will not be paying for advertising rights on the name King Power Stadium because that would be a cost which would come out of their own pockets. The Thais haven't spent anything whatsoever on LCFC, all debt is in the name of LCFC. This business approach has been very common in football for a few years and the main reason FFP was brought in, it results in Clubs being ripped off, massive debt and owners charging them for the privalege. The same thing happened to Forest under that conman Nigel Doughty. They ended up 80 million in debt but during his rule he only spent about 20 million on players, the other 60 million was compound interest paid to himself, !!! Aledgedley (fff knows how you spell it your honour, !!) Not comparable at all. Doughty at Florist had money and lost it in his day job whilst also losing it at Florist ..... so he ended up not being able to pump in the money. The Thais are way out of Doughty's league ..... their net worth is at least 10 times his at his peak, I think much more but am being conservative. The Thais are running a sensible business ..... Doughty took a gamble.
5waller5 Posted 30 July 2013 Posted 30 July 2013 Lets not forget the ownership of the club has recently been secured within the King Power holdings so I understand why some of you are concerned but in all honesty the owners couldn't do any more to show it is very secure. As for the loan I do agree with 5waller5 the club also has to give a legit rate when lending otherwise the club would be subject to tax evasion potentially I think. Yes!!! .... and fall foul of FFP too!! As well as just not make the most of the tax position.
5waller5 Posted 30 July 2013 Posted 30 July 2013 If they make £10 million profit next year the amounts they've loaned are irrelevant. It'll be swallowed up in historical losses. Exactly .... and by charging 8% we increase those losses so that there's more years of future profit that don't attract a tax bill.
fleckneymike Posted 30 July 2013 Posted 30 July 2013 We could always just get promoted, that'd help the old ffp.
Guest MattP Posted 30 July 2013 Posted 30 July 2013 Exactly .... and by charging 8% we increase those losses so that there's more years of future profit that don't attract a tax bill. Why don't they charge 100% of what they given us in interest? Think of the future profit and save we'll (they'll) save.
5waller5 Posted 30 July 2013 Posted 30 July 2013 Why don't they charge 100% of what they given us in interest? Think of the future profit and save we'll (they'll) save. Because they'd be taxed on 92% of that income as a benefit in kind. Are you really AAT qualified and coming out with this stuff??
Guest MattP Posted 30 July 2013 Posted 30 July 2013 The club borrows money from the Thais. The Thais charge interest to increase that debt to legitimately reduce their tax bill when they take money out ...... They will as Directors of LCFC "repay loans to the club" made by the King Power / The individuals whichever lent it. You are absolutely sure of this? That really isn;t what it looked like in last years club accounts. Do you actually know them? Because they'd be taxed on 92% of that income as a benefit in kind. Are you really AAT qualified and coming out with this stuff?? Yep, long time ago and I run my own business now. No time or reason to finish CIMA.
5waller5 Posted 30 July 2013 Posted 30 July 2013 You are absolutely sure of this? That really isn;t what it looked like in last years club accounts. Do you actually know them? Yep, long time ago and I run my own business now. No time or reason to finish CIMA. Then surely you're winding me up??? You're not seriously asking those questions if you're in a position that means you need to understand this stuff?? I don't know them personally. What do you mean? Am i sure of what exactly???
Vale Blue Posted 30 July 2013 Posted 30 July 2013 Not comparable at all. Doughty at Florist had money and lost it in his day job whilst also losing it at Florist ..... so he ended up not being able to pump in the money. The Thais are way out of Doughty's league ..... their net worth is at least 10 times his at his peak, I think much more but am being conservative. The Thais are running a sensible business ..... Doughty took a gamble. I'm not sure the amount of money either owner has is relevant. The business profile is similar, debt is created in the clubs name and the owner appears to be the saviour whilst charging the club for the privilege. However, the debt has been manufactured by the owner intentionally so he can benefit from the interest. I look at this way. if you have a nest egg in the building society which you never spend, it's worth is actually in what interest you get, which you withdraw and enjoy. The money the Thais and ND plough into a club is like their nest egg, it stays with the club but allows them to milk the club of interest. It dosen't take many years for the interest payments to outweigh the original loan and then you're in profit and yet the big loan amount still exists. Given footballs predictable income of TV and gate receipts, an owners money might be considered safer in a football club than a bank and certainly more lucrative.
Guest MattP Posted 30 July 2013 Posted 30 July 2013 Then surely you're winding me up??? You're not seriously asking those questions if you're in a position that means you need to understand this stuff?? I don't know them personally. What do you mean? Am i sure of what exactly??? Course I'm not, when I did benefit in kind accounting (away from cars/employee grants etc) it wasn't anything to do with this more alongside dividends and disguised bonuses. When I did this sort of thing any loans given to a company that wasn't settled you paid 22% or 25% corporation tax if it wasn't returned within 9 months and 1 day of the companies financial year end. Long time ago though so I'll accept I'm out, I still don't know how you can be sure these will secure the loan though, they could sit there for years and take money off this debt couldnt they? As far as I am aware the football club is under a different company name to what King Power and all their other assets are. What are you qualified in?
5waller5 Posted 30 July 2013 Posted 30 July 2013 Course I'm not, when I did benefit in kind accounting (away from cars/employee grants etc) it wasn't anything to do with this more alongside dividends and disguised bonuses. When I did this sort of thing any loans given to a company that wasn't settled you paid 22% or 25% corporation tax if it wasn't returned within 9 months and 1 day of the companies financial year end. Long time ago though so I'll accept I'm out, I still don't know how you can be sure these will secure the loan though, they could sit there for years and take money off this debt couldnt they? As far as I am aware the football club is under a different company name to what King Power and all their other assets are. What are you qualified in? That's exactly what interest would be if it were more than 8%!!!!!! And yet you suggested 100%????
Guest MattP Posted 30 July 2013 Posted 30 July 2013 That's exactly what interest would be if it were more than 8%!!!!!! And yet you suggested 100%???? Answer the rest then.
5waller5 Posted 30 July 2013 Posted 30 July 2013 Answer the rest then. I really CBA .... you've proved you're trying to wind me up by that comment alone ..... you know about disguised bonusses and yet deliberately misunderstand my point and then suggest 100%. I'm losing the will to live.
Guest MattP Posted 30 July 2013 Posted 30 July 2013 I really CBA .... you've proved you're trying to wind me up by that comment alone ..... you know about disguised bonusses and yet deliberately misunderstand my point and then suggest 100%. I'm losing the will to live. I pretty sure you realised the 100% comment was tongue in cheek.
5waller5 Posted 30 July 2013 Posted 30 July 2013 Course I'm not, when I did benefit in kind accounting (away from cars/employee grants etc) it wasn't anything to do with this more alongside dividends and disguised bonuses. When I did this sort of thing any loans given to a company that wasn't settled you paid 22% or 25% corporation tax if it wasn't returned within 9 months and 1 day of the companies financial year end. Long time ago though so I'll accept I'm out, I still don't know how you can be sure these will secure the loan though, they could sit there for years and take money off this debt couldnt they? As far as I am aware the football club is under a different company name to what King Power and all their other assets are. What are you qualified in? Of course it's a different entity. Otherwise it would be lending money to itself. The rest is pedantic detail and as you're not willing to understand the basics i'm not getting into that.
Guest MattP Posted 30 July 2013 Posted 30 July 2013 I'll have a proper look when I can get the accounts from CH.
5waller5 Posted 30 July 2013 Posted 30 July 2013 I pretty sure you realised the 100% comment was tongue in cheek. No. Due to the stupidity of your previous posts i didn't detect that .... and I'm sure anyone reading it without the knowledge you should have would be thinking "yeah, good point!!"
Guest MattP Posted 30 July 2013 Posted 30 July 2013 No. Due to the stupidity of your previous posts i didn't detect that .... and I'm sure anyone reading it without the knowledge you should have would be thinking "yeah, good point!!" Yes I'm feeling you aren't the sort who gets any sort of ironic humour.
5waller5 Posted 30 July 2013 Posted 30 July 2013 Yes I'm feeling you aren't the sort who gets any sort of ironic humour. It's hard to tell it apart from just plain daft .... maybe put it in itallics or something...... And to be fair it's not just you and I reading your comments, so it's not very helpful littering an unfamiliar subject with "ironic humour" that even i didn't get and i understand the subject.
Foxes_Trust Posted 30 July 2013 Posted 30 July 2013 The main problem with us is that we have a manager who isn't prepared to bend the rules, we know Nigel too well now and we know that whatever rules and regulations are put in place by the owners he shall adhere to. If the FL are going to be so strict with their rules they should come up with a rewards system for those clubs who meet the criteria, we are not going to benefit from the current FFP at all unless we completely strip the side down and start again, and I'm not saying we will but in football anything is possible....If we were to go down, it would be because of FFP, so is it even worth it? The "rewards" come from the fines that are levied on any clubs who gain promotion while breaking FFP, as the money from those fines is then shared out between all the clubs who met the FFP criteria that season
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.